The Project Self Humiliation, Operation Extreme Redundancy

Two arguments, two arguments that are going to make me puke if I hear them one more time! Well, I suppose not, but I will write this post. Maybe, maybe, those guys who humiliate themselves each time they through these kinds of nonsense out, will see it and stop being intellectually incompetent:

1: Fundamentalist religious people vs. gay marriage: Neither I, nor any other rational person in the world (which oddly includes sane religious people as well), cares what your God says about gay marriage. Logically speaking, one shall not give a tiny little piece of a rats “bottom” about what your Jesus, Allah or whatever the hell your God; is, does or orders. It is utterly irrelevant to this debate and this topic.

Stop appealing to your moronic “traditions”. This is about the law, which automatically makes it about rights, and yes: Human rights. There is absolutely no shred of reason in the arguments of fundamentalists based on their traditions against gay marriage, it’s all fallacious and it’s useless for you.

No studies in the world have found any shred of evidence that gay parents are worse than straight parents, and those who want to define marriage based on “reproduction” please note that aside from excluding straight parents that cannot have children or do not want to, it’s horrifyingly inhuman to define the “rights” of people based on a choice that they have to make on bringing another life into this world. Imagine a child asking his or her parents: “Why was I born?” and the parents answer would be: “Because we had to reproduce, honey!” What a shame!

And yes, gays can be families too. What else would you call a couple that have lived together for 20 years and have 2 children?!

That’s more or less all that I have seen from these guys, I wonder what kind of other reasons could they have for this irrational, immoral and imposturous stance on their discriminative Buffoonery?!

2: Kalam cosmological argument: A drastic change of subject, eh? But recently I have become aware that this really disgusts me. The reason is I had to shut up and sit through the same stupidity of the same type of arguments for “God” knows how long, and I had to read the same horrendous thing for my tests, that was compulsory for us during 8 years from the time that I was 14 to the time I was 22.

And the same I keep hearing. The following is how that argument goes, and its most important logical problem: (this one I found on wikipedia, the others have the same fallacies)

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

Aside from all the things that had been said about it before, it suffers from a fallacy of composition. It may be true that all the things that we see have a cause, but all the things that we see happen in the universe. Universe is the sum of all those things, therefore it might be true that everything has a reason, but it is not true that “everything” itself has a reason. besides, it is usually not mentioned that “Everything that has a beginning of its existence” is of materialistic nature, and everything in there has a materialistic cause.

Also, Hume’s argument works applies to this situation: How did you found out the first premise of your argument? You observed the things around you for a period of time. Ok, how dare you suggest that it applies to the beginning of everything, including time?


Now that I think about it, I see that self humiliation is irrelevant here. After all Christians, especially fundamentalis ones, are very fund of it, aren’t they?


Published by


Dear fellow Homo sapiens, or if you prefer conscious mammals! And of course, friends nonetheless: I created my blog in order to speak my very weird mind, mostly about three subjects (as I identify myself and my state of mind with them): Atheism, as I was born in the Middle East and saw and felt the affects of Islam; Homosexuality and equal rights, as a gay man who has tasted the Homophobia and also Sexism in that society; and Liberalism and political philosophy, which I think is a good ground for secular values and criticism of fundamentalism. If you wish, visit and join your state of mind to mine. I hope they don't short circuit!

6 thoughts on “The Project Self Humiliation, Operation Extreme Redundancy”

  1. the universe was caused by something, but until we have a better clue about the big bang, it’s better to leave things a question mark

    than shove deities into the blank – you’d think that the believers would be more concerned about their shrinking god of the gaps

    since they aren’t concerned about the shrinking ice sheets

  2. thetruthfulheretic, I hear you.

    Someone else to be made about: William Lane Craig actually calls atheism far worse than murder.
    For instance, he says the following:

    For instance, he says the following:

    William Lane Craig:
    That’s why I went on to offer the second, better solution: that the rejection of Christ as Lord and Savior, being a rejection of God Himself, is a sin of infinite gravity and proportion and therefore plausibly does merit infinite punishment. So seen, people are sent to hell, not so much for murder and theft and adultery, but for their rejection of God.

    Craig is saying that those who (among other things) fail to believe that Jesus is a superpowerful creator after being exposed to Christian doctrine, deserve infinite punishment for that.

    Moreover, he’s saying that we deserve infinitely more punishment than murderers (It’s not that murderers deserve infinite torture, of course; that would be evil too; Craig doesn’t want to call Hell “torture” because he thinks that’s a negatively loaded word; you bet, but the characterization is accurate nonetheless).

    The level of hatred he spreads by qualifying atheists like us as [I]much, much worse than murderers[/i] – since he claims we deserve infinitely more punishment -, makes me consider him not merely someone who disagrees with me about some cosmological issues, but frankly, an enemy capable of doing real damage – and who, in fact, does so to some extent by spreading his hatred; his arguments like the KCA and others only serve the same purpose, since in the end what he intends to spread is Christian belief, not just belief in some unspecified form of theism.

    It’s true that he probably holds that most murderers also rejected God, but if the murderers “repent” and become Christians, they get out of Hell – and even if they don’t, the actual reason they get sent to Hell is not their murders, but their lack of believing in Jesus.

    Of course, that does not prevent me from recognizing that he’s very intelligent and a superb debater and orator. I’m not going to call him an idiot because he surely isn’t.

    But that only makes him more dangerous…and on that note, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is really annoying.
    The argument fails for several reasons. However, Craig defends it as well as one can defend the indefensible, and with very long arguments (about 100 pages in “The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology”), actually addressing most objections.

    While his replies to the objections aren’t good, they’re capable of confusing many people.

    I’ve wrote a reply that’s quite thorough, so for those (few, I know 🙂 interested in long philosophical arguments (at least, they’re decisive).

    I know most readers aren’t interested in this kind of reply, but perhaps, this counter-argument can help reduce the KCA confusion a little bit. 🙂

  3. Thank you for your comment dear Angra, I shall try and read your work if I find the time (not that mine is very precious, its just I seem not to have it!)

    I actually avoided mentioning craig, because I think he is given too much attention that he deserves. And of corse since I myself come from the middle east I’m unfortunately familiar with this argument in many ways (as I mentioned).

    But one thing in your comment actually reminded me of something. In here Craig says: “That the rejection of Christ as Lord and Savior, being a rejection of God Himself, is a sin of infinite gravity and proportion and therefore plausibly does merit infinite punishment.”

    On another post that I wrote (On the fairness of the lord) I questioned the fairness of the religious claims about God. Now, this is interesting: We accept that we are not perfect, and we can easily see that we are very short sighted and allways make mistakes. Now, if we are indeed “created” by a God, and he/she/it will send us to hell for an eternity of pain and suffering if we make a mistake or get it wrong, how come he has created us short sighted with very little understanding?

    These are questions that rise when there are no consistancies, and with that, the whole thing goes down the drain.

  4. Thanks for the reply, thetruthfulheretic

    I agree: under critical scrutiny, the doctrine of Hell falls apart – like Christianity and Islam in general.

    And you’re right about Craig’s getting too much attention, of course. But he’ll get too much attention, but I think refuting his Kalam argument won’t change the attention he gets in a significant manner, while it could help reduce the confusion he causes – or so I hope. 🙂

    As for my article, it’s quite long and technical, and I understand it if you don’t have the time to read it. I wouldn’t expect many people to read that article, actually, just as not many people read the full Kalam argument as Craig defends it – it’s seriously long and intricate.

    But maybe at least a few people will have time and will like my reply to it, so I could contribute a bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s