#and it's like attempting to argue science with a creationist... there's just very little point in even engaging in that conversation

[mittensmorgul]

it has been bothering me all morning but like

we saw bobby in heaven, and he looked like bobby always has, yet when sam got to heaven he was reset to what he looked like before dean died

REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE IMPLICATIONS AHEAD:

to be clear, I have no opposition to the concept of Heaven, and to the soul earning some sort of peaceful and comforting rest in an afterlife, but I’m really gonna have to politely ask people to stop coming directly to my inbox attempting to convince me that this was a “happy ending” for Dean. He deserved to LIVE, because no matter how perfect heaven was tailored to him personally, to feel satisfying and fulfilling to him, that... almost makes it even worse to me.

I’m not expecting people who are happy with it, or who did manage to find something good in it to actually read this, or to really consider the way I (and from what I’ve seen, most everyone I know) see this. But attempting to convince people who are horrified by it all, or arguing with people who are attempting to reconcile what we see as utterly baffling or entirely unsatisfying about this ending (or worse, actually traumatizing) is unnecessary and unwanted. Please stop trying to make people who are processing the end of a show we’d hoped would have the guts to finally free the characters through something other than death, and trying to reconcile the fact that the story of hope, of found family, of free will over destiny they’d fought the entire series for was not a lie, as the finale made it feel to us.

If people are finding inconsistencies in the story (because hooBOY was it inconsistent), if they’re arguing against details in the story, it’s not because they want folks who are happy with the story to come around to being unhappy with it. It’s because THIS IS HOW WE PROCESS TRAUMA. We explain, we justify to ourselves, so that we can actually continue feeling good about this story in our own lives. For some of us, this means actually coming to a point where we can feel the story had no power to continue to actively harm us. If you don’t feel bad about this finale, then consider yourself lucky, and maybe sit down rather than continually attempting to invalidate why we feel traumatized in the first place.

Okay, that’s out of the way, on to the ridiculousness of my brain:

1. if the idea that everyone in heaven gets reset to a more youthful state, then why not bobby? so that’s out as a theory. I mean, it’s kind of a surface-level nice theory that you wouldn’t have to spend heaven eternity bedridden and sick and dying, but as a basepoint for Heaven this is... it’s got a lot of ableist undercurrents to it and I don’t think there was actually a satisfying way to handle/depict this on screen to start with... the whole “all your problems will be fixed in heaven” is right below the surface here, and I’m not even gonna start explaining how disgusting that is as a message to be sending...

(that said... was sam’s blurry wife un-blurred in heaven? or was she even ever real at all and would Sam even look for her in Heaven now? asking the real questions here... >.>)

2. is this actually a heaven where people take on the appearances that dean specifically recalls them with? or does this effect possibly work for everyone that way, and what we see is only Dean’s pov? Like... would Dean himself possibly see something different than say, John would if he looked at Sam? Would John see the last version of Sam he remembered from s1, and Sam see himself completely different in a mirror or something? This falls into my previous understanding of Heaven-- the memorex version-- where everyone sees what they want to in a dimension that really doesn’t translate to a human’s perception of space-time. And I mean, if that’s actually the case, then I need people to recognize that this isn’t really any different than Old Heaven, except for the cubicle farm aspect and being able to make new memories with people. But that it’s still effectively an isolating experience if each soul’s reality is just... slightly off, even in these seemingly minor ways. It’s dimensionally enforced peace through manipulation of perception. And thanks, I hate it. It’s not true free will, but the pacifying enforcement of a perception of it as being free will.

3. Was this actually just a production choice so they wouldn’t have to drag the party city wig out to the woods for the final day of filming? Which, lol that has some potential for hilarity as a crack post, but also... as a production choice just has the greater effect of breaking the fourth wall (which that final drone shot effectively did anyway), which in turn renders the entire episode one long series of production choices rather than narrative consistency choices, and is all the more reason we have to just... not care about any of it if we’re actively choosing to do that.

All of these sorts of inconvenient facts and readings are there, in canon, for us to consider. The most unfortunate implication of all for me is that the episode as a whole then becomes suspect as “reality” for the characters, and therein lies my actual problem with the finale. The details are rendered irrelevant, the characters themselves are rendered irrelevant, and the story ultimately had no meaning whatsoever. And for those of us who cannot reconcile these things, we’d rather just be able to toss the finale out and keep the 326 episodes that did actually have meaning for us.

[automatismoateo]

Had a bit of time free, so decided to answer "48 questions Atheists can't answer". Where I can I name the logical fallacy they use in the question. For 'unanswerable questions' they were surprisingly answerable. Good exercise to clarify your position, even if only to yourself. via /r/atheism

Submitted December 02, 2020 at 03:02PM by eldrad17 (Via reddit https://ift.tt/3myQVxb) Had a bit of time free, so decided to answer "48 questions Atheists can't answer". Where I can I name the logical fallacy they use in the question. For 'unanswerable questions' they were surprisingly answerable. Good exercise to clarify your position, even if only to yourself.

​

48 Questions Atheists can’t answer (answered)

I'll be honest, these questions weren't really well thought out. If I didn't get these directly from the website below I'd imagine someone was deliberately strawmanning their own arguments for some reason. I recommend having a go yourself, though, it helps to organise your thoughts on the matter! By the time I finished I figured I'd put it on here.

https://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/clever-questions-atheists-cant-answer/

I feel I should mention there were certain questions which I felt I should avoid (specifically regarding race, rape and Hitler) but I got the sense the writers were trying to put people off of answering them, and I had set out to answer the 'unanswerable'.

1. If creationists can’t do science, then why do Kent Hovind and Duane T. Gish, who are creation scientists, have professional degrees in science?

A: This appears to be an ambiguity fallacy- Science is a broad term that covers many subjects and can be misused in certain circumstances as I think has been done in your question. If ‘creation’ science can be backed up by peer reviewed scientific journals that can be verified by other scientists around the world then yes that would make it a solid science. If Kent Hovind and Duane T. Gish have any such papers that have been peer reviewed I would be very interested to read them and check their claims. As it stands this has yet to be done.

‘Dr’ Kent Hovind in particular got his degrees from unaccredited institutions. He just added Doctor to his name so people will believe his claims which happens more than you think. I personally know someone who got his doctorate in writing a few years ago- doesn’t make him a scientist. I could go into Kent’s tax evasion here but I’d rather stick to the facts rather than commit a ‘Tu quoque’ fallacy.

2. If dinosaurs turned into birds, why are we not afraid of them?

A: Because birds aren’t a threat, we had millions of years to figure that out once the dinosaurs weren’t around. It would hardly make sense for a species to evolve and develop a fear of a predator that didn’t prey on them.

3. If homosexuality is right, then how come two people of the same sex not produce a child?

A: You’re assuming there is a morality position to take on this. Whilst I have heard there may be some evolutionary benefit to homosexuality I myself am not aware of it. Live and let live.

4. What purpose do we have if evolution is real?

A: Again you are making an assumption- this time that we have a purpose. As an (optimistic) nihilist I see no reason to think that life and the universe has any purpose. I determine the purpose of my own life.

5. You say Jesus never existed, but have you heard of the Shroud of Turin?

A: I never said Jesus didn’t exist. As for the shroud- It’s a sheet that looks like a face. I can make one at home! Jokes aside, if you can prove that it is in fact the face of Jesus and not someone else via genetic science or some other means that can accurately verify it (peer reviewed scientific journals again I’m afraid) then I will admit that Jesus did factually exist. You then have the problem of proving that he was the son of God and performed miracles as you say he did via the same means. Good luck with that.

6. Why do we not see humans being born in the zoos from monkeys if we came from monkeys?

A: The personal incredulity fallacy- because you don’t understand how something works ergo it must not be true. This demonstrates how little effort you have put into researching evolution. Monkeys can’t give birth to humans and vice versa- we descend from a common ancestor. For the final time (please!) Monkeys, Chimps, Gorillas and Humans all descended from a common ancestor millions of years ago- Apes!

7. Why do we go to church if God is not real?

A: The bandwagon fallacy- because most people think a certain way or believes something it must then be true. The most common way to explain this fallacy is pointing out that a popular opinion at one time was that the Earth was flat. Didn’t make our ancestors right back then just as I’m certain there are many things we all assume to be true that will one day be proven otherwise. It’s called progress.

Everyone likes to be reassured in what they believe, hanging out with like-minded people is a good way to do that and people are welcome to do so whether that’s at a Church, Mosque or even a pub. Personally I think it’s a waste of a good Sunday morning.

8. How did the Grand Canyon form?

A: Over millions of years due to the same naturalistic processes we can measure and observe around the world. There are many peer reviewed scientific journals that back this up.

9. Do you know that Jesus loves you?

A: Fallacy- an appeal to emotion. Trying to prove your point by ignoring the facts and attempting to win me over by making me feel good. That isn’t going to work with someone like me who doesn’t equate Jesus with love. Zombies and vampires love me too, apparently, but I’m hardly going to run over to them and make friends!

There are a lot of claims made about Jesus that require solid evidence for me to change my mind as to whether he actually existed, had a beard, was white, was male, told stories, performed miracles, whether he was the son of God and if so that there is a God. Start at the beginning and keep proving it through the scientific method (peer reviewed journals, remember) and I’ll convert. Simple.

10. If Christianity is false, then why is it popular?

A: Again, Bandwagon fallacy. Just because an idea is popular doesn’t make it true. If that were the case you might want to convert to Islam pronto as they’re soon going to take over the number of Christians!

11. If you say Christianity is not true, then why do hundreds of people continue to become saved every day?

A: Bandwagon. Belief is a fluid thing, it is different every day for every person. In the UK where I am from secularism is on the rise. Islam is apparently (so I read) on the rise in China. The demographics are changing constantly.

12. Why do we not see half trees and half carrots, fronkeys, and crocoducks if evolution is real?

A: Personal Incredulity again. Cross speciation is impossible due to genetics. Any one of those things may have evolved into existence if the right conditions for it arose.

13. Why is Richard Dawkins afraid to debate Ray Comfort?

A: He has better things to do. Such a high-profile debate would only afford legitimacy to the creationist view which he feels (and I agree) it does not deserve. Better to ask why an (actual) scientist does not take creationism seriously enough to bother debating it.

Saying this I have noticed a trend in secular/ theist debates where the Atheist side will debate the Bible/ Qur’an/ belief and its fallacies whilst the Theist side will try their best to argue the science. As interesting as it can be to watch it would be interesting to see a Theist try to debate the legitimacy of their claims rather than attack science in general.

14. Did you know Christopher Hitchens was saved before death?

A: Fallacy: appeal to emotion. I am pretty sure this was thrown in here to make me angry and make me say something you might use to trip me up. Christopher Hitchens was one of the finest minds of our time. I am sure his work will last the ages. As for being ‘saved’- again, evidence.

15. Are you aware Ray Comfort disproved atheism with a banana?

A: That depends on your definition of ‘proved’. I am going to say this is a combination of an ambiguation fallacy (‘proved’) and an appeal to authority (which would also go for other creationists brought up in these questions, like Kent Hovind).

First off, you and I need to be specific about what the term ‘proved’ means. For me it would mean that scientists around the world studied the evidence of his claim and by a majority came to the same conclusion. That would be some serious headline news.

Secondly, an appeal to authority is usually a good thing in debate as it allows the opinion of experts to weigh in on it. However, you really need be careful and study the level of authority a person has in their field. Ray Comfort is, in mine and I’m sure many people’s opinion, not an authority on Evolution, Biology, Geology, etc. etc. In fact, I’d go so far as to say he isn’t much of an authority on theology if he uses a banana!

Lastly, I hope you and Ray Comfort are aware that bananas were specifically made the way they are today by humans through selective breeding? That became a sort of (not so) natural selection. Google it.

16. Why do people laugh at evolutionists?

A: I was not aware they do. I assume for the same reason that 98% of scientists (including leading biologists, geologists, astrologists, cosmologists, historians, etc. etc.) do not take creationism seriously, which opens it to ridicule around the world.

17. How did the planets form when the Big Bang explosion all of a sudden happen? After all, you don’t see round objects form when something blows up.

A: There is a lot of misunderstanding in that question. (Personal Incredulity fallacy.) The planets formed long after the Big Bang. The early universe was filled with formless atoms that gradually started clumping together and, through a steady process of quantum mechanics and then gravitational pull started forming astral bodies, eventually forming the ones we see today.

I can’t help but add in a Tu Quoque here (yes, I know, but I think it’s relevant.) How did the human race come into existence when at one point (according to Genesis) the only people on Earth were Cain, his mum Eve, his dad Adam and his brother’s corpse? Who did he mate with to conceive the next generation whilst avoiding long lasting genetic problems in humans? Remember, according to your book they were the only people in existence.

18. If evolution is real, how can it explain gravity, angular momentum, human emotions, and why we worship God?

A: Evolution doesn’t concern itself with any of those. It simply focusses on the development of life over time. It doesn’t affect gravity, which has its own theory (The theory of gravity), or angular momentum (pretty sure that’s mathematics and physics). Human emotions are the domain of psychology but it’s easy to see how our survival as a species would depend on how we treated each other as a group, so emotions and a common focal point (religion) would have contributed to that.

God is more the domain of Theology which in itself can be said to have evolved over time- Judaism used to be a polytheism until someone decided that one God must be better than all the other (Jehovah) and eventually all the other gods were just forgotten. If ancient Greece, early Rome or the Vikings got here instead, we’d be worshipping Zeus, Jupiter or Odin instead of God (all four of them do look very similar when you think about it)

19. How did pond scum make living things appear out of nowhere?

A: Personal Incredulity fallacy. Honestly, we do not know yet. Science is still working on that. That doesn’t remove the legitimacy of Abiogenesis (or even Panspermia for that matter) - it isn’t too far a stretch of the imagination once you understand that we are essentially made up of things common to this planet- we are 80% water, carbon-based, with elements of iron, calcium, and various other squares on the periodic table of elements which can be found, inorganically, across the planet. The only two things that make us and this planet unique (as far as we can tell right now) is Protein and Chlorophyll, once we’ve figured that out we’ll have a better idea of how life began to form here.

20. How can evolution be true if we don’t see pocket watches or airplanes form by themselves?

A: Personal Incredulity (again). How can God be true if planes or pocket watches don’t appear magically after 7 days with zero human input? Planes and pocket watches are inorganic and were made specifically by humans with a purpose in mind. To assume the same with the universe and all life is demonstrating a narrow view of the subject.

21. Did you know that dinosaurs and man lived together?

A: Citation. You’re making a claim and need to provide evidence to back it up. Show me one example of dinosaur fossils being found in the same sediment as human fossils and I will genuinely start to question what I have been taught. So far, I haven’t seen a single one.

22. If evolution is real, then why do caring people like Rick Santorum argue that it must be challenged in the classroom?

A: I’m going to label this question as another appeal to authority/ emotion case. Just because something ‘feels’ right or good doesn’t make it true. Drugs feel good but I don’t take what a drug user says as gospel. People can still be caring but mistaken.

However in this case I do agree it needs to be challenged on every level. It is only when a theory is challenged we can see the strength of it. The theory of evolution has only lasted as long as it has because it has withstood scrutiny from the finest scientific minds over the last 150 years. It has changed with new evidence in that time but nonetheless still remains the best explanation we have for how life has arrived at this point today.

I am an atheist because I put both the anthropomorphic God and the Bible under scrutiny and I didn’t even need my scientific knowledge to see the various problems with them. God and creationism form at best a poor hypothesis.

Before leaving this point I would also like to add the notion of a black-or-white fallacy. It’s being implied throughout these questions that the only two options are either evolution or creationism, which isn’t necessarily the case. By implying that these are the only two options you are trying to add legitimacy to creationism by ignoring any other options that may exist. I still maintain that evolution is the best explanation for how life came to be the way it is today, but why are you ignoring all of the other creation stories in the world? Hinduism, Buddhism and various other faiths have their own claims, what makes them any less legitimate than creationism?

23. Why are youtube atheists like AronRa and Thunderf00t afraid to debate Ray Comfort?

A: This is the same question as the Richard Dawkins one. However I am familiar with Thunderf00t and AronRa and can tell you there are plenty of youtube videos that put their point across. They probably feel they don’t need to debate creationists anymore until their original videos are satisfactorily debunked.

24. Why do we celebrate Christmas if Christianity is not real?

A: I’m going to tentatively label this as a No True Scotsman fallacy. Saying that only Christians should celebrate Christmas is inappropriately glossing over all the people who celebrate Christmas who aren’t Christian.

Christmas was originally a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solstice. It’s in no way solely for Christians. It makes for very interesting reading if you want to look it up. Anyone can get behind the idea of people coming in from the cold and sharing a meal with their family, religious or otherwise. Easter was also about sex and fertility (the rabbit and the eggs anyone?) where I come from its only the religious who try to make it about them.

25. If creationists can’t do science, then why does the website Answersingenesis have proven science articles from creationists that do science?

A: Ambivalence Fallacy (again). Again, science is a very broad term covering many different areas and the term ‘proven’ is very ambiguous. If you said peer reviewed scientific journals from established experts in the fields of Biology and Geology instead, I’d pay more attention. But since we both know that isn’t the case here I’ll accept that the computer science/ theology majors that usually add the ‘Dr’ part to the names of the authors who write these articles make what you say in this question ‘technically’ true (except the ‘proven’ part). In this case it is a question of authority. I choose to listen to the experts of the fields required (biology, physics, etc.) instead of the people with a ‘Christian Science’ degree, especially since its biased groups like answersingenesis who usually hand out those degrees anyway.

26. If evolution is true, then why can’t white people compete to be good in basketball like black people? After all, white people can’t jump!

A: Personal Incredulity. I would also add the begging the question fallacy and possibly red herring to this as well. You’re trying to frame the question in such a way that the answer you want is in the question- and moving the argument in a direction that doesn’t add to the conversation but instead to a place where you think I won’t come out well. Also, I’m fairly certain there’s exceptions to this rule- I’m pretty sure there’s some good white basketball players out there. I come from the UK where basketball isn’t such a big deal so I have no background knowledge on this, so I could be wrong.

However, saying this, it isn't ridiculous to imagine that any general variations between races may be due to different environments that favoured different traits (Africa is different to Europe, Asia to America, etc.) I am no expert in this, so I won't comment further.

27. Where do you decide to fit God in your everyday life if you don’t believe in him?

A: Begging the question/ Burden of Proof. You’re assuming your position is the natural stance to take and putting me in a place where I have to justify my stance. Here it is anyway- I place God in the same place I fit Santa, the Tooth fairy, Leprechauns, Unicorns, etc. etc.

28. Why is Christianity the fastest growing religion if it’s false?

A: Citation. Last I heard it was Islam and non-belief that were rising. Even if Christianity were rising it doesn’t change the fact of whether it is true or not. A billion people could believe the Earth was square but I would still call them wrong.

29. Do you feel free to commit murders, homosexuality, go to strip bars, steal, commit adultery, and do other sins since you believe there is no God?

A: I will throw my hands up here and say that this is actually a good question to ask an Atheist. I did have to think about this one so well done on that. There’s nothing wrong in admitting your debating opponent has made a good point or asked a good question.

Whilst I do not believe in any moral absolutes in the universe I do believe in the Golden Rule: Do unto other as you would have them do unto you. It’s simply the best way to function in a society, hence why I don’t care about what people do in the bedroom or do with their bodies- it’s their choice so long as they leave me to make my own.

However if extreme circumstances dictated it necessary (i.e. my own survival) I can’t say I would be able to keep to that rule, but that’s only in extreme circumstances, and I would dare anyone to admit otherwise to that.

30. Why do the fossils say no to evolution?

A: Citation to your claim. Fossils don’t say anything. They’re rocks. If you are hearing rocks talking I suggest you seek help. OK in all seriousness show me the evidence (remember, from peer reviewed scientific journals from unbiased geologists across the globe) and I would start to question what I know. Simply asserting that fossils say no to evolution doesn’t make it so.

31. Why did Darwin admit that how the eye formed is impossible?

A: Again, Citation to your claim. I’d certainly be interested in knowing if this was true. Even if it was though it is true that Darwin had a lot of issues with his theory. He spent the rest of his life working on it.

When a Theory is first made it rarely remains the same in the face of new evidence. Over 150 years it has been fine-tuned with new evidence so that the current model fits best with what we know. One solid piece of evidence to counter evolution would throw the whole thing into question. Darwin wouldn’t recognise the theory of evolution today.

We have since been able to explain the eye and have even found species that still have remnants of an eye in early evolutionary forms as well as species that have evolved to not need eyes as much as they used to. We have seen how the eye can change over time.

32. Where did everything come from if there is no God?

A: The God of the Gaps argument. ‘We don’t know the answer, so God.’ In short, we don’t know either, just like you. Current science can only take us back to a moment after the big bang. There are a lot of ideas floating around at this stage and I for one look forward to what we find next.

I’m personally drawn to the ‘Big Cheese’, ‘Multiverse’ and 'One Electron Universe' theories which sound promising as well as exciting. None of this requires that a supreme intelligent being started it all- and even if it did, it would then beg the question of where that supreme intelligent being came from.

33. If there is no God, then why do we have laws that govern us, such as speed limits?

A: Because society had to function. I don’t look at society as something formed around the collective worship of deity but rather as a collective agreement that this is the best way for us to get along, rather than hitting each other with clubs.

I’m curious about this now, thought: what is the Bibles stance on speed limits?

34. Do you know where you are going when you die?

A: Another good question to ask! These types of questions are genuinely making me think about my stance and if you want to convert me someday then that is what you need to do.

I personally want to be cremated and placed in a biodegradable urn with a tree seed that could feed off the nutrients in my ashes. That way I could help towards keeping the planet clean and not just be some boring old gravestone. Those are creepy. I’d probably visit passed loved ones more if graveyards were vibrant forests rather than morbid tombstones everywhere.

As for the next life I don’t know and frankly I’m not too concerned- I’m in the same boat as every living thing that has ever existed, currently exists and will ever exist. Not existing isn’t something to be scared of- it didn’t bother me before I was born!

Having said that, however, if I were brought before God (if!) for judgement when I die, then it would depend. If I were judged by the quality of my actions and words in life, then God would be just and I should have nothing to fear (the golden rule, remember?)

If, however, I am to be judged based on how many times I exclaimed I loved God, attended church and never questioned dogma, then that is an unjust God who isn’t worth worshipping and I will happily walk into hell with the moral high ground.

If there is no God, then I will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of my loved ones.

I thank Marcus Aurelius for this observation.

35. Why do we not act like monkeys if it is true we came from monkeys?

A: Personal incredulity (Again!) I’m guessing these questions were written by different people because I’m genuinely impressed by some and slapping my head with the others. This is the latter.

Who says we don’t act like monkeys? I love climbing trees and eating bananas! I’m glad of my social circle and I groom a lot (well, as much as a bald man can!)

This question seems to imply that man is somehow superior to monkeys, but I think the implication is backwards- Theism and Creationism seem determined to prove that the universe is governed by an anthropomorphic being (one that has human characteristics- awareness, rules, jealous, loving, etc. etc.) but the way I see it the universe is completely indifferent to our existence- mountains don’t care if we fall off of them and water doesn’t care if it drowns us. The universe is what it is.

By comparison, primate species are incredibly anthropomorphic- they have tight family groups that they love, they can be jealous, they have rules, they have a mild awareness (enough to use tools and sign language) so it really isn’t that big of a stretch to think that we are distantly related, especially when you consider the fossil evidence!

36. Why do we display The Ten Commandments in the courtrooms if you say the Bible is not real?

A: Appeal to Authority. Which in this case doesn’t apply to me because I’m not in the US. I’m British and we don’t have that, I think. I’ve never been in a courtroom.

However, there is nothing wrong with a society remembering its roots- the UK has almost 1000 years of history and Christianity has been there throughout (remember- doesn’t make it true!)

As for the US system it has only been in recent times that these have popped up- America was founded on secular principles (something I feel we could do more with on both sides of the Atlantic) it’s nonsense that it was based on anything otherwise. Google any of the founding fathers and I’m sure you’d find similar sentiments, or even in the constitution. As a Brit I feel I shouldn’t need to have to tell you about the very piece of paper that cemented our loss in the war for independence!

37. Why should be it wrong to rape if God is not real?

A: Red herring/ appeal to emotion. Moral implications shouldn’t impact on a debate about the existence of God, Jehovah or otherwise. You’re attempting to frame the question in a way that provokes an emotional response and makes my stance appear less valid (but only appear!) (Again!)

As before- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s very simple. Rape in particular is a horrendous crime and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. As a society we have in place the means to severely punish those who rape as well as the social stigma attached to it (even in prison) to act as a deterant to would-be rapists. None of that, however, is dependant on the existence of a God.

38. Why is The Passion of The Christ very high on the Box Office?

A: Red Herring/ Bandwagon fallacy. This quiz is probably very old- again I have to reiterate that just because something is popular doesn’t make it true! At the time of writing Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, it doesn’t mean I’m going to preach about how we need to find Pandora. I don’t believe in the force because Star Wars is so popular, or Hogwarts because of Harry Potter.

I would also argue that box office ratings have nothing to do about the existence of Jesus of the veracity of the Bible. I find it weird that I need to point this out.

39. How can America not be a Christian nation if there are way more churches than mosques?

A: Bandwagon (again). America can have as many churches, mosques and temples as it wants. It doesn’t change the fact that it was founded on secular principles. Calling America a Christian country marginalises the other religions who are protected by the constitution to practice their faith (or non-faith) freely.

I may also argue that there are more McDonalds in America than pizza huts- does that make America a burger nation?

40. How is the bible not real if it’s the most popular book read by man?

A: Citation for your claim and bandwagon fallacy (again! This is becoming a habit!) At the time of writing the most popular book by number of sales is the Qur’an- 3 billion copies sold compared to 2.5 billion Bibles. Again, I have to reiterate (and it’s getting repetitive) that just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it’s true.

41. How did the moon form?

A: Red Herring. What does this have to do with the existence of God? I’ll indulge anyway.

As I understand the moon formed when, some 4.5 billion years ago, a mars sized planet name Theia crashed into the Earth. The resulting chaos threw a lot of debris into Earth’s gravity that came together to form the moon.

Again, I’m curious to know where creationists think it came from.

42. Did you know that famous scientists like Newton, Sir Richard Owen, Einstein, Galileo, and Copernicus were creationists?

A: Citation needed/ Appeal to Authority. Newton, Galileo and Copernicus I can understand since they were from a time where that was the norm. It doesn’t impact their contributions to science or lessens their impact on history.

Sir Richard Owen I would find hard to believe since his only problem with the theory of evolution was that it was too basic and was likely to be more complex (in a way he was right) and Albert Einstein only ever referred to God in a pantheistic sense (i.e. he believed in a non-anthropomorphic God which is against what is taught in the Torah- he was from a Jewish background) I find it highly unlikely that he was a creationist.

Admittedly the first three I just applied common sense to and the other two I had to look up (I didn’t know who Sir Richard was) but a simple search brought me the answers there.

43. Why do we not see black people come from white people?

A: Personal Incredulity. Because, as I explained before, genetic traits get passed down from one generation to the next. They can’t leap from one person to the other without somewhere to come from.

I would again add begging the question and possibly red herring fallacies to this as well. Again, you’re trying to frame the question in such a way that the answer you want is in the question- and moving the argument in a direction that doesn’t add to the debate but instead to a place where you think I won’t come out well.

This is a very vague question, by the way. It seems to imply that black and white people can't produce offsring together, which is completely incorrect.

44. Why are fruitflies still fruitflies in the lab experiments if they are claimed to prove evolution?

A: Personal Incredulity. Because a fruitfly isn’t going to be able to evolve into something that isn’t a fruitfly in the short time we’ve been able to observe. Give it a few thousand generations and maybe you’ll be surprised.

45. Did you know that the Piltdown Man was a hoax used for Darwinist propaganda?

A: The composition fallacy! At least this question is different. The argument being that because one thing wasn’t true the whole argument shouldn’t stand up. We have so much evidence pointing to evolution that it is no longer a question of if it did happen but how did it happen. Mistakes are going to be made as it would be in all endeavours, scientific or otherwise, but it doesn’t change the facts.

46. Why do we not see frogs turn into birds?

A: Personal Incredulity. This question has been asked multiple times in different versions. Refer to my previous answers.

47. Why is Fox News dishonest if it is a network run by truthful Christians?

A: Citation for your claim/ Red Herring/ Begging the question/ Appeal to emotion. You would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all Christians are truthful. The Vatican wasn’t exactly honest in its dealings with the paedophile ring it tried to cover up! (A low blow I know!)

There are many examples of untruthful Christians as I am sure there are many examples of untruthful Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists as well as communists, capitalists, feminists, etc. etc. and etc. Christians don’t own a monopoly on honest or dishonest behaviour.

As for Fox news, I’m not so sure a network with such a heavy political bias can always be considered ‘honest’, I genuinely thought Bill O’Reilly was a comic character like Borat when I first saw him! The rest of the world can see Fox news footage and generally laughs at it- ‘Tide goes in tide goes out, you can’t explain that!’ Really?! (It’s the moon, by the way, Bill. Were you not taught that at school?)

Again I need to state, though, that the honesty/ dishonesty of a television channel, intentional or otherwise, doesn’t impact the debate on whether a God (or Gods) exist.

48. Why did Hitler fail to make a superior race if evolution is true?

A: Appeal to emotion. Subtly trying to equate Hitler and Evolution is another logical fallacy. In fact I’d also say it’s a combination of a loaded question mixed with a genetic fallacy. You don’t want me to answer it, you want me to say something that may be taken out of context and perhaps later use it for an ad hominem attack whilst also assuming that absolutely everything Hitler believed/ did makes it evil by association, like you did with the questions about race and rape. Adolf Hitler was a human being- he was also an artist, does that make art evil? He also breathed oxygen, are you really going to breathe the same air as him? He was also confirmed catholic…

As for the ‘Master Race’ thing I’d say that he may well have created a new breed of human if any eugenic plans he may have had carried on as they did. Thankfully he was stopped before we had a chance to find out.

As for eugenics in general, setting aside the moral implications of human breeding programs, we have today certain species (particularly dogs and, as mentioned above, bananas) that have been successfully bred into certain forms. The British bulldog wouldn’t exist today if it weren’t for selective breeding. The fact is as with any eugenics project it would take a lot longer than the time Hitler had to see the results. The Bulldog in particular was a process that started over a century ago and even with modern genetic science we are scratching the surface on what we might be able to do.

Of course, there is still a lot to discuss in terms of what would be immoral and what could be allowed- modern purebred Bulldogs are generally suffering with genetic problems no one could have foreseen when they first started breeding them, and history is unfortunately littered with royal families whose genetic flaws due to inbreeding were all too well known.

​

If you made it this far then thanks for reading- I feel I should mention, again, there were certain questions which I felt I should avoid (the race, Hitler and rape related ones specifically) but I got the sense the writers were trying to put people off of answering them, and I set out to answer the 'unanswerable', so I did to the best of my ability.