Not So Polite Dinner Conversationn – and yet another failed apologist with more lies

Yep, I’m bored.

This is a response to an amazingly incompetent apologist, Mark Lanier, who supposedly is a “top” lawyer.  If he is, I certainly wouldn’t want him to represent me.   The poor dear has a new book, “Atheism on trial”.  Well, I guess he couldn’t use “evidence that demands a verdict”.  Here are excerpts from a podcast transcript from here. 

This is the lawyer trying to excuse why his religion fails.

“Among those factors that I identify is the failure of Christians to be authentic, authentic in their walk, and authentic in the way they treat other people. I think Christians tend to fall easily into traps of making it about us and them, of trying to impose Christian morality upon the world. And in a sense, or at least the nation, confusing the kingdom of God with the kingdom of men. And thinking that the kingdom of God is is equal to things that are world political systems. I think that’s a real danger, because I think it causes people to want to distance themselves from what they think is not an authentic faith. I think that’s just one factor. I think another factor is Christians have been, with the best of intentions, have have misread so much of Scripture and read it out of context that it’s made a lot of people think they have to make a choice between faith and science, as if they’re opposite ends of a teeter totter. And people don’t understand that the true Christian view is that science is real. It’s legitimate. It is a tool that God gave us to combat the horrors of this fallen world. So, we can learn the science of fertilization, to use fertilizers to be able to grow more crops so we can feed more people and reduce hunger. There’s the science of medicine, where we’re able to treat disease more readily. And all of these consequences of sin, that burden society that destroy lives and families, we have tools to combat those. And those tools include science. And so, I think the failure of Christians to, to fairly assess scripture has set a lot of people thinking they have a choice between science or God. And they don’t understand that, that God is the God of science.”

I do love when Christians insist that they are the only TrueChristians(tm), and have no evidence for that at all.   It’s even better when they try to lie about the sciences, sicne those sciences show that their bible is an incompetent set of myths written by humans. 

hmm, and this god evidently said “screw you” to anyone born before it got around to supposedly “giving” human such things.   His god is quite an idiot and it’s rather quaint to see christians trying to steal the honor and hard work of humans for their imaginary god.  Alas, science shows that the myths of the bible are utter nonsense.

Then we get the attempts to appeal to emotions as evidence for this god. 

“Why do we know there are black holes? Why do we know there are subatomic particles, not just the proof of the physical aspects, but the proof of the non-physical aspects, you know, love, honor, dignity, justice, fairness, these types of things need to be measured as well. And the arguments for these things need to be put into the scales as well. And when you do, frankly, I find atheism fails radically in that arena of proof.”

Well, considering that this god’s supposed actions, we can happily point out that it has nothing to do with justice or fairness.  All of these things are from the brain, and gee, no god needed.  We know that there are laws of physics and magic doesn’t happen, so we know that there are black holes, sub atomic particles, etc by evidence.  We know that people have love, honor, etc, because we have them.   Funny how the same doesn’t hold for this god’s existence. 

Finally, “Yeah, one of the biggest failures in the realm of proof, to me is atheism cannot set up a value system that’s objective.”

Yup, that good ol’, always failing argument from morality. 

hmmm, funny how Christianity hasn’t  set up an objective value system either.  Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants, nor can convince each other of that, having no evidence for this god at all.   You all make up a god that has the morals you want, in your image.  Add this to the fact that many, if not all, christians excuse their god for doign things that they would, hopefully, be horrified if a human did the same.   This makes christian morality entirely subject to who or what someone is, not the objective morality of an action.  

“Now, we’re told that, but if atheism is true, and there is no God, then there is absolutely no basis for believing that some person is not genetically different than another,”

whut?  Humans are genetically different from each other; science has demonstrated that.  Here, poor lawyer tries to claim that atheism should lead to eugenics.  Alas, since he’s an atheist too, one wonder how that works. 

“And so if there’s no God to say, everybody is created equally and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, then why should there be equal rights? When people are not equal?”

God never said that. It’s not in the bible.  Equality between humans never shows up, despite the claims of Christians.  No one is ever equal to a Christian, the supposed “chosen” people.  This god treats no one equally.

“. But he said, you know, we like to pretend that there is subjective morality, we atheists. But wink, wink, nod, nod. We know there’s not. But you can’t go telling everybody that because the solution to it is nihilism.  Or it’s, you know, feast for yourself, otherwise, it’s the fittest that should be surviving.”

It’s also great to see him also lie about how atheists must be nihilists.   Alas, for him, we don’t have to be what a demonstrated liar says.  Funny how he can’t give a name for this supposed “atheist”.  He also demonstrates the usual ignorance of evolutionary theory.  Tsk. 

Lanier fails in his “trial” of atheism. No surprise there at all. Apologetics are only for gullible and fearful christians.