I will now respond to the final part of the three part series on godscience that says they will provide evidence for god.
For part 2 see here.
It all starts with the most important question on can ask "how does one test religious claims?"
And guess what the question is dodged, all the author talks about Carl Sagan, but never answers the question "how do we test religious claims". Is this the author saying there is no way to test the claims? Is the existence of a god null and void then?
The author then gets into a discussion as to why the bible is more reliable than the koran, by showing examples form the books. However he fails to show that if different verses were quoted then the koran would be more reliable. So we have a bit of dishonesty or favouritism here. Never mind the fact that we still have no evidence for a god.
We hear then how we can discard the church of latter day saints and other modern religions as
"When dealing with more modern religious traditions, tests of scientific accuracy are more difficult to deploy, since those religions have the advantage of scientific revelation since the Enlightenment. "
Finally something intelligent, you are admitting that science will determine how accurate a so called divinely inspired text is. Wait science determines accuracy?
Then we learn all about how awesome the bible is and how it has made really important scientific discoveries for example.
"The Bible refuted steady-state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended) long before science made that determination"
This we learn comes from Genesis 2: 3-4.
"Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."
Uhmm......no this does not say that matter is no longer being created! Which is what it would have to say if it was refuting steady-state theory.
Or how about
"the Bible describes several properties of the earth that were not confirmed by science until hundreds of years after the Bible first made the claim. Examples include the claim that air has weight,"
Which we learn comes from Job 28:25
"When He imparted weight to the wind, And meted out the waters by measure"
Uhmmm..... no seems to me he made wind have weight. Now wind is the movement of air, so wind does not have weight if anything it has momentum.
Then the author goes into how the religious worldview is better than a materialistic worldview. Well maybe I can say fine its true, but you are now assuming everyone adheres to these principles you have defined and we all know that is not true. So you are dishonest.
But I will raise one more point before I throw this garbage in the trash. The author says
"The largest problem for naturalism is a failure to provide for the existential needs of human beings. People have a need for meaning, a purpose for living, and a hope for the future."
Well do people really have a purpose, this is based on your assumption that god created us for a purpose. So maybe humans don't have a purpose, but if you fear your mortality then I suppose you will always need a purpose to have a meaningful life... and that's why you believe in fairy tales. I think the desire for a purpose comes from a point of view that you think you are more important than others....but that's just my opinion
Saying atheism is bad for society is denying what religion is doing to society, and all the good done by atheists. Again if these parts are meant to be coherent, then you still need to provide the proof for god in part 1.