BLAME HITCHENS, DAWKINS & HARRIS--ESSAYS OF A NEW ATHEIST

Copyright© 2010 G.M. Jackson

All Rights Reserved

INTRODUCTION

As I was sitting at my computer writing this tome, my girlfriend looked over my shoulder. I looked up at her and said, "Why the long face?" She said, "I am sad because you converted to atheism." I said, "Well, you can blame Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris for that." And so the title of this book became Blame Hitchens, Dawkins & Harris--Essays of a New Atheist. The content within is sort of like a summary version of the material you will find in books such as The God Delusion; God Is Not Great; The Blind Watchmaker; The End of Faith and many more great works. I also add my own unholy insights and irreverent humor. My goal was to write a book that would give you the basics of atheism without taking up too much of your time and money. OK, no more introductory blather. Here are the essays.

WHY SATAN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN GOD

The Bible is definitely not a book an atheist like myself would choose to take literally. If taken metaphorically, it could potentially teach lessons and morals like a collection of fairy tales.

But there are those who take it literally--like the "Children of the Corn." There is some passage in the Bible that says, "The children shall rise up and kill their parents," or words to that effect. Yikes!

If I were to take the Bible literally, I would be forced to conclude that evil is greater than good--that Satan is more powerful than God (or at least God lets Satan win).

First, one has to wonder why God created Satan or evil to begin with, since he seems so adamantly opposed to evil. One answer I receive time and time again is, "God wants us to choose (between good and evil I assume)."

OK, but if I was God's PR manager, I would strongly advise him to make the choice between two goods. That way, no matter what choice we make, it will always be the right one. No one burns in hell; God's blood pressure stays low; everybody parties in Heaven--a win/win situation for everyone!

But NO...................

God has to work in mysterious ways! Whatever!

First he creates this dude named Satan--a fallen angel. Later, God creates Adam and Eve. God makes his pitch: "Don't eat the forbidden fruit or you will surely die (or words to that effect)."

However, Satan, being more persuasive and more powerful than God, surreptitiously transforms himself into a talking-snake hand-puppet and makes his pitch to Eve, and basically wins both Adam and Eve over to his way of thinking.

Satan--1, God--O.

At this point, God is really pissed! Or he's just faking it if you believe he planned everything. He kicks Adam and Eve out of Eden and makes Eve and all women suffer at child birth. Yikes!

Now, again, if I was God's PR manager, I would strongly advise him to take at least some of the responsibility for what happened and give poor Adam and Eve and their progeny a break. After all, they did not ask to be created, nor did they ask to be sinners, nor did they ask God to create evil or Satan or temptation or the forbidden fruit.

If God is really all-powerful and all-knowing, then God is really the guilty party here. Adam, Eve and the serpent were just his Barbie dolls.

Sometime after the Eden fiasco, evil spreads throughout the world big time!

Satan--2, God--0.

God then floods the Earth, wiping out all life except for Noah, his family and several pairs of animals--(two of every kind, including two termites that would have multiplied and consumed the Ark).

Unfortunately, God's plan didn't work. Evil still flourished long after Noah landed his Ark in the Himalayas.

Satan--3, God--0.

For some reason only known to God, God only revealed himself to the Israelites, and allowed Satan and his demons to trick the rest of the human race into believing a slew of pagan cults and false gods. Such an act by God is analogous to a football player scoring a touchdown at the other team's goal.

Satan--4, God--0.

At this point in time, God was clearly behind on points. He needed to give Satan a knockout punch! So what did he do? He committed adultery with Mary. She was married to Joseph. He could have chose a single virgin, but NO........

Satan--5, God--0.

Amazingly, God allowed himself to be tempted into committing adultery! What a break for Satan! As you know, God did this to create his son Jesus. According to the prophesy, the messiah was to appear and wipe out evil for all times (or words to that effect). Unfortunately, Jesus failed and was crucified.

Satan--6, God--0.

However, a new draft pick, Saint Paul, picked up the cross and ran with it! The Christians cheered in the stands! Jesus really came to Earth to die for our sins and will come a second time to finish what he started.

Satan--6, God--1.

2000 years later, most of the people on Earth are not Christians or Jews. Their souls belong to Satan (so we are told).

Satan--7, God--1.

According to the book of Revelation, less than 200,000 of God's worshipers will be saved. That means, out of the billions of souls that have lived on Earth, Satan will be getting the lion share to torture and torment. However, God will bind Satan for a thousand years, so the final score shall be:

Satan--8, God--2.

It looks as though Hitchens was correct: God is not great.

HOW THE POWER OF PRAYER CAN MAKE YOU LATE FOR EVERY APPOINTMENT

If I ever go skydiving, I would much rather be an atheist with a parachute than a Christian with nothing but a prayer.

I note that Christians opt for the parachute as well. It has something to do with not testing the Lord. According to the Bible, Jesus and Satan were conversing one day, and Satan suggested that Jesus test the power of God by jumping off a precipice. And Jesus replied, "No f***ing way!" or words to that effect. He then asserted the thou-shalt-not-test-the-lord argument.

So then what possible value can prayer have? Are you not testing the power of God when you pray? And if testing God is a big no no, then how can you reasonably expect that your prayers will be answered?

I once tested the power of prayer scientifically. I wanted to see if prayer could improve my luck, so I wrote a computer program that did a simulated coin toss. Heads: I win; tails: I lose.

The program could do a million coin tosses in less than 30 minutes. This allowed me to run millions of experiments. The results of those experiments were as follows:

When I did not pray before executing a series of coin tosses, the coin tosses had nearly the same number of heads as tails as expected.

However, when I prayed with all my heart, prior to a series of coin tosses, something really strange happened...I had nearly the same number of heads as tails.

The results showed that prayer offered no advantage. Such results do confirm Jesus' assertion that one should not test the Lord. Such results also confirm the atheistic assertion that there is no Lord.

In either case we can go about our business as if there is no Lord, without creating a disadvantage. Our luck will not become better or worse.

However, when I performed the experiments, was my faith strong enough to overcome chance? Clearly not. So how much faith does it take? Well, if we take Jesus' thou-shalt-not-test-the-lord argument seriously, no amount of faith will work.

There is another reason why prayer is likely to fail even if there is a God in the universe. What do people do when they pray? They ask God to do stuff for them or someone else--as if God is hotel room service.

Interestingly, God's prophets did not ask God to serve them, but rather, they served God. As far as I can tell, God was never anyone's houseboy; he basically gave the orders from on high.

Therefore, it makes sense that God would not answer prayers, especially if those prayers don't include any sacrifices. I could see God doing someone a favor if he received a little something in return like a virgin or a goat.

But why should God, the Lord of the universe, be anyone's beeyatch? Think about it.

One way to test for yourself if prayer works, is to pray every five seconds or prior to each and every action you take during your daily routine. If prayer really works, the extra time it takes will be well spent. If prayer doesn't work, you will be late for every appointment. Try it out, then get back to me.

INTELLEGENT DESIGN'S MOST FUNDEMENTAL FLAW

If the "Designer" in Intelligent Design is supposed to be the god of Abraham, then the ID movement has a serious problem.

According to Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker, Paley was a man who cleverly suggested that the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker. Therefore, something that appears to be designed must have had a "designer."

But doesn't a designer imply a super designer? And doesn't a super designer imply a super-duper designer? Question: Who designed the first designer? The obvious answer is no one.

Since no designer was needed to design the first designer, no designer was needed to design any subsequent designers, including the watchmaker.

But couldn't we then argue that the watchmaker was not needed to design the watch? Obviously not. So how do we resolve this conundrum?

Let's take a closer look at the design process:

When the watchmaker first started making watches, his watches were primitive and simple. Over a period of time the watchmaker made improvements by selecting his best designs and rejecting those designs that failed to measure up.

Doesn't this process remind you of evolution? The watchmaker is analogous to natural selection and his series of watch designs are analogous to a species evolving to become more fit.

The end result is a highly evolved watch, superior to any of its predecessors.

Therefore, the process of design more closely resembles Darwinism than Creationism.

Here is what the watchmaker didn't do: he didn't say, "Let there be a watch," and POOF! a watch appeared--and the watchmaker saw that it was good.

Thus, if the Designer in Intelligent Design is supposed to be God, then ID falls flat on its face. God doesn't design--he does magic tricks.

Additionally, if we accept the premise that God created everything, then he would be just as responsible for all the junk we observe in the universe as he is for what appears to be designed.

Therefore, the appearance of something designed does not add to the notion that there is a God. If there was nothing but junk in the universe, it could still be argued there is a God and he created it. It is a circular argument in any case: God created it because it was created by God.

So we can resolve the earlier mentioned conundrum by tweaking Paley's idea a bit: the watch did not pop into existence out of thin air; it was designed much like the watchmaker himself--by an evolutionary process.

THE GOD VS. CHANCE FALLACIES

One thing that many Creationists never fail to do is to cleverly demonstrate that chance is not responsible for the creation of our universe or life. They often argue that the universe, for example, could not have happened by chance because the probability is way too small. Therefore God created the universe.

Fallacy No. 1:

Next to impossible is the same as impossible.

Rebuttal:

Any probability, no matter how small, is not the same as zero probability. Any event that has a probability greater than zero, can happen. Therefore the universe could have happened by chance.

Fallacy No. 2:

Chance and God are two separate things.

Rebuttal:

Creationists paint themselves into a corner here. God is allegedly omnipotent and omniscient. He allegedly created everything--wouldn't that also include chance? If not, where did chance come from? Assuming that God did create chance and controls chance, the Creationist argument becomes: "God could not have caused the universe because the probability is way too small. Therefore God created the universe."

Fallacy No. 3:

If it wasn't chance, then God is the only other explanation.

Rebuttal:

I personally believe it was the flying spaghetti monster that created all things--including hot sauce.

AT LAST! THE NEW INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

Hey, forget about Darwinism! At long last, Intelligent Design (ID) has a theory of its own! Well, actually it doesn't, but I thought I would help out by developing a theory. Feel free to make your own suggestions in the comment section.

So far we have: science is false; the designer did it.

I don't know about you, but I would like a few more details. First, who is the designer? God? Perhaps an extraterrestrial? Hey, I know...let's go with God is an extraterrestrial being from a type-4 civilization. Members of his race can create an entire universe out of a buger (aka: singularity). So sophisticated and advanced is God's technology that his acts often appear miraculous to Hebrew goat herders and right-wing Christians.

So one day, the designer (who really is God [wink!]) was picking his nose. No one was watching because he was a jealous designer and basically killed all the other designers, so he was the only one left.

He picked a buger (the singularity) from his nose and ate it. It then went through his digestive system. He then created the Hebrew language so he could say, "Let there be light." He then said, "Let there be light," and at the moment he said that, he crapped out the entire universe! Scientists today refer to the event as the BIG BANG.

For the next 10 billion years, the designer was feeling sick, so he let the natural laws take over the work of developing the universe and Earth.

After a time, the designer grew bored with his new universe. It was lifeless and dull, so he decided to design the first living cell. He ordered a do-it-yourself kit from ACME and also purchased a tiny specialized toolkit from OSH. He bought the toolkit on the Sabbath, so he didn't have to pay the sales tax.

When he started his design project, he immediately became frustrated--the instructions were written in several languages and there were no pictures. So he decided to wing it! He picked up a mud paddy and blew on it, then POOF! The first living cell was designed!

He tried to design more cells but after awhile he grew weary due to his inefficient approach, so he finally said, "Hey little cells, go forth and multiply." The designer then took a 4-billion-year coffee break and let the natural laws (NO EVOLUTION!) develop life.

Unfortunately, the natural laws failed to develop any life in the designer's image. And there were no mirrors, so the designer decided to design a man. He downloaded Microsoft's Design Studio software and went to work.

Unfortunately, the designer's computer crashed, so he said, "F*** it!" He picked up a mud paddy and blew on it and POOF! Adam then appeared fully designed and naked.

Unfortunately, the designer realized that Adam was not really his type, so he surgically extracted some DNA from Adam's rib, and tried to genetically engineer Eve, but once again became frustrated with the instructions written in several languages--AND NO PICTURES!

So POOF! There stood Eve, fully designed and naked.

And the designer saw that it was good.

Update: It turned out that the designer was not Eve's type, so the designer had to wait until he designed Mary. Together, Mary and the designer designed Jesus.

WHY SETTLE FOR HEAVEN WHEN YOU CAN HAVE...

Sam Harris has suggested that there should be an end to faith, but consider the following:

According to Webster, religious faith is an unquestioning belief. Some theists have faith in God and faith in Jesus and faith that they will go to heaven if they do what the Bible says. They also have faith that the Bible is the word of God and the ultimate reference book.

But none of that faith is based on empirical evidence; it is based on an unquestioning belief. The interesting thing about unquestioning belief is you can pretty much unquestionably believe in anything.

So why settle for what the Bible says? Why not aim high?

If I should decide to believe something unquestionably, I am going to believe the following:

Not only will I go to heaven when I die, I will take God's place. Everyone will have to kneel down and kiss my ass. Plus Godzilla will rise from the sea and step on the house of anyone who f***ed me during my lifetime. All who were kind to me shall win the lottery.

Now you could argue that there is no authority to back up these beliefs. But there is! This post was not really written by me. I am just a messenger. This post was really written by the God of your choice. So you better believe in it unquestionably or else Godzilla will pay you a visit! And the cable guy will be late!

But why stop there? There will be no taxes in heaven. I know that seems a bit far fetched but keep in mind that faith has power. Jesus said that faith the size of a mustard seed could move a mountain. Well my faith is the size of the federal debt! So everything you see written here is pretty much guaranteed to happen.

HOW PROOF OF GOD CAN FALSIFY GOD

One thing I always found fascinating is how some theists attempt to use extraneous evidence to prove the existence of God. They point to reports of Noah's Ark being found in the Himalayas; they claim they have found the burial site of Jesus; they work tirelessly to debunk the theory of evolution, etc.

Yet, they believe the Bible is the word of God--the ultimate authority on the subject of God, Jesus, Noah and the whole motley miracle crew. Now if the Bible really is the word of God...

...why would they need proof outside the Bible?

Surely the word of God should be good enough and powerful enough to establish that God is real. But for some strange reason, the word of God is not enough. Go figure!

If we assume the Bible really is the word of God, then the omnipotent God that theists believe in does not really exist. Clearly God's power is limited. He is not able to convince the masses with his words alone, so extraneous evidence becomes a necessary evil.

Or God doesn't want to convince us. Yet he prefers to rely on imperfect humans to persuade us and these imperfect humans are charged with the task of persuading us with God's unpersuasive words.

No doubt such humans become frustrated and look for extraneous evidence to support the idea that there is a God, Jesus or whoever, but in doing so they inadvertedly reveal the truth: the word of God isn't good enough.

If God is perfect and he exists, why wouldn't his word be good enough?

WILL OUTLAWING RELIGION REDUCE INTOLERANCE?

Would outlawing religion reduce intolerance?

Well that experiment was already conducted in the Soviet Union. Intolerance does not decrease, because religion does not own intolerance. When you outlaw religion in the name of reducing intolerance, you unwittingly create intolerance. To outlaw anything is to say, "I will not tolerate that."

We demonstrate intolerance whenever we say, "We would be better off without...(fill in the blank)." In this instance, the object of our intolerance is religion. Not tolerating religious intolerance may not be such a bad idea, but then you have to ask yourself how far you are willing to go. I spoke with one anti-theist who thought theists should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Obviously he is intolerant of their intolerance to the point of murdering people.

The answer to reducing intolerance, whether it be from a religious or non-religious source, is to encourage the principle of "live and let live," aka: tolerance. Let them have their imaginary friends.

Rather than outlaw religion, it would make more sense to outlaw acts of violence and hate crimes. Oh wait...that's been done. So maybe we should just chill out.

A TRILLION ROYAL FLUSHES IN A ROW--MIRACLE OR CHANCE?

Suppose a chimp types the following on a typewriter:

"jesus loves apes"

What is the probability that she would type this? The answer is one in 79.77 sextillion (1/79766443080000000000000).

Surely there is some divine intervention here. The probability is just too low for the chimp to have typed those words by chance. Besides, she typed "jesus." That has to be a sign from...well...Jesus.

Suppose the chimp typed the following instead:

"akbsj nq zzm utt"

What is the probability that she would type this? The answer is one in 79.77 sextillion (1/79766443080000000000000).

Surely there is divine intervention here also, since the probability once again is too low for the chimp to have typed this by chance. No doubt the chimp was assisted by Akbsj, the son of the supreme god of the Utt whose planet is located in the far reaches of the Andromeda galaxy.

No matter what the chimp types, the probability is the same, and a claim of divine intervention can be made. The probability is calculated as follows:

Assume there are 27 characters on the typewriter (26 letters and the spacebar). No matter which key the chimp types, the probability for each key is 1/27. Since the chimp typed 16 characters in each of the above examples, the total probability in each case is (1/27)^16 or 1/27 multiplied by itself 16 times.

The truth is divine intervention was not required in the above examples. In the first example, Creationists see divine intervention simply because they recognize the random characters "jesus loves apes." In the second example, the Utt see divine intervention because they recognize the random characters "akbsj nq zzm utt."

It is a common mistake people and extraterrestrials make. Whenever they get a desired result, they erroneously assume that somehow the probability is lower than a result they find uninteresting. They also confuse the probability of something NOT happening with the probability of any particular event happening.

For example, the probability of lighting NOT striking you is pretty close to 100%. But the probability of the lighting striking a particular patch of ground in the middle of nowhere is the same as the probability of the lighting striking you on the head.

But what if the lighting strikes you in the head ten times in a row? Surely Zeus is punishing you for worshiping the false god of Abraham.

Not necessarily. The probability of the lighting striking you in the head 10 times in a row is no lower than the lighting striking ten particular places (could be the same or varied) in the middle of nowhere.

The problem is bias. People place more value on some events than others. When we get ten royal flushes in a row in a poker game, we exclaim, "What are the odds?!"

Well, any ten hands we get would have the same odds. But suppose we get a trillion royal flushes in a row? Surely there is something strange happening in that situation.

Well, no. A trillion royal flushes in a row do not violate the laws of probability. What would be strange is if we were dealt a trillion worthless hands and they magically morphed into royal flushes.

Since you have read this far, let's test your knowledge of chance. Suppose you are playing poker and you don't get a trillion royal flushes. Instead you get a trillion worthless hands. What are the odds that you got that particular set of worthless hands? Answer: the same probability as getting the trillion royal flushes in a row.

Just because we desire a certain event does not make it miraculous or less probable than an undesired event. That goes for a string of events as well.

Suppose Jesus didn't walk on water, but instead he sank to the bottom of the lake and drowned. No one would deem that event a miracle, yet it could be argued that it was highly improbable that God would do that to Jesus-- therefore it was a miracle after all--a miracle of chance.

WHY DARWINISM DID NOT CAUSE THE HOLOCAUST

If you saw the film "Expelled" starring the affable Ben Stein (the man Richard Dawkins loves to hate), then you are aware that one of the central claims of the Intelligent Design (ID) crowd is that Darwin's theory of evolution was responsible for the Nazis' holocaust.

As you probably already know, during the holocaust, millions of innocent human beings were tortured and murdered by the Nazis because they weren't members of the "supreme race."

Now there are two problems with what I think is ID's most defamatory claim:

1. Hitler was not an atheist; he was a Roman Catholic. There are many fine Roman Catholics, but Hitler was a bigot and saw the Jews as the ones who betrayed Jesus as well as seeing them as an inferior race. Thus one could blame Religion as much as Darwinism for Hitler's hatred of the Jews.

2. Darwin's theory has little or nothing to do with eugenics, the selective breeding of human beings.

Eugenics more closely resembles the practice of selectively breeding domestic animals. The breeder has an end result in mind: he may want a dog that is easy to train and has certain physical attributes.

Natural selection (a key component of Darwinism), has no end result in mind. It is blind and has no special hatred or love for any living thing. Natural selection has caused new species to emerge and does not focus on breeding a better particular species.

Darwin may have talked about "survival of the fittest," but there is nothing in his theory about murdering innocent people who are deemed weak or inferior. Even eugenicists, for the most part, don't advocate murdering the weak; they simply think the weak shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

If Charles Darwin had never lived, the Nazi holocaust could have happened anyway. Selective breeding is an idea that has existed for thousands of years. And genocide is nothing new. Genocide is a practice well-documented in the Book of Joshua, so the mass murder of those deemed inferior is a very old concept indeed.

Darwin simply took the very old idea of selective breeding and tweaked it to form his theory.

Darwin also proposed that we all came from a common ancestor. Now that is an idea the bigoted Nazis would have found very disturbing! I don't think the Nazis wanted to even imagine that the Jews were their brothers and sisters under the skin.

Imagine some Nazi scientist telling Hitler that Aryans, Jews, Poles and Blacks all had common ancestors who originated in Africa. I am sure that would have gone over like a lead swastika balloon.

Therefore, it is simply outrageous to suggest or imply that Darwin's great idea, which is the bedrock of modern biology, caused the holocaust.

If anything, Darwin's great idea has brought us all closer together. It shows us that we are literally brothers and sisters under the skin.

ARE THEISTS REALLY ATHEISTS WHEN NO ONE IS LOOKING?

There once was a minister who was caught in a flood. He climbed up to the roof of his house so he wouldn't drown in the wall of water that engulfed his home.

As he sat on his roof he prayed for a miracle.

A short while later, a man with a rowboat showed up and offered the minister a ride to higher ground. The minister said, "Nah, you go on. God will save me."

30 minutes after the rowboat left, a motorboat appeared. "Hey Padre, do you need any help?" yelled the motorboat dude. "Nah! God will save me," replied the minister.

Several hours went by, and the waters were still rising. Most of the town was evacuated. Suddenly, out of the crimson horizon, a helicopter copt its way to the minister's house and hovered overhead. A rope ladder fell beside the minister. "No thanks!" he hollered, "God will save me!"

The copter took off; the waters rose until the minister drowned.

As the minister sat in purgatory, he asked, "God, why didn't you save me?" And the Lord said, "I sent you a rowboat, a motorboat, and a helicopter! What do you want from me?"

This is one of my favorite stories. Hopefully, it teaches theists that God's miracles aren't always flashy or magical. Theists are better off if they use a little common sense.

Ironically, if the minister had been an atheist, he never would have drowned. Atheists don't believe in mystical, magical, supernatural things, so they always use their common sense and opt for the rowboat, motorboat, etc.

The moral of this story is, "Go ahead and believe in God, but make your decisions like an atheist, not a superstitious idiot." However, I will add that one could leave out the belief in God and still be saved.

"God helps those who help themselves" is another lesson that teaches theists the virtues of atheism. Atheists never make the mistake of not helping themselves. They don't believe a god is watching over them, so they do nothing but help themselves. A theist believes God is looking out for him, so he puts his destiny in God's hands. Of course, when things don't work out, some wise monkey spits out, "God helps those who help themselves."

Even so, the implication is God is still helping to some extent, "so keep on believing and say your prayers and put your money in the basket--but the rest of the time you better behave like an atheist if you know what's good for you!"

Now I suppose it could be argued that God really does help if you plant a seed and water it: you do your part and God does his--he makes the little plant grow and the weeds that suck the life out of it.

Thus God helps those who help themselves.

But...

...suppose we left God out of it? Suppose we just planted the seed, watered it and spent zero time praying for God's help? Well, we certainly would save time, but will the little plant still grow? Sure it will! In fact, if we spend less time begging God for favors and more time pulling weeds, the little plant will be even more robust!

Why?

Because the less you believe in God's help, the more you will help yourself.

CAN GOD REALLY BE FOUND WITHIN?

Have you ever heard someone say, "I listen to my gut, because my gut is always right"? I think it is fascinating that someone could actually believe that his liver is always right. Or is it his large intestine?

Well, whatever the gut is, it surely must be the voice of God. It was Jesus or Hillel who said, "You can find God within." It is that mystical, magical voice that will always steer you right if you would only listen.

Now, if that inner voice is infallible, then all we need do is listen to it, follow its instructions, and everything we do will be perfect.

Hmmmmm.... I take note that theists are not perfect, nor are they living perfect lives. They must not be listening to their liver voice, the voice of God! Why not? Don't they really believe?

Or maybe that inner voice is not really the voice of an infallible god. Maybe it is the voice of the ego--a rather large ego that thinks it knows the mind of God.

Assuming there is a God, the liver, the gut, the intestines, the source of that inner voice must be an uber-god! It watches over God, reads his thoughts, then reports back to you.

Or God uses your liver, gut, the intestines as a receiver. He sends his telepathic signals to your innards.

Whatever the case, if the inner voice is really the voice of God, then all we need to do to win at craps is consult that inner voice. In fact, we should succeed at everything we do. Unfortunately we don't.

So it is not really the voice of God--it is just a god wannabe. That explains why theists don't always listen to it and why they lead imperfect lives when they do listen.

THEY WERE ONCE BLIND BUT CAN THEY NOW SEE?

Do theists really see better than nonbelievers? Some theists claim they were once blind but now they see. (Say, that would make a great song lyric.) But insane people who see pink elephants could make the same claim. They obviously see something that sane people fail to see. Unfortunately for the insane, what they see isn't really there.

But is it fair to lump these theists in with the insane?

According to Webster, religious faith is an unquestioning belief. To believe in something without question is to NOT question it. To maintain one's faith, one must choose to NOT see the evidence that contradicts it. So faith does not give you better vision because faith has nothing to do with better vision. It has to do with plucking out your eyes so you don't see that nasty thing called reality--which crushes every fantasy.

So the lyric to Amazing Grace should be amended as follows: "I was once a clear thinking person--now I'm a little nutty."

Notwithstanding the true nature of religious belief, let's see if we can pin down any decisive advantage a theist might have over an atheist. The blind versus the seeing analogy should work for this purpose.

How does a seeing man convince a blind man that he can see what the blind man can't? One way is to have the blind man walk through the woods without a cane. No doubt the blind man will bump into trees. The seeing man, of course, will avoid the trees. The blind man will notice this fact (since he won't hear the seeing man bumping into trees), and realize the seeing man is endowed with an advantage.

So...if a theist is endowed with an advantage over the atheist, he aught to be able to demonstrate that advantage. Simply bragging about an alleged advantage is too lame. As my college creative writing instructor said, "Show us; don't tell us!"

So what can the theists show us? Can they walk on water? Can they turn water into wine? Can they part the Red Sea? Can they turn a staff into a snake? They should be able to do something that would give any atheist pause.

If theists are truly touched by a divine source, they ought to have some miraculous ability that only theists can have. Yet, the theists I have encountered have merely demonstrated a willingness to blind themselves to any evidence that contradicts their chosen beliefs--then some have the audacity to claim superior sight.

ANOTHER GOD VERSES CHANCE FALLACY

The fallacy:

Random = disorder.

The rebuttal:

If you toss a coin and it lands on heads ten times in a row, that event appears to be ordered, but it is still random. A random process can produce many patterns and designs as well as disorder. If such a process only produced disorder, one could construe that as a sign of divine intervention, since it would seem to defy the laws of probability. Simply noting a "design" does not prove an intelligent designer did it. Chance is an incredible designer as well as a creator of disorder. It is not clear why an intelligent designer (who is really God 'wink') would create disorder along with order. It is clear why chance would create disorder along with order--it doesn't give a damn.

THE LIFE-COULD-NOT-HAVE-HAPPENED-BY-CHANCE FALLACY

Life could not have happened by chance because the universe isn't old enough. If life happened by chance, it would have taken trillions of years. Therefore, God took a mud paddy and sneezed on it and POOF! Instant life!

Rebuttal:

Let's assume life is analogous to a royal flush in the suit of spades. Let's assume we are in a card game and we get to play only one hand. The probability of getting the royal flush (spades) is 3.85 X 10^-7. Is it possible that we could get the hand on the first try? Sure! After all, the probability is greater than zero.

But suppose we wanted to have a 99% probability of success? Well, then we would need more time. We would need to play as much as 11,948,053 hands. Obviously, no one has that much time.

However, the mistake creationists make is they assume it will take exactly 11,948,053 hands to achieve the royal flush. The truth is the royal flush could occur during one or more of the 11,948,053 hands. The 99% probability figure means that we have a 99% chance of getting at least one royal flush between our first hand and our last hand.

Therefore life could happen by chance on the first try, the tenth try, the 105th try as well as the trillionth try. Whatever big number creationists like to use for the time it takes, such a number is not required. All you need is dumb luck.

THE INTELLIGENT PIDDLER THEORY

Science has an outrageous theory about rain! It claims that rain is caused by water evaporating into the atmosphere; the vapor forms clouds then condenses.

There are many holes in that theory!

First there is no purpose or guiding hand. There is no one to push the water up into the sky and hold it there until it's time to let it loose. Secondly, the water in the ocean starts out salty, but comes down fresh. That is unreasonable! Finally, they teach this theory in the schools!

Your children and mine will become decadent and corrupt if exposed to the science of Satan!

That is why I propose we teach our kids the Intelligent Piddler theory. Surely a wet bush implies only one thing: someone hid behind the bush and took a leak. Therefore, it only makes logical sense that rain is caused by the Intelligent Piddler when he's taking a leak behind the burning bush! Amen!

And the clouds are fluffy Charmin. And a hurricane is simply the Intelligent Piddler flushing his porcelain throne. And the river is...well...it's the same river we use.

THE ABSENCE-OF-EVIDENCE FALLACY

If God created life, then who created God?

A typical theistic response might be: "God was not created. He has always existed."

Unfortunately, there is no empirical evidence to support the theory that God exists. But theists have a clever comeback: "God is a spirit and exists in the spiritual realm." Or, "God exists outside time and space." Or "God exists in another dimension"--like the Twilight Zone.

In other words, God has left the building--but he is still watching you! And if that fails to convince you that God is a real spirit dude, then they hit you with the ultimate convincer:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Now doesn't that make you want to fall to your knees? Well, it makes me want some of whatever it is they're smokin'.

Here's the problem: if absence of evidence is really not evidence of absence, then no mysterious, improvable God is needed to explain the origin of life or anything else.

We could just simply postulate that life is eternal; life has always existed. After all, just because we can't find any evidence of life existing prior to the creation of the universe does not mean life did not exist!

Life was a spirit and existed in a spiritual realm. Or, life existed outside time and space. Or, life existed in another dimension along with Rod Serling and the Twilight Zone. When the world was finally created, life simply crossed over to our reality. All of this must be true because...

...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

OK, maybe God was not needed to create life, but can I prove that God does NOT exist? Well, let's assume I have no evidence to prove that God does NOT exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of NON-absence. Therefore, God does not exist.

HOW DO I REALLY KNOW THAT GREEN GOPHERS FROM MARS DON'T EXIST?

Do green gophers from Mars really exist? Well, I have never seen any and no Martian probes have discovered any. But they might exist even if we scour every inch of Mars with a toothbrush and find nothing.

They could be invisible; however, that seems unlikely since "green" is a visible wavelength of the light spectrum. But we're talking supernatural green gophers here. So they could be invisible and undetectable.

However, there have been green gopher sightings claims reported in prestigious science journals such as the National Enquirer, so apparently the green gophers can make themselves visible to us.

They just love playing the game of peek-a-boo: "We're here!--poof!--now we're not." They also like to possess people occasionally. If you search your heart, you might feel a green gopher's presence.

So...should there be a cult that worships these green gophers? We can't really prove they don't exist. The lack of empirical evidence of their existence does not count...or does it?

If the lack of empirical evidence does not count, then why do so many people go about their business as if the green gophers don't exist? Even green gopher believers limit their activity surrounding green gophers--they only hold meetings once a week, sometimes they skip meetings and watch Sunday football.

The truth is, green gophers don't impact my life in a significant way even if they are real. That's why I'm an A-green-gopherist. I can't help but note that green gophers have something in common with imaginary things--they can't be proven or disproved (assuming lack of evidence counts for nothing).

The very same arguments that are made to justify the existence of green gophers can be made to support the absurd notion that there is a god. LOL!

Even real things...like red Martian dirt, for instance, have an insignificant impact on my life. That is why I spend zero time worshiping red Martian dirt. So even if in the future, green gophers are discovered by Martian probes, I would still live my life as if they had never been discovered.

It is really a matter of prioritizing. What is more important? A dog biting your ass? Or invisible, undetectable green gophers from Mars?

Some things are simply more real than others.

CAN WE TRUST A LORD WHO WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS?

Once upon a time there was a priest who was very kind and compassionate. He always made time to provide comfort and counsel to his parishioners.

Marie and her husband Phil were very distraught over the death of their 17-year-old son John. He recently died in a fiery car crash. He was purposely and maliciously run off the road. The man who murdered him was only sentenced to two years in the state prison.

John was as pure a soul one could ever meet, and his parents were model citizens. "So why did God punish us?" Marie asked the priest. "God works in mysterious ways, " he replied.

That is what he always told his parishioners when he really didn't have an answer for them. Or he would fall back on, "Suffering is divine."

After a time, it became the priest's turn to meet his maker. He didn't die a horrible fiery death like poor John, he simply had a bad case of old. So he croaked.

When the priest opened his eyes on the other side, he screamed with agony! He was on fire from head to toe! He shouted, "Lord, why me?! What have I done to deserve such suffering?!"

The Lord, as usual, was in a meeting and unable to answer, so the Lord's receptionist, rolling her eyes, said to the priest, "The Lord works in mysterious ways. You said so yourself!"

"But surely I don't deserve to spend all eternity in Hell!" sobbed the priest. "Who said you are in Hell, silly?" replied the receptionist. "This is Heaven."

"How can this be Heaven?" the priest gurgled as he was being dipped in a vat of acid by two hovering angels holding his ankles.

"Well.." paused the receptionist, waiting for the priest's acid-burned face to emerge as the angels lifted him for the next dunk, "suffering is divine and Heaven is the most divine place there is, so there is much suffering here."

"But what about the covenant?" moaned the priest. "The promise of everlasting life and no suffering?"

The receptionist rolled her eyes once again, "Surely you don't expect the Lord to keep his promises when he works in mysterious ways! Besides, who is in charge of the universe? Who has the final say? Who can break his promises without fear of receiving a small claims court summons?"

"The Lord?"

"You got it, Padre!"

"So what happens in Hell?"

"Oh, just a lot of sex orgies. If you were one of those bad priests, you would have been sent there."

WHY EVOLUTION WORKS AND CREATION DOES NOT

Imagine you're a marathon runner. You want to cover 26 miles. What would be the best way? Would you try to sprint the distance? Or would you pace yourself?

If you decided it's best to pace yourself, good for you! Not only will you finish the marathon (or at least increase your chances), but you are also an example of why evolution works so well.

When I speak of evolution here, my definition is not limited to Darwin's theory. Evolution can mean any kind of gradual change. In the above scenario, pacing yourself, making gradual progress toward the finish line is your best option.

Sprinting would be your worst option. Sudden instantaneous creation of a full-grown man wearing a fig leaf or a sheepskin speedo is analogous to sprinting the marathon.

It does not work! One reason is energy, the amount of energy available and how efficiently it is used.

E = 1/2mv^2 is the formula for kinetic energy. E = energy, m = mass, and v = velocity. Note that when you double your velocity, you quadruple the amount of energy needed. That is one reason why you fizzle out when you try to sprint a marathon.

Velocity can also be thought of as a rate of change. Creation or poofing Adam into existence, would constitute a high rate of change. Evolution from a single cell to Adam over millions of years would constitute a low rate of change.

Evolution, because it is a low rate of change, doesn't require as much energy and is much more likely to succeed than creation which could be an infinite rate of change and require an infinite amount of energy used at 100% efficiency!

Energy isn't used at 100% efficiency. There are a lot of things that can go wrong like friction, for instance. As a result, there is less energy actually used to do work--so gradual rates of change are the norm and large objects popping into existence are not.

This is why abiogenesis (the origin of life) is much more likely to be a gradual process rather than a sudden miracle of creation. Even if there is a god, he is not required to do miracles nor are miracles the best option.

Assuming he is smart, he would pace himself.

PROOF OF GOD AND CHARLIE BROWN

Here is something I am sure would make Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris chuckle. The following is a proof of God that a friend shared with me. Imagine! Someone actually proved the existence of God! It sure beats the pants off a proof I wrote during my deist days. It only has two assumptions: God is real and he is a worker. Enjoy!

1. Entropy exists.

2. Maximum equilibrium is 0 without work.

3. Organization exists in the universe.

Therefore:

4. Work was put into the system.

5. If work exists then a worker exists.

Therefore:

6. There is a first worker.

7. This first worker we know as God.

Pretty cool, eh? But one has to wonder why God would create entropy (disorder) if his goal was to create organization. Further, why not assume that energy is the worker? We can at least understand and observe energy. Plus, we can all agree energy is real. So the proof could read like this:

1. Entropy exists.

2. Maximum equilibrium is 0 without work.

3. Organization exists in the universe.

Therefore:

4. Work was put into the system.

5. If work exists then energy exists.

Note there are fewer steps. That generally happens when you don't have to work an imaginary worker into your proof.

But why prove the existence of God when you can prove the existence of Charlie Brown?

1. Charlie Brown built a doghouse for Snoopy.

2. He is a doghouse builder.

3. My neighbor has a doghouse.

4. The existence of this doghouse implies a doghouse builder.

Therefore:

5. Charlie Brown built my neighbor's doghouse.

6. Charlie Brown is real!

Amen!

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HUMANS OCCUPIED HEAVEN?

What would happen if humans occupied Heaven? Would they get along with each other or would it be business as usual?

Well, we know what happened when Adam and Eve occupied paradise. Keep in mind there were only two people involved. Imagine billions of people occupying Heaven, each with the free will to commit sin!

Oh sure. God will send all the bad people to hell according to some doctrines. But here's the problem: no human is entirely good, nor is any human entirely bad.

And, according to Christianity, you can be a real stinker and still go to Heaven as long as you eat a little wafer and wash it down with a glass of wine.

Now maybe God will make everyone who goes to heaven pure, but if that is the case, the implication is that no one in Heaven will have free will any longer. They will be zombies, no longer free to choose between good and evil.

Therefore, there are two possible scenarios:

1. Humans will have free will and will be capable of good and evil;

2. Humans will lack free will and will be purified much like a pair of socks in Clorox bleach.

So let's imagine you die and go to Heaven, you stand in line at the Pearly Gates. You want to make a good impression obviously, so you let the soul behind you cut in front of you in line.

Only he protests and insists that you go first. After all, he wants to make a good impression too. Now after a few exchanges of nauseating selfless courtesy, you both get a little impatient with each other and you end up pulling his white robe over his head while he rips off your sleeve!

Now imagine billions of souls doing this while they wait to get into Heaven. The seraph at the gate speed-dials God on his cell phone, "Lord, I think we have a problem!"

So the Lord gets pissed and he wipes out everyone in a flood, but they are already dead, so now they are soaked and wet while they wait to get into Heaven.

After what seems like an eternity, many finally do make it inside the gates. Once they get inside, they can do anything they want as long as they don't use an Apple computer or Ipod. If they do, they will surely die. (An empty threat for sure.) OK, OK, God will send them to hell...yeah...that's the ticket!

However, if they ask Jesus and Bill Gates for forgiveness and cry enough crocodile tears, they can go back to Heaven and stay--as long as they refrain from using anything Apple.

Given the fact that humans have free will, Heaven isn't much different from life on Earth except for the white robes and the boring harp music. As always, people toggle back and forth between good and evil.

Now, suppose God makes you pure. You no longer have free will. You are simply God's Barbie doll:

(God doing his best Barbie voice):

Hey Ken, would you like to cut in front of me?

(God lowers his voice to talk like Ken):

Oh no, Barbie, you keep your place in line.

Barbie:

But, Ken, I insist! I want to do a selfless act while waiting in line to get into Heaven.

Ken:

Me too, Barbie, because I love God!

Barbie:

I love God too!

(God interrupts and speaks in his normal voice):

Thanks for the love. How about I pour lighter fluid on you to test your faith?

Ken and Barbie:

Oh fervent joy! That would be wonderful, God!

God:

Suppose I set you both on fire to test your faith?

Ken and Barbie:

Yes! Yes! God you are the best! AHHHHHH! We...we...love...(cough...cough)...you...God,,,

Now imagine billions of human zombies that are nothing but God's play things.

Conclusion:

Just as a china shop is not possible if you put a bull in it, a heavenly paradise is not possible as long as there are people and gods.

THE GREATEST JIHAD

What is the greatest Jihad? It is not strapping a bomb to my body and killing the innocent. It is not going to heaven where there are virgins waiting for me. It is conquering my inner demons!

I do not believe in demons, heaven or even God in the literal sense. I see them as metaphors for good, evil and a brighter future. The afterlife does not happen after I am dead. It happens when I conquer this life, when I overcome my shortcomings.

Because I am a man I can use my free will to transcend my basest desires. I don't have to live the life of the beast. I can say no to drugs. I can say no to alcohol. I can say no to my best friend's girlfriend.

Saying yes to any of these things and other temptations only leads to hell. To me hell is not a place for the dead. It is a place for the living! I make my own hell! Here and now!

I can escape, but to do so, I must embrace the greatest Jihad. I must defeat my own evil--for it is the greatest evil I have ever faced! So many years I have wasted being depressed; too many times I have beat myself up.

My worst enemies don't hold a candle to me! So I wage war against myself. My reward for doing so is far greater than any imaginary afterlife. My reward is here and now, in front of me, above me, below me, all around me...

More importantly, it is within me.

It is the greatest Jihad!

CAN AN ATHEIST GAIN WISDOM FROM THE BIBLE?

What can an atheist possibly learn from the Bible? Well, there is the golden rule and eight of the ten commandments. This is not to say that these ideas can't be learned from other sources. However, if you do a lot of traveling and stay in motels, and the cable t.v. is busted, the only source is the Bible.

One does not have to believe in the Biblical stories in order to enjoy them or learn from them. For example, I believe the story of Adam and Eve is a work of fiction. If interpreted literally, it seems nonsensical: a snake talks to Eve. Yeah right! How many snakes have you conversed with lately?

But here's what I learned from the story when I interpreted it metaphorically:

The forbidden fruit could represent drugs, alcohol or some other vice. The serpent could be temptation (that little voice in your head that says, "Go ahead; nobody's looking"). The garden or paradise is what your life will more closely resemble if you say NO to the serpent or resist the temptation to do drugs, drink or otherwise f**k up your life.

Paradise lost is what you will definitely experience if you succumb to the vice that is tempting you.

So whether you believe in God or not, you can live a better life if you say NO to vices.

Now let's consider Job. If interpreted literally, Job seems like an awful story! God allows Satan to torture one of God's most faithful followers. Now why would anyone want to get behind such a cruel god?

Nevertheless, Job kept his faith and ended up with more she-asses and livestock than he started with. What can anyone possibly learn from that?

Here's what I learned:

When I am having problems, things always turn out better if I stay centered, stay focused and keep my wits about me. To me, Satan is a metaphor for the problem I am having. Job is a metaphor for me. Faith is a metaphor for not giving up, not surrendering. Finally, the increased livestock is a metaphor for the reward I receive for persevering through hard times.

I think my favorite Biblical tale is the one about Joseph. Joseph was betrayed by his brothers and became an Egyptian slave. By the end of the story he rose from slavery and became the most powerful man in Egypt next to the pharaoh.

It doesn't matter to me whether this story is true or false. I found it inspiring! Joseph was another man who kept his faith (his wits, his center, etc.) and persevered through challenges that would break the ordinary person.

The lesson here is similar to Job's: don't lose your cookies in a crisis and you will have a better shot at landing on your feet. You don't have to believe in God to do this. Wisdom works regardless of your personal beliefs.

So next time you are stuck in a motel room with nothing to do, check out the Bible. It's not just for believers.

No doubt my last two essays would make Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris puke, but my girlfriend REALLY likes them and, well, she is the one who...please excuse me...I have to stop typing now.