Do you think people care about your tweets, Facebook posts, your Instagram posts or your meme re-blogging/posting? You cannot just change the world, you can change yourself, and after you’ve changed yourself, the world will decide if it wants to listen. As you attempt to change the world, either it will listen, or it will ignore you and tell you to fuck off. Then, of course, you die.
” Hi, my name is Richard S. H. Winklestein, and I’m a professor at Yurgenshack University. I have PhD’s in whocarestics, astrophysics and neuroscience. I’ve written several books, including Why You Should Listen, and I Know How The World Works. I’ve appeared on many television shows, including The Wankenarski Show, Wankenbacher Live, CNN, MSNBC, and Wankenstone TVmany times. I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DON’T JUST AGREE WITH ME! “
— Richard S. H. Winklestein
Am I saying that you can never change the world? No. I’m saying that you need many people listening, and in order to make that happen, you’ll have to give them an incentive, unless, of course, you possess the weapons to force them to listen and obey you, in which case this article would be titled ‘How To Be a Dictator.’
” all that matters is that your message is compatible with the listeners’ world views “
After you can get an audience, and you’ve convinced them that they should take you seriously, your message has to at least make sense in their eyes. It doesn’t matter if what you’re saying is or isn’t objective, logical, reasonable or even true; all that matters is that your message is compatible with the listeners’ world views. You’re, in some ways, providing a service to the listeners, and if you fuck up, the chances of them coming back for seconds is obviously diminished.
The overwhelming majority of people in the West believe that if one could only achieve the first step, which is to occupy a supposed ‘influential’ communicative or media platform, that this is all one needs in order to change minds. That somehow new beliefs can be imprinted, via the mere burning exposure of information, onto the conscious and unconscious mind. This common, and simplistic, belief is explained in more detail by something called the Mere Exposure Effect. However, the belief that new learning, brainwashing or subversion is done merely by exposure to information, is what I’ve coined the Mere Exposure Effect Fallacy.
” The Mere Exposure Effect is itself mere conjecture, because it presupposes the existence of poly-linear unconscious thought “
The Mere Exposure Effect is itself mere conjecture, because it presupposes the existence of poly-linear unconscious thought, or Freud’s unconsciousness theories, but without any empirical evidence to support it. I’ve explained why unconscious belief and/or desire contradict what we can demonstrate to be true about human psychology. [see The Mere Exposure Effect in The Godless Glossary]
Ethos and pathos, which I would argue are both inferior to and subsets of logos, are always overused by those attempting to brainwash their audiences with exposure techniques. You can’t have ethos or pathos without logos, but that’s another topic. You must introduce new facts that would work like updates to an audience’s operating system. Talking about your feelings is only one fact: your feelings. Trying to change how other people feel, without having a logical argument or without lying, is a silly challenge that I enjoy seeing some people fail at.
Again, to change minds, you will generally need three things: the platform, the credibility and the arguments which do not contradict the listeners’ own presupposed world views or perspectives.
I have given you the tools. Yet, you’ve almost certainly dismissed much of it already because it contradicts your own world view. But I already knew that would happen.
Thanks for reading God’s Autopsy! Leave your comments below.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. – If God made the garden a paradise, I guess there would be no bee stings, no bites, no animal attacks for Adam.
God creates lions, bears, alligators, why, so they can kill their prey but can’t kill Adam? If Adam cannot die, then lions either become tame around him, or the bites and scratches do nothing, or both. Adam can swim to the bottom of the ocean or climb Mount Everest as well I guess. Adam, though naked, was the world’s first Superman?
Animals do not appear designed, rather they appear adapted to either attack or avoid each other. Some animals have sharp teeth and claws for a reason, and if you’re a creationist, it’s because Yahweh intended for them to live in a world meant for cruelty, NOT paradise.
You see, Yahweh planned the fall of man scenario; he lustfully anticipated it. If the bible were true, and there was no sin punishment, people would STILL be wondering why Yahweh is so cruel to animals and insects, forcing them to be killed, kill or be eaten alive in the wild. I can’t imagine Yahweh designing wolves, vultures and hyenas as vegans. If Yahweh created wildlife for survival, it’s because he anticipated “the fall”. Moving on…
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. – Remember, the bible doesn’t know about germs or bacteria. Allegory or not, there is no excuse for forgetting the microscopic which do not all “creepeth upon the earth”. God never was science literate.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.– One could say that this is a contradiction, as it states here that God created man and woman first, then restates the creation of woman later. I’ll have to look into it.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.– Sounds like God is advocating a vegan diet.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.– We now see that Adam and Eve existed on the sixth day. The elaboration of or contradictory creation of Eve is a well-known issue for Genesis. Not looking good Yahweh.
Genesis Chapter 2 (KJV)
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. – I can concede that Genesis chapter 1 used ‘heaven’ and ‘heavens’ interchangeably, however, there is still no mention of other planets, celestial bodies or galaxies. The term ‘heavens’, used here in Genesis 2:1 doesn’t seem to indicate many physical objects in or beyond the sky, but rather seems merely aesthetic.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. – Again, God needs to rest after making everything in the solar system, yet, he can make all the galaxies in the universe in just one day. When you compare the two, this would be insane if you’re taking the term ‘rest’ literally. If there’s nothing God can’t do, then certainly fatigue is one of them.
Not a big deal?? According to http://www.physics.org/ there are “at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.”
Our insignificant galaxy is a mere “120,000 light-years across” (universetoday.com). That means that light would take 120,000 years to travel from one end to the other. Light travels so fast, 670 million mph, in fact, that light “could go around the Earth 7.5 times in one second” (space.com)
Why is this important? A typical galaxy, like ours, has hundreds of billions of stars (NASA). That’s one hundred billion galaxies, that we know of, typically with over 100 billion stars, all created in one day, for the purpose of lighting up our nights and helping us farm! Yahweh doesn’t get tired after creating endless galaxies, but gets tired after creating the solar system?! We have methods of understanding our universe, and God is, shall we say, many light-years behind science.
http://www.esa.int/ estimates that there are over 1021 , or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (sextillion) stars in the observable universe. That’s perhaps one sextillion solar systems, as a star will attract gas and dust to orbit it. Also, the sun is an example of an “average” star, but is about one million times bigger than Earth. Imagine a universe containing so much mass and energy, wasted on Iron Age peasants as harvest indicators. Peasants who wouldn’t ever know what a galaxy, star or planet was. It sure takes a lot of “faith” to be an atheist.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. – Work hard and then rest, because even God needs a breather. Yeah right. I think God worked himself to death, literally, that’s why there are no more miracles.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. – I thought God made man already. hmmm
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. – Even if one conceded this point to be a re-telling of man’s creation, just more detailed this time, why the confusing chronology?
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.– Paradise, think again, tend to your garden boy!
9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Yes, put the good and evil tree in the garden. Foreknowing of the suffering and pain it will certainly cause, doesn’t matter, that’s God’s plan.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; – ?
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. – ?
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. – ?
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. – “Worketh man! What? Did you really think paradise would be ‘paradise’?! Silly Adam.” – God
It seems as though God hadn’t the slightest intention for man to stay on and enjoy life on Earth. That the purpose of all earthly life was to toil and seek the afterlife. The story of Adam and Eve, as you will see, is the perfect example of unfairness and immorality. Keep reading and I will explain.
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – The first time God said, “do what I say, or I will punish and spite you to no end, never forgiving you or your offspring!”. The most important thing to God is that you take him very, very seriously, no matter what.
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. – There should be a sports bar named An Help Meet.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. – If Yahweh were a real thing, he would only want ignorant believers. I guess God brought forth wombats, kangaroos, elephants, naked mole rats, fish from the bottom of the ocean, turtles from the Galapagos Islands, gorillas etc, you get the picture, to come and be named by Adam. No, not likely. What submarine or Skype call did God use to bring every creature to Adam? Did this naming session take place over years (before the an help meet)?
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. – Adam longed for an help meet for help for his unhelped meat (I couldn’t resist).
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; – For God could not therefore create Eve out of the ground separately from Adam, no, she must be made of his very flesh, a twin? I’m guessing she shares his DNA extracted from the rib. And all this time we thought Adam and Eve’s children were the first incestuous breeders, Adam and Eve were twin sister and brother. It sure takes a lot of “faith” to be an atheist, huh Frank Turek? (I’ve tweeted this post to you)
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. – And if Adam had a mirror he’d have said, “She sure looks like me with boobs!”
Meanwhile the best mirror Adam has is his reflection in the water, man will have to invent everything on his own, starting with the names of every species of animal on the planet (or “kind”). Oh wait, too bad Adam never wrote these names down, in fact, we’re still discovering new species all the time (pardon me, re-discovering them). Thanks a lot Adam.
A New York Times article (link here) states there are as many as 8.7 million species on the planet (plus or minus 1.3 million). But how many “kinds”? Ray Comfort would argue that evolution isn’t true because we don’t see one species morphing into another every 5 years, however, there IS evidence of animals which have great difficulty successfully mating with and producing offspring with each other. It’s called a speciation event. (more on speciation: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42)
It’s possible for a lion and tiger to mate and produce offspring, with the offspring being called a liger. That’s not a joke. I promise to come back and blog about ligers, speciation and evolution in the future. I’ll post a link here.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. – You are therefore unequally yoked my son, unless you marry your twin sister. – God
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. – And Adam & Eve were both the first incestuous, unmarried, cohabitating, nudist, libertarian, virgin, illiterate, camping, twin couple on the planet. Also, at what point were they actually “married” (“the man and his wife”)?
I’m silently struggling to keep my “faith” in atheism strong. I don’t know if it’s because of the prayers, or this dang ol book! Haha, “science”, who needs it?! To be an atheist takes so much faith and rebellion after all.
As for Frank Turek, author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”, that’s a total straw man of the atheist position, I’m not sure you realize it. To believe in something invisible, THAT takes faith.
I hope there are Christians reading this, and I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks! Come back next week for more Genesis.
The problem of evil vaporizes any possible argument for a God who is both omnipotent and benevolent. Namely, if suffering is real, then the supreme being must be the author and master of such evil.
last updated 2015/8/05
– by @GodsAutopsyCom
The Problem of Evil – Epicurus (341- 270 b.c.):
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
If you’re hearing this argument for the first time and you’re a monotheist, then you must at least concede that your god is both good and evil. That God is the arbiter of all pain, pleasure and suffering. The master of the world’s suffering can not be called ‘good‘ or ‘just‘ by any thinking person. God in the Bible is vengeful, full of wrath, jealous and capricious; many Christians agree.
Even the Christian Bible calls its god the author of evil:
Bible: Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) – “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
Bible: Amos 3:6 (KJV) – “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (see biblegateway.com)
We have never been able to verify the use of prayer or conscious thought to influence the laws or properties of nature. Similarly, no one has ever been proven to use prayer, conscious thought or wishful thinking to persuade a god to bend the laws of nature in favor of themselves. So it stands to reason that until someone can demonstrate a god having broken the laws of nature, laws he supposedly dictate, then there is no reason to believe.
Remember, evidence is not personal or emotional. Evidence is testable, demonstrable and repeatable. That’s how science is done, and that’s why most serious scientists are atheists.
“…church collapses. Did you see the one in Sicily recently? The facade fell on 65 grandmothers at a special Mass. Was that evil? Was that God? If He’s up there, He just loves it. Typhoid and swans–it all comes from the same place.”
Now, more evil brought to you by Yahweh, Allah or whoever:
Again, whenever I use the word ‘evil’, I use it in the colloquial sense, not the metaphysical or theological way.
John Oliver poops out reasons why we should all stop arguing about the cause of climate change, just because…IT’S BLOODY OBVIOUS…
– by @GodsAutopsyCom
John Oliver is an incredibly smug and annoying character, but that’s not the reason I’m writing about him now. On the matter of climate change, which we used to call global warming, what do we really find after examining the claims with skepticism and objectivity? I was very surprised to go from ‘duh, it’s obvious! cars, trucks, gas, oh my!!’ to searching for some hard evidence that will put any denier to shame. What am I missing, were is that crucial evidence hiding so I can stop thinking about this?
Of course, I believe data that says Earth’s climate is rising, but if you’re the least bit skeptical about the cause, namely if climate change is mostly natural or mostly human influenced, you are to be labeled a heretic, a kook, or dare I say it, a right-winger! I’m obviously not a right-winger, conservative or science denier, I just know that correlation does not mean causation. Even if you get lucky, correlation still does not mean causation! Just because the climate is rising, doesn’t mean that we know exactly why. What’s disturbing is that everyone seems to want to argue in this fashion. I’m no climate scientist, or scientist in any regard, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen scientists pontificate like priests, demanding that we just accept the ‘facts’, and stop asking questions. They’re almost demanding that we stop blaspheming the holy revelations.
I’m not saying there is a giant conspiracy funded by liberal politicians, but as I’ve heard it said somewhere, if you only fund scientists who agree with you, those scientists are going to keep finding the results you want, results that those scientists may have a bias toward interpreting.
Of course, I believe that humans are contributing to climate in some way, but I haven’t drawn any conclusions as to the degree in which we have. It could be that some of the information from talks and debates have gone over my head. Either way, leave a comment below if you want to enlighten me.
John Oliver violently flings fallacy after fallacy the axiom of human-provoked global warming or climate change.
Argument 1: Our ability to drastically effect climate change is a cold hard fact tantamount to the existence of ‘owls’ or ‘hats’.
Argument 2: Recent heat waves and a picture of a polar bear on a sheet of ice. Sea surface temperatures have risen 1° F since 1880. Some glaciers are melting.
Argument 3: Argument from majority fallacy.
Argument 4: Argument from authority fallacy.
Argument 5: Anyone who questions the level of man made influence on climate change is a ‘climate change denier’. Or straw man.
Argument 6: This is a debate that we ‘shouldn’t really be having…in the first place’.
Wow, you sure showed everyone, didn’t you John!
These kinds of arguments make me dissatisfied. We should all be skeptics, and not just about the things that seem counter-intuitive to us, we should re-think axioms at all times. I will, of course, be biased in favor of whatever the science leads me to.
Here are some debates that have slowed me from forming a rigid opinion thus far. Thanks for reading and tell me what you think. And Happy Earth Day !!
Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s thought experiment gone wrong.
– by @GodsAutopsyCom
Phil Robertson is probably not as insane as he sounds in the video below, just a bad philosopher perhaps. At a prayer breakfast in Florida, Phil attempts a reductio ad absurdum argument for the immorality of secularism and atheism. He wants to say that an atheist can’t logically possess morals because the atheist has no objective moral standard to base them on (as provided in the Bible). Yet, Phil’s straw atheist family couldn’t plausibly exist, if they did, they most likely wouldn’t have survived long enough for Phil’s invaders to break into their home and commit these crimes (if you cared about absolutely nothing, you’d routinely walk into streets, never checking for traffic). You see, if the atheist parents didn’t care about life and well-being, they wouldn’t have bothered getting married in the first place, and they wouldn’t have ever bothered feeding or raising their children.
It seems that Phil is being intellectually dishonest; he can’t imagine morality without a god, so somehow no one else can possess morality without his god having authored it (where’s the free will in this model?). Is he saying that all atheists are either lying about their non-belief or lying to themselves? I wouldn’t be surprised. I’ve heard this argument before: the argument that morality and the feeling of a spiritual presence is apparent to us all. It’s the assumption there’s a god-shaped hole carved into all our hearts. If this were true, that we just know right from wrong, how would you explain the world’s extant contradictory religions with contradicting moral codes?
See Phil’s clip below:
Phil Robertson: “Maybe if you just buy enough healthcare insurance, that’a keep you out of the ground. I don’t think so… save you money… You got a six-foot hole waiting on you if you have all the healthcare you can buy. You say, ‘is it going to keep me out of the ground?’ No sir. It’s a problem, and you know something, you can’t solve it.
“Just like you can’t see in your sin problem. Oh, I-I mean, I don’t know, this conscience thing. I mean, we just dreamed it up! There’s no right, there’s no wrong. There’s no good, there’s no evil. I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them. And they take his wife and they decapitate her head off in front of him. And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this?! There’s no right or wrong, now is it, dude?’ Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him, say, ‘wouldn’t it be something if this was something wrong with this? But, you’re the one who says there’s no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong. So, we’re just having fun! We’re sick in the head! Have a nice day.’
“If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘something about this just ain’t right.'”
What Christians don’t understand is that the Universe doesn’t need purpose, it doesn’t need objective rights, wrongs or moral standards to exist. The Universe exists simply because it can. If objects, animals and humans exist, we can still have laws and morals constructed by society to keep us in line. Secular Humanists such as myself base our morals on what contributes to human well-being. The Bible, however, is a terrible source for morals, and is in no way a source for objective moral standards.
A reductio is only valid when it’s logically possible.
A friend asked me about the NASA budget and the money our nation and other nations spend on exploring and studying space. Space missions aren’t just for kicks, they aren’t just for probing our neighboring planets or for contacting little green men, they’re done in efforts to enhance life, and to help us one day escape inevitable extinction event(s) awaiting Earth. Few exposit the fundamentals of the sciences, space exploration and skepticism like renowned science popularizer and astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, so I’ve posted videos of his views on the NASA budget below.
See Neil deGrasse Tyson explain the NASA budget
Neil deGrasse Tyson on NASA & Federal Budget..
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the end of the world..
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Politics of Space Exploration
Note: In 2013, scientists predicted that Earth will continue to be habitable 1.75 to 3.25 billion years. Yet global warming could lead to disastrous climate change by 2100.