Refuting Claims About ...

[trevor]

If you hear something that you're not quite sure is true, or you know is a blatant lie, reply to this topic. If you're able to research the topic, then please let us know the result, and cite sources if possible. If not, hopefully you'll have piqued someone else's curiosity. And yes... in some cases, bible passages can be sources.

Yes, I realize that at the moment a lot of these have the same sources. I'm just including these as examples of claims to be included in this list. Please criticize the things on the list, and suggest more to add!

Religion

General

• Morality is linked to religious belief. We cannot be moral without god.
  
  There are many non-religious sources of morality. Although there is no such thing as unanimous agreement on complex philosophical issues, if we approach the question from a humanistic, scientific stand point, there should be rational standards for arriving at moral conclusions. A set of axioms that do not reference religious texts can easily be created and followed if needed (see sources).
  
  Some believe that society is a construct that has arisen out of the need enforce "good" behavior; a branch of mathematics known as game theory provides mathematical models showing that each individual benefits in the long term for acting "morally."
  
  As an objective measure of whether or not atheists are less moral, we can examine the religious demographics of the prison population. One 1997 US study showed that only 0.21% of the prison population was atheistic (far lower than the estimate of 8-16% of the general US population).
  Sources: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm and http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Secular_morality
  
  

Christianity and The Bible

• Canada is a Christian nation.
  
  None of the BNA Acts from 1867 to 1975 contain any mention of god or religion.  The reference to God in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was put in only after much pressure from religious groups and members of the Progressive Conservative party.  The reference to God does not specify which god, so one could argue that it is referring to the god of any monotheistic religion.  Additionally, the courts have interpreted section 2 (Fundamental freedoms) to include a freedom from religion, and in R vs. Sharpe, considered the preamble a dead letter.
  
  
• One cannot interpret the bible literally and still 'believe in' evolution.
  
  "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree." - Genesis 1:11
  "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." - Genesis 1:24
  
  Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly.
  Source: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/evolution.html
  
  
• The bible supports/does not support polygamy.
  
  It does both.
  Source: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygamy.html
  
  
• The bible supports/does not support slavery.
  
  It does both.
  Source: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/slavery.html
  
  
• Even though the old testament disparages women, the new testament treats women equally.
  
  Not so. One passage among hundreds:
  "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3
  Source: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/nt_list.html
  
  

Hinduism

• Hinduism is <insert generalization here>.
  
  Hinduism is not one distinct religion, but came to be under the British who, confused about the intricacies of Indian philosophy, used the word as an umbrella term for all the religious, spiritual, and philosophical traditions of the sub-continent. This excludes the distinct dharmic religions of Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Despite this, all traditions considered "Hindu" today draw their validity from four core scriptures called the Vedas. Those traditions that reject the Vedas are considered nastika (heterodox), as opposed to astika (orthodox).
  
  Hinduism is considered a family of religions and as such has no concept of God universal to all astika sects. Hinduism is thus not strictly polytheistic across all sampradyas (traditions), but can at the same time be pantheistic or panentheistic, or be distinctly henotheistic or monotheistic.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions
  

Islam

• Muslim martyrs have 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven.
  
  There is some debate about the translation of the passage that makes this claim. German philologist Christoph Luxenberg claims that the word huri, usually interpreted by generations of readers as wide-eyed virgins (who will serve the faithful in Paradise; Qur'an 44:54, 52:20 ,55:72, 56:22) actually means white grapes. He says that many Christian descriptions of Paradise describe it as abounding in pure white grapes.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_Of_The_Koran , http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E1DD143CF937A3575BC0A9629C8B63
  
  
• The Qur'an command women to cover themselves with veils.
  
  The Quranic passage in Sura 24 commanding women to cover themselves, one of the texts on which the doctrine of hijab is based, actually commands women to "snap their belts around their waists," according to Christoph Luxenberg.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_Of_The_Koran
  
  

Science

Evolution

• The complexity of life couldn't have come out of randomness like evolution posits.
  
  Evolution by natural selection is not an entirely random process; the random results of mutation are filtered by the non-random process of natural selection and other non-random mechanisms. Though it should be noted that some evolutionary changes result from genetic drift, and are entirely random.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions
  
  
• Evolution is just a theory; it's not a fact and it hasn't been proven.
  
  The word "theory" in "the theory of evolution" does not imply doubt in mainstream science about the validity of this theory; the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are not the same in a scientific context. A scientific theory is a set of principles which, via logical deduction, explains the observations in nature. The same logical deductions can be made to predict observations before they are made. The theory describing how evolution occurs is a "theory" in the same sense as the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity.
  Source: (Other than all of scientific literature) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
  
  
• Humans descended from chimpanzees.
  
  Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees or any other modern ape; instead they share a common ancestor (possibly Sahelanthropus tchadensis) that existed around 7 million years ago in the late Miocene epoch. However, the genuses Ardipithecus and Orrorin are alternative candidates for this common ancestor.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions
  
  
• Almost all mutations are harmful.
  
  The claim that "almost all mutations are harmful" is false. In fact, most mutations have no noticeable effect. One study gives the average number of mutations that arise in a human conception to be around 128, with an average number of harmful mutations per conception of 1.3.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions and http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&artid=1288368
  
  

Scientists

• Albert Einstein believed in a personal god.
  
  Albert Einstein did not believe in God in a "personal" sense. Many people misinterpreted his words in public, to which Einstein himself responded by saying: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
  
  

Miscellaneous

• We only use 10% of our brains.
  
  People do not use only ten percent of their brains. This myth is thought by some to have emerged after the discovery of glial cells in the brain, or it could have been the result of some other misunderstood or misinterpreted legitimate scientific findings, or even been the result of speculation by self-help gurus.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions and http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
  
  

[Gerry]

Very nice start

One I'd like to add:
"The Bible does not contradict itself"
Yes, it does.
Source: The Bible.
(joking... Well, not really)

One I despise profusely, partly because it's so obviously false and if they'd just pull their head out of their ass, they could see it is:
"Without God, there can be no morality. We would all be raping and killing each other" (or something to that effect)
Here's Iron Chariot's rebuttal:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Secular_morality
Also, it speaks pretty badly of the person using that argument, if they think the only thing keeping them from raping and killing you is their belief in a god.

I've also heard of statistics that Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system. Whether you want to use that to claim that Atheists are more moral is up to you, but it certainly shows that they are no less moral.
Source: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Anyways. If we get a good comprehensive list put together, maybe we can contribute them to Iron Chariots.
www.ironchariots.org

This is the type of stuff Iron Chariots was created for.
I'm pretty sure a few of the ones you listed are already on Iron Chariots, but not all of them.

[trevor]

Added a little bit on the morality question - though I will say that it is an issue that does not have as clear an answer as more objective claims. Philosophical questions are certainly welcome on the list though, and we can build up lists of arguments for either side.

Agreed that we should spread this info wherever it would be welcome.

[brian]

• Muslim martyrs have 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven.
  
  There is some debate about the translation of the passage that makes this claim. German philologist Christoph Luxenberg claims that the word huri, usually interpreted by generations of readers as wide-eyed virgins (who will serve the faithful in Paradise; Qur'an 44:54, 52:20 ,55:72, 56:22) actually means white grapes. He says that many Christian descriptions of Paradise describe it as abounding in pure white grapes.
  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_Of_The_Koran , http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E1DD143CF937A3575BC0A9629C8B63
  

Imagine being the guy that has to tell suicide bombers that they get 72 grapes instead of 72 virgins... 

But seriously...

Canada is a Christian nation
None of the BNA Acts from 1867 to 1975 contain any mention of god or religion.  The reference to God in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was put in only after much pressure from religious groups and members of the Progressive Conservative party.  The reference to God does not specify which god, so one could argue that it is referring to the god of any monotheistic religion.  Additionally, the courts have interpreted section 2 (Fundamental freedoms) to include a freedom from religion, and in R vs. Sharpe, considered the preamble a dead letter.[/list]

[trevor]

Added. If you can list some sources to cite, that would be delightful.

[trevor]

Just archiving this for the time being; I'll merge it into the morality post in a while:

Claim: (from a blog post)
I've come to the conclusion that God, or some sort of religion that promotes family unity and morality, is necessary to maintain a healthy society in the long-term.

Yes yes, religion generally is not so popular a thing to promote nowadays as it is usually associated with Jihadists and Crusaders, but on a general plebeian level it is a generally positive thing.

Some people might use Japan as an example of a society where the majority don't identify with or regularly think about spiritual/religious matters and yet still maintain a low crime rate and high standard of living. However, the cracks in Japanese society are becoming more and more visible what with the high suicide rates and phenomena where people, particularly youth, lock themselves away in their rooms for years. I also would mention that it is not unheard of for children to commit horrid murders. Some months ago a youth killed his mother and cut off her head. He put it in a bag, went to the local internet cafe for a bit and then turned himself in at the local police office. Would religion prevent this sort of thing? I believe it would, yes, because morals derived from a divine source are much more solid and respected than something promoted by existential secular rationalism which can only prescribe secular punishments. Not everyone is put in line with worldly punishments. In America school shootings have become commonplace. One might argue that religion is particularly well practiced throughout much of America. Yes, this is true, but the media and general society don't reinforce or particularly support religious morals. Religion is often viewed as backward and old-fashioned: the anti-thesis to modern secular society. Your religion might say one thing but everything on TV displays something entirely else. Godlessness and complete disregard for morality and restraint is portrayed as far more enjoyable and fashionable. Smart 'modern' people don't bother with such old fashioned things as morality.

In the West, depression and mental diseases are also commonplace in our affluent societies. Why is this? Why are people who live with such high standards of living often driven to live in their own self-created misery?

Existentialism and pure worldly rationalism is fine in philosophy circles. However, a society, which is largely made up of people who do not care to engage in such things, cannot derive a great deal of security from an ideology that generally states morality and human actions are ultimately meaningless in a godless universe. If this is so, what prevents a person from seeking physical revenge against those that have hurt them? If they plan on killing themselves or have no fear of worldly punishments, they have nothing to fear. If their actions are meaningless, then to a crazed youth with a gun what does it matter if they kill their classmates or don't kill their classmates? Again, a philosopher can understand these existential matters in a different light. However, most people, especially youth are prone to fall into very dangerous ways of thinking when they are brought up thinking that ultimately nothing matters other than what is before their senses. If nothing matters then what need for morals? What does it matter if one breaks the rules? The only thing to fear is being punished, and if they don't fear worldly punishments, it gives them free reign to do as they please.

In short, a society needs religion lest is fall into chaos. Existentialism, among other philosophies that generally promote Godlessness, is a fine tool for philosophers, but teaching such things to the masses is rather dangerous in the long-run. We need religions of some kind to keep the harmony.

My response:
You're absolutely and completely wrong. Yes, society needs religion, but not because atheists have no moral guidance, but because the average person isn't smart enough to think for themselves and apply logic and reasoning to complex situations.

Japan is not the best example to use. The average Japanese person doesn't particularly care about religion - but not caring about religion does not equal atheism. It just means they appeal to religion when it's necessary (when someone dies, marriage, etc) and don't care otherwise. It's apatheism. If you're really interested in examining largely secular or atheistic societies, look to Sweden or Denmark.

Hilariously, there is a recent study that shows that there is a strong correlation between atheism and societal health. (see http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheistic-societies-are-happy-societies) Quote: "Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism." That doesn't mean that atheism -causes- healthy societies of course, it seems to be more a happy consequence of them. You don't -teach- atheism; you just don't indoctrinate your children before they even have a chance to think for themselves.

In a 1997 survey of US prisons, only 0.21% of the prison population was atheistic, compared to 8-16% of the general population. (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm)

If I'm being frank: smart people - science-minded people - do not believe in personal gods. Less intelligent people need to believe that there's something out there that is greater than them and cares about them; politicians and rulers know that religion is a great way to control a society.

Religion is just good for that: control. It does not make people more moral. We are all in this world together, and should strive to make life better for all of us. That is a valid reason to be good; fear of punishment in the afterlife is not. I am seriously afraid of anyone whose only reason for not raping and murdering is divine punishment.

PS: Every society thinks that things are far worse than previous generations. They're not. We are always growing and learning new things; it is offensive to think that we were much better off -not- knowing what we know now.