funnyatheists on Atheist Logic 104 spectator on Atheist Logic 106 Bruno Moura on Atheist Logic 104 Puragu on Atheist Logic 105 funnyatheists on Atheist Logic 104
The Mediocrity Principle:
he mediocrity principle simply states that you aren’t special. The universe does not revolve around you, this planet isn’t privileged in any unique way, your country is not the perfect product of divine destiny, your existence isn’t the product of directed, intentional fate, and that tuna sandwich you had for lunch was not plotting to give you indigestion. Most of what happens in the world is just a consequence of natural, universal laws — laws that apply everywhere and to everything, with no special exemptions or amplifications for your benefit — given variety by the input of chance. Everything that you as a human being consider cosmically important is an accident. The rules of inheritance and the nature of biology meant that when your parents had a baby, it was anatomically human and mostly fully functional physiologically, but the unique combination of traits that make you male or female, tall or short, brown-eyed or blue-eyed were the result of a chance shuffle of genetic attributes during meiosis, a few random mutations, and the luck of the draw in the grand sperm race at fertilization.
The Christian Argument: Chapter 4 page 53.
Before we begin, I would like to clarify what is meant by certain words:
i) What does “God” mean? Any discussion on the existence of God has to begin with a definition of what is meant by the word “God”. Whenever I refer to “God”, I am referring to an actual entity, a physical Being, and personal God as found in religions like Christianity, i.e. all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator.
ii) What does “atheist” mean? An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, For the purpose of this discussion, I would like to make a further distinction between an “implicit” and “explicit” atheist. An “implicit” atheist is someone who has never really given much thought to a belief in God and is atheist by implication. A newborn baby is a good example of an implicit atheist, because it has not had the chance, or made the effort, to make a rational choice based on research. An “explicit” atheist is a person who has studied all available information and has made an educated decision to reject theism in all its forms. An “explicit” atheist is absolutely, one hundred percent sure God does not exist. There is no “niggling about” or agnosticism, in an explicit atheist’s thinking. When I use the word “atheist” in this chapter I am referring to an explicit atheist.
The argument that something cannot exist if it is not made by something else is self-contradictory. Who “made” or “created” God then? And who or what made that creator and so forth back into eternity. This is called the argument of infinite regression.
If you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so.
Dawkins: The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine (And the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages)
God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science by James Hannam
It’s not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked this bullshit up from other websites and popular books and collapse as soon as you hit them with some hard evidence. I love to totally stump them by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one – scientist burned, persecuted or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists – like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa – and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents have usually run away to hide and scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong.