News and Updates

Dear Readers,

Thanks for taking the time to read my blog and I hope there is a lot of content to keep you happy while I continue to churn out new stuff.

Currently I'm working on refuting David Marshall's essay titled The God Delusion: 160 Errors, Gross Exaggerations, and Highly Dubious Claims (though as he's edited it the number has changed). You can find an older discussion on Amazon.com about this list and view others' opinions (see also here). Some mirror my own and agree that it is truly a horrible list. But don't take my word for it. The first link above goes right to it so you can read it yourself. Now, many of the claims in the essay are in Marshall's book The Truth Behind the New Atheism so in a few places I simply say to go read my review to save on time. There is a lot of information to go through so this project might take some time but I'll keep you all updated.

Another review I'm set to begin shortly is of an older book (from 1997) called God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World, by Patrick Glynn.

Why did I decide to read and refute such an old book? Well, I got to thinking about my first attempts at reading apologetic literature and the very first books I read were Lee Strobel's The Case For A Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God and God: The Evidence. Since the author of Daylight Atheism already wrote an excellent rebuttal to Strobel this is one book I will forgo on writing a review.

I remember laughing at some of Glynn's claims and taking others seriously since I was just beginning my search and did not have the amount of knowledge I have now. So, I did what I always do when I'm confronted by a claim I'm unsure of: I do research to find out as much as I can and make up my own mind.

I think it will be interesting to read this book again and recall my first impressions of the arguments and how several of them seemed convincing at the time. Then, with my current knowledge, refute the arguments.

It looks like that's all I have to say for now.

Thanks for reading!

News and Updates

A Man Stands Up to the TSA's Molestation

In my my last post I mentioned the TSA's new guidelines for pat-downs and how they are entirely inappropriate, and I'd consider it a form of molestation - forced molestation if you ask me - and that should not be allowed. Now, apparently, the government and their agents are not only allowed to kill people with no repercussions, but molest you without your consent. What in the hell kind of world are we living in when a stranger is sanctioned by the government to feel the intimate areas of your body?!

An individual who recently had a run in with TSA agents while trying to board a flight tells his story here. He was told that for not cooperating with the groping and nude pictures being taken of him he could not leave the airport and would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.

This is insane I tell you. Here is his post and I agree with him 100%.

[These events took place roughly between 5:30 and 6:30 AM, November 13th in Terminal 2 of the San Diego International Airport. I'm writing this approximately 2 1/2 hours after the events transpired, and they are correct to the best of my recollection. I will admit to being particularly fuzzy on the exact order of events when dealing with the agents after getting my ticket refunded; however, all of the events described did occur.

I had my phone recording audio and video of much of these events. It can be viewed below.

Please spread this story as far and wide as possible. I will make no claims to copyright or otherwise.]

This morning, I tried to fly out of San Diego International Airport but was refused by the TSA. I had been somewhat prepared for this eventuality. I have been reading about the millimeter wave and backscatter x-ray machines and the possible harm to health as well as the vivid pictures they create of people's naked bodies. Not wanting to go through them, I had done my research on the TSA's website prior to traveling to see if SAN had them. From all indications, they did not. When I arrived at the security line, I found that the TSA's website was out of date. SAN does in fact utilize backscatter x-ray machines.

I made my way through the line toward the first line of "defense": the TSA ID checker. This agent looked over my boarding pass, looked over my ID, looked at me and then back at my ID. After that, he waved me through. SAN is still operating metal detectors, so I walked over to one of the lines for them. After removing my shoes and making my way toward the metal detector, the person in front of me in line was pulled out to go through the backscatter machine. After asking what it was and being told, he opted out. This left the machine free, and before I could go through the metal detector, I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so." At this point, I was informed that I would be subject to a pat down, and I waited for another agent.

A male agent (it was a female who had directed me to the backscatter machine in the first place), came and waited for me to get my bags and then directed me over to the far corner of the area for screening. After setting my things on a table, he turned to me and began to explain that he was going to do a "standard" pat down. (I thought to myself, "great, not one of those gropings like I've been reading about".) After he described, the pat down, I realized that he intended to touch my groin. After he finished his description but before he started the pat down, I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." He, a bit taken aback, informed me that he would have to involve his supervisor because of my comment.

We both stood there for no more than probably two minutes before a female TSA agent (apparently, the supervisor) arrived. She described to me that because I had opted out of the backscatter screening, I would now be patted down, and that involved running hands up the inside of my legs until they felt my groin. I stated that I would not allow myself to be subject to a molestation as a condition of getting on my flight. The supervisor informed me that it was a standard administrative security check and that they were authorized to do it. I repeated that I felt what they were doing was a sexual assault, and that if they were anyone but the government, the act would be illegal. I believe that I was then informed that if I did not submit to the inspection, I would not be getting on my flight. I again stated that I thought the search was illegal. I told her that I would be willing to submit to a walk through the metal detector as over 80% of the rest of the people were doing, but I would not be groped. The supervisor, then offered to go get her supervisor.

I took a seat in a tiny metal chair next to the table with my belongings and waited. While waiting, I asked the original agent (who was supposed to do the pat down) if he had many people opt out to which he replied, none (or almost none, I don't remember exactly). He said that I gave up a lot of rights when I bought my ticket. I replied that the government took them away after September 11th. There was silence until the next supervisor arrived. A few minutes later, the female agent/supervisor arrived with a man in a suit (not a uniform). He gave me a business card identifying him as David Silva, Transportation Security Manager, San Diego International Airport. At this point, more TSA agents as well as what I assume was a local police officer arrived on the scene and surrounded the area where I was being detained. The female supervisor explained the situation to Mr. Silva. After some quick back and forth (that I didn't understand/hear), I could overhear Mr. Silva say something to the effect of, "then escort him from the airport." I again offered to submit to the metal detector, and my father-in-law, who was near by also tried to plead for some reasonableness on the TSA's part.

The female supervisor took my ID at this point and began taking some kind of report with which I cooperated. Once she had finished, I asked if I could put my shoes back on. I was allowed to put my shoes back on and gather my belongs. I asked, "are we done here" (it was clear at this point that I was going to be escorted out), and the local police officer said, "follow me". I followed him around the side of the screening area and back out to the ticketing area. I said apologized to him for the hassle, to which he replied that it was not a problem.

I made my way over to the American Airlines counter, explained the situation, and asked if my ticket could be refunded. The woman behind the counter furiously typed away for about 30 seconds before letting me know that she would need a supervisor. She went to the other end of the counter. When she returned, she informed me that the ticket was non-refundable, but that she was still trying to find a supervisor. After a few more minutes, she was able to refund my ticket. I told her that I had previously had a bad experience with American Airlines and had sworn never to fly with them again (I rationalized this trip since my father-in-law had paid for the ticket), but that after her helpfulness, I would once again be willing to use their carrier again.

At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn't know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents' supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area. When I asked why, he explained that I may have an incendiary device and whether or not that was true needed to be determined. I told him that I would submit to a walk through the metal detector, but that was it; I would not be groped. He told me that their procedures are on their website, and therefore, I was fully informed before I entered the airport; I had implicitly agreed to whatever screening they deemed appropriate. I told him that San Diego was not listed on the TSA's website as an airport using Advanced Imaging Technology, and I believed that I would only be subject to the metal detector. He replied that he was not a webmaster, and I asked then why he was referring me to the TSA's website if he didn't know anything about it. I again refused to re-enter the screening area.

The man asked me to stay put while he walked off to confer with the officer and Mr. Silva. They went about 20 feet away and began talking amongst themselves while I waited. I couldn't over hear anything, but I got the impression that the police officer was recounting his version of the events that had transpired in the screening area (my initial refusal to be patted down). After a few minutes, I asked loudly across the distance if I was free to leave. The man dismissively held up a finger and said, "hold on". I waited. After another minute or so, he returned and asked for my name. I asked why he needed it, and reminded him that the female supervisor/agent had already taken a report. He said that he was trying to be friendly and help me out. I asked to what end. He reminded me that I could be sued civilly and face a $10,000 fine and that my cooperation could help mitigate the penalties I was facing. I replied that he already had my information in the report that was taken and I asked if I was free to leave. I reminded him that he was now illegally detaining me and that I would not be subject to screening as a condition of leaving the airport. He told me that he was only trying to help (I should note that his demeanor never suggested that he was trying to help. I was clearly being interrogated.), and that no one was forcing me to stay. I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, "then I'm leaving". He replied, "then we'll bring a civil suit against you", to which I said, "you bring that suit" and walked out of the airport.

Audio and video of the incident can be found at the above blog.

Please visit the first link above and if you or a loved one plan on flying “opt out” of the naked body scanners and refuse this government mandated molestation of innocent people! If enough people rise up hopefully we can stop this travesty from getting any worse.

A Man Stands Up to the TSA's Molestation

Opt Out Day: November 24th 2010

At wewontfly.com they are announcing a National Opt Out Day where you opt out of having your naked body photographed by TSA agents. If you’re not flying tell your friends and/or relatives to opt out and retain their privacy and their dignity while they travel about the country.

Not too long ago I recounted my experience with the body scanners and helped spread the word. I hope you will do the same.



Below is a video of radio host Meg McLain who opted out and was treated like a criminal for doing so. After opting out she was told to stand there to have her body frisked...or as their “new” policy requires, felt up and have her intimate areas of her body groped. This is truly disturbing, though she refused and had her plane ticket ripped in half because of her protest. Perhaps the TSA should change their name to XXX with their naked body scanners and their intrusive, undignified, and unnecessary frisking procedures.

Opt Out Day: November 24th 2010

Victor Reppert and John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith: The Debate Continues

A few weeks ago I was dialogging with Victor Reppert, author of the dangerous idea blog, and he sent me a link to a website that he and John Loftus had been debating. Mr. Reppert claimed that this website contained an example of a christian successfully taking the OTF because they examined both the bible and qur'an and they concluded that the bible was more trustworthy. Loftus disagreed and so I decided to defend Loftus' argument and I was sent a link that didn't lead anywhere. Confused, I clicked the navigation buttons and found a page I thought was the same one Loftus and Reppert were discussing since it also compared the bible and qur'an. I was under the impression that Mr. Reppert had just made a mistake and sent me the wrong link, however, during our discussion Mr. Reppert commented that he didn't believe we were talking about the same website and finally he told me the original website was currently down and that's why I found a broken page when I went to view the site for the first time.

So, the first half of this discussion can pretty much be tossed out the window, though after reading the original website ironically my comments are much the same and, while a bit better than the other website, this author also failed to properly take the OTF. In the following post I will explain my reasons why.

The paper linked to above is called The Bible and the Qur'an: An Historical Comparison and the author's Introduction stated the following:

Often, when we find ourselves in conversation with Muslims the authority for that which we are discussing comes up and we are forced to answer the question: "Which is the true Word of God, the Bible or the Qur'an?" As a Christian, I immediately affirm my own scriptures, maintaining that the Bible is the intrinsic Word of God. Obviously, for any Muslims, or others who may not have a religious position, this answer is not credible, as it involves a subjective statement of faith, one which cannot be proved or disproved, as there is no possibility of enquiry or verification. I am certain that when the same question is posed to a Muslim he likewise answers that the Qur'an qualifies as the final Word of God, and any further discussion ends. Both Christianity and Islam derive their set of beliefs from their revelations, the Bible and the Qur'an, yet we find that they disagree on a number of areas. One need only compare how each scripture deals with Jesus, sin, atonement, and salvation to understand that there are contradictory assertions held by both. Thus it is important to delineate which scripture can best make the claim to be the final and perfect Word of God.

When two documents which claim to be true are in contradiction, one must ascertain whether the contradictions can be explained adequately using criteria which a non-believer, or a third party, can accept; in other words, using criteria which go beyond the adherents' personal faith commitment to their revelation. Essentially one must ask whether the Qur'an or the Bible can stand up to verification, or whether they can withstand an external critical analysis for their authenticity. This is an immensely complex and difficult subject. Since both Islam and Christianity claim to receive their beliefs from the revealed truth which they find in their respective scriptures, to suspect the source for revealed truth, the scriptures for each faith, is to put the integrity of both Christianity and Islam on trial.

Obviously this is not a task that one should undertake lightly, and I don't intend to do so here. For that reason, and because of the lack of time and space, I have decided not to make a comparison between the claims the two revelations make for themselves, but simply ask the question whether the two scriptures can be corroborated by history; in other words whether there is any historical data or evidence which we can find that can help us verify that which they claim is true.

start with the presupposition that God has intersected time and space and has revealed His truth to His creation. We should expect to see, therefore, evidence of those revelations in history, and be able to corroborate the historical claims the revelations make by an historical analysis. Both the Bible and the Qur'an claim to have been revealed at a certain place, and over a period of time. They speak of people, places, and events. If they are true, then we should be able to find evidence for their claims, and especially corroboration for what they say in the period in which they themselves profess they were revealed; the Bible between 1,447 B.C. and 70 A.D., and the Qur'an between 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. My intent in this study is to look at the historical data which exists in these periods, and ascertain whether it supports or denies the claims for the historicity of both the Bible and the Qur'an. This I will attempt to do by looking at three areas of evidence; that provided by manuscripts, documents and archaeological data from the periods mentioned above. If the manuscript, documentary and archaeological evidence supports the claims for the Bible or the Qur'an, then we can assume their reliability. However, if the evidence denies their historicity, then we have to question their authenticity.

Here, the author begins much better than the last article I had examined, though he commits a few of the same errors. Next, I will discuss the first examination the author puts the bible and qur'an through: a comparison on the manuscript evidence.

A manuscript analysis of the Qur'an does present us with unique problems not encountered with the Bible. While we can find multiple manuscripts for the Bible written 700-900 years earlier, at a time when durable paper was not even used, the manuscripts for the Qur'an within the century in which it was purported to have been compiled, the seventh century, simply do not exist. Prior to 750 A.D. (thus for 100 years after Muhammad's death) we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can give us a window into this formative period of Islam (Wansbrough 1978:58-59). In fact the primary sources which we possess are from 150-300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those events (Nevo 1994:108; Wansbrough 1978:119; Crone 1987:204). For that reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on other material, much of which no longer exists.

Right here with the author's first analysis you can see that he holds a double standard regarding the bible and accuses the qur'an of being untrustworthy because the events were committed to paper so long after the events were reported to have happened. Of course, the bible suffers the same fate, though the author makes various illogical excuses why this isn't a problem for his bible, but is a problem for the qur'an. The author says,

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

True, not all biblical manuscripts are as late as the qur'an's, however, for several of the gospels their dates have been estimated to be much later than the events they describe. For example, 80-130 for Luke; 80-100 for Mathew; and 65-80 for Mark. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/) This span of time is more than enough time for errors and legends to creep into any story that might be spread. It's known that as little time as mere days or weeks can a story be embellished or distorted that it barely resembles the original anymore. (Jesus is Dead, Price; 36-37) Because of this fact it doesn't really matter how much time has passed. Both the bible and qur'an's manuscripts could very well have changed substantially within the estimated time between the event and when it was written down.

Next, the author argues that because there are so many more copies of the bible we can more easily recreate the original documents, and because the qur'an lacks as many copies the bible is more accurate to what was originally written. The author writes,

Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one's possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness's agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.

Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur'an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

This argument is nonsense and is a typical apologetic argument that is easily seen to be untruthful. Just because you have many copies of something doesn't mean you're able to figure out what was originally written. Take this counter-example in Robert Price's newest book The Case Against The Case for Christ:

[…] Since the autographa have not survived and nobody has laid eyes on them for 2,000 years, how could anybody possibly know what was in them – much less, which copies approximate most closely to them? Since there is nothing to which existing manuscripts can be compared, the very ideas of the original manuscripts and which manuscripts approximate most closely to them are useless ideas and should be abandoned. I can judge that a photo is a good likeness of you if and only if I have seen you and know what you look like. If I have not, then I am the last person on earth to ask. The situation is not improved by assuring me that there are thousands of photos of you. The fact is that I have never seen you, so tell million photos would not help. (98-99)

Because the author is using some well known apologetic tactics it's clear he is not looking at his bible with the view of an outsider. While not as glaringly obvious as the original paper I read, this author is still not taking the OTF since he is allowing his biases to distort the evidence in favor of his bible.

The author continues to discuss the various manuscripts in the last paragraph and ignores the fact that even a gap of 50 years is more than enough time for errors in the story, or embellishments, to occur.

In the next section on archeology the author also makes some mistakes and did not properly investigate these claims about the bible, something a true outsider should do. Several examples of his bible being confirmed by archeology are flawed.

The following are a few examples given and why they are wrong.

1) Abraham's name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

I couldn't find any information about this alleged inscription, though Finkelstein and Silberman in their book The Bible Unearthed argue that there is not a shred of evidence that any of the patriarchs are historical, including Abraham. (35)

The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.

Actually, the painting only depicts a group moving to Egypt, something that occurred throughout history and so to argue this depicts some specific event in the bible is highly speculative, if not downright question-begging. As Finkelstein and Silberman said,

These demographic patterns along the eastern delta – of Asiatic people immigrating to Egypt to be conscripted to forced work in the delta – are not restricted to the Bronze Age. Rather, they reflect the age-old rhythms in the region, including later centuries in the Iron Age, closer to the time when the Exodus narrative was put in writing. (The Bible Unearthed; 54)

The author continues to make a variety of claims about the bible and the findings of archeology:

The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then.

The use of the various structures that supposedly represent the conquest of Joshua as told in the bible is faulty because the story of the many conquests does not match the archaeological evidence. For example, at Jerico, where Joshua was said to have destroyed a fortification, there was no sign of any fortifications, or any sign of destruction. The same at several other locations that were said to have been conquered by Joshua. (The Bible Unearthed; 81-83)

Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.

The author fails to list his source for this claim, but according to Finkelstein and Silberman excavations turned up nothing in the way of a settlement at Jerico in the 13th Century. The earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the 14th Century, was small and poor, and unfortified. (The Bible Unearthed; 81-82)

David's capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

These shafts were “cut and extended over hundreds of years. It was first hewn in the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1550 BCE) and then expanded in late monarchic times, in the 8th century BCE. With such a long history, this find cannot prove that the biblical story of David’s conquest of Jerusalem reflects a historical reality, but rather could be a folktale that developed in later periods [...]” (David and Solomon, Finkelstein; Silberman; 271)

While not as bad as the other article comparing the bible and qur'an, the author of this article still made many glaring mistakes and failed to look at the evidence against his bible. In some cases he also failed to realize the same shortcomings in his bible that also plagues the qur'an. Because of this fact I continue to argue that no christian has successfully taken the Outsider Test for Faith. In each case I've examined they've failed to truly put their biases aside and look at the evidence at hand and the problems with their own bible.

Victor Reppert and John Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith: The Debate Continues

A Christian Apologist Asks, “Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?” No, it Doesn't

At the christian apologist website godandscience.org Rich Deem has written a piece aiming to show that atheists are more immoral than christians. To do this, he utilizes a single study by The Barna Group and creates his own chart to show just how “immoral” atheists are but his chart doesn't show what he claims.



When looking at the chart you see a variety of actions that are certainly highly immoral, such as having sex with someone who isn't your spouse and lying, which are probably the only two truly immoral things on that list and who are most responsible for these acts? Christians. All the others are relative and depend on the circumstances, as in the case of gambling and viewing pornography. These are not necessarily immoral as long as you're not blowing your nest egg or so obsessed with porn that you're ignoring your spouse. And as far as gambling who did more? Atheists or christians?! Christians.

I'm not sure what the author was trying to prove, but he just proved the opposite conclusion! In addition, there are many studies proving that atheists are just as, if not more, moral than christians. Based upon Deem's own evidence and the several studies I cited, it seems Deem's conclusion doesn't match the facts.

Near the end of the article Deem writes,

Even so, the atheists who write us tend to lie on a regular basis. They tell me they have read x number of pages on the website and go on some kind of rant. However, when I check the log for what they actually did, usually they glance at one or two pages for less than a minute before going off to write their email. When I point out their lies, they never write back. Apparently, lying by others is not moral, but the rule does not apply to atheists themselves.

As far as his claim about how atheists supposedly lie all the time he fails to give any evidence, though I have a lot of evidence that a few christians I've engaged have lied about me over the course of a few years. But these aren't the only christians who have been caught lying. See here and here.

And their lies were much more serious than allegedly not reading as many pages as they said. Maybe they're just fast readers, or skimmed the articles quickly to gather the overall argument? Deem can't really say these atheists were liars based on that little of information. It's clearly his bias at work.

This also proves what I've said in the past about how many christians' views on morality are so backwards and hypocritical and causes many christians to become blind to what true morality is. It's no surprise then that us atheists come out ahead regarding morality.

So, I've disproven Deem's chart and countered with several more studies and examples that prove the opposite conclusion. I really wish christians would stop with this nonsense about how atheism leads to immorality because all the facts say otherwise.

A Christian Apologist Asks, “Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?” No, it Doesn't

The Lucifer Effect - November 2010

I read a few weeks ago about a Phoenix, AZ cop named Richard Chrisman who is being put on trial for murder, though that’s not all he is guilty of. In 2005 he planted a crack pipe on a woman and was caught red handed doing so.

Here is the video:



At 3:15 in you can clearly see one cop giving the crack pipe to the other and puts it down her dress planting “evidence.” At about 3:45 in, the clearly victimized woman seems to become belligerent (and I certainly don’t blame her! I would be too if something were planted on me!) and is being controlled and lead away by the cops. While all this is going on it looks as if the female cop is laughing about something and being a bitch...looks like Chrisman isn’t the only asshole on the scene.

Here is the above story:

Phoenix P.D.'s Killer Cop Indicted for Murder -- and We Got Some Video of the Accused Officer Planting Crack Pipe on Woman
By James King, Thu., Oct. 14 2010 @ 1:32PM

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office today announced that the officer involved in last week's shooting of an unarmed domestic violence suspect has been charged with murder.

If you're unfamiliar with the case click here.

It's nuts.

The county attorney also provided some background on the accused officer, 37-year-old Richard Chrisman, including a little video of him planting a crack pipe on a woman in an unrelated incident.

It's pretty blatant. Check out the video after the jump.


County Attorney Rick Romley says the amount of evidence against Chrisman is what caused his office to up the charge from only aggravated assault to second-degree murder, aggravated assault, and cruelty to animals.

"There was a totality of evidence that came my way that led me to believe this is the appropriate charge," Romley said at a press conference this morning.

Chrisman is currently free on bond and Romely says he won't be re-arrested on the new charges -- something attorney Michael Manning, who represents the family of the victim, 29-year-old Danny Rodriguez, says he will ask Romley to reconsider.

Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris supports Romley's decision and says there's a good chance Chrisman will be fired from the department before he even goes to trial. He says he will meet with Chrisman in the next few days to give him a chance to present his case as to why he should be allowed to keep his job.

We also found out today that this isn't the first time Chrisman's been in trouble with the department. He is on the Brady List (a list of cops known to have lied under oath) for planting a crack pipe on a woman during an arrest. Harris claims it was done basically just to mess with her.

The incident was caught on tape. Check it out below (that's Chrisman cavalierly swingin' his criminal beater -- despite there being no apparent reason for him to use it).

Phoenix Sergeant Tommy Thompson tells New Times the woman in the video was being arrested for an outstanding warrant. It was determined that Chrisman and the other officers planted the pipe to "get a response" from the woman, not to frame her for a crime.

Chief Harris says Chrisman was only suspended for one day.

Thompson says he's not sure whether such a short suspension for something like this is standard procedure in the department because, he says, he can't remember a time before when it's happened.

Either way, it's a disgusting abuse of power and Chrisman got off easy. That might be part of the reason he felt justified in shooting an unarmed man and his dog.

Chrisman's arraignment is scheduled for October 21.

The Lucifer Effect - November 2010