Why Passive Rationalization of the Supernatural Pisses Me Off by Tommy Null

In the basic laws of science, right up at the top is a banner which reads; natural
law is the pre-determined laws of what can happen based on what HAS happened. The
meaning of this is, supernatural things do not exist, and shouldn't be the focus
of our effort. The faculty of scientific institutions are focusing their time and
effort arguing for or against the existance of God from a MORAL standpoint. This
means, our combined scientific effort to understand and graph the patterns of
real-life is being trumped by these bogus claims of religious happenings. Let me
be very clear here when I say; from the standpoint of natural law, God can not
exist. I am not just being some scrooge to tell you.

However, the constant efforts on behalf of the Religious Right, coupled with these
forces' ties in our judicial system and federal government, have been almost
military-like in style, trying to get scientists to undermine the basic principles
of science itself by finding real proof of the existence of Jesus Christ, among
other things.

Such groups tend to shoot for a variety of backings that are rooted in
hypotheticals, but here are some examples of traditional Christian
rationalizations of their religion (by attempting to make a mockery of atheism.
that is called a smear campaign);

- the complexity of the planet proves there was a deliberate designer.

That is a very vague answer, and the vagueness of that reasoning proves there was
a deliberate designer. The flaw in that logic, if I were to choose one, is that
the complexity of organisms can be traced back to their inherent ability to adapt
to new terrains, not in some pre-existing modus operandi placed there by an
omnipotent director.

- DNA are comprised of codes. All codes need a designer.

Just because we use codes to quickly skip from one particular sample of DNA to the
next, these are ways that humans have used to understand DNA, not things we had to
crack to find DNA's meaning or pattern. If you zoom into a sample of DNA at micro
organic size, a line of binary will not become visible.

- millions of people have witnessed paranormal activities.

Ignorance of reality is no excuse. This is an argument from personal revelation,

and what is supernatural to the person is based on their prior experiences and
indoctrinations (this could be true of atheism, if such a 'miracle' happened to an
atheist) and how they respond to seeing something. So while what you SAW may or
may not be real, how you interpret it is subjective, and only supernatural to the
people who see it as supernatural. To me, perhaps, a bright light in the sky is
just a plane.

- prayer works, so there must be someone listening!

Well, it is just that kind of propaganda that seeks to give credit to false
ideologies. People who see results as a result of prayer are utilizing "post hoc
ego procter hoc", which is to deduce a supernatural affect from experiences in a
timeline. Example; I prayed my dog Sparky would come home after he got loose.
Sparky came home. Therefore, prayer is what brought my beloved dog to me. This is
something of a silly example, but too often post hoc ego procter hoc is utilized
in serious matters; I prayed my uncle would come out of his deep sleep after his
motorcycle accident. Uncle woke up. So prayer fixed my uncle.
- Atheism is a faith, too.

Well, atheism, to me, is the realisation and lifestyle consistent with believing a
God or Gods do not exist. Atheism, as such, is the opposite of faith, and does not
utilize faith as it relates to the supernatural. This is, most of the time,
because of the relevant realization that things with fact to back them up are more
of an accurate system of belief than those without it. Religion harbors faith,
atheism has a strong tendency to go with facts and figures.

- atheism's most prominent quotees recanted their atheism at one time or another.

This is a combination of two things; a faulty reasoning behind the statement, and
a lack of evidence to prove the statement. People often believe the urban legend
of Darwin renigging on his atheism on his deathbed. Even if this DID happen (which
evidence says it didn't), people's views of evolution wouldn't be affected. the
theory can speak for itself. Most evolutionary research has occurred in the last
couple decades, after Darwin died. Also, people tend to believe albert einstein
recanted his religious faith, utilizing several quotes out of context to re-
inforce the myth. However, let me be clear by publishing the following quote in
it's entirety, and let people's views of Einstein be formed by what he SAID;

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie
which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I
have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 'If something is in me which
can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of
the world so far as our science can reveal it'." - Albert Einstein

So please take these few examples, and recognize that the only reason that
religious people said these things is because they know of their in-ability to
produce proof for their side of the argument. Science's duty is to listen to
theorys, and the theorys being listened to are arranged based on which one has the
least number of assumptions in it's premise. Christianity, as a belief system, is
made up of a large system of assumptions, both assumptions on things that are
reported to have happened in the past, and assumptions on how such falsities can
fit into a society valuing fact.