In which PZ Myers has already answered

Mariano from Atheism is Dead has just come across that pathetic and ironically whiny anti-atheism article from Charlotte Allen from a while back, 'Atheists: No God, No Reason, Just Whining'. You know, the one where she rants and rants about atheists because she thinks we're ... well, boring. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Thankfully, I don't even have to address a nice little rebuttal – PZ beat me to it. Almost two months ago.

It's a good read – be sure to check it out. And laugh at Mariano for thinking that article is in any way effective in its criticism of atheism. I've yet to find a single piece of writing that doesn't just reinforce my impression that those who spend their time critiquing atheism do so because they either hate-hate-HATE it ('cuz God told 'em to), (and/)or because they simply know nothing about it.

Isn't it amusing how Christians and theists continually accuse atheists of ignorantly attacking their ridiculous beliefs when they themselves consistently fail to provide a single logical and rational argument against atheism? Hah ...

Continued ...»

Comfort: "God has indeed killed billions of people. What are YOU gonna do about it?"

It's expected of Ray Comfort to generally miss the point of what's being said or done, but now this is just odd. He fully agrees that God is basically a genocidal, children-killing, mankind-annihilating tyrant who's even sentenced the entire human race to death in the end (including the animal kingdom as well). Of course he can't truthfully deny it, as it's all right there in the Bible. So, what does he have to say about that?

Basically, "So what? What are YOU gonna do about it, huh?".

o_0

So there you have it. You now have multiple billions of deaths for which you can directly blame God.

So what are you going to do about it? Should you spread the word that you have evidence that God actually kills people? Or should you just keep quiet, because (as a professing atheist) remember, you are supposed to believe that He doesn’t exist.

Um ... no, Ray. Atheists don't accuse God of these things because we believe, deep down inside, that he actually does exist as you insinuate. When you think about it, we aren't accusing him of anything, directly. We're accusing the concept of him, the image of God, of being such a tyrannical monster who clearly has no qualms about crushing and torturing the creatures he supposedly loves so huggy-wuggy much. We're using this evil facet of God (which admittedly seems to permeate through to all his other facets in some way or another) as logical refutation to his very existence. Or, in a nutshell: "How can he exist as the great loving daddy in the sky when all he does is kill and torment the very minions he supposedly loves?".

Because you see, that doesn't make any dang sense, does it? So you basically have a lose-lose situation: either the good and benevolent God doesn't exist, or God does exist in the form of an evil egotistical tyrant. That's what any stretch of logic leads to concluding.

So, as them math nerdz would undoubtedly say: QED.

Continued ...»

A lesson in logical fallacies: the supposed denial of atheists

Why do theists always argue like they know more about atheism than actual atheists? Sure, it's most likely just an offspring of the treasured old Arrogance of Ignorance, but it's still entertaining (though at times plain exasperating) to listen to the religious claim about how atheism is evil for this and that – and never, ever, seem to get anything right about it at all. Obviously it's simply because their minds are clouded and warped, stripped of all critical thought by their faith and brainwashing, but it still gets tiresome to repeat the same points over and over.

Nancy Greenwood from Red Deer, Alberta, is a perfect fit for this description of a boringly inaccurate anti-atheist. She's sent a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Express detailing her views on atheism, and specifically, five points that are "difficult to admit" for atheists that she believe tears down our nonbelief. She reads like one big walking logical fallacy; it's hilarious.

Beach states there is no evidence for God. This is not true. There are some key factors involved in this thinking by atheists that are not usually published.

But – hey, wait! She said there was evidence for God – and then changes the subject? But why doesn't she present said evidence? Unless – she lied? How disappointing.

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

Hmm. I admit, I do have godly wit at times (oh, snap, right?) – but I must confess to seeing myself as no more than a (sorta-)humble human teenager. As do *most* other atheists, I'm sure (except perhaps for the "teenager" bit).

No, atheists don't see themselves as superior to anyone else – not in every way, at least. Sure, atheists do tend to be better-educated, more intelligent and more decent folks than most; this has been widely seen amongst statistics and polls (ie. most of the brightest minds of the world are atheists, there are no atheistic wars whereas 99% of wars in human history were predominately religious, atheists are in the lowest percentiles for criminals and dangerous folks in general, and etc.). But show me an atheist who sincerely claims atheists are superior to everyone else as though part of a superior race, and I'll show you a man who's simply insane – or believes in a very skewed form of "atheism".

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Wait – what? Atheists have been hurt, yet can't understand suffering? Seriously, how do thinking humans write these sorts of sentences without even noticing how utterly dumb and silly they sound?

And of course, that point is just silly. So atheists are only godless because they were hurt and blamed God, and then punished him by disowning him? Right. Baseless claims much, Nancy?

And of course, the premise of this point is that atheists actually do believe in God – hard to get angry at something you don't believe exists. I can't hate unicorns or flying broomsticks, can I?

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

Aha! The Return of the Evil Atheist! Of course atheists and criminals are the exact same thing, and of course, all atheists are evil bastards, and they just pretend to drop their belief in God because they fear Big Daddy will smack them around the head a few times for being just so dang evil.

*Sigh*

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

Holy mother of Tod. That's one heck of a fallacy, the invalid analogy argument. Paintings had creators – so naturally, everything else in the Universe also had a creator. Oh, and also, seeing as my pen holds black ink, all ink is black. Dare to tell me you have a red-ink pen and I shall smack you, you heretic.

I do not deny that something did indeed create "world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains" – it's called physics (and, well, every single branch known to Science). Things developed over time until now where they're pretty much self-sustaining. Evolution means life creates new life and keeps on going, geology means the Earth is constantly changing, physics keeps the world balanced, chemistry keeps things interactive, and so forth. Yes, the world was created and developed – just not by a creator.

And what's that guff about bees violating the laws of physics? Bees fly because their wings displace air in a way enabling them to carry their body weight up and away. And there's enough knowledge and studies about the eye and how vision works to ensure that there isn't much left for us to discover or be confused over. Truly, that bit was just a couple of stupid claims. (Well, kinda like the rest, but whatever.)

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

Um ... isn't the fifth point just a mixture of previous points (particularly the third)?

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

Holy wow! The two single stupidest and illogical argumentative fallacies that exist, in a single sentence! First she uses Pascal's Wager, ie. the argument from ass-covering scaredy-catness which says that you should live your life as if a God did exist and was gonna judge and sentence you after your death, just because there's a small chance he might exist. It's a fallacy that's been demolished by numerous counter-argument, such as:

• "No, there's not even a 'small chance' the Biblical post-life-sentencing-to-Heaven-or-Hell God exists because it's completely silly";
• "It's an argument spawning just from being scared and insecure";
• "So you gotta act good only because a God might be awaiting you, otherwise you'd have no reason not to be as vile and evil as you wanna be?";
• "Why spend your entire life – a really long time by conventional measures – living according to the rules and laws of a petty tyrant you don't even believe exists (if you're using Pascal's Wager as an excuse, which would mean you don't actually believe in God but are playing along 'just in case')"; and etc.

And then, an even dumber fallacy: majority rules! After all, if 84% of the world follows some deity or another, than that's got to be the way to go, right? But wait – which of the (*counts*) hundreds of deities should you follow? And, seeing as many deities have multiple faiths under them, which particular faith? Ooh, what a noggin-scratcher.

In short: please, theists, please stop trying to use logic. You simply can't do it. And when you try and discredit atheism with said nonexistent logic ... verbal chaos and vivid laughter ensue, every time.

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

Here's a novel idea for a TV show

The premise: strand ten atheists in a room, and throw in a leader/preacher from the four major religions: a Muslim imam, Christian a priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk.

The goal: get a new convert from the godless folks every show, and further allure the nonbelievers towards faith with the prize of a pilgrimage to the holy site of their choice: Mecca for Muslims, the Vatican for Christians, Jerusalem for Jews and Tibet for Buddhists.

The result: a very entertaining (and amusing) game show packaged as Penitents Compete which is to air on Turkish TV sometime soon.

"We are giving the biggest prize in the world, the gift of belief in God," Kanal T chief executive Seyhan Soylu told Reuters.

"We don't approve of anyone being an atheist. God is great and it doesn't matter which religion you believe in. The important thing is to believe," Soylu said.

So the biggest gift in the world is a brainwashing societal poison*? Great. So much for the gold-and-diamond necklace I was gonna give to my girlfriend on our date. Pfft. Should've brought some religious brochures.

I suppose it probably hurts the show's image if the TV channel's actual chief executive preemptively asserts they are against atheism. Kinda like fatties contesting at a show that aims to thin 'em up, with a host that actually hates their overlarge guts. Pooh.

It's also pointless to merely pretend to be godless; a "team of theologians" will ensure that the participants are true atheists and not just faithful hopefuls who are keen on a free pilgrimage and shot to fame. Shoot, there go my vacation plans.

... Still sounds better than the large majority of shows on TV. (Seriously, if I hear another commercial on G4TechTV praising Hurl as the "greatest show on TV" I might do just that myself.

* I will admit that, perhaps, Buddhism isn't exactly the worst religion one could join. If they, y'know, had to. Plus a trip to Tibet sounds neat ...

Continued ...»

Atheism is a religion!

Well – it is!

Haa.

Continued ...»

Creationist dishonesty kills a believer – and births a rationalist

This is one of those inspirational stories that remind me why it's so important to fight back with every shred of tooth, nail and intelligence we have against the creationist movement, particularly in the U.S. (as the rest of the developed world, namely Europe, seems strangely immune to that sort of crap). It's not an easy of pleasant war, but every little victory counts – such as the conversion (or, more appropriately, deconversion) of souls who elect to follow the path of reason and enlightenment rather than obscure dogma and brainwashing bullshit.

One of the latest people who have been turned away from Christianity (or religion in general, I suppose), is "Shad". A reader of the Unreasonable Faith blog, he has sent a lengthy eMail exchange, and appropriate descriptions and personal anecdotes, to be published publicly online for all to read and discover the depths at which creationists sink to – and how negatively that often portrays their movement as. After all: why would you want to be part of a faith, side or party that shows itself to be immeasurably corrupt, dishonest and overall plain pathetic?

I've included the full length of Shad's personal account below. It is a little long, but it is a great read and truly does open one's eyes to the sort of crap we try to keep out of the government, educational facilities, and society in general whenever we can. (Some minor formatting changes are mine.)

So here’s my story and subsequent conversations with whoisyourcreator.com. After a return trip along Interstate 5 in Southern Oregon, I noticed a billboard along the side of the freeway with the caption ‘Are they making a monkey out of you’?:

Having some higher education basics of science in biology, chemistry, and other related fields under my belt, I couldn’t help resist the urge to check out this website. When I did, I checked out the site and was blown away by the misrepresentation of science they were displaying.

So I decided to contact them with a non-confrontational email to see how they would respond. Here’s the initial contact last year:

I was driving north on I-5 over the holidays and saw a billboard advertising your site. I’ve briefly looked around so it had me doing some initial individual research.

I’m curious to know if your site addresses the following:

This video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

and this information:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.htm

and

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/journey.html

Thank you,

Shad

Surely they would have at least respected the findings and material provided by the National Geographic? They are a respected organization and have been around for quite some time. It took quite some time to get a response. Well, the response was not what I expected:

Good Morning!

In regard to your comment, please consider helping your fellow evolutionists with a description of how evolution works!!!

Thank you and may you have a very blessed day,

Julie

This was an answer? A crass insult and complete avoidance of addressing what I presented to her? So I wrote back:

Hello Julie,

First, I would like to thank you for taking nearly two weeks to respond to my inquiry.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for making an assumption as well as jumping to the conclusion that I am an evolutionist. I was born and raised a Christian.

Thirdly, I would like to thank you for not answering my original question.

Additionally, it was kind of you to group me blindly and associate me with something I question just how much or little you know about.

The information I was looking at and specifically asking you about was with regard to genetic DNA based research that essentially builds out the human race ‘Family Tree’, which coincides with the Bible’s view of where we came from. The film and site talk about DNA markers passed down from Father to Son that was used track human movement around the world. I am interested in knowing how people (there’s over 6 Billion of us) scattered across the globe. I don’t think cars, buses, and planes did the job prior to their invention earlier this century.

I was hopeful to discover something intellectual and eye opening from your feedback. I received neither.

Good Day.

I didn’t really expect a reply after that, but she decided to do so anyway:

Shad,

Please accept my sincere apology for how I responded to your email. Yes, I did jump to conclusions and it was inexcusable, rude, and a poor witness for the Lord. (The time issue was related to research that had to be done within a timeline. When you emailed originally, I was not responding to any outside inquiries.)

I found the Genographic Project interesting, but I would like to refer you to www.answersingenesis.org for your inquiry as I haven’t done any research in that specific area.

Thank you for holding me accountable and may you have a very blessed day.

In Christ,

Julie

Holy Crap! ANSWERSINGENISIS? You’ve got to be kidding me! This gal that was covering topics in the field of Genetics on her website, and yet she was referring me to a site away from her own — pawning me off to a site that was a clear laughing stock in the scientific community? You’ve got to be kidding me. Why not defend what you are doing on your own website?

I wrote a couple more emails to her asking for her feedback on other material, but she never responded. Even with those emails I refrained from lashing out on her and just let the whole thing fade into the background.

Well, since having had that discussion, it had been eating away at me. So I continued researching and reading and watching documentary films in an attempt to erode my lack of knowledge on the immensity of Evolution. I had known of the topic all of my life, but not to the depth that I was now pursuing. Up to that point, I hadn’t really paid attention to the debate that was going on around the country regarding this topic. I had no idea that people were so passionately against this. Not because I lived in a cave mind you, but just simply do to the fact that I focused my life on other areas of interest. I was also disappointed as to how we as Americans were perceived outside of the United States on the matter of Evolution. The shear immensity of the problem boggles the mind.

While researching, I was amazed to learn what we as a species have discovered through our research and efforts. I was also amazed to discover how the scientific field of Evolution affected other fields of science and even spawned new fields, and how all of these fields became interlaced and supported one another. It was incredible.

After a year and a half of self-imposed and self-paced learning, along with conversations with family and friends (a whole other story), the gnawing memory of my discussion with Julie finally got to me. At this point, I was too far gone with the knowledge of my discoveries to let it sit idly any further.

I wasn’t sure if Julie was still working there, but decided to write back regardless. Notice the subject line modifications that ensued…

Subject: now I know

Greetings to the staff of ‘Whoisyourcreator.com’,

It’s been a while since I last made contact to your organization. Initial contact led me on a knowledge search.

I’ve since visited references you provided including that of Answersingenesis.com, the Discovery Institute, and other sites of similar stature.

I’m simply writing to say ‘Thank You’ and let you know by sharing with you the information I’ve discovered, your organization more than any other entity has been the primary factor in the shedding my faith. Keep up the good work as there is no doubt countless others have and will continue to do the same based on your efforts.

Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Origins the Series (currently 5 videos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=PlayList&p=0696457CAFD6D7C9&index=0&playnext=1

Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (currently 17 videos ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=0&playnext=1

Why do people laugh at creationists? (currently 30 videos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=0&playnext=1

From Big Bang to Us — Made Easy (currently 14 videos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=0&playnext=1

Schools version of the Made Easy series (currently 8 videos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uihNu9Icaeo&feature=PlayList&p=100500E4C9404405&index=0&playnext=1

Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism (currently 32 videos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=PlayList&p=F626DD5B2C1F0A87&index=0&playnext=1

Bias Bingo: How Cognitive Bias Generates Belief http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXxJJfX3Nk

Me VS God (currently 5 videos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2HxZXuTb8Y&feature=PlayList&p=6939AD265B8BDB65&index=0&playnext=1

Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity (currently 5 videos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk&feature=PlayList&p=5975FF2FEECF90D3&index=0&playnext=1

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911

and many many more.

Peace

I was sincere. The knowledge of science and philosophy I had acquired could no longer contain me within the chains of Christianity. After reading Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, along with watching “History of Disbelief” by Jeremy Miller, and a very long list of other material, my perspective did a complete 180.

But the internal struggles along that journey are a different story.

A couple days later, I got a response…

Subject: To the blind

Thank you for the email with your update.

While I am in no way encouraged by your professed Humanistic faith, I am encouraged by knowing that God is just, yet loving. He will judge you one day, yet He will forgive you if you believe and ask, even if it’s in your final breath.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” - Romans 1:20

“It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, the Judgment.” -Hebrews 9:27

May God open your eyes to His Truth, Shad, so that you may walk with sight.

In Christ,

Who Is Your Creator

I wasn’t surprised by this response. I was bothered by the “Humanistic faith” reference because during my studies, I read a lot on the topic and became a fan of the philosophy — thanks Sam Harris. I was also rather irked at the passive-aggressive manner with the subject line tripe.

That attitude was enough, so I started to unload…

Subject: To the uneducated

To whomever,

Changing the subject line in your last email to insult me failed. At the very least, I honor you with a taste of your own medicine.

I spent over 30 years of my life adamantly studying the bible including being baptized by my Southern Baptist Preaching Grand Father. This study revealed failure across the board to provide answers to question to an intellect a supposed God provided me.

It’s sad that when someone raises questions, many of which have wonderful and beautiful natural explanations that directly contradict biblical statements, those ignorant of how those explanations work dismiss the explanations on the simplistic and childish nature that such information goes against what they deeply believe. I believed as you for too long. Defending one’s faith despite information to the contrary that reveals truth does immense harm.
I could throw scripture and verse back at you. But I see this as a useless endeavor. I’ve actually read the bible - fully - dozens and dozens of times. Save your time.

I’m no longer scared of ‘judgement’ because I’ve shed the cloak of fear. So please spare me the contrivance.

What your website and so many others like it are doing are making numerous and false claims against multiple fields of science which we as a human species have fought for so long and hard to acquire. Your site attempts to dismiss that hard work, or at the very least undermine it. It is profoundly discouraging. This is deception and the last time I checked, deception was not something that Jesus approved of. Your website is out of date, out of context, and lacking of scientific expertise in nearly every field of science. ESPECIALLY Genetics.

It’s like watching a train wreck unfold.

Are you actively protesting US Government support of Genetic information contrary to what you’ve attempted to explain on your website? (http://www.genome.gov/)

There’s more: http://genomics.energy.gov/

If you actually take the time to view the videos I sent, you’ll understand more clearly why I just made these claims against your website. Fortunately, ignorance is curable. Willful ignorance is however not.

I suggest browsing through PUBMED: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/. It will keep you occupied for a while. Your selective use of PUBMED to mine for articles that support your claims is deception, and the worst kind.

Why are you not providing reliable sources of information on your website such as the Genome project? What you’re website is basically saying is that every field of science in every country on the planet is wrong. That’s quite an assessment on your part. Instead of attempting to prove evolution wrong, why not attempt to put your money where your mouth is. Here’s a recent challenge. Do this, and you’ll become quite wealthy: Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover.

In closing, there’s no debate concerning evolution any more. This is a non-debate. But this discussion like so many others has me sharing with you one of my favorite quotes of all time:

“I’m struck again by the irony that spaceflight – conceived in the cauldron of nationalistic rivalries and hatreds – brings with it a stunning transnational vision. You spend even a little time contemplating the Earth from orbit and the most deeply ingrained nationalisms begin to erode. They seem the squabbles of mites on a plum.” Carl Sagan - The Pale Blue Dot.

I recommend ‘Genome’ - by Matt Riddley The audio version of this book is quite exquisite.

If you were to pick only one of the video series I mentioned, please watch “Foundational Falsehood of Creationism”

I can’t believe that you’re using ‘Panda’s Thumbs’. Are you serious?

Peace

The rant made me feel better to get those things off my chest. It’s difficult to communicate with people that haven’t taken the time to simply read at least a portion of the information that’s available, when they sit there arguing against material that they haven’t taken the time to learn anything about, simply rejecting it prior to ever having spent any time even looking at it.

Most refusals to look at the material are based on an unwillingness to venture anywhere near their belief system of what they don’t know, or assume to know.

They wrote back…

Subject: I’ll still be praying …

1. You can go through all of our pages, including the ‘Genesis Account of Creation’ and see that 99% of our quotes come from evolutionary-based scientific research: - ‘Origin of the Universe’ uses quotes from NASA, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, Vienna University of Technology, TalkOrigins … to name just a few. - ‘Genetics’ page uses quotes from UCLA, Biology-Direct, University of Wisconsin, Science Magazine, International Journal of Astrobiology, Princeton, Cat Institute, Renal Physiology, etc.

(Note that many of the ScienceDaily.com and Physorg.com links that we use are taken from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ , but re-written in article form - by evolutionists - for easier reading.)

2. Since you believe that these are NOT qualified organizations, please include your list of ‘qualified’ research organizations.

3. In regard to ‘quote-mining,’ please submit just one example of how we distorted the findings and then we can enter into an actual debate. Otherwise, it’s your opinion.

4. I’m not sure about your reference to ‘Panda’s Thumbs’, but I suspect that you are referring to the pro-evolution blog that we cited somewhere as an example. See http://pandasthumb.org/ as you most likely will enjoy it.

5. Because you obviously prefer philosophy over empirical science, we suggest you check out this site as it will be more to your liking:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-science

6. Since you are familiar with the Bible, you know that faith is from God, not from our own understanding. If you found hypocrisy in the your previous church, that is exactly why our faith is based on the perfection of Jesus … not His followers. Our flesh will not be redeemed until death so, while we progressively sin less, the battle with the flesh is still fierce.

I will be praying that He opens your eyes so that you may find peace and forgiveness from Him, instead of the hurt and hatred that your emails reveal.

As much as you may try, you can’t will Him out of your life, Shad.

“For Yours is the kingdom the power and the glory, forever and ever.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHdB-cBwfcQ&feature=related

Who Is Your Creator

What I recognized immediately was that this person was using the same style of argumentation that was employed on the discussion forum where she had been completely eviscerated on every occasion. What’s sad is that she didn’t even realize to the extent she had been made to look like an utter fool. The reference to the Panda’s Thumb was an oversight on my part as I still had - fresh in my mind - the material ‘Of Panda’s and People’ from the Dover trial (see the NOVA clip). Just the word ‘Panda’ on her website had me laughing. I later learned it was PandaThumb.org.

At this point I’d had enough. How could someone that not only knew where to obtain scientific material on Evolution, abuse it to such an extent, yet continue to identify themselves as a Christian? I was pissed. So I let them have it.

Response to #1.
You are quote mining from these sources - or more to the point, you are scavenging through these sites and cherry picking articles, and removing context of a myriad of related material to each item you reference. That is what is called QUOTE MINING. This is deception. Deception is a lie. Lying is breaking one of the 10 commandments. This demonstrates not only willful ignorance and a clear lack of education from any one of these institutions, but a complete dismissal of the mountain of information to the contrary of what you present. This behavior is deplorable.

Response to #2.
I did not say that these universities and government organizations are not qualified research organizations. What I said was “Your website is out of date, out of context, and lacking of scientific expertise in nearly every field of science. ESPECIALLY Genetics.” This means that by the actions taken on your website, you clearly do not employ actual scientists to provide to you explanations and context of the material you spend time quote mining for.

Response to #3
See item #1 above. Additionally I offer to you the first posting on this page: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/genetics.html with the statement of: “It is known that life is built from inorganic elements, but evolutionists have no explanations as how that occurs:”

You follow up that statement by QUOTING from two scientific articles, one from 1998, and the other from 2007.

You have taken the first quote from within an article, thus removing it’s context to the entire article, and making it appear as though the scientific article disputes genetics, when on the contrary, the article itself explains it. This really makes your website appear foolish and tremendously deceptive.

The second quote is lifted directly from the conclusion statement of the article from the National Institutes of Health. This again is quote mining and demonstrates that a) you didn’t read the entire article (or perhaps only the summary or conclusion), and b) you picked up a component of this article to fit your needs.

The additional problem with your actions and deceptive behavior is that you offer no information to the contrary. You do not represent a balanced approach to scientific information. You use scientific quotes in an attempt to create the false illusion of a lack of consensus within the scientific community. I don’t know if this is from ignorance or simply a failure to do a simple Google search. Up to this point, it is by all appearances an act of deception.

Despite all of the above, this information has already been discovered. But you would know that if you actually kept up on science. But you’re not a scientist, so I can’t expect that you would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Here’s the interview with Dr. Jack Szostak explaining what you’re attempting to dismiss by means of deception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w

This is simply one example of the fraudulent behavior your website exhibits.

Anyone actually READING the articles you reference can see right through what you’re doing.

Response to #4
The Panda’s Thumb comment was regarding the book “Of Panda’s and People”, not the blog site.

Response to #5
Philosophy and Empirical Science are two different fields. I have appreciation for both. If there’s a point you’re attempting to make here, you fail to do so.

Response to #6
This item touches upon a multitude of topics in the realm of epistemology. But I’d like to make mention of the fact that science is not religion and has nothing to do with faith. You’re attempting to overlap or somehow hybridize the two, or at the very least bastardize credible science. Science only deals with what we can observe and test repeatedly and independently. Here’s a better explanation from Steven Jay Gould concerning Nonoverlapping Magisteria.

You misrepresent science and hand pick articles to make science look bad. You clearly fail to understand science, and fail to educate yourself because it conflicts with what you believe. You look for and manufacture false information on the illusion or perception of disagreement in the scientific community. This demonstrates a fear of the unknown, and an unwillingness to adjust what you’ve come to believe through scripture to the evidence that is difficult to reconcile with biblical information. Truth doesn’t care of beliefs or opinions.

You appear to have isolated yourself in a world void of information contrary to what you hold dear. Perhaps some reading from Bertrand Russell will help you out.

My eyes have been opened by the exposure of deception and misrepresentation the creationist movement exposes itself to time and time again. What you’re doing is by its very nature equivalent to practitioners of Flatearthism and Holocaust Denialists. What you fail to see is the similarities of these other two practices with your own.

Do you even have a degree from a Secular University - namely ANY that you quote mine from?

And here’s the paper from Dr. Szostak:
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Mansy_et_al_Nature_2008.pdf

Oh, while you’re praying for me, please ask for forgiveness for your sin of lying to the level you have.

Granted I could have addressed the “sources” portion of the email in a more articulate manner, but I think I made my point.

They haven’t responded.

And I see precious few reasons why they would, Shad. You've backed her about as far into a corner as you can without squeezing her through the walls altogether. Either she's decided her excuses and non-arguments (and ad-hominems, of course) are simply useless and tiredly repetitive here, or she's run for cover in the face of honesty, reason and evidence. (Though don't count on that second one.)

It's always so pleasing when creationists shoot their own feet right off with their disingenuousness and hypocrisy, to the point where they actually cause believers to simply cast their irrational and illogical beliefs aside in their quest for knowledge and rationality. Any victory is a victory, and so now, I raise my figurative goblet to Shad. =)

Continued ...»

Another fine example of religious tolerance, acceptance and love

I've always been interested by so-called newspaper "agony aunts", those newspaper columnists who give personal advice to ailing souls who write in seeking guidance with whatever problems afflict their lives. It's not often-pathetically trivial problems that interest me; it's rather, why people bother to write in to newspaper columnists as though seeking professional advice from actual guidance counselors as though they were in any position to truly help you without knowing anything about you. I just read these columns for the occasional dry chuckle.

Well, anyway. One of these agony aunts is Margo Howard at wowOwow.com, and she's just replied to some decidedly ... interesting bit of mail from religious lunatics regarding their poor daughter. And by "interesting", I mean downright disturbing. Once again reinforcing my ever-so-prevalent belief that no child should be brought up in a family dominated by religion ...

Dear Margo: Our daughter started college a year ago, and we’ve noticed during her visits home that she’s not the sweet, innocent girl we sent away for higher learning. We raised her with strong Christian beliefs, but lately she’s saying that she’s joined an atheist club on campus and is questioning everything we taught her. Now my husband refuses to let her in the house and is threatening to turn her in to the FBI. I’ve tried to cure our daughter and reconcile with her, but nothing seems to work. I’ve prayed over her at night while she sleeps, enlisted friends in a phone prayer tree and even spoken to my priest about the possibility of an exorcism. I’m at my wits’ end. How can I recover my daughter and keep her from hell? — God-fearing

Holy shit.

It's hard to decide where to begin here. So they've sent their pristine religiously-indoctrinated daughter off to college, which of course is where new ideas are formed and students are encouraged to question everything until they come up with their own worldview, and contrary to what they were evidently hoping, she seems to be slipping away from their faith, joining atheist clubs and questioning what she'd been told. Which, y'know, is good and all if it helps her mold her own opinions and beliefs.

So her parents respond by ... locking her out of the house? Trying to "cure" her of the atheistic disease, considering exorcism, and even threatening to throw her into the clutches of the FBI!? (What, do they think the FBI has a Religious Disbelief Task Force or something?)

Truly, the only way people ever make good parents is by encouraging their children to expand their minds – regardless of which direction said expansion takes. I may be a complete atheist, but if my hypothetical kid(s) decided to lean towards religion or any faith of their choosing, I would be disappointed, perhaps, but I would certainly accept that it's their friggin' choice and that I just don't have a say in it – and that I ESPECIALLY don't have a right to try and prevent them from believing what they choose to believe in.

Thankfully, Margo's reply to them, while diplomatic and restrained due to rules and guidelines of the website, is cutting and realistic.

Dear God: Whoa, dear. While I am sympathetic to anyone’s devotion to their religion, you need to realize that your daughter is a sentient being with the right to reject your religious views if she so chooses. Your husband is pathetically misguided if he thinks he can call the FBI to report the "crime" of your daughter joining an atheists club. Ditto for the exorcism. This young woman is not possessed, demonic or doing weird things; she is merely thinking and questioning the religion she grew up with. I would encourage you to understand that all people, your daughter included, have the right to think for themselves, particularly about something as meaningful as religion. As for hell, well, she appears willing to take her chances. — Margo, contemplatively

Well (and politely) said. Too bad she presumably isn't allowed to mention just how batshit insane these religious kooks that pass for parents are. For Christ's sake; threatening to throw your daughter to the freakin' FBI for being an atheist?

---

Note: actually, the more I read this letter and the reaction revolving around it, the more I'm actually beginning to doubt its honesty. I mean, seriously; turning her in to the FBI? I've seen some insane amounts of crazy even during my relatively short romp around the atheism-vs.-religion corner of the Net, and even then this still seems too unbelievable to be ... well, believable. I'm starting to wonder if I should just call "poe" on this one.

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

What it takes to be "fully human", Catholic-style

The video below shows the Christian point-of-view of what it takes to really be part of the same species as other humans: a belief in God, basically.

So now it takes an irrational, dogmatic belief in an inexistent deity to fully be human? Not if my complete set of Home Sapiens-Sapiens genes have anything to say about that.

Or maybe atheists aren't quite human after all, considering humans tend to be a religious creed. Maybe we're mutants, and have grown superpowers of deduction, logic and critical thinking/skepticism. It's only too bad that every other human on Earth also has these powers – they just usually never use them.

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

All jokes, good and bad

Just a few random jokes I've come across in this Pharyngula thread, from the genuinely funny to the pathetically lame, and one or two in between.

First up, the subject of Dr. Myers' latest entry (as I write this): a stunningly lame joke used against atheists by smug twits who apparently seem to view it as a true knockout blow. (No pun intended.)

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in, looked to the ceiling, and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, '"Here I am God. I'm still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him, knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked, stunned, and sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What the heck is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The Marine calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting American soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So, He sent me."

That joke is painful on a number of levels, none of which is the one it's obviously originally intended for. First, it portrays atheist college professors as time-wasting atheists with nothing better to do than defy curriculum and do ... well, nothing, for 15 minutes or more just to brag about God's inexistence. Then, it shows the Marine as the proud and dignified serviceman who does the "right" thing by walking up and just beating a guy unconscious just because he said or did something the Marine didn't like.

And of course, then there's the point of the Marine apparently having auditory hallucinations, if he actually heard God tell him to go and knock the professor off his platform. This, because God was "too busy" (contradicting his supposed omnipotence) by "protecting American soldiers". Right. Tell that to the families of the over four thousand dead troops – in Iraq alone. You will really heal all their wounds, letting them know that God's watching over them. Despite them being, well, dead and all.

One good thing I can say about it though – it certainly isn't about to convert any more Christians, or crush any atheists. It just illustrates the age-old truth of the religious being far more violent and dangerous than atheists have ever been and (hopefully) ever will be.

One of Myers' commentors has posted a revised and rather more accurate version of the same joke. (Modifications to the joke in dark blue; I've fixed the formatting and a typo or two.)

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan . One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, “God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I’ll give you exactly 15 minutes.” The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, “Here I am God. I’m still waiting.” It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform.

The professor was out cold. The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, “What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?”

The Marine calmly replied, “God was too busy today protecting America ’s soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an ass. So, He sent me.”

The Marine was quickly arrested by campus security and taken to the local police station. He was tried and convicted of assault and battery. He served a two-year sentence and was dishonorably discharged from the Corps. The professor also sued him for the medical expenses of the concussion, cranial trauma, and spinal damage he received from the punch. The ex-Marine now works at McDonald's, drinks heavily, and regularly beats his wife and children.

Rather more lifelike, if not funnier.

Next, a neat little joke about ... uh ... Christian tableside manners, I suppose.

An atheist is wandering through the forest and looking for mushrooms. Every time he finds one, he admires its beauty and the wonder of the natural world. Then he takes some snapshots. He eventually finds a nice lake and starts walking towards it.
He rounds a corner and is terrified to see a bear.
The bear growls and bolts towards him. Because he is so frightened, he runs.
And runs.
And runs.
Looking back, he sees that the bear is still there. In fact, it's gaining.
The atheist runs and runs and runs and he can hear the bear getting closer.
While looking back, he trips on a root and falls backwards.
The bear is upon him and it raises a clawed hand to strike.
The atheist gasps "Oh God!"
And time stops.
YES?
"Uhm, errrr."
YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE IN ME, BUT NOW IT SEEMS THAT YOU DO. WHAT DO YOU WANT?
"Well," says the atheist. "I'm going to die."
SO? WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO ABOUT IT?
The atheist gets an idea:
"Well, I have no idea whether you're the Christian God , and I'd rather live than convert on my deathbed...
Could you make the bear a Christian?"
OK.
And suddenly time resumes.
And the bear, which has its paw in the air stops, blinks a few times, and slowly drops its paw to its chest.
Where it meets with the palm of its other paw.
And the bear says:

"For what we are about to receive, may we be truly grateful. Amen."

I'd originally misread that one, making it rather less funny than it is when you think it's actually talking about Christianity in a good light.

And finally, one last little joke I can't help but smile knowingly at every time I reach the end.

One sunny day in 2009, an old man approaches the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He speaks to the Marine standing guard and says, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine replies, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."

The old man says, "Okay," and walks away.

The following day, the same man approaches the White House and says to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine again tells the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."

The man thanks him and again walks away.

The third day, the same man approaches the White House and speaks to the very same Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looks at the man and says, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man answers, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snaps to attention, salutes, and says, "See you tomorrow."

=)

Continued ...»

A solution for those who were baptized before they could walk or talk ... (in Britain)

One of the worst things about religion in my mind, particularly with ones like Christianity or Islam or whatever, is how religious parents raise their children from birth to be in that religion, without ever really letting the kid(s) decide for themselves if they want to be associated to a deity-worshiping cult or not. For Christians, this "initiation" is of course done through the ritual of baptism.

Well, those ever-secular Brits are experiencing a phenomenon aimed at countering just that. So far, it's estimated that over 100,000 Brits are now ex-Christians after having downloaded "Certificates of Debaptism" to publicly renounce the Church, according to London's center of secularism, the National Secular Society (NSS).

Terry Sanderson, the society's president, says the group started the online de-baptism initiative five years ago to mock the practice of baptizing infants too young to consent to religious rites. Their web site invites visitors to "Liberate yourself from the Original Mumbo-Jumbo that liberated you from the Original Sin you never had" and allows them to print out a paper certificate that uses quasi-formal language to "reject baptism's creeds and other such superstitions." But in recent months, as tens of thousands began to download the certificate, organizers realized that they had struck a chord with atheists and once-devout church members who are leaving churches they see as increasingly out-of-tune with modern life. "Churches have become so reactionary, so politically active that people actually want to make a protest against them now," Sanderson says. "They're not just indifferent anymore. They're actively hostile." (See pictures at a drive-in church.)

The campaign has become so popular — with nearly 1,000 certificates downloaded each week — that the NSS has started taking orders for certificates printed on parchment, at $4.50 each; they've sold nearly 2,000 in just three weeks. "Every time the Pope says something outrageous we get another rush on the certificate," Sanderson says, noting that traffic to the site skyrocketed last month following Pope Benedict XVI's comment that condoms could worsen the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa.

So, to any British Christians currently bored enough to be reading this, how 'bout it? For just $4.50, you download your own throwing-away of the shackles of religion. Sounds like a heck of a fair price to me – imagine those bygone days where Christians were killed in public just for speaking their discontent with the Church. Now with a few bucks you can pretty much rub your ass in the Church's face and they can't do a damn thing about it.

Oooh, I love secularism. :P

Continued ...»

How to defeat the "What If?" Christian game, Hitchens-style

One of the most common tools and tactics employed by Christians against atheism and atheists is the notorious "What If?" game, or some variant thereof, where they ask unsuspecting atheists scripted questions along the lines of "If God created you and everything you hold dear, are you in his debt?", or "If you were to be judged along the Ten Commandments, would you be going to Hell?", or even "If repenting to Jesus absolves you of your sins, then would you repent to Jesus?", and etc. Of course, the game's point is that the questions are scripted to encompass the answer "yes", which – somehow, despite it being a game of hypotheticals – "proves" that God exists and how we are truly at His mercy and are "owned" by Him. It's a pathetic con, a rhetorical employed by dinks like Ray Comfort quite often, and even the staunchest of atheists are at times taken off-guard and are sent falling down logical loophole after logical loophole.

Todd Friel, who looks every bit like the pathetic brainwashing evangelical that he is, tried to pull this game on someone over the radio on the show "What If?", but I daresay he met his match: perhaps he was aloof, or perhaps plain stupid, because he thought he could work this stupid game on ... Christopher Hitchens. You know, one of the biggest guns of the atheist party, a celebrated journalist and author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a man whose long journalist career has pretty much armed him with the wit, knowledge and fearlessness to tackle anyone at any time?

The result is, while unsurprising, definitely entertaining as Hitchens refuses to follow the preset scripted answers, leads Friel down logical roads and pathways that confound the poor pathetic evangelical, and in the end has – pardon the expression – "beaten him at his own game", leaving Friel stammering around like a fool.

Part One

Part Two

How beautiful.

(via Pharyngula)

Continued ...»

Talk about scoring in the wrong goal ... then gunning down your team

It's now a sad but demonstrable fact that not only creationists can write utterly horrid books to express their viewpoints in the most insipid, confusing and senseless manner possible. If atheists are supposed to be the 'enlightened ones' as I like to refer to us, Professor John Harrigan is a black hole that sucks all enlightenment away from our tough little camp and casts it out into the endless black depths of the sky.

Oh, okay, enough with the fancy talk. His book, The Professor and the Dominatrix (sounds promising already ...), is bad on a whole variety of levels. It first starts off boring and confusing. Then it becomes incoherent babble. Then it becomes so bad you can't help but laugh, perhaps half-deluding yourself into believing it's got to be a parody of sorts – surely no College professor can write that badly? But by the end, all hilarity is long-gone as you sincerely wish you hadn't forced yourself through the torture that is reading the whole stupid pile of crap.

In case I haven't convinced you already, check out an exceedingly apropos review at Blag Hag.

Of course, I'd be remiss not to allow you a little taste, a small sampling, beforehand (oh, and all quotes are [sic]):

"Homosexuals would be demons working for Satin.”

"She was a connoisseur. A gobbler of whangs par excellence."

Alfie thought back to what Evan had said when he faced off with Charles who had become Charlene. "That Evan had some good lines: 'Female hormone injections and having your penis mutilated does not make you a woman, just a medical mess. God made you a man, a surgeon can't change that."

"Remember when he called him-her an it then said, 'Homosexuality is an abomination.'"

"Ya know," Grant said, "this whole homosexual and sex change stuff is weird. Put it this way, if women are no more than makeup, so to speak, that falls right onto the lap of the gender feminists. The only difference they recognize is that anyone with a giblet is bad, rotten, evil, oppressive - you name it. Men are bad just because they're men; women are good just because they're women. So, the name is the difference? Some of those gender feminists want to keep as few men around as possible, ten percent I've heard, for breeding only. Jesus! What will they do? Drown nine out of ten baby boys? Well - not long ago gays and lesbians were called unnaturals, now they're considered okay, a preferred minority, and anyone who doesn't think homosexuality is okay is a fucking homophone, has a mental called homophobia. The gays calling in were saying Evan is a big homophobe. Boy, when it comes to name calling, the shoe is on the other foot now."

Dear God. Blindingly obvious typos, insane non-sequitors, the sheer incoherence of it all ... And it just goes on!

This book is, randomly: boring, incoherent, illogical, trollish, rude and abrasive, homophobic, racist, sexist, bigoted in nearly every possible way, and overall a terrible pain to try and read and a definite milestone in the Worst Books Ever list that has got to exist somewhere in some periodical. This piece of shit does to atheism what Ray Comfort's ridiculously atrocious You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but you Can't Make Him Think does to common sense: it tarnishes the whole damn concept of it with every stupid word. (Although, perhaps comparing even this wonder of horrors to Comfort's epic failure is a bit harsh. If only just a bit.)

The worst part of it all is that, of course, this is EXACTLY the sort of shit we as atheists do NOT want people to read. Not because it 'exposes' our mentality or morality or whatever; no, we don't want people to read this, for the same reason a Christian wouldn't want anyone else reading a Christian author's book about an angry, hateful and incoherent God. (... Ok, so we've got the Bible for that already – moving on ...) This is just the wrong message that we want to send out to religious or noncommittal folks: that atheists are hedonistic scumbags and mindless trolls who just want to rant and rage at religion and religious folk for their own sheer fun. This book is a monstrosity on so many levels it would send Frankenstein back to his many gravesites.

(Via Blag Hag and Pharyngula)

Continued ...»