Atheism – The lack of a belief in ANY deity or god-like apparatus. Atheists CANNOT worship the devil, that is just completely ridiculous. To call someone a devil worshiper with the full understanding that they are an atheist completely defies the term Atheist. No atheist even believes in Satan or other figures of that nature.

Atheist – An individual who has no belief in a deity. Seems simple enough, but some people don’t get the notion of ANY deities, not just their own particular brand of ignorance.

Agnostic – An individual who is unsure about the possibility of a deity. This does not mean this person has personally slighted you in some way or that they are bad people. The fact that there are hundreds of different religions with many similarities between them all does say something about the possibility of an omnipotent deity though, doesn’t it?

Catholic Church – The Catholic Church is the original Christian Church, its teachings and tenants are closest to the original churches. Most people seem to think that their offshoot of Catholicism  is some special, enlightened branch; actually, you’re wrong. I will treat you as if you are wrong also. I will refer to the Catholic Church because, to be honest, that is the only one that matters to me because it has the oldest teachings for Christianity.

Christian Church – Christians are not Catholics, but Catholics are Christians. Some people dispute this by saying the teachings are clearly different. But, both have the same central tenants with only slightly differing views on idols, sacraments, teachings, and afterlife. When I say afterlife I refer to some Christian sect’s belief that there is only heaven, others believe in a hell, purgatory, and heaven, and still others who believe in only a heaven and hell. So, I will refer to the Catholic Church because they have the most unchanged (that is not saying much and is a stretch to be honest) belief system.

Abrahamic Religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They all stem from Abraham, hence the name “Abrahamic” religions.

Omniscience – All Knowing

Omnipotence – All Powerful

Omnipresent – All Seeing

“a racist, a bigot and 1800′s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder. This well written book shows that Adolf Hitler, along with other genocidal mass murderers, was influenced by Darwin’s half-baked Theory of Evolution. This book exposes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for what it is: an elitist and racist dogma that has infiltrated our every area of culture thereby undermining sense and sensibility.”

I hardly see how Darwin was a racist. I think someone  needs to explain that point to me so I can have a good long laugh. A bigot, now that is hypocritical. It’s movieguide.org screaming out “Let us tell you what is right and wrong while we sit atop our golden perch and refuse to listen to any other opinion than our own.”

“An 1800′s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder…Adolf Hitler, along with other genocidal mass murderers, was influenced by Darwin’s half-baked Theory of Evolution.”

I can agree he was somewhat of a naturalist, if that makes any difference to his character or morality? I suppose they are talking about Hitler when they say mass murder. Not only is that is a very bold and chimerical statement, but it is based on entirely nothing. Hitler was a devout catholic, all movieguide.org is confirming is the destructive power of religion here. Also, I’d like to point out that it is called the “Theory” of evolution, not the hypothesis or principle, and for good reason. The word theory is slightly different when used in the scientific sense. Instead of it meaning a guess or something that has not been proven, it means something that has been confirmed over and over again without being disproven. Most people then argue this by saying that’s a law, they’re right. A law is the same thing as a theory, only a law describes things while a theory makes predictions.

“an elitist and racist dogma that has infiltrated our every area of culture thereby undermining sense and sensibility”

I hope a journalist or anyone with a degree in the languages wrote this because sense and sensibility are the exact same thing. Also, saying that someone is elitist while also declaring that same someone to be a bigot and then saying that someone’s theory has permeated every aspect of society but is still somehow wrong even though there is mountains of data to prove it, is highly elitist and insensible. To deny evolution is to deny that the Earth is round. I invite anyone to argue that evolution is non-existent and still stay true to their religious beliefs in the end.

To top it off they ended their little review with this little emotional appeal.

“recommended reading for everyone who cares about our culture and the future of our children and grandchildren.”

Now isn’t that just hilarious. Everyone should throw away reason and intelligence so that a group of  cavemen can cling to their last shreds of hope. Sounds great, but I’ll be over talking to the grown-ups about things that aren’t invisible men who grant wishes. Hypocrites.

Omnipotence = All Powerful

Omnipresence = All Seeing

Omniscience = All Knowing

Christians, Muslims and Jews, the three Abrahamic religions all believe that God is all three of these qualities. You cannot be any combination of three and be the Abrahamic god. If God created everything and is omnipotent and omniscient, then the world would be perfect. He would have seen all, and done all. We all know that the world is constantly changing, you cannot change and still be perfect. You often hear at this point “but, but, but…what about the fall, the fall could’ve caused an imperfect world.” Right, except, if God is all knowing then he would’ve known the misery it would’ve caused and corrected his mistake. But wait, he can’t correct his mistake because he is all knowing, how could he change what he already knows? How could he change perfection either? I’ll leave you to think about this paradox after you read this famous quote.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? – Epicurus

The worship of both center around unbridled joy and savage brutality. Jesus is said to have been tortured then crucified before he died for everyone’s sins. Dionysus was torn to pieces every year, just like the vine, and resurrected after the cold hard winter. Both instilled the belief in the cultures they represent that there is something after death and death is not the end of everything. Their deaths show the cruel side of humanity and makes a reader reflect on the flaws of humanity. They also show the true nature of the world by alluding to a greater, peaceful place that is an individuals destination.

There are so many parallels between these two gods that it’s a wonder the Christian Jesus is not classified as a mythological god as well. Both are even in the same Mediterranean region and are written about within fifty years of each other. Jesus is not an original figure, this is just one god from BEFORE the supposed birth of Jesus that is almost the exact same person.

1. The Unmoved Mover – Nothing moves without a prior mover – This is basically “which came first the chicken or the egg”, it always leads back to God having been the original “mover.” Obviously something didn’t have to make the first move by choice, or for that matter, if it did, it didn’t have to be any deity.

2. The Uncaused Cause – Nothing is caused by itself – This is very similar to the first one and again it regresses until you reach God as the answer. Again, anywhere along the argument, multiple possibilities are possible. Not just the possibility of a deity being the ultimate answer.

3. The Cosmological Argument - There must of been a time when no physical thing existed, but something had to bring them into existence. This is wrong on a few levels, there certainly could have been a time when nothing existed and there probably was. But, did a deity really have to bring anything with mass into existence? That’s just assuming a position to be true and moving on, not the greatest argument from a brilliant man. Yes, I concede that Aquinas was brilliant, but deluded by faith.

All three arguments rely on God to be the terminating answer to any of the questions  raised by each proof. It’s a very poor way of arguing considering there is really no argument. Dawkins goes on to play with the idea of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, a very fun subject that I will hit again soon.

A person could say that Frodo, Gandalf, or Gollum could be the Jesus figure. Frodo obviously makes the most sense when first thinking about the novels. But, Gandalf is more Jesus like than Frodo in a few ways.

Gandalf is born again as the White Wizard and is consistently the savior in the novels. He often has very keen insights into life and gives advice close to the messages contained in Jesus’s Parables. Even though Frodo ended up bringing the ring to Mt. Doom Gandalf ultimately guided him there, not physically, but mentally. Frodo, by all accounts, most resembles the Judas figure. He gives in to the rings power and chooses greed over what is morally correct and he betrays his closest friend, Sam.  Not only does the ring gain complete power over him, but he chooses to fight with Gollum over it, the thief, or two thieves. Smeagle, who initially stole the ring, and Gollum the one who is stealing it now. When Gollum plunges into the fire with the ring, both thieves die and part of Frodo dies too. The part that is consumed by greed and the part that has betrayed his closest friend.

With that said, it could also symbolize the world inside a toilet bowl after too much taco bell.

Gametic isolation seems to be the crux of his poor argument, if argument is even the right word. First of all, if you are talking about the most basic of organisms you don’t eve have gametic isolation because bacteria don’t gave gametes. They reproduce by binary fission, meaning they are asexual and don’t use a partner. So to say that evolution cannot occur because of gametic isolation is ridiculous due to the fact that not all organisms have gametes. He is correct that those who do have gametes cannot cross over species and breed. But, he is wrong on exactly why that happens. The issue isn’t whether the two species are alike or the same, it’s whether their gametes are compatible. Hence the term gametic isolation. Obviously if two humans have intercourse they will be able to produce offspring. While, a dog and a horse obviously can’t. The two humans share similar gametes with the same number of chromosomes and compatible structures. But the horse and the dog have gametes with different numbers of chromosomes and structures that are not compatible. To say that the horse and dog can’t have offspring because one is simply just a horse and the other simply just a dog is wrong.

Secondly, viruses are not found in the genetic code of a person from birth.  That would mean that every person would be sick their entire life with the same virus. Do you really believe you walk around with the flu or a cold your entire life? That’s just insane to even postulate. A virus is something a person catches by normal every tasks, it’s not something you can avoid. When the virus is inside you it attaches to a cell and incorporates its DNA into your cells so that your cell makes copies of the virus. They do not reproduce or anything of that nature. The idea that viruses are the result of “The Fall” and that the genome was perfect is completely idiotic. That would mean EVERYTHING before the fall was the same because everything living has a genetic code.

Naturalism and atheism are definitely related but not the same thing. You can be a naturalist and still believe in a deity. Ask Emerson or anybody who believes a god flows through the natural word and isn’t an invisible man in the sky. Also, I find it humorous that he talks about the many “masks” Atheism has taken through history. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity, not anything else. Just because something like naturalism or determinism can be closely related to atheism, does not mean either one is the exact same as the other. Religion, on the other hand, takes many different forms for just one set of beliefs. There has to be over one hundred sects of Christianity and they all have the same basic belief system. Though, they seem to disagree on particulars. Seems kind of hypocritical to say atheism wears many masks in light of that fact, doesn’t it?

Suppose person A is brought up to believe in the tenants of Judaism. After a while person A decides he is unsure that Judaism is the truth and is in a period where he is agnostic about Judaism. After a few years of thinking he turns back to Judaism and lives out his life as a good, humble, Jew. He dies and lo’ and behold there’s the big Papa himself admitting the righteous into heaven. He is admitted and is perfectly happy. End of story.

Now let’s look at it from the viewpoint of a different religion. Again assuming that Judaism is the correct religion (laugh).

Person B is brought up by bible thumping Christians in South Carolina. He decides that he fully believes every tenant of Christianity and devotes his life to his faith. He dies and finds that the Jewish god is before him and he is being judged. He is sent to burn eternally forever in hell without any say in the matter. The End.

Now let us look at it from an atheist’s point of view, again assuming Judaism to be correct.

Person C is brought up by Muslims and after a while starts to realize that all this religious stuff is garbage and rejects Islam. He dabbles into Christianity, Judaism, and for some laughs Scientology but finds all of them to be ridiculous. He lives his life without any faith and then dies. He is judged before the Jewish god and is sent to burn in hell for eternity, just like the Christian.

The point made in the bold line and by this example is that Pascal’s Wager presents a false dichotomy, either you have faith and are saved, or don’t and are punished. I have shown that there is obviously more than just those two possibilities. This blatant false dichotomy is what makes Pascal’s Wager a logical fallacy. So, if you ever find a religious nut being driven down into his defensive hole by reason and then start spouting this idiocy off, just use this knowledge or show him this post.

If god is the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end, knows what has passed and what is to come, like it states in the bible, why do people pray and think it will make any difference. – Mark Fairclough

Even if a god could grant your prayer, he would be altering what he previously knew; which, is impossible considering the Abrahamic god is supposed to be all knowing. You could make the argument that since he is omnipotent he can do whatever he wants. But, he would have to defy himself by doing that, making him imperfect.

The argument may seem to be circular, but it isn’t because it present dichotomies that are not false or leading back to the other. It’s just a logical trap, any way you argue against the idiocy of prayer you run into the same problem, god would have to defy himself. So unless you want to believe in an imperfect god, you should really stop praying and save some valuable time.