faith

A YouTube video introduces the "Al-Seraab Teleological Argument" for the existence of a god (which just happens to be the Abrahamic one; imagine that!). The video attempts to show that the argument is sensible; Matt D. at The Atheist Experience beautifully tears the video's claims to shreds. He reduces the Al-Seraab Teleological Argument to the following:

1. I'm justified in believing whatever my first perception is, until proven wrong.

2. My first perception is to infer design.

3. I am justified in believing the universe is designed until you prove me wrong.

4. I'm convinced that the best explanation for the design I perceive is God X.

C. Therefore, belief in God X is justified until proved wrong. 

Very nice. Watch the video for yourself, and you'll see what a concise summary that is. (The man is truly a pro.)

You'll also see what a handy tool the Al-Seraab Teleological Argument is. It's a perfect, five-step process for believing anything! 

Give it a try; it's fun! Here, I'll give the teleology a whirl, and see what happens. Que Seraab Seraab!

1. I'm justified in believing whatever my first perception is, until proven wrong.

2. Looking at the existence of disease, my first perception is to infer malevolent intent behind sickness.

3. I am justified in believing malevolent intent is behind sickness until you prove me wrong.

4. I'm convinced that the best explanation for the malevolent intent I perceive is ethereal plague vampires.

C. Therefore, belief in ethereal plague vampires is justified until proved wrong.

Sweet!

My thanks to the Al-Seraab Teleological Argument for making my life so much easier now. No need to get all skeptic-y about ethereal plague vampires, Yahweh, the Hindu pantheon, thunder gods, demonic possession, Santa Claus, 9-11 conspiracies, or anything; it's all good now!

So some goober wants to conduct a public Koran-burning, partly because that book of scripture is bad while this book of scripture is good, and partly as a brilliant plan to protest Islamic extremists by equally enraging Muslim extremists and moderates alike. ("It's so crazy it just might..." Nah. I don't think so.)

As of this writing, the torching is on hold while the pastor milks all the publicity possible out of the uproar. He's got the full attention and commentary of Muslims, Christians, and atheists around the world – even pleas to desist from US President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and military commander Gen. David Petraeus! Not bad for a nobody from an unknown "ministry" in Florida.

Those high-level voices are calling for a halt to the stunt in the interest of avoiding riots and worse. It's a damn shame that anyone – even a goober burning silly books to get attention – has to refrain from goofy but perfectly legal activity because some offended persons will react with psychotic violence. But that's the reality of the world, and I have to agree with Obama and the rest: The burning will needlessly place real lives at risk, whether US soldiers in the Middle East, US citizens around the world, or just anyone who gets in the way of the offended lunatics.

I can't agree today with PZ Myers: Readeth thou more

Court Rules Faith in God and Prayer as Child Abuse!

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side

Teen's death blamed on faith healing

Unreasonable Faith
Excellent blog by an ex-Christian - like this one, but much better.

Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side

One of my favorite podcasts on secular issues is the Atheist Community of Austin's broadcast The Atheist Experience (also a cable access TV show). Good topics, live listener call-ins, and hosts who really know their stuff; I highly recommend that you listen in. (I wish more of those callers would regularly listen; they might learn to 1. Turn down the TV when calling!; and 2. Quit asking "So, you're atheist; that means you don't believe in anything, right?", again and again and again.)

I have a question about how one particularly loony Christian conceit fares in debates. I don't get much chance to talk to rabid believers, so thought I'd ask the debating pros at The Atheist Experience about their experience. The reply is an eye-opener. Here's my email first: Readeth thou more

In Reframing the argument: Is it "religion vs science"? , I mused on how I'm not too keen on battling "religion" per se. Oh, sure, I'm all for bashing religion in the sense that it's usually meant: a collection of beliefs – often harmful ones at that – not based on evidence. But "religion" can also be applied to something as benign as "a sense of awe" or "curiosity over whether there might be 'something more'".

In addition, attacks on "religion" invariably become confused with attacks on stained glass and soup kitchens and kind Salvation Army volunteers. Sure, it's dumb to read an anti-religious stance that way, but people will do it. In short, it's tricky and sometimes ineffective to target an enemy whose definition isn't even agreed upon by all. Readeth thou more