"How can you look at this world, at this universe and all its wonder and complexity and imagine that it came about 'by accident'?" Believers have been posing this question for ages, and it respresents the most essential trump card in the deck of dogma. The non-believer is asked, nay, dared to try to explain how something (especially something as big as the universe) can come from nothing. We know of no circumstance during which something spontaneously springs into being from nothingness, thus something must have made the universe.
Our response: we do not know how the universe came to be spontaneously. So we have lost, no? We have been thwarted by the most simple, fundamental argument for belief. Not exactly, for the believer has simply moved the argument for first cause back a step. If god made the universe, than what made god? The argument for first cause claims that something simply can not spring from nothing, and in claiming so, disproves the creator it's attempting to validate. Instead of delivering a definitive proof of divine creation, this argument leaves us with an infinite line of creation extending backwards in time: our universe was created by god, who was created by something else, which was created by something else, and so on and so forth. Further, in the process of looking backwards, we fail to see a solution to the original problem, we fail to find a first cause.
Further, where is the evidence for the first cause? Is the supposed necessity of a first cause to stand as evidence for its existence? When we look at the universe, we see no clearly expressed purpose for its myriad of parts; we see no signatures or "made by god" stamps; we certainly see no indication that all of this was made for us.
Are we to use the thousands of years old religious texts as evidence?; those texts which make no mention of the big bang or the billions of years during which the universe was made only of stars for the heavy elements necessary to form planets had not yet been fused? Any reasonable person looking at the timeline of events should clearly see what has happened: thousands of years ago, when men had no understanding of the universe or its origins, they came up with a story to explain things as best they could, "man makes things, thus something like man, but more powerful made everything else." Since then science has replaced speculation, and our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially. Yet, people are attempting to make the new information fit the original script; it's as though we're trying to fit a million new puzzle pieces into a puzzle which originally fit ten.
If we're talking evidence, then the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran have been disproven centuries ago. God supposedly revealed himself to a select few and told them how the universe was made. Yet, the story does not fit reality, and thus those books have been clearly debunked.
There are some who have attempted to resolve the inherent flaw of the first cause argument by claiming that the creator is infinite, and therefor exempt from the temporal necessity of first cause. There was a time when scientists appealed to this very argument in explaining the origins of the universe, however the advent of relativity physics revealed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Unfortunately, general relativity failed to demonstrate that god too had a beginning (not surprising considering that, in the hundreds of years of modern science science has not found one shred of evidence for his existence). Thus proponents of the infinite god pat themselves on the back, happy to have solved the problem of first cause. Unfortunately, they haven't. First of all, we must refer back to the fact that an infinite creator responsible for the big bang is not described by any religious text. Not one creation story, outside of science, describes the big bang, and thus no religion has been validated by this argument.
Further one must admit that, since there is no evidence linking a creator of the big bang to the seven-days-creator of the bible, any infinite deity one could imagine would theoretically satisfy the first cause equation. How's this: Father Positive and Mother Negative existed infinitly prior to the inception of the universe. Eventually they decided to copulate, and in the final throws of their passion, the universe exploded forth and all the particles of the universe (all their wee children) were endowed with some variation of their respective charges. This story is clearly ridiculous as it doesn't explain anything about the creators of the universe or their intentions for it, nor does it provide any supporting evidence, but in terms of solving the issue of first cause it works.
Here's another story: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Further, another law of physics demonstrates that mass is itself a form of energy. Is it not possible that energy itself is infinite, at at some point in time interacted in such a way as to change form and produce matter? If we are going to speak in terms of infinity, why not apply the concept to something scientifically supported? Why instead must we appeal to a being which we have no direct reason to believe in? Here we are appealing to Occam's razor, the concept that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. A divine creator is anything but the simplest solution. The idea raises a myriad of questions: where does the creator reside?; did he create that place too?; why did he create the universe? why create it the way it is? Appealing to the concept of an infinite creator simply creates more questions than it hopes to answer.

Thus far we have focused not so much upon debunking dogma itself, but rather the confidence with which we adhere to our particular creed. This is because the first step in our transitions from believers to realists was taken when we realized that there was no reason to believe in one dogma over another. Our earlier posts should have made it very clear that believers believe in one system over another simply because it is the system in which they were raised; had their life circumstances been different, so too would their beliefs.
This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool.
What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god.
At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma.
For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language.
It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?

In several of our discussions concerning dogma and religion in general, we have heard one phrase in particular thrown around rather liberally. This saying reflects the notion that "in the face of disagreement we should all still respect each other's beliefs." The question must be asked, what does this familiar phrase actually mean, and in regard to this universal respect, how far does it extend? Let's first look at the meaning of the word respect. Respect can be defined as esteem or admiration for a particular person or thing. Working with this definition, the above phrase compels us to admire all belief systems including which ever one we happen to be disagreeing with at that moment. If this is the case then our present disagreement is clearly at odds with this supposed admiration; as a general principle of reality we don't usually admire that with which we disagree. For example, outlier beliefs are generally both disagreed with and met with anything but admiration. In fact, they are usually quelled by those who hold beliefs which are generally considered to be normal. An example of this would be the beliefs a schizophrenic. We use the term belief, here, for the sake of argument; in reality, these beliefs are generally classified as delusions. The discrepency between these terms illustrates our point: while the schizophrenic himself truly believes in a particular vision or occurence, the outside majority which considers itself and its beliefs "normal," fails to respect the beliefs of said individual. Rather, they relegate his personal belief to the realm of fiction. Still working with the above definition of respect, it is possible that we are asked not to admire the content of one's belief so much as their ability to hold said belief. Referring back to our example of the schizophrenic once more, not only does modern society fail to admire his ability to produce delusions, it also forces him to take medications aimed at preventing the reoccurrence of such beliefs.
There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.

Posted by Brandon and Steve-
In regard to the question of whether or not we choose our faiths, Brandon and I are aware that several religious sects claim to practice a choosing period or ritual during which an individual makes a conscious, personal decision to embrace their religion. This is an illusion. Firstly, only a subset of religions practice such choosing rituals, and more importantly, these rituals vary extensively from one sect to another. For example, young people of the Amish faith participate in rumspringa, a year or more long immersion in the "outside" world, after which they either choose to dedicate themselves to the church for life, or to leave the community all together.
We can compare this to the Catholic confirmation, the sacrament during which a Catholic confirms his/her acceptance Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. The former case theoretically represents an unbiased, prolonged, and individual reflection upon one's religion. Whereas in the latter circumstance one spends a mere month exclusively learning the religion that he is "deciding" to accept. Our point here is that whichever choosing ritual one participates in, was in fact predetermined by circumstances completely out of their control. A young Catholic preparing for confirmation is not presented with the option of participating in rumspringa, or any other choosing ritual, for that matter. Therefore what seems to be a conscious decision is in fact a non-choice; rather it represents one more ritual in a long line of sacraments forced upon a child.
More importantly, this supposedly unbiased choice of a particular dogma, is intimately intertwined with significant social ramifications. Let's be honest, those participating in choosing rituals have not been raised since birth learning about, participating in, and analyzing every form of religion known to man, and even if this were the case, bias would be introduced by any awareness of the religion chosen by those who raised them. Choosing ritual participants are not evaluating the relative merits, or reasons to believe in one dogma over all others, but rather reflecting upon everything they have been raised to understand of the religious world. Essentially what this boils down to is choosing whether or not to reject the faith of your family and friends, your current understanding of the origins of the universe and morality, and every happy religious festival you have ever participated in. Going into such a situation with a free and unbiased mind is effectively impossible.
Now we understand the social reasons behind your supposed conscious choice to pursue your religion. At this point we should mention the factors which contribute to an individuals decision to convert to another faith later in life. Most convertees undertake this significant leap due to some social factor which necessitates transition, be it the need to compromise with a lover's faith, the desire to fit in with new peers,or the hope to escape persecution focused upon the current faith. If it has not become apparent how choice is conceived or you remain uneasy understanding dogma from a social perspective, what argument remains? Could it be that individuals select religion based on actual truth? If so, are all dogmas true, or only the one you like best?

I have heard many religious apologists, when asked to account for the heinous deeds commited in the name of their god, appeal to the idea that their religion is not one of violence but rather peace. Further, secularists are implored to disregard the few "bad apples" who "misinterpret" religious scriptures, and instead recognize that the vast majority of believers are inspired by god to lead peaceful, tolerant lives.
First of all, any follower of one of the monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) who claims that their religion does not advocate violence, clearly has not taken the time to investigate their religious texts. Let's use Judaism as an example: commandment #355 (Deut 13: 16-17) of the 613 Mitzvot instructs Jews to "slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." Let me point out for those who may have missed it, this is a commandment from god, not a suggestion or interesting thought for interpretation, but rather a direct, and very clear instruction. Thus, to anyone who defends the peacefulness of your religion, please disist, for you are mistaken. If anything, the monotheisms can be considered contradictory to the highest degree, for there are both entreaties against murder and violence and those for them.
Yet, this argument must be taken further, for their are many believers who have rejected the nastier bits of their faith and proclaim that, if everyone else would simply follow suit, this whole difference of opinion (which, as we discussed earlier, is actually a difference of belief) wouldn't be such a big deal. The error in this thinking is twofold. Any Christian who has ever attended Sunday mass, or made a sacrifice for Lent has no right to criticize an Islamic jihadist. Both circumstances illustrate believers undertaking actions that they believe to be direct instructions from their god. Both consider themselves to be righteous, and both are supported by explicit scriptural passages. If anything, the jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his life out of love for Allah is the greater believer, and more righteous man.
Now, do I think that a suicide bomber is righteous? Of course not, for murder is morally abhorrent (we will get into the discussion of morals outside of religion later). Many self proclaimed believers agree, and yet unlike myself, they have no right to say so. More importantly, and herein lies this second fallacy of the passive believer theory, any man or woman who wishes to hold onto his or her personal faith, has no right to punish those who murder in the name of theirs. Those who defend their right to pray and celebrate as instructed by their god, must allow others to act in accordance with their god's supposed wishes. It is only after the majority of mankind throws off the yoke of superstition, that we can say as a collective voice: "evil perpetrated in the name of an imaginary being is irrational and unacceptable." To those who may be shocked by my assertion I ask you, how dare you tell the Jewish rapist who wishes to marry his victim in accordance with the 613 Mitzvah that he is acting immorally? He only wishes to obey and love his god as you would yours.
Before closing, since we are on the subject of divine decrees, I should like to take the opportunity to point out a major absurdity found in the personality of all three monotheistic gods. Yaweh, God, and Allah all have a very big problem with idoltry. In all three religions, the worshipping of other gods or man-made objects, and blashphemy against god are offenses punishable by exile or death. By placing such an emphasis upon this sin, the supreme being reveals himself to be rather vain. Now I ask you, how ludicrous is it that god would exhibit vanity; vanity, the most pathetic of human emotions, the reason that the majority of mankind simply can not imagine that the universe itself was not created just for little 'ol us? Could it be that god, with his demands of allegiance, daily worship, groveling, and sacrifice is in fact no more than a supernatural king imagined by men who lived in a time of king' and emperors. No, I'm sure that couldn't be the case.

posted by Brandon-
One of the main forces behind religion’s virulence is the explanation of post death experience. This is a fairly serious concern, if religion not only provides an explanation, but a ticket to participate in such an experience, it would behoove one to pay close attention to the rules and regulations of many different creeds. This rarely happens, the majority of individuals do not shop around for after-life mythology. You do not see waves of devote people weighing the benefits between the journey to Hades and reincarnation, or being a resident of Christian hell, and being of righteous dead awaiting the messiah. Instead people choose (or as we pointed out before, receive) one religion. Not only do they feel that their myth is correct, most people are unaware of any other concept of immortality. This is quite interesting, it would seem that with the stakes so high (just to put this in perspective, we are talking how you spend the rest of eternity) one would want some reassurance that they participate in the correct dogma. Well the truth is, considering the countless types of possible religions (including cults) statistically you have selected/received the wrong faith. Just imagine you are Christian, die and to your awful surprise find out that heaven has 72 virgins per attendee and rivers of milk and honey, guess what? In this case the God of Islam is really the right god and you cannot enter. This point can be made equally well by inserting any dogma and an after-life example of a contradictory mythology. What can be done? As Daniel Dennett suggests in his wonderful book Breaking the Spell Religion as a natural phenomenon. We should examine religion objectively, the same as we would examine any natural phenomenon. If religion is as important as believers claim would it not make sense to examine it and find out as much as we could? For all we know, (however unlikely, although perhaps more likely then any working model of religion humans created) everyone could all be wrong and find out that a certain microorganism created the universe and governs some type of micro heaven. In that case all humans are in pretty bad shape, since we are already at the mercy of worldly microorganisms. Unfortunately until religion’s immunity to open criticism, study and discussion is lifted people will just have to keep gambling against tremendous odds that he or she is right. Why run the risk.

Posted by Steve-

In past religious discussions, I have heard many religious moderates mention the fact that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that it is not my right to challenged their beliefs. And herein lies the problem. A belief and an opinion are not the same thing. An opinion refers to a personally held attitude which says nothing about the concrete state of things. For example, it is my opinion that sausage pizza is better than mushroom pizza. Here I am not attempting to demonstrate some inherent truth, but simple stating a personal taste representing a very local rather than universal reality. Further, opinions require no additional evidence beyond the statements themselves, for once again, one is not attempting to demonstrate a truth that extends beyond oneself. A belief, on the other hand is a statement concerning a perceived reality which may or may not turn out to be correct. True, a belief does not have to rest upon strong evidence when first stated, BUT if strong evidence should arises that contradicts such a belief, it should be strongly reconsidered and perhaps reject. Example: a woman claims to believe that her husband is faithful. Now, either he is or he isn't. If this same woman were to stumble upon her husband and another woman having sexual intercourse, her earlier stated belief would have been proven false. She can hold onto this belief if she so chooses, however, she can no longer claim this it to be reliable, correct, valuable, or what have you. Further, she can no longer expect that stating her bunk belief aloud will not be met with legitimate contradiction.
Thus, unlike opinions, religious beliefs can be demonstrated to be false, or at least very likely false, should enough evidence arise to do so. When someone tells me that they believe in the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent, anthropomorphic god they have made a statement concerning a supposed reality, which can be demonstrated to be true or false. I believe that the latter shall end up being the case.

Posted by Steve-

I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.