MATERIAL OBSERVATIONS

Greetings, freethinkers. As you probably know, I'm a frequent poster at the blog, "Debunking Christianity". There is a Christian poster there called Superintendent Harvey Burnett(sometimes the last name is changed to Burdett for some reason). He is a pastor with his own church and ministry, and when I visited his blog for one of the first times last night, this post was what I found. And frankly, I haven't seen such mindless pseudo-logic in a long time. Be warned; the Stupid will burn.

http://bethelburnett.blogspot.com/2011/04/superstition-of-atheism.html

In an article in the USA Today forum Anthony DeStefano points out much of the preceding information and claims that although atheism appears to be successful in its current marketing efforts through books, conferences and other schemes, it is worth noting that the atheists themselves are engaging in potentially the biggest fraud in history, by making it seem that the existence of material (materialism) is all that there is and that all other experience stems from it. He points out that at one time the "observable world" was  flat, and that although we don't observe that we're moving through space that we're actually hurling through space on a planet going millions of miles per hour. So material observation by itself fails.  Then 2- The "superstition" of atheism, as DeStefano calls it, is the belief that biological processes and the interaction of molecules account for immaterial realities such as love, passion, memories, philosophies, dreams, thoughts, consciousness and other abstract concepts such as logic. The facts are that none of these things have ever been extracted from a body or brain and placed under a microscope and examined.

I hope Anthony is out of grade school, because that's insanely asinine. At one time the observable world was indeed flat, until Man perfected nautical travel and by circumnavigating the globe, made the material observation that the earth was round(of course, long before that, the Greek philosophers has theorized that the earth was round because they used the magic known as "math"). 

   One question for Andrew and Harvey--since it's obvious that "material observations are what we used to make all of our scientific discoveries, what kind of fuck-wit uses the "flat earth" as an example against using only material observations? Furthermore, since biology has already explained where love and passion and memory came from, why did you bring these up? Ever hear of neurology? Maybe you should read a science book published within the last twenty years, so you can cease arguing from out of 1850.

This is where the "myth" or "superstition" comes in. Because there is another world that materialsim, naturalism and scientism (the "superstition" that all reality is discovered through the 5 senses) just does not account for,  it  is only speculation that all reality either stems from or is a result of materialism and material processes.  This is a faith proposition not rooted in evidence. 

Can you prove that there is another world, Harvey? And why are you being disingenuous here? A materialist is defined as someone who rejects all notions of any existence outside of the material world. A Naturalist is a scientist who assumes a natural explanation for unknown phenomena, and works under this premise. Just the last fifty years of naturalism have produced a hundred times more results than the previous five hundred of Christan scientists working under magical, mystical, "divine", supernatural assumptions. We have yet to encounter any quantified supernatural events.

Therefore, unlike the bible, which IS rooted in evidence and real history, the thought that the exchange of chemicals is the progenitor of immaterial realities is simply a myth and or a superstition at best. It certainly isn't an empirical or evidential claim.

It's pretty common to see such raw, unsubstantiated bias on Christian blogs and websites. It's weird how we don't see any evidence given for this statement on this page, or links to historical and archaeological sites providing, say, the elusive evidence for the gospels, the bedrock of Christianity, or anything of this kind. The bible is full of myths and frauds. If Adam and eve were real, this would mean that the human race was begotten through inbreeding, which, bluntly speaking, would've fucked our gene pool and sent us the way of the dodo is a matter of generations. 

   In order to believe in this origin myth, one has to completely ignore the entire field of genetics. And how about Samson killing five thousand men with a donkey jawbone? An entire army with arrows, slings, javelins, spears, armor, helmets, and swords couldn't kill one un-armored man with a bone? What kind of drugs are necessary to partake of that fantasy? And don't even get me started on the "Great Flood".

So, the growth of atheism can be attributed in part to the promotion of "superstition". Presenting the facts (as it claims) has nothing to do with it. If atheism is open and intellectually honest, it must admit that it's tenets are at best statements of faith and that its demand for all things to stem from chemical and biological process is the modern equivalent of a superstition or novel speculation. 

 So on a faulty argument, to say the least, Harvey has tried to make materialism and naturalism look like the same(ignoring the fact that materialism is a philosophy and naturalism is the scientific method that is proven to work by ruling out magical superstition), and now tries(and fails) to make materialism and atheism look like the same thing. While making one of the stupidest arguments against atheism or materialism I've ever seen. "Material observations" indeed!

Now, this flies in the face of most materialists and metaphysical naturalists who claim that the bible is simply fantasy, myth and fairytale. They couldn't possibly fathom that their faith or what they believe, (that all things are a result of material processes) can be challenged. However, the facts are plain and simple even through and by the process of the scientific method which they hail as the holy grail of methodological naturalism. The fact is that it cannot be proven empirically that any material realities that exist even though they use these immaterial realities every day to assess data.

Of course it flies in their face; this kind of drivel would fly in any intelligent person's face. To say that naturalism is "faith" goes beyond mere stupidity. The gist of Harvey's argument seems to be the oft-repeated objection that ruling out supernatural possibilities in science requires faith, because the scientist has "faith" that supernatural entities, forces, etc., don't exist. Which is completely disregarding the dreaded Burden or Proof. If believers in fairies don't like scientists declaring their beliefs a myth, then they should step forward with evidence that they(fairies) exist; if they can't prove it, then they have no excuse to be angry at the rest of us for not believing in their imaginary friends.

   Same goes for theists like Harvey. I'm gonna take some "faith" here that Harvey doesn't believe in vampires, werewolves, banshees,or Tsukumogami, Japanese artifact spirits that are said to posses personal items like cups, umbrellas, mirrors and swords that are more than one hundred years old. Why is that? Does Harvey have faith that they don't exist? Or does he not believe because he has never observed any evidence for their existence, or heard any credible accounts of their existence?

   Same with science. Personal beliefs simply don't work here; only evidence and logic. If you want us to believe that the universe is a gob of undigested food floating in the cosmic diarrhea of some giant being, you need to give some proof. If you want us to believe that we're all slaves stuck in a virtual reality world designed by evil computers, you need to step forward with a Red Pill. Reality talks, bullshit walks, which is why we're no longer ignorant primitives who think the sky is a "fixed firmament" (Job 37:18).

For example, logic cannot be proven. It must be assumed.

Didn't we go over this already? Logic is not a physical object; it is an abstract concept that exists in the minds of humans. Same thing with philosophy, love, passion, honor, etc. The fact that all of these and many more don't physically exist in in the very definitions of the words. Pretty obvious if you know how to read and comprehend the context of abstract terms.

This assumption is equivalent to a statement of faith, or a belief in something that cannot be seen or proven.

Maybe we should pay a visit to the nearest elementary school and see what the faculty think of this claim.

Mind cannot be proven, neither can thoughts be captured and transferred to another's mind, (except in the movies) but in order to communicate effectively, certain assumptions must be made and given. To say that these things simply "arrive" with a moral "ought" in humans is certainly one of the greatest superstitions that has ever tried to be sold in modern times.

*facepalm*

Oh dear Chtulhu, the Stupid, IT BURNNSS!!!

Please tell me he's kidding. Please. Ever hear of this strange new-fangled thing called "biology"? There is data suggesting that morality is a result of evolution that enables humans to form groups, and societies, and preserve the order in order to survive. If you don't find that persuasive, fine, but don't pretend that the research doesn't exist.

The most radical claim that the modern scientific age of enlightenment has lessened the need for superstition. One couldn't tell that by the number of Psychics, Palm Readers and Tarrot Card Mystics that are on any block in the USA. In fact mysticism is on the rise in the United States and being promoted by Icons such as Oprah Winfrey.

First off, a large number of mystics in your town doesn't indicate a "rise in mysticism". I don't know abut you, but I'm only aware of two, perhaps three Tarot card readers in my town, and he/she(whoever) doesn't live on my block; almost everyone here is a Born Again Christian, with the odd agnostic, atheist, and pagan popping up now and again. Furthermore, how does Oprah figure into any of this? Are you insinuating that she's an "icon" of the "new age of scientific enlightenment"? She fits the bill about as well as L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology.

 

The claim of superstition within the bible is often associated with the biblical claims miracles and miraculous accounts found within its pages. These accounts have caused the critic to assess that the bible in the same light of "superstition", "myth" and "fairytale".

What is the tale of Samson, if not a myth? What is the tale of Daniel in the lions' den, if not a fairy tale? How about the apparent inbreeding that occurred in Noah's family, since they were the only humans left? I don't see any compelling evidence for these stories, and since Samson's story is physically impossible, I doubt I ever will. And this is just a small example of all the wild biblical tales that Christians try to pass off as fact without proof.

There are two things to say about this thought: 

1- As DeStefano points out correctly, if the bible were a fairytale  there would be absolutely no punishment for anyone, certainly no hell, no prohibitions to every action that one wants to engage in and an encouragement to simply enjoy one's self and make one's self happy.

Harvey, I hate to say it, but DeStefano is an idiot of the first order. Do you consider the miracles of Islam to be fairy tales? Like Muhammad's trip to heaven on the back of a Pegasus? Because Islam does place prohibitions on bad behavior(or any kind of behavior not condoned by the "Prophet"), and promises punishment--Hell--to unbelievers and evil-doers. This kind of analogy is just as absurd as the old argument that all of the early Christians would not have martyred themselves for a false religion. Thousands of people have have martyred themselves for Islam(and many other religions) and continue to do so to this day. And I think that Harvey and even dear Anthony are familiar with Jim Jones and David Koresh.

   But I digress. Now as for this fallacy, let me pose the obvious question; are the Greek Myths fairy tales? Flying horses? Demi-gods? Monsters? Satyrs? Centaurs and the Minotaur? Gods and Goddesses? Titans? Typhon? Clearly, the answer is yes. And yet, these tales defined moral limits and promised punishment, either in this life or the next, for the wicked. Just look at Sisyphus, for cripes sake. So without evidence, what separates the contents of the bible from these old tales? 

*Even more technically, the modern study of literary genre and historiography has declassified the bible from the realm of folklore, myth and superstition as was the early 20th century claim of the form critics. So the biblical account along with it's commands and demands for righteousness etc, are in no way consistent with a fairytale narrative and the inclusion of miraculous events can only be understood in the light of being recorded events that occurred in real time.*

   

*[citation needed]

2- The antisupernaturalist is the one who rejects miracles period. The rejection is primarily based on what is called the Principle Of Analogy. As I point out in my article on Antisupernaturalism, this principle builds upon the debunked premise of Hume who stated that the best way to determine if something happened in history, is to determined if it can be observed at present or in modern times. In other words, if miracles existed then, we should be able to see them happening now or in modern times. His conclusion and the conclusion of many critics is that we don't see miracles now so obviously they don't exist.

The rejection of miracles in based mainly on the fact that we can never seem to personally observe and verify miracles, and all of the ancient(and modern) accounts like those found in the bible are extremely shady, to say the least, and never backed up by compelling proof. Christians to this day still insist that prayer has the power to heal the sick, yet we never see any evidence that prayer works, and all of the experiments and studies performed thus far seem to indicate that prayer does not work. There's never any evidence aside from blind faith from believers, which doesn't count as evidence. You see the problem?

Aside from the fact that this is the most obvious and absurd denial of all human testimony to the affirmation of modern miracles, it is also a complete and utter denial of all the medically and scientifically unexplainable occurrences that happen which are claimed to be miraculous in nature.

 So rejecting claims without evidence is absurd? Really? In what Bizzarro universe does that rule apply? I've seen lots of testimonies for modern miracles, and I must say, I pity the idiots who really believe this tabloid crap. It's no wonder that fakes at revival tent meetings fleece millions of dollars off of the sheeple. There's never any evidence, or a doctor present, or reason to give these claims any credence. They're shady. They smack of fakery. And by the way, as for that last sentence of Harvey's....

[citation needed]

Aside from this, by Hume's interpretation the universe certainly doesn't exist. Example, the Big Bang according to scientists happened one time in the distant past. It doesn't happen today. There is no such thing as a Big Bang-Bang-Bang... However according to Hume's assertions it could not have happened in the past because it doesn't happen today! According to Hume, even YOU can't exist. How about your birth. You were born one time in the recent past. Although you observe other births, if you cannot be continually reborn then YOU may not exist either! These are ridiculous and absurd notions to say the least. However, this is what the "Superstition" of atheism is built on.   

    

I may not agree entirely with Hume, but this birth analogy is nothing more than a deliberate straw-man. Ever hear of birth records signed by doctors? How about video-taped births? DUH. Furthermore, atheism is not built on anything but logic. It is not dependent upon Hume, or Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Loftus, or Nietzsche, or Freud, or Sam Harris, or Voltaire, or Bertrand Russell. It is nothing more than a disbelief in God and Gods. Period. One can be an atheist and still believe in souls, or even an afterlife. As long as you don't believe in any deities, you're in.

  

So this whole post we've looked at is pretty damned stupid. No logic, no evidence, even though Harvey has been ranting over how the bible has loads of it, and no real arguments against naturalism; just the same old tired rhetorical nonsense that mystics have been hurling at science for millenia. Please do yourselves a favor(especially you, Andrew) and emerge from the Middle Ages. You'll find modern reality to be quite inviting.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to practicing my "faith" of not believing in mythical, magical fairy tale claims that are completely and totally without evidence and based upon the musings of primitive Bronze Age screw-heads who thought that the world was flat like the bottom of a tent and that eating shellfish was an "abomination".



Note; please excuse the blue text. Originally, excerpts from Harvey's blog were in blue, but that that was hard to read against my background, so I changed it to lime. Blogger, being the trick-turning mother of all incompetent whores, won't let me alter the the above text, so you're stuck with it.