The Banana: Proof of Atheism!
I'm kind of busy this week, so I asked our recurring fundy atheist punching bag, I. M. Skeptical, to write me a post about the best argument for atheism he could come up with. Here's what he gave me.
**
There was once a slimy, snotty Christian apologist
who made the argument that the banana is an “atheist’s worst nightmare”
because it has so many great design features. I used to love that
argument when I was a stupid, blind fundy, and now as an intellectually
fulfilled atheist I think it is really stupid! In fact, I want to argue now that if anything, the banana proves that God does not exist, or that if he does, he is evil, malevolent, and really snotty! Here’s why:
The banana has a slippery peel which can be thrown on the ground, causing innocent people to slip and fall. The
banana has been used for endless, cruel practical jokes (especially on
me, and I have the bruises on my butt to prove it!) and this would only
be a feature designed by a malevolent creator, or else it would have
evolved in a godless, uncaring universe. If there was a God, he would
have created trash cans everywhere with targeting vacuum suctions to
keep people from using banana peels for practical jokes.
The banana comes in bunches, making it an especially vulnerable target for shoplifters.
With many fruits, you can only steal one at a time, but bananas have
been an unusual burden on the merchants of the world because they can be
grabbed in large bunches. (I know that grapes and cherries, for
example, are even worse; but these are yet more proof of either a
malevolent creator or a godless universe.)
The banana has an unusual shape which makes it a special target for filthy double entendres. To put it bluntly, the banana is a pornographic fruit! Only a god who was a disgusting pervert
could design a piece of fruit this way. The banana also encourages
violence because you can hide it under your coat and pretend it is a
handgun; or in Australia, you can use it as a boomerang. The banana is a
fruit for perverts and criminals.
Bananas have an ugly yellow color and turn an even uglier brown or black when they spoil.
What’s worse, they smell terrible when they go bad, and get all squishy
and disgusting! That they turn brown or black when they go bad has also
undoubtedly contributed to the problem of racism in this country.
“Banana” is spelled real stupid.
You can’t keep track of how many “nas” to add, and it’s a real pain in
the butt! A loving god would make sure there’d be no confusion, or
wasted ink and paper, as a result of adding to many “nas.”
So
as you can see, if anything, the banana is prime evidence that if any
God exists, he is a mean, nasty, disgusting, stupid, and pathetic moron!
And if you don’t agree, you’re a snotty idiot and I don’t want to hear
it!
Comments
*ahem*
Your argument is a straw man. Clearly you know nothing about science.
The reader is felt wondering why you will not address I. M. Skeptical's real arguments.
sorry JP
Is JP Holding not his real name? He claims it is on his website. Not that I would necessarily believe any he says....
And like our evolutionary proclivity for imagining the presence of disembodied, putatively live non-corporeal entities, both Gods and ghosts, [poltergeists and other things that go bump in the night] with which we can apparently communicate and socialize with across the supernatural divide, along with imagining bananas in pyjamas, it is all harmless, fun stuff, unless you believe it.
That is the beauty of Skep's parable. It characterises how evidentially tenuous and insubstantial the belief in Gods really is. Just as you reject the Hindu God Ganesha, so too must you reject the Abrahamic god to be philosophically consistent and intellectually rigorous. To not do so, is to espouse gratuitous bias.
Come on, Joe. This claim you keep making is spewing out bullshit. Those studies prove no such thing, and I think most (if not all) of the authors would agree.
I've explained several times how they back my arguments, you know nothing about argument. when you connectyour brain and deal with the specific arguments I'made I'll talk about it.stop wasting my time with your your little lying gimmick.
Joe, you've posted extensive information about your arguments, and even some of the studies you cite, and I've read all that stuff. I know how you think they back your arguments, but I also know that these studies don't justify the unscientific conclusions you draw from them.
you are wrong, my work was checked by the the leading researchers, they all agreed it;s good, Hood endorsed the book,I can tell my the ignorant way you talk about it you don't knowing what you are doing. you are just fantasizing, your research and Trump's wire taps,
you still have not addressed how I say they back my arguments,
The scope of your comment signifies a profound lack of knowledge on the scope and depth of the research literature that abounds in the areas of the contemporary history of religion and religious beliefs, the sociology of religion, the anthropological and cultural determinants of religion and religious belief, notwithstanding the rapidly expanding areas of neuroscientific specialisms more broadly, the active on-going research into the evolutionary origins of religion, along with many other exploratory and expository studies that have literally lifted the explanatory lid not only on the origin and existence of, but the rationale for and the evolutionary foundations of religion and religious belief throughout all cultures and peoples. Even at the popular level such as, HERE and HERE, there is much significant information that these areas of research are confirming a consistent narrative which shows no evidence of a interventionist hand of god, supernatural or otherwise.
Otherwise your comment might have had some element of merit.
"Even at the popular level such as, HERE and HERE, there is much significant information that these areas of research are confirming a consistent narrative which shows no evidence of a interventionist hand of god, supernatural or otherwise."
BS! that assumes that miraculous intervention is the only reason for belief in god, tyat is just nonsense, argument from current book backed by the 200 studies
(1) Argument from universal nature of mystical experience.New
Empirical studies show that the kind of religious experience known as "mystical" is universal. The names and doctrinal ideas are different but the experiences are the same. Yet the experiences should not be the same since religion is cultural. Religious symbols are cultural. Atheists have countered this argument by saying that religion is genetic, but there is no basis for saying that religion genetic.
from book coming this Fall
(2) TS argument
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP'ssummed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS's
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
RCM veiw
Nothing in evolution of religious ideas that indicates no God or that gives reason not to believe in God,. Here is my account of the evolution of the God concept treated in such a way that justifies belief in God.
evolution of god Concept 1
evolution of god Concept 2
What a pile of crap. Your so-called "mystical experience" is just part of a broad category of experiences that are common to mankind. Maslow calls them peak experiences. And the studies you cite tell you that. They also emphasize that the religious interpretation of these experiences is NOT universal. How do I know this? I read what they said. But you choose to ignore the fact that many of these experiences have no religious significance at all. Yes, it is genetic. It's something that is common to our species.
The Wiki articles were chosen simply for your benefit as an intro to the world of enlightening research in this area. If you want, you could start with a book I have in from of me at this moment by Associate Prof Jesse Bering, "The God Instinct". It really is a scintillating read into the mechanics of god belief. In fact any book from these researchers, Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, Jason Slone, Justin Barrett, Amin Geetz, will certainly place you among the leaders in research in this field. I would also encourage others here to read widely. We are truly an amazing species.
How does being part of a abroad category of experience mean that it is not the result of divine encounter? Just being a broad category in no way rules out divine origin.
They also emphasize that the religious interpretation of these experiences is NOT universal. How do I know this? I read what they said.
(1) who is "they?"
(2) you are contradicting yourself, first say it's a broad category then you say it's not universal, if it's a broad category that would mean it.s somewhat near universal and that implies it's not divine, being common to all traditions.. two contradictions, it woudl be universal if it's a broad category, your implication is that being broad means it's not divine, but here you say it's not universal meaning it's not divine.
(3) if "they" means Maslow he was studying this before the M scale research was done, Hood is the only one with the data on the expertness themselves,His work proves the experience is universal,
Maslow thought that there was a transcendent reality in archtypes he thought that all religious people and atheists atheists were tied into that reality,We can think of that as God in a general sense,he said religious people nad atheists can go a very long way together down the same path, they will have to diverge eventually but they can go along way together,
the universal nature is evidence of divine because religious experiences are not genetic and have to be culturally constructed, so they should not be universal.
But you choose to ignore the fact that many of these experiences have no religious significance at all. Yes, it is genetic. It's something that is common to our species.
no there is ho evidence it is genetic. I quoted the major expert, M scale research. the actual experiences are the same and the way deal with then are the seam.Also Atheists are just relabeling their experience s to avoid the obvious connection to god
JBsptfn
The Wiki articles were chosen simply for your benefit as an intro to the world of enlightening research in this area. If you want, you could start with a book I have in from of me at this moment by Associate Prof Jesse Bering, "The God Instinct". It really is a scintillating read into the mechanics of god belief. In fact any book from these researchers, Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, Jason Slone, Justin Barrett, Amin Geetz, will certainly place you among the leaders in research in this field. I would also encourage others here to read widely. We are truly an amazing species.
that researches totally bogus,l the major experts have waned against infotainment research atheists use, it;s just based upon your ideological assumptions no facts involved,Pascal Boyer is not an expert in genetics, you have not answered the researched I limnked to shoing tha the assupoitoms you make don otdisprove god.
here
1: no basis for religious gene
Blakmore himself tells us that our brains "light up" (respond by beginning to work more) when we hear God talk. That's really the basic idea, along with the universality issue, of proving a God gene. But that is not proof of a gene.
There are plenty of scientists who do not think that religion is an adaptation. The adaptations it view is one school, it is not a done deal. The counter argument among evolutionary theorists is that religion is a “spandrel” or a side effect of genetic structure but not produced by a gene for that behavior. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the data on the “God pod” and don’t believe that there is a “God module” or that religious behavior is inherited through a specific gene or a part of the brain. Lee A Kirkpatrick, director of graduate studies in psychology at William and Mary, tells us:
"In sum, the moderate habitability of religion, like the identification of a particular brain region, associated with religious experience, tells us virtually nothing about weather religion is the result of an adaptive evolved mechanism designed to produce it. In particular neither should be construed as evidence for an adaptive religion mechanism or system."[10][10]Lee A Kirckpatrick, “Religion is Not An Adaptation,” in Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion Vol I: Evolution, Genes, and Religious Brainm .Patrick McNamara (ed). London, Westport Connecticut: Praeger. 2006. 159-180, 164.
Kirckpatrick is associate professor of psychology at William and Mary.]
One of the main problems with arguing for a God gene is that the kinds of explanations often used to justify it are piecemeal and don't work in terms of genetic theory. For example a common one is cooperation. Religion makes people more cooperative. So people cooperate and that is why they adapt becuase it's an advantage. Or gives hope it gets them through the winter.
Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation.[11]Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Marc Hauser, "The Origins of Religion: Evolved Adaption or by Product." Science Direct: Trends in Cognitive Science, Volume 14, Issue 3, (March 2010), 104-109.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309002897
"Natural selection is blind to purely psychological effects because being happy in itself does not cause more copies of happiness causing genes to dominate subsequent generations."[12] ]Kirckpatric Op cit, 167.
They can't show adaptability because they can't show it enhances gene frequency. After all some aspects of religion counter to gene frequency such as celibacy?
Nicholas Wade tells us neither side is threatened by a God gene:
But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods. For believers, if one accepts that evolution has shaped the human body, why not the mind too? What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned.[13]Nicholas Wade, "The Evolution of the God Gene," New York Times: Week in Review. Nov 14 (2009). On line http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1&
accessed 10/29/13
Nicholas Wade is a science reporter who writes about genetics.
So the explainations fall apart, the big coincidence is looming: the thing the atheists and evolutionary psychologists hate the most and seek to destroy with their worship of science is the one best answer to why there would be a gene for God: God put it there. It's counter to the nature of adaptation. Genes can't contrive to plan how to make us more cooperative or give us warm fuzzies to get us through the winter. The nature of adaptation is not a committee of homunculi that seeks to make human life happier and more efficient. Nor can genes understand concepts. We are not born with innate knowledge, that has been considered a primitive and false concept since the seventeenth century. We are born with instincts but that is not the same as innate knowledge. Evolution cannot plant ideas in our minds. So our brains reacting to God talk as they do is totally unexplained and constitutes a good reason to take as a hint the basic idea of a God designed aspect of human nature.
"…Tracing spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways. Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is mystical by default."[14]Andrew Newberg, Why God Won’t God Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. (New York, Ballentine Books), 2001, 37,
This article is a good indication of how ideologically laden the internet is with ideological babble from a social movement that seeks to destroy all forms of knowledge that it does not control. There is no basis for the assertion that neuroscience is destroying religion and yet scientism proclaims itself victorious over all religion merely becuase it exists. At the same time sound reasons exists in the same material assumed to destroy religion which supports beilef in God yet that possibility is totally ignored.
Crude Ideas: How the World Looks With or Without God
Dangerous Idea: Reply to Loftus on Argumentum-Comments
- It doesn't. What it says is that these experiences are not all religious in nature.
(1) who is "they?"
- The authors of a couple of articles that YOU cited as part of your research, and YOU said "You need to read this". If I get the time, I'll go back and find the name.
(2) you are contradicting yourself, first say it's a broad category then you say it's not universal, if it's a broad category that would mean it.s somewhat near universal and that implies it's not divine, being common to all traditions.. two contradictions, it woudl be universal if it's a broad category, your implication is that being broad means it's not divine, but here you say it's not universal meaning it's not divine.
- Can't you read? I said the peak experience is universal, but the religious aspect of it is NOT universal. And that's exactly what those studies said. YOU are contradicting the studies cited in your own work. They don't make the same claims you do. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
(3) if "they" means Maslow he was studying this before the M scale research was done, Hood is the only one with the data on the expertness themselves,His work proves the experience is universal,
- No. I only mentioned Maslow because he famously referred to these experiences a "peak experiences" rather than "mystical experiences". But there was discussion about thin in the papers you cited. It said they only use the term "mystical experience" because that was common terminology, but the universal aspect of it was specifically NOT religious. How can you cite material like this without paying attention to what they say? You are only using the parts that you like, and ignoring the rest. That's called cherry-picking.
the universal nature is evidence of divine because religious experiences are not genetic and have to be culturally constructed, so they should not be universal.
- No. That was part of your argument that I rebutted before. Your argument states that because the experience is ABOUT the divine, then it MUST BE divine. That does not follow by any valid logic. Your argument is not valid.
Bla, bla, bla ... (another eleven comments rambling on and on and on and on)
- I don't have the time to respond to your flood of comments. This is WL Craig's approach to debate. Inundate your opponent with so many claims and arguments that he can't possibly answer them all. I don't have time right now.
- The authors of a couple of articles that YOU cited as part of your research, and YOU said "You need to read this". If I get the time, I'll go back and find the name.
I don't remember it but just being part of a broad category proves nothing one way or the other.
(2) you are contradicting yourself, first say it's a broad category then you say it's not universal, if it's a broad category that would mean it.s somewhat near universal and that implies it's not divine, being common to all traditions.. two contradictions, it woudl be universal if it's a broad category, your implication is that being broad means it's not divine, but here you say it's not universal meaning it's not divine.
- Can't you read? I said the peak experience is universal, but the religious aspect of it is NOT universal. And that's exactly what those studies said. YOU are contradicting the studies cited in your own work. They don't make the same claims you do. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
I answered that. The dichotomy of religious or non-religious is a false dichotomy, They all pertain to the ground of being.the vast majority of mystical experiences pertain to God.
(3) if "they" means Maslow he was studying this before the M scale research was done, Hood is the only one with the data on the expertness themselves,His work proves the experience is universal,
- No. I only mentioned Maslow because he famously referred to these experiences a "peak experiences" rather than "mystical experiences".
that comes to same thing, Maslow was atheist but he was not not anti-religious,
But there was discussion about thin in the papers you cited. It said they only use the term "mystical experience" because that was common terminology, but the universal aspect of it was specifically NOT religious. How can you cite material like this without paying attention to what they say? You are only using the parts that you like, and ignoring the rest. That's called cherry-picking.
show me the paper, i think you are mixed up, you are misinterpretation something,
- No. That was part of your argument that I rebutted before. Your argument states that because the experience is ABOUT the divine, then it MUST BE divine. That does not follow by any valid logic. Your argument is not valid.
f course it odes, that;s like saying seeing redoes not-proof that somethings red, my argument assumes that naturalistic Causes are negated, they are,Ihvedispro ed them, read chapte 7.
Bla, bla, bla ... (another eleven comments rambling on and on and on and on)
- I don't have the time to respond to your flood of comments. This is WL Craig's approach to debate. Inundate your opponent with so many claims and arguments that he can't possibly answer them all. I don't have time right now.
3/22/2017 09:38:00 AM Delete
that how argument works my friend, you have to answer all the arguments or you lose then,show me the article thatI showed you tha you claims idipswor ves my argument,
You've disproved naturalistic causes? I think you should inform the scientific community about this. This is big news. I mean, really, really big news. You have accomplished something that all philosophy and all of science in the history of mankind has been unable to do.
Or perhaps it's time to check your premises, Dagny.