AtyHans

Not long ago, I put my original post about the burden of proof on reddit.com . The comments were... surprising to me. However, as I respect the /r/Atheism crowd (they know more than I do), I feel obligated to address their criticism. Before anything else, I admit that we can construct a deity that might exist. The agnostic atheist position is correct for that reason. "If you can't even define it, discussion or belief seem pointless." In my original post, I used the dictionary definition of 'god' God     1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.     2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. I insist this definition of 'god' has evidence against it. We can accept the burden of proof and demonstrate this 'creator and ruler of the universe' doesn'

Let's explore the meaning or the word 'morality' because it's an abstract word and people tend to have strong opinions about what it is without regard to the dictionary meaning. Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Right and wrong.  Good and bad behaviour. Seems we can say things about that. For instance, I can say that slavery is 'wrong' and most people would agree with me, but for millennia, people have considered slavery to be 'right'. Then again, not everybody will agree with me that slavery is 'wrong'. This means that my 'opinion' about right and wrong isn't shared by everybody. That's a fact. This fact doesn't make me a moral relativist. Moral relativism - The view that moral judgements are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privilege

Usually, I write these blog entries to serve as reference points I can link to when discussing with people on Twitter. Instead of having to type two-hundred tweets on my mobile phone, I can search the link and give MyOpinion™ to whomever. I've linked a number of people to this tweet by PoliticoCryzis because it's brilliant. But let me add a little extra to this goodness. Please note how these creation stories are contradictory, and what's worse, they are utterly unverifiable . Scientifically speaking, they're nonsense. All major fields of science disprove these creation stories. Astrophysics ; the universe is 13,798 billion years old. Nuclear physics ; the earth is 4,54 billion years old. Geology ; the formation of mountains takes millions of years . Palaeontology ; life started 3,9 billions of years ago. Biology ; the species we know today evolved ever since life started. Chemistry ; we're not made out of dust, mud, clay, dirt or roc