Engineer, photographer, poet, atheist, antitheist, champion of creatures, mayhem maker, he/him, Gen X, INTP, space lord; Grow up and stop believing stupid shit.
Happy Camp, California
Joined April 2009
- Tweets49.7K
- Following8.4K
- Followers11.6K
- Likes66.6K
Pinned Tweet
Why do I post about God? Because I was taught from childhood that doubt was sin, curiosity was rebellion, and skepticism deserved eternal torture. People who escape indoctrination have every right—and perhaps a responsibility—to speak openly about the brainwashing they escaped.🧵
The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it's God's word? That's not evidence. That's a book authenticating itself. Every religious text could make the same claim. Divine inspiration requires independent demonstration, not an appeal to the very authority under dispute.
"This inevitably leads to the idea that, if the foundations of consciousness lie in such an ancient part of the brain, then the capacity for subjective experience may be far more widespread throughout the animal kingdom than we once imagined."
sciencealert.com/the-origin-…
"This year, the largest ancient DNA dataset yet revealed evidence of natural selection among West Eurasians. Nearly 500 gene variants were identified in this lineage that had changed in the last 10,000 years."
sciencealert.com/humans-are-…
"There exists nothing to show us wrong."
Not only is the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy one of the most common theistic fallacies, it's also one of the most ignorant (ironic, no?). Simply not being disproved or disprovable does not make a proposition true. GTSOH
"Creation" implies an act of creating. But whether any such act occurred is the very question under dispute. Thus, asserting that a Creator must exist merely begs the question. The universe exists. The expansion of spacetime began. That's all anyone can plausibly claim.
"Creation necessitates a creator" is a breathtakingly empty tautology masquerading as a cosmological argument. Theists haven't demonstrated creation—they've merely selected a noun that already contains their preferred conclusion. That's circularity masquerading as profundity.
The universe exists. Theists arbitrarily rename it "creation," then try to pull a "Creator" out of the word they just assigned. That's not cosmology, philosophy, or logic—it's a poorly executed attempt at a semantic magic trick (circular logic) thinly disguised as an argument.
Even if theists established that the universe had a cause, they would still need to demonstrate that the cause was an intelligent agent. Causation does not entail intention, consciousness, divinity, or God. Every one of those attributes requires additional, presupposed premises.
Question the existence of your God, if you believe in one. The majority of humanity may be laboring beneath the burden of one of the greatest falsehoods ever fashioned. Liberate yourself from the tyranny of assumptions bequeathed to you by others.
A valid conditional doesn't establish its antecedent. "If the universe is created, it has a creator" tells us nothing about whether the universe was created. Theists routinely confuse the logical consequences of an assumption with evidence that it's true.
The belief that purely physical matter gives rise to conscious perception is the ONLY belief that has scientific grounding. The trend in neuroscientific discovery has only ever been in the direction of purely physical explanations. No "immaterial mind" has ever been indicated.
"Science of the gaps" is what happens when a theist learns the words "God of the gaps" but not the fallacy. Science investigates unknowns through evidence and testable hypotheses. Religion invents an answer and declares the mystery solved. That's not equivalence. It's illiteracy.
“All brains are anatomically the same” is what happens when theology substitutes for scientific literacy. Brains share basic structures, not identical neural circuitry. Individual connectivity patterns are so distinctive that researchers use them as neurological fingerprints.
The fact that people so easily fall prey to inherently question-begging (i.e. circular) logic like this should tell you everything you need to know about why people believe absurdities. If you don't understand why the logic below is circular, YOU are one of those people.
The claim that an immaterial God is required to underwrite the reliability of reason and logic is self-defeating. It places the reliability of reason on an untestable entity while simultaneously using reason to assert that entity. It's a circular and empty form of argument.
"Logic is prior to matter, thus matter can't produce it." Priority in formal systems is not ontological priority. Brains that recognized and accurately modeled relationships in physical reality survived. Formalizations came later. Relationships are discovered. Math is invented.
Every successful treatment for depression, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s, or epilepsy works by altering physical brain chemistry or circuitry. No therapist or surgeon has ever needed to address an immaterial component. Clinical practice is materialist by necessity.
Thinking of the number two doesn't require anything immaterial. It requires a brain that can represent quantity and operations on quantity with physical wetware. The fact that a thought doesn't resemble its subject is an invalid (and silly) argument for an "immaterial" realm.
