Atheism destroyed with ONE SCIENTIFIC QUESTION!!!1!

Christian News Wire and WND.com show up in my Google News feed from time to time, and right now they are both talking about Ray Comfort's latest movie, "The Atheist Delusion". Comfort's press release to Christian News Wire touts "Atheism destroyed with one scientific question!"

The question isn't mentioned. Even the movie's website doesn't mention the question. Since there is so much smoke and noise about this movie, I decided to see where it is showing. I checked Fandango and got nothing. I searched the Internet, and got... nothing. This movie, as far as I can tell, isn't playing anywhere.

From the movie's website, I found that I can DOWNLOAD the movie for a mere $19.99! Which is insane, since for that price I can buy two tickets to Star Trek Beyond, and still have change left for a bag of M&Ms.

So I went looking for spoilers, and found them on Hemant Mehta's blog.  So here's the spoiler, here's the question that Ray Comfort asks atheists that according to World Net Daily, "stuns" atheists...

Where did DNA come from?

Comfort points out that DNA is complex, that it contains information.  It's like a book.  And books have creators, therefore DNA has a creator.  Right?

Are you stunned?  Have you lost your atheism?  Or are you remembering Paley's watch?

This is a slick trick that I see happen too often in apologetics - ask a professional a question that is not in their field of study.  Ask a physicist about biology, ask a biologist about astrophysics.  The answers you get are muddled and lacking any depth - then jump on THOSE answers and yell, "AHAH!"

It works even better if the person is not prepared to respond.  And Comfort's "Living Waters" demonstrates the methods of 'ambush reporting' as its preferred style of asking questions.

In other words, "The Atheist Delusion" is tabloid journalism, or business as usual for Ray Comfort.

As for his question, "where did DNA come from?"  I'll answer that.

I don't know.  What does the deity of the Bible have to do with it?

The idea that information must have a creator is incorrect.  I could go into information theory to show that information can happen if the process of creating information has a built in "ratchet" to keep the wheels spinning in one direction.  In the modern theory of evolution this ratchet is called, "natural selection".  And let's skip the entire field of machine learning...

Instead, as an electronic engineer, I'll bring up the example of Evolvable Hardware.  More specifically, read about Dr. Adrian Thompson's experiment in evolving a circuit in an FPGA.

Circuits that exist inside FPGAs are usually created using a Hardware Definition Language of some sort.  They are created by a creator - usually an electronic engineer with a software proficiency.  But Dr. Thompson proved that FPGAs could be created using an evolutionary process based on artificial selection - the sister to natural selection that we see in evolution.

The resulting circuit meets the artificial selection requirements without ever having been created by a human.

Where did the information in this circuit come from?  Dr. Thompson didn't write it.

Maybe God did it?  Maybe we should ask Ray Comfort?  Because what does he know about electrical engineering?

But having read several of Comfort's apologetics, I think I could answer for him.  He would skip the question entirely, and ask me who built the FPGA.  Which is a neat way to tap-dance away from the actual question that is asked.

Here is one simple question that will destroy Christians.

Can you prove that your deity created the universe?

A License to Carry along with liability insurance is supported by the Second Amendment

In my previous posts, I’ve discussed the problem with gun violence in America, and I’ve pointed out that it would be impossible to remove guns from the American population.

Unless something changes, gun violence will continue to be a problem.

Let us add to this problem the current trend toward the Open Carry of guns, the recent episodes of armed bystanders firing upon unarmed and fleeing suspects, and my already stated case that possessing a gun is more likely to result in the escalation of aggression.

These people are in possession of a dangerous device. Most have little or no training in the use of this device. Few have the ability to assess the risk of owning and carrying these devices.

There is a comparable dangerous device that is owned by many Americans. The automobile.

Until 2013 Americans were more likely to die in a car crash than to be killed by a gun. The data are not in when I wrote this, but it has been projected that gun deaths and auto-related deaths were supposed to reach parity sometime in 2015.

There are no laws that restrict owning an automobile. Everyone in America can own as many cars as they can afford. Even if you are not allowed to drive a car, you are still allowed to own one.

But in order to operate a car, we must first demonstrate our knowledge of the law in regards to vehicle operation. We must also demonstrate our ability to operate a car. This is done through licensing. As part of licensing, we must also demonstrate our ability to minimize the risk of driving, and to hedge against loss due to accident. This is done through insurance.

America could apply this strategy to gun ownership and usage. Require licensing and insurance of individuals who carry a gun.

Licensing is already in effect in many states. For example, a concealed carry license in any state requires the possessor to attend training classes and pass a test. Texans who carry a handgun are required to have a License to Carry. Getting one involves training classes and a test.

Using a gun licensing strategy, states would issue licenses to carry, and state license requirements would meet or exceed minimal Federal standards. These standards would include classroom and practical training, along with an examination. I would suggest that there be a renewal requirement, with a period of renewal of every 5 years.

A firearm owner would also be required to demonstrate proof of liability insurance. Lack of insurance would be grounds to suspend or revoke the license to carry.

Insurance is an important part of this idea. In the case of accidental death, or homicide, some relief to the victims could be had through insurance. This would certainly motivate insurance companies to investigate each gun owner’s risk. Insurance companies are really very good at predicting the actions of people. Let us put that skill to use.

Similar to current driver’s laws, licensing would not apply on private property. In the same way that you don’t need a driver’s license to drive on your own ranch roads, unlicensed individuals could still “carry” their weapons lawfully in their own home. (Please note, there are usually city ordinances that make it a crime to shoot gun inside city limits. These are often ignored in the case where a gun is used to stop a crime in the home.)

License to carry laws could be written to allow the safe transportation of firearms by unlicensed gun owners. Inside a locked container, or with a trigger lock, for example.

Requiring a license and insurance to operate – or carry – a firearm does not restrict anyone’s Second Amendment right to own guns, or “bear arms” in the case of a military coup. Everyone would still be allowed to own as many guns and ammunition as they like. And they can be comfortable with the knowledge that they can ignore the law in the case of Federal overreach.

A license to carry and insurance requirements are not going to prevent gun violence. However, they will reduce it, and this requirement would work well together with background checks for gun ownership.

And finally, such a requirement could help answer a philosophical problem. How can I, or anyone, tell the difference between an armed law-abiding person with a gun, and a dangerous criminal with a gun?

The criminal is much less likely to be licensed to carry. And any establishment that checks licenses at the door is less likely to allow entry to such a person.

We can't take guns away from Americans for legal and practical reasons

In my last post, I discussed the problem with gun violence in America.  In this post, I'll discuss why we own guns, and why we can't take guns away from Americans.

Why do Americans own guns?

The stated reasons usually include personal protection, and to act as a check against military overreach by the United States Federal government.

I believe that these reasons are merely a fantasy.

First, owning a gun does not make you safer. Gun owners are more likely to act impulsively, and aggravate or escalate arguments. Populations with higher gun ownership are directly linked to higher gun murder rates. Studies have shown that for every time a gun in a household was used for self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides using guns.

There is also a popular American fantasy that violence in America is increasing, and that we should prepare against it. The opposite is true. There has been a steady decrease of violent crimes in America since the mid 1980's. Statistically, you are less likely to be the victim of a violent crime now, than 10 years ago, or 20, or 30.

Second, there is a myth that an armed population prevents tyranny.  There is no justification for this.  There is instead evidence that a militia will more likely support or even create a tyrannical government.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Why should it be "well regulated"?  There were about 100,000 troops in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.  There were about twice that many serving in various militias.  Militias were used to defend the home front, to act as a police force, and they did some enemy surveillance.  When a militia company was summoned to active duty on the front lines, they were usually active for less than 90 days.

There is a world of difference between armed civilians, common militia, and Minutemen, or "well regulated militia".  The difference can be seen in how armed citizens and poorly regulated militia threw down their weapons and fled in the 1776 battles of Long Island, and at Camden, South Carolina, versus their successes at Lexington and Concord.  The Revolutionary War has many examples of militia failures, and the few examples of militia successes are attributed to state-organized militias.

The modern National Guard is based upon the idea of a "well regulated militia".

Well armed individuals and poorly regulated militias are more likely to support tyranny and fascism.

Nationalism and fascism go together hand in glove.  The very patriotic idea that there is a superior form of national identity that should unify all of a nation's citizens is very attractive and dangerous.

When private militias form, or armed citizens gather, they most often do so out of nationalism and fascism.  This can be shown in the "Bleeding Kansas" border wars in the mid-1800's between the pro-slavery "Border Ruffian" militia and the anti-slavery "Jayhawk" militia.

This can be seen in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, who used armed citizens and KKK militia in campaigns of violence, murder, and political intimidation.  Other examples of unregulated militias in America include the Black Panthers and Neo-Nazis.

Armed citizens and militias have lead to tyranny in other countries.  Vietnam, Somalia, and Southern Lebanon are examples of this.  Militias and armed civilians most often gather to form tribes, to support warlords, and to engage in civil war.  Weak democracies are more often ripped apart by armed private citizens, than they are supported by them

Third, there exists a very popular "Red Dawn narrative".  That a strong government with a strong military can be overthrown by armed citizens and private militias.

This is completely false.

Let's look at the case of Iraq, before the American invasion.  Gun ownership by individuals was (and still is) one of the highest in the world, with up to 40 guns owned per 100 people.  (In contrast, Americans own up to 95 guns per hundred people).  Iraqis had a gun culture that "closely resembled the United States", and yet gun ownership did not prevent Saddam Hussein from committing atrocities on his own people.

Another example of an authoritarian dictatorship that oppresses its own well-armed population is Saudi Arabia.  Dissent in Saudi Arabia is routinely crushed.  Dissenters are beheaded.  There are no guarantees of human rights in Saudi Arabia.

A well-disciplined military armed with modern weapons is completely immune to militias and privately armed citizens.  In the case of America, a single 19-year-old drone pilot sitting at Nellis Air Force base can put an end to a full militia with the push of a button.

You have a closet full of AK-47's? Excuse me while I laugh at you.

A dictator backed by a well-regulated modern army is proof against armed civilians.  Muammaar al-Qaddafi of Libya is a good example.  His citizens could not kick him out without outside help from NATO.

The other side of the "Red Dawn narrative" is that an armed population can drive out an invading force.  Both Vietnam and Afghanistan are given as examples.  But in neither case were the invading forces "driven out" by armed populations.

In the case of American involvement in Vietnam and Afghanistan, public opinion in America were the deciding factors to get out of these conflicts.  By 1971 a large majority of Americans believed it was a mistake to be involved in Vietnam.  American opinion toward the occupation of Afghanistan has been polarized, but in 2014 a majority of Americans were opposed.

In neither war were American troops ever in danger of being "forced" out of the conflict by local militias or armed civilians.

The Afghan resistance movement, under the command of many regional warlords who were supplied and assisted by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt and others were able to mount a guerrilla war against the occupying Soviets.  However the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to the leadership of, and radical reforms initiated by, Mikhail Gorbachev.   Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces from Afghanistan to assist in easing cold-war tensions, not due to an armed population, even one supported by other countries.

So if owning a gun doesn’t make us safer, if owning a gun is inherently risky, why should we have guns? If modern militias are no match for the American military, and our only hope of opposing a military coup is the goodwill of our American soldiers, then why would we bother to arm our militias? Again, why should we have guns?

We should have guns in America for two reasons.

First, as I said in my last post, amending the Constitution of the United States of America is somewhat perilous. Amending the Bill of Rights could have unintended consequences on other human rights held by American citizens. I think we should avoid amending the Constitution to support gun control. This means that the Second Amendment will apply, which means that we will have gun ownership in America.

The second reason we should have guns in America is because this is what America wants. Sure, this is a “Tyranny of the Majority” situation. But that sort of tyranny is checked only when it infringes on the rights of others. Merely owning a gun does not infringe on the rights of others, and so this tyranny does not apply. Therefore, the will of the majority in our society should apply.

To put it more simply, I like my guns, and I won't give them up unless I'm forced to do so. I would resist any such attempt. And I think that over 40 million other American households would do the same thing. Vigorously.

These are two HUGE reasons why Americans should own guns. Americans like their guns, and taking guns away from Americans would be a big problem, legally and practically.

There is still unresolved the fact that gun violence in America is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.

I’ll discuss a possible solution in my next post.

Gun Violence in America

America has a problem with gun violence.

In 2015 there were 331 mass shootings in America, that resulted in over 360 deaths and 1,300 injuries. There were over 11,000 murders with guns in 2015, and more than 54,000 people were treated for gun assault in emergency rooms.

The numbers are very clear. There is a direct correlation between gun deaths in a population, and the number of guns owned by that population. Guns are used far more often to threaten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. More often, gun owners escalate arguments by using their guns in an aggressive manner. Homes that own a gun have a higher risk of suicide and accidental death.

No mass shootings in America have ever been stopped by an armed civilian.

More than a third of American households own a gun – about 43.5 million. There are as many as 310 million guns in the United States. And while a majority of Americans favor stricter background checks, a majority of Americans also support the lawful ownership of guns generally. And this support has been trending upward over the last few years.

With such broad support for gun ownership, it is unlikely that Congress or the President will be able to remove guns from the general population. It also seems likely that gun related deaths, and mass shootings, will continue to be “normal” if nothing else changes.

American support for background checks suggests that Americans are willing to do something to change this status quo.

Personally I like guns, and I own a few. I was given my first gun as a birthday present by my father, on my very first birthday.

Dad was a huge influence on me and my sister in regards to guns. He kept our guns well locked up, out of our reach. He has a lot of them, and never put them on display, preferring to only take them out when he was going hunting.

Dad’s training in gun safety came from his training as a combat vet in Korea, and from a lifetime of using guns. My sister and I have both jumped down the throats of those people who supposedly went through "gun safety" programs for being idiots about their guns. Really, neither of us have any patience for that sort of nonsense. And we're both pretty fair shots. I've got "Expert" ribbons in the M16 and M9 pistol from the military.

I'm also someone who believes strongly in the Constitution, and I take my oath of enlistment seriously. Americans have the right to "bear arms", and will continue to have that right unless there is a Constitutional Amendment.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, originally applied only to the Federal government. In other words, these rights could be overridden by state law. Only those laws enumerated in the Constitution belonged to the Federal government. This changed upon the ratification of the 14th Amendment, where the “Due Process clause” applies the Bill of Rights against the states.

On ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Federal government was given the power to enforce the Bill of Rights, and States’ Rights were much weakened. This is what nullified the Dred Scott decision. It gave us all equal protection under the law, and prevented States from creating laws to remove the rights of American Citizens.

The 14th Amendment has also been used to expand the rights of citizens, giving interracial couples the right to marry (Loving v. Virginia) making it impossible for states to arrest citizens for homosexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas) and giving homosexuals the right to marry (Obergefell v. Hodges).

A Constitutional amendment that outlawed gun ownership could easily go very wrong. An amendment to overturn the Second Amendment could possibly be used to weaken the 14th Amendment, which might in turn allow States to once again create their own laws about homosexuality and race. We would again be a nation of patchwork freedoms.

Last, I want to point out that we have passed the point where 3D printers can easily print a gun.  This was first accomplished in plastics.  3D printed guns are now available in metal using the direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) process.  As 3D printing prices fall, the availability of highly reliable printed guns will increase.  And there isn't much the government can do to prevent this.

From a purely practical position, outlawing gun ownership in America would be impossible without major changes in attitude. There is broad support for gun ownership, and there are inherent dangers in amending our Constitution to revise or remove the Second Amendment.  Finally, our increasing technological ability would make gun restrictions difficult, if not impossible.

It seems hopeless. Maybe there is something that can help.

But first, in my next post I'll examine why Americans own guns.

The Christian church is its own biggest enemy

Ed Stetzer writes in Christianity Today about pastors who are finding themselves on the Ashley Madison list.

From the article:

Based on my conversations with leaders from several denominations in the U.S. and Canada, I estimate that at least 400 church leaders (pastors, elders, staff, deacons, etc.) will be resigning Sunday. (Due to being on the Ashley Madison List)

I'm not surprised.

This isn't a dig. Oh, sure, I've been making digs at the Duggar family for Josh's (many!) indiscretions. But mostly that is because they have made a name for themselves as a literal "Holier than Thou" family. They are suffering from a poverty of humility.

From Steve Farrar’s book, "Finishing Strong" (published in 2000):

A number of years ago a national conference for church youth directors was held at a major hotel in a city in the mid-west. Youth pastors by the hundreds flooded into that hotel and took nearly every room. At the conclusion of the conference, the hotel manager told the conference administrator that the number of guests who tuned into the adult movie channel broke the previous record, far and away outdoing any other convention in the history of the hotel.

The consumption of "porn on demand" in hotels during Christian conferences has been noted since the '90's. Pastors, Churches, and major religious bodies have been publicly warning their flocks that they are being watched. But the warnings never worked because "Plausible deniability" made it all too easy.

Non-Christians fail too. But even very public non-Christians generate little more than a "meh" in the media when they are caught cheating.

This deficit of humility, this hypocrisy, this facade of pretending that biological urges don't exist, and the refusal to have frank and rational discussions about human sexuality is chipping away at religion like an ice pick.

The Church is portraying itself as rigid, unyielding, and impassive toward those who are vulnerable. It is seen as being unable to live up to its own ideas.

No wonder church attendance is dropping among young people.  The youth of this generation is having this conversation.  And they are noticing who is telling them to "shut up" about it.

What do you say at an atheist's funeral?

First, don't be alarmed.  This isn't about me.  I've got plans to spend a few more decades on this planet.  Longer, if possible!

But I recently ran into a conversation where a very nice Christian pastor had been asked to speak at an atheist's memorial.  Much of this person's family was religious, but the deceased and a few family members were decidedly atheist.  The pastor was at a loss of what to say that wouldn't offend someone.

I sympathize with the pastor - if he is truly empathetic then he is in a difficult position.  The answer is much easier to someone who lacks sympathy and rests on the black & white worldview of a devout evangelical.  That person would just declare the atheist to be lost from God, and take the opportunity to evangelize to the rest of the people at the memorial.

This pastor is one of the good guys.  He wanted something meaningful to say about an atheist.

An atheist usually doesn't believe in an afterlife - but there is still the very human urge toward some sort of permanence. There is still the human hope that we matter.

I think it is appropriate to celebrate our good fortune of being alive.

Richard Dawkins, in his book, "Unweaving the Rainbow", speaks of this good fortune:

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”

I agree that this sentiment is true, but I also think it lacks feeling.  It lacks that spiritual poetry that Carl Sagan was so good at creating.  I also think that it lacks our own expression of how we will miss others.

Here is how I would say it.

We are here today to remember and celebrate the life of someone we love.  Think of (deceased's name) life as a rock thrown into a pond.  Think of the ripples and waves from that impact, and how they influence others.

Every life is like this.  Every splash we make in the pond we all share creates ripples that reach out and touch other people.  Each person touched by someone else's waves are influenced as their lives in turn create their own swells.  It is an ever-expanding series of concentric waves that touch us all.

Each of us is influenced by these echos of the waves of past living people. We are touched by the crests and furrows of the actions of people we have never known, and will never know.  We are also caught up in the breakers from those who have made a huge splash in their lives.

In this way, one life can impact many.

Our words and actions also have permanence.  What is done can never be undone. This is a great benefit of our lives!

If you speak the truth, give aid to a stranger, help a friend, hug a child, kiss your lover - these words and actions happen in a point in time.  And when they happen, they can not ever un-happen.

When the Earth comes to an end, when the Sun finally dies, when the entire Universe ends - that simple kiss will still have happened. It will never un-happen. That small moment in time is eternally fixed at that point.

Your friend, partner, child or parent may die. You may age, and age or disease may rob you of your memories. It doesn't matter. That moment you had with them won't un-happen.

How shall we celebrate the life of the one we loved?

We do this by remembering those permanent points in time that we shared with them.  Those cherished moments that happened, that can never be undone.

We celebrate their lives by telling the stories of the one we loved.  Tell the funny stories, the sad stories, the meaningful stories.  Tell them all!

In sharing these stories, we are emphasizing those points in time in their lives. We are amplifying the ripples of their lives into a swelling wave, into a fun splash that is echoed among us.  The influence of our loved one expands even further through our stories.

And for us who remain behind, what should we take from this? I'll tell you.

What we do matters, because it matters right now!

We should live with joyful exuberance, we should act out of compassion and sympathy and love.  We should seek happiness for ourselves, and for others, because it matters.  And yes, we can strive to make a huge impact in this little pond we all share, but it is better to be joyful - to joyfully throw our rocks into the pond!

Hold close those who are dear to you.  Do it for yourselves.  Do it in memory of the one we loved and lost.  Do it to make that perfect moment that will never be undone!

Belief in a divine enforcer precludes true morality.

I've written before of the Evangelical Christian fallacy that without God, atheists are allowed to do as they please, since they lack any moral guidelines.

Paul Jennings Hill

Atheists find this argument to be troubling at best, and downright scary at the worst.  If the only thing holding a Christian back from rape and murder is the fear of punishment, then such a person should be avoided!

It is also possible for a Christian (like Christian minister, Paul Jennings Hill) to use their religion to justify murder as an ethical action.

When a Christian is serious about basing their ethical guidelines on the Bible, it is reasonable to ask how they interpret the Bible in order to find those allowed by the Bible.  Mr. Hill, for example, had an interpretation that may be very different from other people.

But all of this is a different argument.

I contend that the belief in a divine lawgiver and enforcer actually precludes ethical behavior on the part of the believer.

Let's make it clear.  The Bible states that people who act in a manner that pleases God will be rewarded, and those who do not will be punished.  Matthew 25:31-46 is quite clear that our actions will be judged.

We must question whether it is even possible to act in a moral manner when a person's very thoughts are under constant scrutiny and their actions and thoughts are being weighed to see if they are a "sheep" or a "goat".   Whether or not a divine judge actually exists would seem to be beside the point.  The real belief that a divine judge actually exists will influence a person's actions.

If a Christian does good, by giving to the poor, comforting the sick, or just being a friend in a time of need, there must remain some awareness that God's judgement upon them is tracking their actions and adding those actions to their "book of life".  And this is more than action - the Bible makes it very clear that a Christian is even judged by his or her own thoughts.

Even if a Christian has the best of motives, even if they are truly altruistic, they must be aware at some level that their actions and thoughts are being monitored by the being that will judge them as being worthy of Heaven, or condemned for that other destination (which varies among the different Christian denominations.)

This knowledge reduces all lofty motives to the level of merely covering one's ass.

If you do good, some part of you knows you will be rewarded.  If you do bad, that same part knows that you will be punished.  Knowing this, how can a person claim that they are acting out of a moral purpose?  How can a person act ethically when that person is under constant surveillance and a promise of reward or punishment for their thoughts and deeds?

I submit that it is only possible to act ethically when one is sure that there is no reward or punishment for one's actions.  The true belief in the existence of God precludes true morality - only those people who act without the expectation of reward or punishment, now or in some afterlife, are capable of morality.

A true example of morality is an atheist who does good in secret, free from the judgement of humanity and divinity.