uncompromising-rhetoric:

1. Scientists use aesthetic principles (simplicity, symmetry, elegance) to discover the laws of nature.
2. Scientists could only use aesthetic principles successfully if the laws of nature were intrinsically and objectively beautiful.
3. The laws of nature are intrinsically and objectively beautiful (from 1 & 2).
4. Only a mind-like being with an appreciation of beauty could have designed the laws of nature.
5. god is the only being with the power and purpose to design beautiful laws of nature.
6. god exists.

• FLAW 1: Do we decide an explanation is good because it’s beautiful, or do we find an explanation beautiful because it provides a good explanation? When we say that the laws of nature are beautiful, what we are really saying is that the laws of nature are the laws of nature, and thus unify into elegant explanation a vast host of seemingly unrelated and random phenomena. We would find the laws of nature of any lawful universe beautiful. So what this argument boils down to is the observation that we live in a lawful universe. And of course any universe that could support the likes of us would have to be lawful. So this argument is another version of the The Anthropic Principle — we live in the kind of universe which is the only kind of universe in which observers like us could live — and thus is subject to the flaws of this argument.
• FLAW 2: If the laws of the universe are intrinsically beautiful, then positing a god who loves beauty, and who is mysteriously capable of creating an elegant universe (and presumably a messy one as well, though his aesthetic tastes led him not to), makes the universe complex and incomprehensible all over again. This negates the intuition behind Premise 3, that the universe is intrinsically elegant and intelligible. (See The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, which I will post soon).
• FLAW 3: A strict implementation of Physical laws negates the credibility of Miracles (later I will post about the Arguments from Miracles). The “scientific laws” of the philosopher of religion, who see them as products of a divine lawmaker, must be completely subjective. In fact, even though we are talking of scientific physical laws and not moral laws, let’s bring in the bogey man of relativism. Given that in their scenario the physical laws can be at the mercy, the whims and fancies, of their divine lawmaker they must see these scientific laws a relative as well as subjective. Aren’t they actually being relativist when they claim that their “miracles” are real? That they are caused by something “supernatural” – suspension of the laws of nature. Their god, in his wisdom, has demanded that these laws of nature are suspended or changed for a time. Isn’t that relativism?

While the subjective understanding of laws of nature enable such “miracles,” scientific understanding of laws of nature having an objective basis enables a non-relativist understanding. “Miracles” and “supernatural” phenomena which seem to defy the laws of nature simply show our imperfect understanding of reality. If the observations are valid they give an opportunity to improve our theories, to develop a better understanding of reality.
Mind you, these days most claims of “miracles” and “supernatural” phenomena seem to derive more from credibility, falsehoods and poor observation than from any problems with the laws of nature.

Flaw 1 is all it takes to decimate this argument.

(via deconversionmovement)

nonplussedbyreligion:

azspot:

(via slacktivist)

I’ve seen this before.  Like all things in the Bible, exegesis is key.  These laws were supposedly penned by Moses between 1445-1444 B.C.E.  They were meant to be  used as a handbook for priests and Levites to lead worship, and a guide for the Hebrews on how to live holy lives.  Holiness is such an important part of this text that the word is mentioned over 150 times, more than in any other book of the Bible.  There is no misunderstanding what the book is about and for what purpose.  What the Bible fails to do however is explain which of these laws have universal applications to all men, throughout time and eternity, and which only apply to the people of Israel.

Before I actually started studying the Bible, I had read it many times.  There is a vast difference between reading scripture and studying it, especially for purposes of application.  The decision to select some passages from Leviticus and uphold them, while ignoring others was something I never really questioned when I was being fed the word.  When I actually started examining the who, what, when, where, why, and how of it I realized that there needed to be all or nothing.  Picking and choosing made no sense.

There is a grey area that many theologians inhabit, that often differs from denomination to denomination, but they live there nonetheless.  This space allows them to build the foundational doctrine of their church on parts of scripture that they believe to be the best.  Some forbid women to wear pants and jewelry, while some have a come as you attitude.  Some allow women to preach, while some do not.  Churches that are inclusive and don’t view God as homophobic use the same Bible as the Westboro Baptist Church.  

The same book, or even chapter of Leviticus used to support X as a sin, consists of myriads of sins Christians no longer hold to.  So who gets to choose?  Who decides which banned thing can be overlooked, deemed only relevant to the Hebrews, and which others are still applicable to all men?  I’ve received some pretty detailed answers to this question over the years from Apologists and other brilliant Christians.  Regardless of the length or brevity of the answer I received, the one constant was the idea that we are all God’s children and under the government of his laws.  I’ve heard some pretty good arguments, but the selection process, the who gets to choose has yet to be answered.  I’m doubtful it ever will. ~ Kim

(via nonplussedbyreligion-deactivate)

jonathan-cunningham:

depressingfacts:

climateadaptation:

Must read. Bloomberg blows the lid off of a DC front group that’s funded by anti-environmental corporations with major stakes in reversing regulations. The group drafts bills for Republican legislators, who then bring the issue to the floor and public to attack climate change, EPA, enviro-regs, and more.  

Source: Bloomberg

Am I surprised? No. Am I disgusted? Abso-fucking-lutely.

More on the exposure of ALEC can be found here.

#BigSurprise

(via tinfoilandtea)

The US economy is rapidly unraveling … and millions of Americans are losing their jobs and struggling just to survive. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to spend billions of taxpayer dollars every year to fight its endless “War on Drugs,” which includes spending about $7.7 billion a year just on enforcing marijuana laws, and preventing sick and injured patients from accessing this natural, side effect-free treatment for their ailments.

(via 18goingon80)

That almost covers a month of war in Afghanistan.

(Source: anarchyagogo, via fuckyeahdrugpolicy)

cognitivedissonance:

So I can foresee absolutely nothing going wrong with this…

Man Shot During Northeast Columbus Bar Fight
West Toledo bar gunfight results in at least 20 shots being fired
Two shot as bar fight escalates
Teenager shot inside Fremont bar
Fight Outside Bar Leads To Woman’s Shooting Death

Nope, nothing at all… </sarcasm>

letterstomycountry:

h/t corruptpolitics

(via vinegarwilliams-deactivated2011)