There is no way a god could ground moral claims

I recently noticed a Twitlonger post by a philosophy student that I am sure you will agree it is more than worthy of a reprint:

It is often said that 'morality is real' (i.e., some moral claims are true) only if there is a god or gods to make these moral claims true. I am not sure why anyone would still believe this. But I thought that I ought to rehearse a few (extremely old) arguments about the matter. I take credit for none of the core arguments that I'm about to present. (In particular, I direct people to Plato and TM Scanlon.)

So it is said that moral claims -- of the form 'You are morally obligated to X' or 'Morality requires you to X' -- are true only if there is a god to ground such claims. As Plato raised (regarding the matter of piety) in his "Gorgias", it is doubtful that a god could play such a role. Consider some putative commandment of a god that we humans X (i.e., do not kill, or whatever). We must ask: Why has the god commanded that we X, and what role does the god's commandment play in the generation of our obligation to X.

Two options present themselves. Either the god has commanded us to X because our X-ing is obligatory on independent grounds, or our X-ing becomes obligatory because the god has commanded us to X.

The first option makes god redundant. If our X-ing is obligatory on independent grounds, then the god is playing no role in the generation of our obligation and the truth/objectivity of the moral claim in question.

The second option makes morality's foundation arbitrary. If we are obligated to X simply because the god says so, and there is no independent explanation of why we ought to X, then morality loses its force. How could we possibly be required to do something *simply* because a being has told us to do so for no reason. (Remember: if he has told us to X for a reason, e.g., because it is independently good or required that we X, then god becomes redundant.)

Most people who wish to believe that god grounds moral claims realize that the first option immediately undermines their position. So, when presented with this problem, they attempt to deal with the second option, by explaining why a god's demand that we X may have force for us, despite the fact that her/his demand is arbitrary. For example, they suggest that we have an incentive to X, because if we do not X (i.e., if we flout god's commandments), then we will be punished by god. Of course, this is a ridiculous idea. If the ultimate explanation of my obligation to X (e.g., my obligation not to torture others, my obligation not to steal your children, and so on) is that my failure to X will result in punishment, then we are no longer talking about moral obligation. Such an account leaves us without any explanation of why it is *wrong* to flout one's moral obligations; instead, acting immorally is simply imprudent from a purely self-interested perspective. And recall that on this account god's punishing us is entirely arbitrary, because his commandment was arbitrary in the first place. This models god as an abusive bully who pushes us around and punishes us for no reason (literally).

In an attempt to get away from this problem, some people claim that it is true that a god's demand that we X is what obligates us to X, but they say explain that god is a loving being who issues commandments to us because she/he loves us. But this, by itself, cannot help. If what this means is that the god in question tells us to X because our X-ing is good for us, in humanity's interests, or whatever, then this is actually just a version of taking the first option. And recall that the first option leaves god as redundant. If X-ing is something that I ought to do irrespective of the god's commandment, then the god is playing no role in the generation of the moral obligation. Alternatively, if there is no sense in which I ought to X independently of the loving god's commandment, then it is unclear why his commanding me to X could be a matter of his loving me. (In other words, if there is no independent reason for me to X, then why would someone who loves me demand that I X?)

This brings us back to square one. The result is that there is no role that god could play in generating moral obligations and grounding the truth/objectivity of moral claims. If a god tells us to act in certain ways because we have good independent reason to act in those ways, then god is redundant. And if god tells us to act in certain ways without any reason at all, then these putative moral demands are utterly arbitrary.

Not only is a god not required to ground moral claims, but there is no way that a god *could* ground moral claims. [my emphasis]

Pope whipping himself described as act of Christian perfection

Sometimes I feel like a political cartoonist upon learning that Richard Nixon had been elected President. When they say reality is stranger than fiction, they aren't kidding. Pope John Paul II was apparently fond of whipping himself with a belt. His main promoter for sainthood, Monsignor Slawomir Oder, describes this as an "act of Christian perfection": http://bit.ly/aUrVeh Perfection is right - perfectly bat shit crazy.

Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christian

In today's Washington Post, Richard Dawkins let both guns fly at the hypocrisy of Christian theology as it relates to the condemnation of Pat Robertson's controversial comments about Haiti. Here is an excerpt:

Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the obnoxious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus' incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the 'sins' of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the 'sin' of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed?

The complete article can be found here: http://bit.ly/6z6seR Great stuff.

I'd call it a Gish Gallop but that would be too complimentary to my host

Here is the feed from my discussion with aspiring libertarian talk radio host Jenifer Felt. Two points to keep in mind when before you click on this: 1. It's pretty funny; and 2. You'll never get those 60 minutes of our life back: http://bit.ly/5BF4ZJ

My modest coming out party

[ Just tried to call @jen004's "talk radio" show and was told that it is scheduled to start at 6 p.m. EST. I'll call back then. ]

I'll be having a blogtalkradio debate/discussion with #Christian twitterer @jen004 at 5 p.m. EST today (Sunday, January 24, 2010) at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jen004 For those unable to catch it, I'll endeavour to have a transcript prepared and posted. You'll also be able to listen and/or download the episode after we're done.

The Christian advocate/host is Jenifer Felt from Corpus Christie, Texas. Her website is called Unpopular Opinion and here is an excerpt from her most recent post:

My mother said often when I was growing up, “If being a Christian was a crime, and you were accused of that crime, and someone took you into a court of law to convict you…would they be able to present enough evidence to convict you of being a Christian beyond a reasonable doubt?” Meaning, of course, that the evidence of your Christianity should be blatant and irrefutable. That video was clear and concise evidence that I am a Christian and I am proud of my Christianity.

So, in conclusion, THANK YOU [other twitterers] @BibleAlsoSays and @iComix for making me feel even prouder of my faith. Thank you for recognizing how strong I am in my beliefs. Thank you for questioning me, because without people questioning you, you may become lax in your beliefs. Thank you.

(P.S. I did get angry at the continued attacks on my character last night. I do have a problem immediately finding peace in the face of vicious accusations. I prayed last night for God to forgive me for becoming indignant, and also for Him to grant me the ability to take their words and realize they say them because they do not know His love. I also asked that He forgive them for their words, and that they will be led to one day serve Him and join me in Heaven.)

I plan to explain to Ms. Felt and her listener(s) how she is deluded. It should be a hoot.

Reverend admits he believes because he needs to & not because it's rational

I am a confirmed Anglican who was schooled (but not reared) by Roman Catholic Irish Christian Brothers. I confess that I still have a soft spot for Anglicans, the vast majority of whom I am convinced are closet atheists. In any event, this recent quote by the Anglican Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, the Reverend Dr. Giles Fraser, is priceless:

The word "theodicy" describes the intellectual attempt to justify the existence of God in the face of human suffering. Coined by Leibniz at the beginning of the eighteenth century, he argued that out of the various possible worlds that God could have created, he might have created the best of these, a world containing less suffering than all the other options available. With this suggestion, Leibniz sought to explain how it's at least logically possible that a merciful God could create a world with the suffering that it has.

And then, in 1755, some years after Leibniz published his famous argument, a massive earthquake hit Lisbon on the morning of the first of November, the popular feast day of All Saints. A 15ft crack opened down the middle of the street. Locals watched the tide disappear only to return as a huge wave that drowned most of the city. 30-40 thousand people were killed.

It was in the face of this terrible disaster that Voltaire came to mount his celebrated attack upon Leibniz in Candide. Voltaire cast Leibniz as the foolish Dr Pangloss, ready to trot out the absurd idea that this is the best of all possible worlds whatever misfortune befell him. The satire was biting. He was claiming that all theologians seem to care about in the face of human misery is getting God off the hook. Theodicy, Voltaire insists, is a moral disgrace and a sick joke.

Well, I have no answer to the question of how God can allow so many innocent people to die in natural disasters, like the earthquakes of Lisbon or Haiti. And indeed, I can quite understand that many will regard these events as proof positive that religious people are living a foolish dream like the idiotic Dr Pangloss.

And yet, I still believe. For there exists a place in me - deeper than my rational self - that compels me to respond to tragedies like Haiti not with argument but with prayer. On a very basic level, what people find in religion is not so much the answers, but a means of responding to and living with life's hardest questions. And this is why a tragedy like this doesn't, on the whole, make believers suddenly wake up to the foolishness of their faith. On the contrary, it mostly tends to deepen our sense of a need for God.

What many believers mean by faith is not that we have a firm foundation in rational justification. Those, like Leibniz, who try to claim this are, I believe, rationalizing something that properly exists on another level. Which is why, at a moment like this, I'd prefer to leave the arguments to others. For me, this is a time quietly to light a candle for the people of Haiti and to offer them up to God in my prayers. May the souls of the departed rest in peace.

Thank-you to English philosopher Stephen Law for alerting me to this quote on his website at: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/

We're all Michael Vick

This opinion piece was published by the Philadelphia Daily News in 2007. I am reproducing it now to point out the moral schitzophrenia of those who continue to protest against Michael Vick at his NFL games (on the basis that his participation in dogfighting was morally reprehensible) and yet continue to consume animal products.

We're all Michael Vick

By GARY L. FRANCIONE*

MICHAEL VICK has, according to his lawyer, agreed to plead guilty to federal dogfighting charges against him.

Over past weeks, there's been an enormous amount of coverage of the dog-fighting operation sponsored by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Vick, who, along with three other men, has been indicted on federal felony charges.

The details of the charges claim that Vick sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows have been filled with talking heads from the "humane community" condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick.

Please let me be very clear from the outset: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.

But I must say that the Vick case rather dramatically demonstrates what I call our "moral schizophrenia" about animals.

That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.

In this country alone, we kill more than 10 billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting.

There is no "need" for us to eat meat, dairy or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.

There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products.

There is something bizarre about Reebok and Nike, which use leather in their shoes, suspending products endorsed by Vick. They're not going to allow a guy who allegedly tortures dogs to endorse products that contain tortured cows.

In one of my books about animal ethics, I introduced a character named Simon the Sadist, who derived pleasure from blowtorching dogs. We would all regard such conduct as monstrous because we all agree that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on animals - and pleasure, amusement and convenience cannot count as satisfying the "necessity" requirement.

But then I asked the further question: How are those of us who eat animal flesh and animal products any different from Simon? He enjoys blowtorching dogs - we enjoy the taste of flesh and animal products. But we and Simon both kill sentient beings (although we may pay others to do the dirty work) because we derive enjoyment from it.

According to reports, authorities removed from Vick's property a "rape stand" used to hold dogs for mating. "Rape racks" are used to hold cows for impregnation. When a dog is involved, we are troubled - when a cow is involved, we ignore it.

Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It's strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former. How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?

We are all Simon.

We are all Michael Vick.

*Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. His latest book on animal ethics, "Animals as Persons," is published by Columbia University Press.

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret "Jesus" Bible Codes

Here is today's exhibit as to why the world would be better off without religion: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

If any Christian happens by this site and would like to defend the U.S. military being equipped with Bible-coded sights, I would love to hear from them.

This is consistent with the religious Bush military briefings which I blogged about last May:

http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/05/onward-christian-soldiers.html

I hope the other 99 most powerful women of Washington are brighter than this

This is a discussion between Richard Dawkins and Wendy Wright. Ms. Wright is is President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation's largest public policy women's organization. Ms. Wright is described on the CWA's website as follows: Miss Wright promotes legislation and international policies that are beneficial to women and families, briefs congressional and presidential staff on pro-family issues, and trains grassroots activists. She is frequently interviewed in national media on moral, social and political issues. Miss Wright was named among "The 100 Most Powerful Women of Washington" in 2006 by the Washingtonian Magazine. The National Pro-Life Religious Council awarded Wendy for her "continuous leadership in the cause of life.

Why do atheists care about religion?

Why do atheists care about religion? This video sums it up nicely.

Just in case you are feeling significant today ...

This is astronomy 101 and I apologize to those with even a passing familiarity of this topic.

Pictured above is the Andromeda Galaxy which is the closest galaxy to our own, the Milky Way. Current best estimates suggest that Andromeda contains one trillion stars, several times more than the 200-400 billion which the Milky Way is estimated to contain. Andromeda is approximately 2,500,000 light years away and a single light year measures just under 10 trillion kilometres.

Now, here is what should really blow your mind: there are probably more than 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.

In case any Bibleist thinks that our planet is somehow special, they should heed the words of Stephen Hawking: "The large-scale homogeneity of the universe makes it very difficult to believe that the structure of the universe is determined by anything so peripheral as some complicated molecular structure on a minor planet orbiting a very average star in the outer suburbs of a fairly typical galaxy."

Instantly enhance your credibility

True story. Today, as I prepared to examine an opposing party in a civil proceeding, the court reporter offered the witness the choice of swearing on a Bible to tell the truth or to affirm a solemn oath to the same effect. This is common practice in Canada and most common law jurisdictions. The witness took the less common choice of affirming. I responded by indicating that she had bolstered her credibility in my eyes before I even started to ask her any questions. My opposing counsel got quite a chuckle out of that. The funny thing is that I was dead serious.

Pat Robertson explains why Haitians brought earthquake on themselves

Pat Robertson has done more more the cause of atheism than Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens combined. Most Christians will want to disassociate themselves from Robertson's ramblings. However, what they ignore is the fact that smiting a "heathen" nation with an earthquake is entirely consistent with the fearsome Yahweh described in the Bible.

The kind of chatter that would get you fried in 1600

"In space there are countless constellations, suns and planets; we see only the suns because they give light; the planets remain invisible, for they are small and dark. There are also numberless earths circling around their suns, no worse and no less than this globe of ours. For no reasonable mind can assume that heavenly bodies which may be far more magnificent than ours would not bear upon them creatures similar or even superior to those upon our human Earth."

Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake by order of the Catholic Inquisition in the Field of Flowers, Rome 16 February 1600

Great logic Bono

This is the compelling logic relied on by U2 frontman and humanitarian Bono when asked whether he thought it was far-fetched to believe that Jesus was the Son of God:

"No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah. I'm saying: "I am God incarnate. And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was”the Messiah”or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson ... This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched.

Bono and I obviously differ on the definition of the term "farfetched".

Cardinal ... it turns out both assertions are quite probable

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galileo in 1615.

The one verse in the Bible that best sums up Christianity

Who could ask for a better authority than Saint Paul?

1 Corinthians 15:14 (NIV)

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

An alternate explanation for intelligent design

I hope that creationists watching this video will realize that the explanation offered here for the development of the male reproductive system is far more plausible than the suggestion that it was designed at first go by an omniscient being.

Does an open mind lead to both atheism and veganism?

I believe that an open mind naturally leads to skepticism of religion. Theists will object by asserting that even atheists have faith. If they are suggesting faith in the power of reason, then I guess they are correct.

An open mind does not naturally lead to veganism. However, an open mind naturally leads to one of three conclusions:

1. Specieism is inherently wrong, we have no right to consume other sentient beings and veganism should be our moral baseline.

2. Specieism is not inherently wrong, we have the right to consume other sentient beings and we really don't care about the treatment of nonhuman animals; or

3. There is no inherent right or wrong, no person has any rights and, again, we really don't care about the treatment of nonhuman animals.

This is by no means a false trichotomy. If you care about nonhuman animals, you simply should not consume them, regardless of whether you believe in inherent rights or not. If you profess to care about welfare and yet persist in consuming animals, you are being morally schitzophrenic. Before you tell me I am mistaken, please watch this:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/slides/theory1.html

Twittering mission

I am sitting in the Trudeau Airport in Montreal, Quebec having an absolute blast twittering with a fundamentalist Christian. Here is the unedited exchange:

TAM - Attention atheists. Today's textbook example of sickness of religion. @halomaster141 says incest ok if happens in #Bible

Fundy - @AtheistMission I said "at the time." Not throughout the entire Bible. See Leviticus 18:6

TAM - @halomaster141: You are a liar. You said not sinful for Cain to screw his sister. Don't try to weasel out of it. #atheist

Fundy - @AtheistMission EXACTLY. Cain came BEFORE Leviticus by a little bit!!

[Comment by twitter the_author_] @halomaster141 Incest is incest, and it's wrong no matter when or where it occurred. Also, ew.

Fundy - @the_author_ No, now you're misquoting me. I didn't say it was ok throughout the Bible. Just when it was the only way to reproduce

[Another comment by the_author_] @halomaster141 I read the conversation and technically, he's not misquoting you. You excused biblical incest because it was biblical. Gross.

TAM - @halomaster141: U are PERFECT example of #creationist who doesn't think through the twisted logical implications of what U believe

Fundy - @the_author_ And... what exactly is wrong with incest if it's not yet prohibited by God and the gene pool is perfect?

Fundy - @the_author_ @AtheistMission Would someone please explain to me why it's wrong if it's not prohibited by God?

TAM - @halomaster141: Man, listen to yourself. U R saying it is ok to screw your sister if lordy says it's ok. HAHAHA #atheist

Fundy - @AtheistMission @the_author_ Still waiting for you guys to explain why incest is wrong if it is AT THE TIME not prohibited by God.

TAM - @the_author_: ... and people wonder why I campaign against religious irrationality ...
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

I'm sure there must be a reasonable explanation ...

Atheists and theists alike. I need help. How do cretards explain away the problem of how, if the Genesis creation story is true, Adam and Eve's kids would have mated together in order to produce a third generation of genetically fucked up offspring? Just wondering. The same problem arises with Noah and his wife after lordy drowned the remainder of humanity. I'm sure that they will have some kind of bizarre explanation just like they do for the existence of fossils.

Thought experiment for creationists - what do they expect to see?

Twitterer halomaster141 asked me to prove evolution without referring me to the works of evolutionists. My initial reply was as follows: I like how U call PhD's in zoology & biology "evolutionists". I prefer 2 rely on qualified experts rather than seat of pants.

halomaster141 is a creationist who pretends to have an open mind. When asked for evidence against the theory of evolution by natural selection, he will refer to the supposed insufficiency of the fossil record. Of course, this isn't evidence against evolution - it is merely asking for more corroborating evidence. Every fossil we find is further evidence in support of evolution. As the late J.B.S. Haldane famously observed, all it would take to destroy confidence in the theory of evolution would be the discovery of a fossilized rabbit in Precambrian rocks.

Creationists are funny because, although they will take potshots at supposed holes in the theory of evolution, they are devoid of explanations for basic questions such as where do you say fossils came from? The more you delve into what they supposedly believe, the more laughable it becomes. Consider the following thought experiment:

Imagine that you are standing in a line in front of your father who, in turn, is standing next to his father (i.e. your grandfather) who, in turn, is standing next to his father (i.e. your great-grandfather). The line continues in this order for thousands and then millions of "persons". You start walking down the line. Based on your belief system (i.e. evolution by natural selection, creationism, etc.), what do you expect to see as you move down the line?

I can tell you exactly what I would expect to see. Very gradually, my paternal ancestors would begin looking more and more apelike and reduce in size until they appeared to be like a lemur. If I kept going back far enough I would expect to see something like a shrew (or whatever the concestor of all four legged land vertebrates looked like) and eventually I would expect to find an aquatic lifeform just getting ready to make its way onto land. Of course, I could keep going but my legs would be getting tired. What would a creationist expect to see? If the earth is only 6000 years old, perhaps 120 men and then what - Adam? If so, I would think you would have some pretty ugly in-breeding problems at the end of the line. Seriously, what would a creationist expect to see and, more importantly, what evidence exists to support whatever story they dream up?

This thought experiment is based on the following passage from Richard Dawkins' Gaps in the Mind:

All the great apes that have ever lived, including ourselves are linked to one another by an unbroken chain of parent-child bonds. The same is true of all animals and plants that have ever lived, but there the distances involved are much greater. Molecular evidence suggests that our common ancestor with chimpanzees lived, in Africa, between five and seven million years ago, say half a million generations ago. This is not long by evolutionary standards.

Events are sometimes organised at which thousands of people hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast in the US, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one up along the equator, across the width of our home continent of Africa. It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we will have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother; your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards towards the Kenya border.

How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not halfway to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach.

The daughter that she is holding by her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the doubled-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters.

If you walked up the line like an inspecting general-past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity. Daughters would resemble mothers just as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love daughters, and feel affinity with them, just as they always do. And this hand- in-hand continuum, joining us seamlessly to chimpanzees, is so short that it barely makes it past the hinterland of Africa, the mother continent.

I find Dawkins' vivid hand-in-hand imagery useful because it makes common sense. In fact, one of the most surprising things about the theory of evolution by natural selection is that nobody came up with it before Charles Darwin (arguably, a few people did but Darwin was the first to put it all together and publish his work).

Ghandi summed it up well

Mahatma Ghandi summed it up well in his autobiography:

I could accept Jesus as a martyr, & embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it, my heart could not accept.

Christian rips his brethren

There is only audio on this clip but it is well worth the listen. My favorite line: You are making salvation a thing of human willingness.

Worshipping at the altar of the Lions

The NFL is my religion and tomorrow I will be worshipping at Ford Field in Detroit as the Chicago Bears take on the Lions. I expect that the quality of football will be hellish but at least the beer should be cold.

The 10 Commandments boiled down to 3 and thank Zeus there is no "thou shalt not plagiarize"

I present this video in honor of Christian theology student Paul who seems to believe that morality requires a foundation in the belief of God: