Hammock Highlights

Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig

2011-08-03T10:35:00.000-10:00

I found this video at the great site known as ExChristian.net (please give them a visit), then with my usual vigor I investigated all its claims and links I possibly could to my own delight. I found much of the documentation accessible, and I am still finding interesting connections.

Kodos to SkydivePhil

This video shows, with dramatic clarity, the gaping holes in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. By evidencing and evincing the contradictions, theistic claims contradicted by the evidence, and apologetic claims contradicted by the scientists themselves this argument is laid to rest.

If you follow along with Alan Guth's dialog you will here mention "pocket universes" and if his writing is consistent with my understanding of what he is saying here (which I have no doubt it will be) I will show documented agreement with my accumulation of expansion concept caused by multiple black hole bursts as each one releases the matter as it becomes too weak to hold the singularity of compressed matter due to Hawking Radiation, the dissipation of the energy needed to contain matter in that state of compression. Have you ever asked yourself why the cosmos has Black Holes? Could it be that it is merely the balance of matter and energy that necessitates their existence? That is, too much matter in too close a proximity and gravity does the rest, well that is until the energy (gravity in this case) equals the atomic energy of the accumulation of electrons in the singularity that are being pulled around the nucleus of the atom much like the stator windings being pulled around the anchored armature of a electric motor. This is the point where distance between the electron and the nucleus is proportional to the energy of the orbit and bang massive instantaneous expansion. Oh, this also works in consideration of string theory as the vibrating strings unfold the membrane in a similar massive expansion; I would think.

I will be updating this post as I read the documentation and books that I have discovered in this video.

A Note to Self-Proclaimed Pro-Life Proponents

2011-08-02T15:06:00.000-10:00

Only in America can one be pro-draft, pro-war, pro-drone strikes, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-landmines, pro-death-penalty, and still call yourself pro-life.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are some of the inalienable rights which the Founding Fathers decided we were all entitled. So, there is a balance to be attained with life and happiness in the elimination of suffering. Suffering in the form of pain, poverty, starvation, serfdom, and slavery. And if one honestly stood with limited government, they would vote to keep government out of the private decisions of a mother trying to make a very difficult choice concerning her baby's well-being at a point of no suffering: 1st trimester of embryonic development. They, would vote to enable the government to defend against corporatists practices and policy manipulation that produces an overpopulation of unprotected consumers wherein competition for a living wage would be usurped by self preservation and the immediate need to survive. Why else would one think killers (see above) like Conservative Republicans give a crap about abortion; a flooded consumer and labor market suits their needs and goals. Might those professing to be pro-life actually be anti-choice?

Now even a limited government still needs to be strong enough to ensure that someone's rights and views stop where another's rights start. Since "We the People" are our government many prefer a stronger government that protects our rights from strong greed motivated capitalist interests, strong international oligarchies like churches, and strong national & international corporate interests, etc. —these are all the enemies within. The afore mentioned Inalienable Rights are why regulations that protect the populace from the poisonous profit driven shortcuts regarding safety, environmental protection, financial gaming, etc. are in place.

Yes, if you're thinking this would make Social Conservatives, the Religiose, T-Partiers, and Libertarians mindless tools of corporate ambitions to install their own servitude (not to mention poisoning), you're getting warm. Opinion manipulation through rhetorical ploys that are emotionally charged appeals to the baser reactions to xenophobia and mob mentality is the oldest form of politics known to man.

Further, many would suspect most cultural conservatives don't even know what life is, if, as we also suspect, they have a clergy's eye view of it. The time table resulting from Roe v. Wade is tied to consciousness, that is, the ability to suffer.

Lastly, some seem to think that liberals don't defend the free market, when in fact, we do. The free market of ideas that Thomas Jefferson idealized and the free market competition that improves the qualities of commerce. But, the free market that libertarians and capitalists rale on about is subordinate to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that We the People are entitled.

Now, I have a question for you dear reader: Does anyone think the German people thought for a minute that the fascist they were putting into power, the man supported by the Catholic, Protestant (and eventually the Central) churches, a man that hated all the same people they hated (ie. homosexuals, Gypsies, Jews, outsiders, etc.), was the Hitler we know today, or do you think they thought he was just a good Christian, and a patriotic German?

The reason I ask is because we have a portion of the population that idealizes Austrian economics (Hitler's home country and an economic foundation of fascism), a party (Republicans, & same portion of the population) that uses religio-political concepts as evinced by the Nazi state thinker, Carl Schmitt, and that same party is obviously protective (if not outright sock-puppets) of the same international corporatists (the political foundation of fascism). Then, as the judicial practitioners of Nazi Germany later found out, it is the lack of protection of a fellow citizen's civil rights that permits, and not only through compounding, the atrocities that we now know decimated Europe. Maybe, conservatives should think harder about imposing their opinion on the the very people who's fate they will share.

An Anachronistic Message

2011-07-31T02:12:00.001-10:00

On 07-28-11, I had an interesting conversation with a Christian @lauramzy. She did the usual bible quoting and unsupported assertions, followed by ranting in all capitals; you know, generally losing her cool. Only, in so doing the usual quoting et cetera, she gave me an opportunity to see where people get that their deity is a loving peaceful deity contrary to everything I know about it.

The first Bible verse I received was 1 John 4:7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Now the first thing one will notice is that this verse is claiming in the third person to know god and further to know god is love. Ok, interesting observation considering the content of the books that precede this particular verse. This is not, however, evidence that the Christian god is love; it is merely a claim of such. And in the context in which this verse was written it seems to be a sermon of praise and platitudes. No one, well except Christians grasping at straws, would expect this to be factual anymore than public comments at a wedding reception.

Now, this next one contradicts her claim in that her deity is professing to do the fighting as opposed to diplomacy. Deuteronomy 3:22

Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you.

The previous verse has an interesting assertion about:

Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings

So, this just doesn't sound like a peace loving god which is directly contradicting her claim. Is she confusing her own feelings of security for those of peace? I don't understand why she would use it unless it just fit her search criteria and she didn't read further. Most importantly, this is a case of a first person narration of a particular opinion not that of direct observation, nor is it a record of any deity making such a claim. In the next verse Exodus 14:14 is the same problem:

The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

It is starting to look like my interlocutor searched for the word peace and love in an attempt to find confirmation for her theses regarding her deity's disposition. Again, the verse she has chosen shows not diplomacy but vigilante violence. So far, no sign of a loving, peaceful god even in her choice of verses.

Then in her next exchange she actually asks if I am embarrassed about my stance. This as she proffers a verse straight out of the battle of David and Goliath 1 Samuel 17:47

And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.

This deity offers the enemy up for slaughter. I would not consider this peaceful under any circumstance. In the verse preceding the above David is bragging about the Lord delivering Goliath so that David will take his head. If this is a peaceful, loving deity, what would a violent deity be? In my view this is a nationalistic god of war. It should not be surprising as Yahweh Sabaoth means God of War or Armies, yet it is the rare fundamentalist that knows these facts.

Still haven't seen evidence of the peaceful god of which my interlocutor writes. I hate to tell her that after many decades of study, nothing even close to a peaceful, loving deity has emerged. The verses she has presented so far are not evidence of anything of the sort. From what I have learned from reading the bible, Yahweh is a god of war, and even considering her quoted verses this still stands, so far. Many of her quoted verses were clipped. Out of 1Samuel 25:33 she removed 33b & 33c but cited 33a & 33d.

And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.

But this verse isn't talking to, or about, Laura's deity; rather, it reflects David's thanking of Abigail for calming him down. While it is claimed in a previous verse that the Lord sent Abigail, this is not what the cited verse is about as David mentions the advice. Considering that David is also a literary construct, as are most of the main characters of the Bible, this verse is, at most, a bit in the mythology of David. I can't help but to think that there has to be better examples that @lauramzy could have cherry-picked in her attempt to frustrate my case.

Psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Now Psalm 11:5 as she quoted it: "The soul of the Lord hates those who love violence," is close enough, but the next verse shows that the Lord hateth those that mirror himself.

Psalm 11:6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

Of course, these are verses of lyrical poetry, so their value as to factual anything is vacuous. Still, it is easy to see that the authors viewed their deity as, well, violent. In my opinion, this character of Hebrew polytheistic mythology reflects the barbarity, to be precise, of the era.

Psalms 33:16 A king is not saved by his great army...

This is talking about being saved spiritually not by armies but by favor in the eyes of the Lord. Only, it is but a few verses later that the violence of this deity are highlighted in that mankind should be in fear of this god of war. Psalm 33:18

Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;

I was 6-years-old when I first realized that no one should fear a loving deity. I read The Book of Mormon in the second grade after reading Wagons West about Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. I was then convinced that religion was a fantasy; it was started by the idea that no one should fear someone that loves them. I finished the Bible the first time at 11 (my sixth grade teacher said she could read it in a year). I was never so credulous as to believe Santa or the Easter Bunny—that I can remember (I told my 4 and 5 year old brothers that those things were pretend just before my sixth birthday). I was motivated by the word fear in all the ecclesiastical discourse to start finding my own evidence, and I never looked back. The next proffering was:

Psalms 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.

While this is another case where mankind's war power is put in a secondary position in relation to faith, it says nothing of the deity's passiveness or love. And in a verse just previous to this one:

Psalm 20:3 Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah.

Burnt sacrifices have never struck me as something needed by a loving entity of any kind. Am I missing something? I know we are taking about lyrical verse that describes someone's perception and their practices in relationship with this entity not the acts of the entity themselves, but it is indicative of the verses being presented as evidence of a peaceful loving deity. Then she sends Psalm 140:1-2 along with the typical insults of those suffering from cognitive dissonance and the fear engendered in their faith as a deterrent from apostasy.

Protect me from the violent who...stir up wars continually. r u satisfied yet? do u feel stupid yet?

As far as a relationship with the deity goes, this verse is asking for protection from violent sorts. Then in just a few verses after, this author is asking the deity to: Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again (140:10). Again, an appeal to the violence innate in this belief system, and that vengeance seemingly expected from their deity. So, to this point Laura Ramzy has shown nothing evidentiarily to support her claim that her deity is a peaceful loving entity, and I have used the same chapters or psalms to show that she is, in fact, wrong in her stance without, as yet, referencing my own material evidence.

If she had done as I and many others have done and actually read the books, she would know what I and others know about this war god of Hebrew mythology, but she, like many of her mindset, have let interpreters, middlemen, woo woo salespeople, and charlatans tell her what they want her to know concerning this deity regardless of the literary evidence and historical facts. People read into the verses what they want to see instead of reading the verses as they are written.

People need to understand that the Bible really is that bad, and the reason it is that bad is because the book was trapped by the advent of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440 (Gutenberg Bible, Vulgate, 1450s) in the configuration that it's currently in after almost a millennium of exclusively priestly interpretation. This is the translation from which the King James version was taken in 1611. It wasn't even until the Council of Trent 1546 CE that the Catholic Church canonized the books in the Bible and still there are many different canons (ie. Greek, Ethiopian, Syriac, etc.). Prior to this, even long after, the public was not permitted to read the Bible; in fact, many English translations were destroyed for this very reason.

Maybe, it is because of this betrayed trust, by those she accepted interpretations from, that she is motivated to get so violently defensive of her view: misdirected anger? Alas, this is nothing we haven't come to expect from the professed Christians of the world.

Please note that there are many of these maxims I whole-heartily agree with, for instance, this next bit on wisdom.

Ecclesiastes 9:18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war

Actually, other than the idea of sin expressed therein the rest of the verse is quite compelling if one merely replaces sinner with bungler (NRSV), delusionally dishonest, malcontent, or psychotic, etc. Ecc 9:18 "Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good." As sinner encompasses much considered thought crimes and innately human drives as commanded by supposedly absolute moral dictate. This is not, however, the words of my interlocutor's deity. No! The words are those of the "Teacher" or 'Gatherer," so some assume it is the mythical character Solomon son of David (also a literary construct), yet, even though these are words to live by, they are not evidence supporting Laura's claim of a peaceful loving deity.

Hosea 1:7 I will save...not by bow, sword, battle, horses, horsemen

A few verses before this one the author puts the words,
Hosea 1:4-5

1:4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
1:5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel, in the valley of Jezreel.

1:6b ... for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

into the mouth of this deity. Also, the saving expressed in 1:7, if somewhat ambiguous, is by mercy on a favored people. Only, in light of the previous verses expressing revenge, I'm not seeing peaceful at all, and if we ignore the Documentary Hypothesis, the polytheistic origins of Hebrew mythology, and the constant redaction by the Deuteronomists et al. this Yahweh is supposedly the creator of all people; so why is it not love but nationalism being expressed? I see literary evidence of what is believed to be a nationalistic regional deity, a local war god—not a loving anything.

The next verse she quotes in her continued attempt to assail me with her proof is:

Zechariah 4:6 Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit

Only the whole verse reads "Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." Where Lord of Hosts translates as God of Armies, and this is supposedly an angel conferring this information. And what is it that is by spirit transmitted? In Zech 5:3 it says: "Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth," again, not peaceful or loving is it?

Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies; pray for persecutors

This is obviously Mt 5:44 not 5:43 that she marked it as. This is from the Sermon on the Mount which is actually taken from a much older (maybe 7 centuries older, Buddha) philosophy than this narrative which was written after the beginning of the second century from the evidence I have gathered. This verse also follows a narrative in which it is commanded to pluck out an eye if it should offend one. That the Earth is this God's footstool; so, although it has its applications in the real world, the philosophy is not practiced by this narrative character nor his father as exemplified in Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Mark 9:50 Be at peace with each other.

In a continuation of the verses from Mark 9:43 that have this Jesus character telling the congregation to "pluck an eye," "cut off a foot," or "the hand." What could be more violent, even barbaric, than this? This is a case of the writer's request put in the mouth of Jesus, not that of a deity. Also, it can be argued that this is in the context of nationalism, the in-group, actually the believers themselves not humanity at large.

Romans 12:17 "Return no one evil for evil...live at peace with everyone" did i make a point now too?

This is a sermon transmitted via Epistle by Paul/Saul not any recount of a deity's actions. People are being told how to act not shown how their deity has or does act. This has real world applications but is not the evidence for a peaceful loving deity. It is an ethic that some humans practice without the sermon.

Romans 12:21 Overcome evil with good

This is still Paul communicating through the Epistles his own ethics (In fact, Chapters 12 & 13 are full of ethics that are not attributed to the Gospel Jesus character. Could this be because Paul knew of no historical Jesus?)

Romans 14:19 "Make every effort to do what leads to peace..." how about now?

Again, a sermon, but this is concerning restrictions of food, the eating of meat, and being thought highly of by one's peers. Laura has not produced one iota of evidence showing the peaceful loving deity. So far, only the snide remarks of an arrogant, if not a little frightened, Christian showing all the symptoms of mindlessly adhering to socially supported inculcation with culturally accepted dogma.

1 Peter 3:11 "Turn from evil; do good; seek peace; pursue it." next time u speak of my religion do ur research.

This isn't talking about her deity. This is in reference to the subjection of women to their husbands, and the husband's piety as a result of the wife's practices while both of them can attain higher levels of morality by thinking before reacting. In historical context this is a lesson in ethics that common people of this time will not find, for educational systems serving the masses are still some 1600 years hence. Note that my interlocutor displays the arrogance of ignorance quite prevalent in most theistic discourse with the fundamentalist adherent. Also note that it is all too obvious that she has yet to read the book she claims as the base for her world view.
Relying instead on the woo woo merchants I made mention of earlier. And, yes, I do pity her.

Then after some time to reflect, I'm guessing, Laura Ramzy sends Proverbs 9:7-12 to me. Does anyone think it was not because of the words "arrogant cynic" in her choice of translation. Only, a more accurate translation would be "scoffer" in historical context. Alas, I tried very hard not to be either. And if one actually reads Proverbs 9 and considers it in historical context, that is, noting that Hebrew scripture was the basic education of most commoners of that era. Realizing, still further, that if one was a Jewish shepherd of the Diaspora, even a Nomad, this was Higher Education as there was nothing better to know 2200 years ago. Though Laura takes it out of historical context, and, for that matter, context in general. This whole proverb is a call to those searching for wisdom, and even though I disagree with the god claims in it, because we have far to much evidence to the contrary today, we can all agree that it is a good idea to seek out wisdom. Proverbs 9:7-12

General Maxims

Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse;
   whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt.
A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you;
   the wise, when rebuked, will love you.
Give instruction to the wise, and they will become wiser still;
   teach the righteous and they will gain in learning.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
   and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
For by me your days will be multiplied,
   and years will be added to your life.
If you are wise, you are wise for yourself;
   if you scoff, you alone will bear it.

Here is a link to the search of all, or most, of our correspondence. I will let you, dear reader, decide who this verse could help the most. And I still recommend reading this entire proverb about Lady Wisdom, who could have been Asherah, wife of El, at one time. Tomorrow, because this post is already too long, I will discuss the heinous acts that won Yahweh his title as a blood soaked deity of mythology.

Why Rupert Murdoch Love$ God: World's Biggest Sleaze Mogul Also Getting Rich from Christian Moralizers | | AlterNet

2011-07-14T11:23:00.002-10:00

Murdoch knows something I found out way back in the 1970s and 80s, when I was still my founder-of-the-religious-right Dad’s sidekick and a right wing evangelical leader/shill myself: There’s gold in them-thar God hills! James Dobson alone once gave away 150,000 copies of one of my evangelical screeds that sold more than a million copies. (I describe why I got out of the evangelical netherworld – fled -- in my book Sex, mom and God.)
So here’s my question to Rob Bell of the God-loves-everybody school of touchy-feely theology and/or to the right wing "family values" crowd who worry about gay marriage between responsible loving adults while they perform financial fellatio on the mightiest and most depraved/pagan media baron to ever walk the earth:
What serious, let alone decent religiously conscious person – left or right, conservative or liberal -- would knowingly work to enrich this dreadful man who will go down in history as the epitome of everything that all religion says its against: lies, greed, criminality, and sheer disgusting exploitation of the defenseless that would shame a sewer rat?
Secular “un-saved” and "godless" and "liberal" authors like Jeff Jarvis have pulled books from Harper Collins because it’s owned by Murdoch as he writes: “[my] next book, Public Parts, was to be published, like my last one, by News Corp.'s HarperCollins. But I pulled the book because in it, I am very critical of the parent company for being so closed. It's now being published by Simon and Schuster.”
Where are the big time religion writers like the "I-give-all-my-royalties-to-the-poor" Rick Warren to be found refusing to publish with Zondervan, Harper One or write another word for Beliefnet? What’s mildly lefty Rob Bell’s defense for enriching Murdoch and helping to finance Fox “News” via publishing with Harper One when he could publish with anyone?
For that matter where are the evangelical/Roman Catholic/Muslim—or just minimally decent -- people, religious or irreligious guests and commentators now refusing to be interviewed by Fox News even if it will help sell their books?
Knowing what we know about the union-busting, slime-spreading Murdoch empire and it's disgusting and criminal actions can a moral person work for or use the products of this all-encompassing web of profit, far right politics and corruption?
I don't think so.
But of course the religion writers have plenty of company.
What about journalists working for Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal?
What about Deepak Chopra?
He publishes with Harper One. Thus Chopra is helping finance Fox News. And so is Desmond Tutu. He’s also a Harper One author.
And what about all the “progressive” stars, producers and writers doing deals with the Fox movie empire? Such Hollywood moralists used to boycott working in the old apartheid South Africa, but will work for/with Murdoch today as he empowers the far religious racist right through Fox News! Desmond Tutu used to call for boycotts of far right religious nuts in South Africa oppressing blacks in the name of God, and now he’s a Murdoch contributor!
Go figure!
Why should the people – religious leaders, writers, actors, agents, producers et al -- who help Murdoch wreck America and the UK -- remain respectable in our countries?
Okay, they deserve a second chance.
Mea Culpa!
I published two books with Harper Collins some years ago after Murdoch had taken over. I had a deal with the Smithsonian that was tied into Harper Collins for distribution, then the Smithsonian backed out but my books stayed at Harpers. After they were published I thought about – and regretted -- helping Murdoch. I've never published with them again.

This is merely a sample. Please see the whole write up at alternet.org and remember:

With the sleazeball Rupert Murdoch attracting, or maybe I should say sticking to (in the slimiest sense of the word), the likes of Deepak Chopra, Rick Warren, and Rob Bell, who enrich the News Corp Empire with their supernatural snake oil chicanery, falsified feel good stories, and of course it's too good to be true world view, it should be easier for decent people to see their way clear to boycott Fox News, Beliefnet, Zondervan, Wall Street Journal, Harper Collins and any other institution that profits from the gullibility or credulousness of a large section of the populace. Follow the evidence and you too can avoid the knavery of these charlatans.

Beachbum's Mountain View

All I Say Is, God Is Not.

2011-07-11T13:03:00.001-10:00

Our Founding Fathers concluded that God was not an intercessory god.

And, of course, I respectfully agree; God is not.

Still others conclude that God is not anthropomorphic.

And they will get no argument from me, God is not.

Still more assert that God is not discernable through science,

and by way of the evidence, I conclude, God is not.

Patriarchal authorities say: God is not female.

With this oligarchy, I seldom agree, but God is not.

Others argue that God is not responsible for evil.

Again, I agree, God is not.

When I'm enraged by those claiming God is telling them to hate,

I quell my temper and merely state: God is not.

When the priests were calling for their congregations to support the Reich,

There were those, I'm sure, that knew: God is not.

When the Generals scream men charge that wall knowing God is on our side,

I have dusted my sights while thinking, God is not.

When they've told me their God is love,

I cite Bible verses, after verse, clearly showing their God is not.

When they ask if, to their prayers, God is listening,

I remark, the evidence shows: God is not.

When they ask if God is the creator of all things,

I say my parents made me, so no; God is not.

And, when they say they see the evidence for God all around,

I know evolutionary reproduction is responsible for what they see; God is not.

Everyone seems to have their own version of what God is,

And, like me, they all have visions of what God is not.

So, when they ask me what God is,

I must conclude, God is not.

So, when they claim an atheist couldn't possibly understand what God is,

All I say is, God is not.

Beachbum's Mountain View

Of Falsification and Fabrication, A Christian Tradition

2011-07-02T18:00:00.001-10:00

A brief on the falsifications of actual history that went into the fabrication of what would become the state religion of Rome just before its demise. And much of it can be attributed to a single church historian. This is a small sample of what we now know and an even smaller sample of what is the probable case against self proclaimed historian.

A history of the Commission (Matthew 28:19)

Eusebius of Caesarea read and recorded the text of the verse we know as Matthew 28:19, so we have an extant version from 411 CE written as:

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

Eusebius regularly cites it again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany only preserved in an old Syriac version in a Nitrian codex in the British Museum written in AD 411, in his famous History of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine I.

My point is, if it can be changed from what Eusebius knew it to be (above) to its current form:

28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

Then;

1. The current version is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for 2 reasons:

First; It took the church over 200 years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting. Think about it, why do we also have Greek Orthodox and Ethiopian sects now?

Then there is Acts, and its claim that when people are baptized they are baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). This is a redemption, a purification, not an initiation as evinced in the Matthew version.

2. This contradicts the Jesus character's narrative statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24-27, and many others). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who originally wanted to extend the "Anointed Savior" myth (at least Paul's version of it that is evinced in the Epistles) to include the gentiles. This was later rejected by those who wrote the words for the Jesus character in the Gospel narrative. This may be due to the fact that Matthew was written from a different Anointed Savior tradition than Paul's.

The fact that it contradicts Matthew 10:5-6 & 15:24-27 shows simply that this gospel's core rests on a regional tale recorded by those wishing to capture an apocryphal, as well as nationalistic, story that they most likely knew wasn't historical, let alone, factual. I still contend that due to the chronological implications of both the Gospel Jesus character's proclamation that he would return to take the throne of David before the disciples were finished teaching (Matthew 10:23, Luke 1:32-33) and Paul's assertion that he would be taken up to heaven while he still lives (1 Thess 4:17), shows that the whole of this Christology is mutilated and manipulated into the concept used by Catholicism as a populist political conveyance by Eusebius for the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great well after it lost all of its original meaning. The Romans had long known the politically cohesive power of these nationalistically uplifting and superstitious stories. Which is why they rarely interfered with and sometimes even incorporated the religious views of the local inhabitants of places they conquered then occupied. So, Constantine the Great knew full well what was to be done at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. He took Paul's idea and tried to use it to incorporate many regions under one religious banner. Which brings me back to my original point that the verse in Matthew (we know as Matthew 28:19) that Eusebius knew was redacted, possibly by Eusebius himself, for Rome's political reasons.

The above is just one of many cases, in evidence, concerning the dishonest practices of the church fathers that facilitated the religio-political institution that is Christianity and the origins of the Jesus of Nazareth myth.

Eusebius is also accredited with fabricating the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus' History of the Jews 18.3.3. While someone else could be responsible for 20.9.1, I personally think Eusebius was the church authority on the project, in any case.

This along with what amounts to a rationalization of the act in his Praeparatio Evangelica (book xii, Chapter 31), which says how fictions (pseudos)—which the historian Edward Gibbon (c. 1776) rendered 'falsehoods'—may be a "medicine", which may be "lawful and fitting" to use in the pursuit of convincing young people [the context evinced in the platonic dialog from which this Eusebian passage was derived]:

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach:

[Here Eusebius quotes Plato’s Laws 663e, words spoken by the Athenian character:] “And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie [pseudesthai] to young men for a good reason, then can’t he lie? For falsehood [pseudos] is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.” [Then, quoting words spoken in response by the character Clinias:] “Truth is beautiful, Stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.” [Followed by Eusebius’ further comments:] You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach. [Translation by Richard Carrier, in “The Formation of the New Testament Canon” note 6]

In other words, Eusebius of Caesarea claims it is fine to use falsehoods to create Christianity to appease the political whims of Constantine the Great (c. 327 CE) from what was originally the claimed revelations of apostles working the Jewish anointed savior sects among the Jewish diaspora.

This is one of the strongest of the ever growing evidences supporting the claimed fabrication of Christianity which facilitated the political agenda at the heart of the reunification of the Roman Empire, in supporting the Mythicist's case regarding the non-Historicity of the Jesus character, and in the fabrication of the whole of the early Christian history, as Eusebius was the official Historian and conscripted creator of the first 50 Bibles of the soon to be state religion of both the Eastern and Western Empires of the newly reunited Roman Empire.

So, does it matter that some argue over whether Eusebius was a fictionalizer, fabricator or just a liar supporting a political agenda? Of course not! And it seems to have become a tradition.

Beachbum's Mountain View

It Always Hurts When You Laugh

2011-07-01T12:54:00.001-10:00

It's their sore spot!

From: Beachbum's Mountain View It's their sore spot! ... http://beechbum.posterous.com/it-always-hurts-when-you-laugh

Ingersoll's Vow

2011-06-11T12:46:00.001-10:00

Few have expressed the feeling of freedom from that dungeon, which is revealed religion, better than Robert G. Ingersoll. I only ask that while you read this vow of a courageous man, you remember that he lived and died before another great mind would evince the comparatively superior importance of imagination over knowledge; and this individual was talking about actual knowledge not the pretend knowledge of faith when he stated:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."—Albert Einstein

INGERSOLL'S VOW

Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) was a famous attorney and orator whose brilliant lectures drew thousands. As a political figure, he came close to achieving the Republican party's nomination for governor of Illinois, but prejudice and intolerance denied him the opportunity because he was an atheist.

When I became convinced that the universe is natural—that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world—not even in infinite space.

I was free—free to think, to express my thoughts—free to live to my own ideal—free to use all my faculties, all my senses—free to spread imagination's wings—free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope—free to judge and determine for myself—free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past—free from popes and priests—free from all the "called" and "set apart"—free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies—free from the fear of eternal pain—free from the winged monsters of the night—free from devils, ghosts, and gods.

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought—no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings—no chains for my limbs—no lashes for my back—no fires for my flesh—no master's frown or threat—no following another's steps—no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain—for the freedom of labor and thought—to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs—to those whose flesh was scarred and torn—to those by fire consumed—to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

****

Imagine (a powerful function & freedom of the mind when supported by evidence) what humanity could have achieved by now, if only our minds were free to soar without the shackles of superstition holding us back.

From a time long before I realized just how different I was, for I have always been atheist, I have seen the tragedy that is the change that comes from inculcation into the superstitions. General Robert G. Ingersoll—so much for that lie about atheists in foxholes—here expresses, better than most, the feeling of shedding those shackles, or should I say mind vice (vise works well, too), but in actuality, it is a virus, a cultural meme that both spreads like a virus and acts like a drug.

A Creationist's Sophistic Argument

2011-06-07T23:11:00.000-10:00

While in a conversation with a fellow philosopher, I noticed this exchange slide by on my computer screen and found it interesting, then somewhat disturbing, and finally, typical of the sophistic mind set. But not the mind set of the one I've recorded here, no. The pictured comments that follow are the result of inculcation and indoctrination, not thinking, maybe rationalization, but not thinking.

You make a claim, therefore you need to support it with evidence. It is a consequence of the properties of logical, honest discourse that the one asserting the premise be able to support it with evidence, otherwise there is no case to be made for your assertion. The veracity of a claim is directly connected to, and wholly a function of, the quality and quantity of the evidence. Even in informal discourse there is the need for the one asserting a claim to support it.

This is the first sign that the argument which is to follow will in no way be an honest discussion, but rather an attempt to deride that which shows his world view to be untenable. This is typically a creationist tactic, but of the deluded. Noting the mention of 'naturalistic' very early in the discussion, it indeed suggests a sophist of a creationist bent; this tact is typically their only means of argumentation as the fundamentalist creationist world view has no supporting evidence.

I think it is diagnostically informative to analyze how this person views and defines the atheistic worldview. For instance, his inference in the above claim that atheism has some bearing, one way or the other, on the logical, conceptual, or immaterial is asinine taken at face value. It is merely a feeble attempt at conflating atheism with some sort of philosophical stance (a caricature of an irrational form of materialism supposedly representing evolution, a relatively simplistic strawman, actually) by asserting it holds to some claim. I don't think it's based on his confusing the supernatural with the immaterial. It may be that he has been inculcated into believing that the atheist is in a state of irrational denial of the immaterial aspects of the world. Or, is it because he thinks he can obfuscate the atheistic worldview with something negated by his God's logic? I think it may simply be that he has no idea that the atheistic worldview is comprised of a mere lack of belief, or he is just a creationist sophist conflating atheism with that which negates his creationist view and eliminates the need for a deity, evolution by natural selection.

Now this is the crux of his obfuscation. Not the argument, per say, but I think he is either claiming that evolution (without exactly stating it, of course) while calling it atheism (actually mischaracterized as a worldview), cannot account for logic (a tool of cognition, the function of an evolved brain, a conceptualization, used to discern the logical parameters, limits of material interaction, by which the material universe is integrated), or he is attempting to use his caricature of atheism (elucidated above) to claim that atheistic views of a material universe are incompatible with the existence of thought. Of course, both are absurd.

By denying that logic is a product of cognition in the material world he hopes to both deny atheists their ability to use logical argumentation and claim that logic is only in the realm of his god. Of course, neither of these are true, for I am using logic, the conceptual principles for reasoning, as it is part of the thought process of a material brain. As I just explained without appealing to the existence of any deity, and thereby not contradicting atheism; which is merely a lack of belief in god(s).

Here, he is just making unsubstantiated claims similar to any delusional claims one might hear during a stroll through any asylum full of psychiatric patients. In accordance with the typical fear motif common to delusions based on phobias, in this case theophobia, we are all supposedly in danger from his platonic monster. Notice his immediate attempt to give it force from this delusion's source of propagation and pseudo-authority. A book, necessary for fundamentalists, which is actually a collection of books most of which were written pseudonymously for different Jewish sects. Collected then accepted or rejected based on their political value and ease of conformity through redaction and interpolation to the conscripted mandates of a 4th century Emperor through his church historian, a confessed liar and fabricator: Eusebius.

Remember it is easy to show that this individual's beliefs are basically based on ignorance. Ignorance of the history and evolution of deities and their mythos in the Judeao-Christian tradition. Ignorance mimetically inherited from antecedents professing to know that which is impossible to know.

From this authority, he goes on to mischaracterize the actual stance of atheism which is that there is no evidence for a deity, one version of which is the Abrahamic deity. Again, this is done without his proffering any evidence for the claim; it is merely a bold assertion of his opinion as based on a book of fiction. This is similar to those that claim that the end of the world is nigh based on interpretations of that same collection of fables. Absurd!

Notice that he seems to be projecting the unsubstantiated existence of his deity on the mind of atheists, something that is impossible for him to know, even if he presumes to know every non-Christian has read his delusion's authoritative source, he can't possibly know the level of their comprehension. This is an excellent example of delusion in the mind of a fundamentalist. The authority of his delusion's sacred book above all else. This mind set is truly dangerous.

In the above comment, he is trying to hide the actual authority of an atheist which is evidence. Notice when he did use the word evidence, and then only once, it was seemingly to deride the scientist's insistence upon it. This exemplifies his deceit better than any prior comment. He may be attempting to inject Cartesian dualism (we are all god's automatons) into his derision of, his obfuscation of evolution (characterized as atheism). Science and the naturalistic view are based on reasoning supported by empirical evidence. While his delusion is only extracted by the rationalization of ancient myth.

Again, this comment asserts unsubstantiated claims that seem to stem from his mischaracterization of atheism and misconceptions regarding atheists' use of scientific concepts. This is actually easy to explain when one realizes that he is using the word atheist to represent, first, evolution and evolutionary concepts that contradict his pet belief of creationism, and second, those concepts of logical empiricism in opposition to claims which appeal to the supernatural. It could possibly be a comment evincing a miscomprehension of the unguided properties of a natural universe, an over emphasis of random and chance, a creationist's favorite effigy of evolution. This would explain his almost insulting caricatures of the atheistic stance as the result of his being excruciatingly ill informed. This is no surprise considering the religiose have an almost disdainful view of evidence and education in the sciences. While there is little doubt this interlocutor is insane, he is at the same time inculcated with enough disinformation that his rationalizations can be somewhat complex in their structure, but nothing that can't be sorted out by an over-achieving fifth grader.

####

Note:

In a discussion with someone else, this fundamentalist expressed a view that scientists' assumed uniformity could not come from chance. In his view it had to come from design. In his view he further evinced a notion that it was an atheistic view that was untenable as it held to that chance. I think he may be using an atheistic view to represent evolution which means he is a creationist sophist.

This confuses a couple of issues as I see it. First, scientific assumptions of uniformity are concerned with the continuity of physical parameters over time and space. A magical friend would interfere with this uniformity in several ways, for instance, answering prayers or intercession, a preference for one life form over another, or one people over another, etc.

Even with the universal application of physical parameters being uniformly distributed through time and space, there is still mostly chaos in the universe. It is from chaos that the universe is formed, and reformed. If this creationist were sincerely pursuing the facts he would know this, at least generally.

Since this individual is most likely a creationist, his main complaint is just as likely to be against evolution, and therefore what he is hiding behind the scientifically supported notion of "uniformity" is actually design. To show the fictitiousness in his assertion with this in mind, one need only point out the laryngeal nerve, the appendix, parasitic worms, or the fact that the world is full of suffering. Animals eating animals, insects eating animals and other insects, in a never ending cycle of feast, famine, or flood.

It is, in fact, his world view that cannot explain these occurrences in a world created by a supposedly benevolent god; the idea is absurd. And as a sophist he would know it, but as a fundamentalist he may not.

In discussions on the theory of evolution, a creationist is commonly found to be fond of over-emphasizing the role that chance plays in the evolutionary process. The truth of the matter is that chance plays a role in the random formation and distribution of mutations, but this is a very small part of the puzzle. By far, the majority of evolving is done by the recombining of well tested, and well utilized, genetic material. But try to tell this to creationists.

####

Now this interlocutor thinks he has disarmed the atheist argument with his unsupported assertions. While at the same time allowing him to presume that he needn't adhere to the mutual concessions of logical discourse. This presumption can, of course, be defeated in one sentence: Any assertion put forward without evidence can be ignored without evidence, or even an explanation, for that matter.

This is, of course, where it starts getting ugly from my point of view. Following in the line of his obfuscation concerning atheistic supplication

to reason as an ultimate authority, when, in fact, it is the evidence that holds the authority. A point he is loath to admit given that faith is evidentiarily vacuous. Considering that his god is also evidentiarily untenable and definitely a construct of his own ego, whether he realizes it or not, his ultimate authority becomes himself. The power of the creator of the universe which this commenter imagines as agreeing with his own whims, values, and opinions. This is the ultimate in arrogance. In claiming that his ultimate authority—as he imagines it, as supported by equally arrogant writings of Iron Age theologically bent politicians—an authority that is irreproachable, he has set himself up as the dictator and his ilk as his advisors. Hitler did it; Stalin did it, too. As has every Monarch in human history, but none exemplifies the horror of this power better than the Popes: Innocent VIII of witch trial infamy, Nicholas V of industrialized slavery and genocide infamy, and Alexander VI for adding indigenous peoples of the Americas to the genocide and slave trade. Granted, there are far too many despots to mention; but none that contradict the evidence that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now this, astonishingly, is the most powerful argument against an ultimate power of which I can imagine. Imagining—then by some illogical extension of an illusion, claiming to know—the opinion or thoughts of a supreme power, and interpreting the related sacred texts in a way that supports your delusion is mainly why Thomas Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

The question is: how is this supposedly authoritative knowledge communicated to mortals here on Earth? Answer is, it's not. It's imagined by those that stand to gain the most from their utterances, such as, priests, preachers, imams, bishops and popes. Meaning that this interlocutor's "ultimate authority" is none other than the very same, and all too human, despots who would enslave him with their opinion. Pretending to know the mind of some deity is a short cut to positions of tyrannical power over those with theophobia, the god-fearing or devil-dodgers, as I have seen it written recently.

This is exactly why our Founding Fathers use the words "We the People" in our Constitution so as to give the ultimate power back to the consensus of the people of this country. It is why the power of religion was effectively neutralized by not only religious freedom and a wall of separation, but also, freedom from religion. In this way our Founders took all claims to ultimate power away from those despots who imagined, or pretended to imagine, they knew its opinions; their claims to such knowledge are, of course, absurd for far too many reasons to list. Not the least of which is that this supposed deity is not, nor has it ever been, in evidence. Jefferson knew this, and he also knew that morality came from the people as a cultural consensus that progressed as human intellect improved and understanding increased while evolving over time.

This comes very close to defeating his argument as he actually states it. Then he goes on, shamelessly...

Alas, without the first shred of evidence in support of any of the previous assertions, he argues that Christianity, biblical Christianity no less, is the only source of knowledge of the universe. Ignoring the centuries of history that attest to exactly the opposite; that era we now know, and refer to, as the Dark Ages. (Also, I'm sure it's creationism, to which, he is actually alluding.) But this isn't his approach, as he evinced earlier, he is convinced what he terms an atheistic view (evolution), as he defines it as some sort of unrealistically strict even irrational caricature of a naturalistic or materialistic view, means that atheists (actually scientists and evolutionary biologists) deny the very logic that we use in concert with evidence to support everything from the steam engine to space flight.

His problem is that science works; as evidenced by this very computer with which I am working. His religion's claims concerning the universe have been soundly refuted by the great minds of knowledge for longer than his religion has been in existence.

The point of this blog isn't to refute this person's claims. It is not his inane claims, which, of course, it is beneath me to even give credence to via respectable debate. No! I'm concerned about his delusion coupled with what appears to be a very lopsided education. I don't think I would be too far off in thinking it to be of an extreme fundamentalist bent.

In making this point, he obviously sets himself up for a logical comparison; for he could be said to be a rebel for his imagined deity, and fall under the same claim of bias concerning truth. Only, this is a smokescreen; his whole argument ignores the actual atheistic stance, which states, there is no evidence for the existence of his, or any other, deity. The atheistic stance is a neutral position, as it is the evidence that determines the current view. And, considering he has neither alluded to, nor proffered any evidence in support of his claims, I would say this appears to be an inculcated rationalization that we are to accept a priori from his ultimate authority. Which is, of course, himself. Further, it is, however, his continued denial of the idea that people could actually not see any evidence for the existence of his imagined ultimate authority that suggests his delusion is of a deleterious nature.

Considering that his premises are false, hence the charge of sophistry for this excruciatingly unsound argument, his conclusion, as an extension, is as well. And this is as far as the argument goes. But, it is the cocoon that his inculcators have constructed around his delusion that is the most interesting. By misrepresenting the atheist world view as somehow ultra materialistic and illogical, he has deluded himself, or has been deluded into seeing his imagined ultimate authority as the only possible truth.

The delusion itself need not be dangerous, but it can be due to the protective encapsulation of this particular mindset, and the bigotry that inevitably ensues, in more than a few cases. There will be no debating this individual, or those like him, to a productive conclusion. His fundamentalist brainwashing has done its job, as this poor wretch is thoroughly deluded and all but unreachable with reason.

Creationist's Fictions Rehashed, Again!

2011-06-02T20:15:00.001-10:00

On June 1, '11 I fired up tweetdeck to see what follows in my timeline. To be honest, I expected something of the sort. I had communicated with this individual the night before. I am sorry to say creationism isn't dead, yet! What I want to do here is bring into stark relief the number one intuitive oversight that is displayed by the typical creationist. They don't seem to realize that creationism, like religion in general, is worthless because it has no supportive relationship with any epistemological endeavor. It doesn't help in medical research, zoology, biology, anatomy, even botany or anything else for that matter. It is not supported by any scientific claims, at all. Furthermore, fact is creationism doesn't even support the claims of the Bible for which it was contrived to support. This new-ish ID only wants to make religion more scientific[ee] by discrediting scientific claims. They want to replace science with religion like in the good old days of the Dark Ages. Creationism stands as another belief system, just something else to take on faith, which is nothing more than denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I know I've debunked these same claims hundreds of times. Only, it fascinates me that the religiose, in general, and creationists in particular seem not to comprehend the fact that the truth of a claim is directly related to its supporting evidence, and to the claims of which it stands in support, but the true strength of a claim is in its predictive power. Since religion's core claims have no veracity, are supported by absolutely no evidence, and since creationism shares this weakness while not being able to make any predictions that can be used in medicine, say virology for example, it seems clear to me that the only reason the two exist is to support each other in flim-flamming the credulous. Now, I know these are obvious claims, but I have lately been thinking about the implications of this resurgence of the two in concert, worldwide. Considering the last time this happened in world history was in Nazi Germany with Herbert Spencer's elitist eugenics, a spin-off from Lamarckian evolution by acquired traits, in concert with Hitler's fundamentalist Christian Supremacy, I see something horrendous building in the atmosphere. If you are familiar with the creationist's arguments, you may as well stop reading after this introductory paragraph because it is the same claptrap that creationist demagogues have been proffering for decades.

What follows is a long tweet in response to a video [below] I sent to... well see for yourself. But like I said, we have had previous conversations. I have edited it for clarity, only.

From: @TertiusIII Top Ten Creationist Arguments Enjoy! <-- Cute, but not really very enlightening. It was also a little confusing as whose arguments were being presented against what. It was called the Top Ten Creationists arguments, but it wasn't clear if the point was really theist arguments against atheism or creationism arguments against evolution or what the real point was. It just seemed to take claims that some (may have) made in the past against either atheism or evolution. But for the purposes of engaging in honest discussion, I will note that there were a couple of 'creationist' claims that I personally would never make, such as if evolution were true, why are there still monkeys. I have never heard a creationist make that argument, though honestly, I do remember having that question asked in a high school biology class where we were taught evolution and had to explain why we really do have monkeys, and why we don’t have monkeys turning into humans continuously. In my mind, this is not an argument against evolution. Nor is the argument that Hitler was an atheist an argument against atheism. The video did (correctly) note that Hitler's true religion is still in dispute, but clearly to imply atheism is somehow false or necessarily evil because Hitler may have been one is not a valid argument against the veridicality of either atheism or evolution. Now, having said all that, several of the arguments (I believe) are legitimate arguments against evolution, (up to now, we haven't been debating the merits of theism vs atheism, we can do that if you want, though I would prefer to defer that one until after we have vetted this one further). Let's look at some: 1. Radiometric dating methods are not valid. The video basically said 'yes they are and scientists use them all the time.' Actually, while it is the case that scientists use them, this does not negate the fact that ALL radiometric methods are based on several assumptions which, to the extent that they are reliable, will produce accurate dates, but to the extent that they are unreliable, will produce faulty dates. These assumptions are:
a) We know the rate of decay and it has always been constant. For uranium-lead with a multi-billion year half life, which we've only been measuring for 75 years or so, we cannot possibly know it's been constant for 4.5 billion years. But of all the assumptions, this one's probably the safest.
b) We know the ratio of parent to daughter elements when the rock formed. This is critical, because to the extent that daughter elements are present at the rock's 'birth' the results will be biased towards greater age. Since the decay process occurs when the elements are both embedded inside a rock or when free outside the rock, this is a highly suspect assumption since a rock, when solidifying may trap numerous previously existing daughter elements as it hardens.
c) Over the life of the specimen, there has been no migration of parent elements or daughter elements into or out of the rock. Ours is an extremely dynamic planet and this assumption is absurd on its face. To assume that the specimen has been sufficiently isolated from its environment to prevent highly mobile elements from this migration becomes even less likely the older we assume the planet to be. The fact that we find sea shells on mountain tops is a pretty clear indication that there are few places on our planet that were not once very different in the past. (But then, I believe in a global flood, a fact which these sea shells tend to support.)
d) When a rock is born, it can be dated and will be shown to be 0 years old. Of all the assumptions, this is the only one that can actually be tested as there are numerous active volcanoes today producing rocks we can examine. Your own local University of Hawaii tested this a number years ago with rocks known to be produced recently by local volcanoes and all tested out to be many millions of years old. This is pretty clearly a false assumption.

The truth is, when a rock is dated, the geologist (technician) doesn't simply take a sample with instructions to "please date this for me." The specimen is described by the scientist who also identifies the layer in the geologic column from which the specimen was taken. Since the column was constructed assuming evolution is true, the rough age of the specimen is already known by the technician before the 1st radiometric test is performed. The technician will then use numerous radiometric methods which will typically give a very wide range of ages, all of which are discarded except the ones consistent with the layer in which the rock was found. Hence evolution is used to prove an old earth which is necessary to prove evolution. This is absolutely how it is done. Verify this. It is very circular and very bad science.

Now, as it turns out there are other fundamental weakness of radiometric methods and that is that they are necessarily local in nature. I.e. at best they may tell us something about the local environment from which the specimen was taken. There are however other, global phenomena called 'geo-chronometers', almost all of which yield significantly younger ages for the earth. A couple of examples include the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the amount of salt in the oceans, the rate at which the moon's orbit recedes from the earth, the decay of the earth's magnetic field intensity and magnetic field reversals, and on and on.

2. Next, chance. To claim that evolution is not supposedly driven by chance is lunacy. Yes, since the fall of man, the competition for scarce resources is fierce, so what you call natural selection is observed (it is after all a tautology - what are the 'fittest' if they are not the ones that 'survive'?), however what are random mutations if not chance events? 3. Thermodynamics - As I have already tweeted numerous times, even Stephen Hawking argued in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the 2nd law doesn't always hold. The fact that neither most creationists, nor most atheists, nor most evolutionists in general can recite the other laws of thermodynamics is completely irrelevant. And while it is the case that the earth is not a closed system, the universe is, and yet we see an incredible order present in the structures of the universe. In fact, part of what the big bang cosmological model seeks to explain is how these structures developed (i.e. how we got this order we see.) There are other flaws in the video I could address, but as this tweet is already too long, I'll just leave it at that.

A subsequent comment:

From: @TertiusIII It is easy to understand why a people of one book; the Bible, Qur'an, etc., would not comprehen… (cont) <-- Very foolish tweet @beechbum. The Bible explains my theology, but to claim that Christians reject science is tantamount to the "atheism is false/bad because Hitler was an atheist argument." As your (otherwise) silly video showed, many prominent scientists of the past were Christians. Then, to further indict yourself, you claim: "evolution is a fact, while it is a theory that is supported by many facts which actually makes it stronger than a fact." Dude, I'm sorry, but 'a theory supported by many facts makes it stronger than a fact' - that's just plain stupid. You need to start trying to be honest in our debate. I invite the others who have been following our tweets on this topic to weigh in on this one. Is a theory supported by many facts made stronger than a fact?

To which I replied:

To: @TertiusIII Your whole argument against radiometric dating displays the number one weakness of AiG and ICR based assumptions as suffered by all would-be creationists and religionists, the mindset of one book, you do not want to accept the strength, through support via corroborating results, of multiple testing procedures (see listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating ) many different types (eg. ice cores, tree rings, varves, annual-layering methods, thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Cosmic Ray Exposure Dating) of dating methodologies, each of which confirms the accuracy of radiometric dating and our understanding of the geologic column due to the cross corroboration. What I am saying is: you are in denial, as is, every creationist I have encountered to date. Alas, since you don't want to accept the evidence as proffered by an atheist, then, try this: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html a Christian perspective. Also, you underestimate me in that you do not seem to realize that all of your claims have been refuted by me and many others over the years. Oh, and one more thing, sea shells don't float which means that mountains were once at the bottom of the oceans. It also means that the trilobites are a direct refutation of your world view http://goo.gl/69KhT and your disdain for fossil evidence for evolving phyla. What you and your ilk do not want to apprehend is that we use evolutionary theory to understand fossils, so much more than, we use fossils to substantiate evolutionary theory; the Genome Project does a far better job at that endeavor.

Your claim about some University of Hawaii tests is a fabrication of the Discovery Institute, ICR, if it is the tale I have encountered before. Details of those tests were, in fact, manipulated by means of contamination, but were actually discovered and corrected by subsequent tests of various methods to bring the dates to a more accurate conclusion. Also, of course, there are test results that give erroneous results, those are thrown out when they are not corroborated by many other testing means; it is these discarded test results that ICR et al. jump on in an attempt to discredit radiometric dating, to no avail.

This "when a rock is dated" testing scenario you anecdotally proffered in the next paragraph is so familiar, and inaccurate, that I'm sure it is born of the Discovery Institute, via AiG or Conservapedia (and uh, no! that's not how it is done). The funny thing is, creationists never attempt to contradict the findings with data, nor do they submit, for peer review, findings of their own (you know, we found this fossil in the ground and... uh, god did it). It is a simple process, anyone is able to test the results of scientific findings for themselves (see Dr. Richard Lenski's work with E. coli verifying evolution by natural selection via observed data and the conflict with that fraud at Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly). It also neglects the fact that many paleontologists, for example, are in competition with each other and at the same time in cooperation all across the world making discoveries and corroborative links to past and contemporary findings that overlap, even intertwine. Also, a young scientist (as most post-docs see themselves) would like nothing more than to correct a Senior member of the faculty, talk about keeping the findings honest. A factual anecdote: tree rings from petrified trees correspond to rings in ice cores which line up with climatic events as recorded in strata via particulate fossils (eg. pollen, etc.) showing archaeologists clues as to, say, why a people migrated to the coast some 9-12,000 years ago across the Andes Mountains. This is also how Israel Finkelstein developed very strong evidence against the historicity of the tales about David and Solomon and most of the rest of the Old Testament. Hell, we have trees that are older than YEC creationists, like you, think the entire Earth is: http://bit.ly/j4J58E This is why people laugh at creationists.

Only, this corroborative power is nothing compared to the predictive power of the dating methodology as it is being perfected today. Few instances exemplify this better than the discovery of the specimen Tiktaalik roseae which was discovered in the Devonian strata as stratigraphy, zoogeography and paleontology predicted (see Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ ). And this transitional (as if any fossil could be anything else) fossil is at the cusp of sea-to-land animal transition and it already shares many anatomical features of most extant animals in its lineage. Very strong evidence for the accuracy of our dating methodology—if you're asking me.

Geochronometers, which is what we've been talking about all along, have nothing to do with your connivance with ICR knavery. Let's take the helium falsehood first, shall we. It is a lie. To you and most other creationists they have lied. Like every other word that has spewed forth from those mountebanks of mythology. The claim is that helium doesn't escape from the exosphere as put forward by one L. Vardiman and Morris in 1974, but the truth of the matter is that helium does escape from the atmosphere at the rate of 2 to 4 x 10 ^6 ions/cm^2.sec of 4He. This is almost exactly the same as the decay rate production flux of (2.5 ± 1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2.sec Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. And since there is also another possible escape mechanism of direct interaction of the solar winds with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing, Sheldon and Kern estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." —Dalrymple, 1984, pg. 112.

I'm afraid the rest of the creationist flimflam falls under the weight of similar scrutiny. An example in my opinion, would be the mere mention of saltwater should be avoided by creationists due to the fact that it puts the fatality of saltwater fish getting emersed in rainwater and vice versa, in stark relief. Which, of course, eliminates Noah's flood as an excuse for sea shells floating up the side of a mountain, which they don't, of course. Such as your claim that fittest and survive are somehow a tautology, which it is not, especially in the context of reproductive fitness and survival of the genome; that is, in the context of evolutionary theory.

Or, as I wrote earlier concerning your bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Stephen Hawking was expressing, on page 103 of his A Brief History of Time, the relationship of entropy as a closed system passed over the event horizon of a black hole. At that point the entropy may decrease. These are not Laws that someone or something makes the universe follow, but descriptions of parameters that nature appears to follow as matter interacts. As it seems your idea of entropy is somehow related to visible order in the universe, which only displays your lack of understanding of entropy, generally, and the 2nd Law specifically, I would urge you to read Peter Atkins on the subject. Simply stated, the entropy described in the 2nd Law is the decay of the quality of energy through its dispersal. This means that the 2nd Law in no way supports creationism nor weakens evolutionary theory.

Regarding your next assertion in which you claim that I "claim[ed] that Christians reject science" is unfounded and misses the point, because my statement was: "It is easy to understand why a people of one book ... would not comprehend the incredible strength of many books ... being in full and complete agreement, ... ." This is not me stating that Christians reject science; this is me stating that fundamentalist Christians in general, and creationists in particular, are so enamored with the idea that the claims expressed in the Bible as being the absolute truth, and the idea of absolute authority generally (which is 'tantamount' to evidencing a very real (and low) upper limit to the ratio of honest analytical capabilities to the overriding cognitive compartmentalization due to the cognitive dissonance present in a mind torn between wishful thinking and the observable facts), that they can't comprehend a concept which holds that the more supporting evidence there is concerning a claim, the more likely, the more powerful the veracity, of that claim, of a theory, of an observation becomes.

This agreement, this corroboration across all sciences, across all epistemological disciplines is exactly what makes the Theory of Evolution so powerful, and such an untenable state of affairs for science deniers (typically they only deny the facts that are inconvenient, which is where the charge of hypocrisy comes into play), like creationists. Notice that I didn't write Christians. Further, claiming this is tantamount to "atheism is false/bad because Hitler was an atheist argument" is totally unrelated and untenable for many reasons; the first of which is, obviously, that I am concerned with the creationist's lack of understanding regarding the accumulation of facts as evidence in ever increasing support of claims made. This is exactly the methodology in our legal system. Second, I am not claiming to know the opinions in a dead man's mind (see note 1 below), nor am I generalizing one person's presumed beliefs across a whole group of people. It seems you have also incorrectly labeled atheists with a philosophical identity, by the way. Atheism is not a belief, so it cannot be false or bad.

This "scientists of old were religious" assertion is usually a very telling claim. Of course, many scientists of the past were Christians, Muslims or Jews, or at least claimed to be. In those years before the Enlightenment, even for many years afterwards, one would be the evening's entertainment for claiming otherwise. If one had the smell of burning heretics in their nostrils, yet none of the evidence that we have garnered since the days when philosophers regarded intuition and introspection more reliable than observation and experimentation (per the Church's insistence, of course), ie. Newtonian physics, Darwin's natural selection, the scientific method's track record of success, Einstein's Relativity, or space travel, etc., it would be a fatalistic act of defiance to claim what would have been an illogical, and not an evidentiarily supported view. Your claim displays a projecting of today's knowledge back on historical figures, first. This, in turn, shows you know the strength of knowledge as garnered by science today. As if claiming, "scientists know all this stuff, and they still believe"; or as you've projected, "they're scientists, and they were religious"; thereby, empowering the very discipline you are illogically attempting to refute using religious means. Yes, very telling.

What you did concerning my statement, "at your level of understanding, evolution is a fact, while it is a theory that is supported by many facts which actually makes it stronger than a fact" is known as quote mining. It is a typical creationist ploy when attempting to cloud an issue or an idea. It is an evasion of honest discourse, a lie, and should be derided as such.

Concerning the matter at hand, a claim of innocence by the accused, in a court of law, is ever more substantiated as evidence accumulates in support of that claim, a theory as substantiated by more and more facts; making your assertion pathetically absurd through example. Evolutionary theory like electrical theory, gravitational theory, and cosmological theory, etc. etc., is solidly substantiated by facts at all but the very cutting edge of new knowledge on the subject. Moreover, this, much like your previous claims, is an example of a mindset; you seem to have a cognitive block regarding evidence that is not in support of your views, again, very telling.

You know @TertiusIII on a personal note, as I read your writing, I am reminded of an observation shared by the wickedly astute Dr. Peter Medawar about the spread of secondary, and latterly, of tertiary education which has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.

Notes:
1. Hitler was not an atheist by any evidentiary model of which I am aware. (Hitler was a fundamentalist Christian acting as a soldier of god in eliminating the Jews according to his own words and writings in Mein Kampf. http://bit.ly/kcyKWK & http://bit.ly/laRWck & http://bit.ly/k2ksoO This is what most would call evidence that Hitler was by no means an atheist. You see, the only reason there is any controversy concerning Hitler's piety is, again, Christians are in denial. That is, Hitler's religiosity is just another denial that Christians cling to in a feeble attempt to defend their delusions. Only, what they seldom want to talk about is the fact that, regardless of Hitler's views, the people of early 20th century Germany (and surrounding countries) were enthusiastic about putting him in power, complicit in horrendous atrocities because they were motivated by dreams of National, racial, and Christian Supremacy into supporting his agendas. Furthermore, the Catholic, that is Universal, Church was complicit in many of those atrocities as the exemplar (Spanish Inquisition), as an accomplice and supporting authority (Concordat of 1933 with Hitler's regime) and the active involvement of the church through the atrocities committed by the likes of Fr. Jozef Tiso and Ante Pavelić, and after the fact, via the Rat-Lines through which the Vatican shuttled Nazis out of Europe to places like America by way of South America. Point being that regardless of Hitler's personal views (about which I have no doubt based on the overwhelming evidence), Christianity, by way of its claims of divine authority, played a major role in the atrocities of the mid-twentieth century, not to mention the entirety of its history of inhumanity.

I know this is uninteresting to most people, but if it gave you some ideas or information you didn't know before maybe it was worth the trouble. Thanks.

Brilliant Defense of ... Wait, what?

2011-05-28T12:35:00.000-10:00

I was invited to view a video by someone calling themselves Chosen Rebel which was proffered on his blog by the below title.

Calling this video a "Brilliant Defense of the Historicity of the Gospels" only displays your lack of familiarity with the Gospels, their content, their history, and their origins. The apologists in this video had a very bad case of tunnel vision. Dr. Williams was it? Anyway, there are much better explanations for the points the good Dr. brought up. And these explanations don't need an hour at a podium evincing historical contortions, nor displaying the mental gyrations evident in the afore mentioned video, Lecture with Dr. Peter Williams.

The following is a response to the claims and arguments put forward in that video.

Originally, every word in the Gospels came from scripture. Period. It is called midrash, but the Gospels themselves are orated stories (from, say, a podium) as generated from that midrash technique. In fact, there is strong evidence that The Gospel According to St. Mark was adapted from a play narrative for a Jewish Graeco-Roman audience (eg. Triumphal March 15:15-19). The Gospels were motivated by the platonic descending-ascending theological explanations expressed by those with a need for a new covenant. This Son of Man theology accorded by the platonic Anointed Savior sects as was communicated by apostolic writers (similar to the likes of Paul/Saul et al.) through the Epistles to the congregations of the Jewish Diaspora, who were dispersed around Europe and Asia Minor from the onset of the Roman conquest and occupation. The Gospels are post hoc prophetic narratives as humanized and historicized from Jewish anointed savior sect's theological explanations of imagined platonic (spirit world) representation at the right hand of Yahweh, that is, his begotten son. That's it.

The oppressed of the Diaspora needed a new mythical hero, so like all religions in such straights, it accommodated them with a spiritual emanation and spiritual mediator for a new covenant with Yahweh whose wrath the Sons of Man (Man being the Fathers) felt they did not deserve, for the old covenant was with, and broken by, the fathers. Only, they had to stay within there sacred writings, the scriptures, when looking for prophecies that would foretell the coming of such a savior. For Yahweh would have had to have known that this would be the case, right? Actually, it's more than likely that for the concept to be generally excepted the Torah, Mosaic Law, and Jewish histories would have to be respected in just such a way.

The reason the names statistically correlate (besides the obvious fact that the main place to find names for such a study now would be from extant documents, most of which are primarily religious text of the time) with the names in the Gospels is because the Diaspora got their names from the same place the Gospels got theirs, OT scripture, or more specifically the Greek Septuagint. This also explains the Sycamore tree, sycomore (Latin) in 8 verses of the KJV, 7 of which are in the OT. This explanation continues to clarify why the cultural centers, villages, and place names are used in the Gospels but relative distances and directions are absurdly misrepresented. Such cases as the pigs of Gadarene running more than 11 kilometers to the water, or the itinerary of this Jesus character taking a tact equivalent to Pensacola to Atlanta by way of Tampa, on foot. The absurdity of the nativity narrative in Luke in which a woman, and the subject of a different Ruler, is dragged across to 2 provinces on the back of an ass on the eve of the birth of her baby—to do what? To be counted in a city they are not from to pay taxes for which there is no historical evidence were ever called for—no! It is for the same reason every word of the Gospels were written. To be post hoc prophecy fulfillment of the scripture, to bring about an apocalyptic revenge against, and purging of, the usurpers and occupiers of the homeland of Yahweh. The Gospels even admit as much in many places.

Such as, John 19:36, "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, ..." . Or, there is the revenge angle,

Luke 21:22
"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." How about a verse that ties the descending-ascending platonic (spirit world) anointed savior theology with OT writings and epistolary expressions thereof (see: Hebrews 1:5 and many others) to the Gospel post hoc fulfillment of scripture:

Acts 13:33
"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

Yet, by far the best evidence for the scriptural origins of most, if not all, of the details of the Gospels is in the last words of this mythical Jesus character's narrated life, in Matthew 27:46 the words, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" or "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Which is contradictory to the narrative that claims he was sent to be sacrificed and is made to say he knew it. But more to the point, it is, in fact, a quote from the first verse of Psalm 22. If there were ever a time for someone to be original, I am sure the words from the dying breath of an illiterate carpenter would rank very high on a very short list of examples. No, of course, this never happened.

I hope this puts those of you with the predisposition off the habit of believing mythology as fact, and misjudging others as incompetent for not sharing in those delusions. Thanks.

How Do You See Modern Religion?

2011-05-26T15:20:00.000-10:00

What is modern religion, really?

Should it not be obvious to civilized minds that someone who thinks that it is permissible to repress a woman's right to choose in a very difficult matter concerning her own body; that it is feminism which is somehow one of the greatest threats to society; that affirmative action is a worse form of racism than the heinous atrocities instituted by the papal bulls of June 18, 1452 by Pope Nicholas V, (Dum Diversas) which is credited with ushering in the West African slave trade, the papal bull written January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V (Romanus Pontifex) giving King Afonso V a monopoly on the slave trade and furthering those atrocities to include indigenous peoples of many other regions then there is the papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, (Inter caetera) extending those previous sanctions to include the indigenous peoples of the Americas, because they "were not under the protection of God"; that homosexuality is something other than a natural occurrence caused by inherited genes of a living organism which is as uncompromising as any biological drive (ie. to alleviate hunger, thirst, loneliness, pain, or suffering etc.) including heterosexuality, therefore eliminating it as a choice of any kind; that everything public should be turned over to oligarchies (eg. privatized, ie. corporatism, libertarianism), that is, corporate kingdoms, would be perfectly fine with submission to an unsubstantiated supernatural dictator as an adherent of an oligarchical patriarchy, and would be thrilled if everyone on Earth was forced into submission under such an oppressive tyranny.

What is modern religion?

It is a political organization that makes it easy to hide repressive ideologies behind pseudo-morality. It is an authoritarian organization that makes it simple to hide tyranny behind tradition, fear and conservatism behind iron age mythology, and replaces the minds and views of the many behind the unsubstantiated opinion of the few or the one. It is a community organization in which populism pacifies those who haven't apprehended the ramifications of having faith in the words of for-profit prophets and makes it easy to replace ignorance with happiness so as to forget what it is that's causing their cognitive dissonance and confusion. It is missions of inculcation and institutionalization hiding behind words like salvation. It is a for-profit industry thinly veiled behind charity. It is the power of a mob through control of thought, opinion and limited education.

What is modern religion? It is an institution that candy-coats the submission to tyranny.

The Insanity of Christian Inanity

2011-05-21T19:28:00.000-10:00

It is quite common to be blown over by the undaunted absurdity in the claims made by the adherents to faith-based institutions of superstitious iron-age politicians. But, rarely do I get such a clear cut example of the angst from which the religiose are belabored in their attempt to deny science, especially evolution. This interlocutor on twitter was just such a case.

8am 05-21-11

Now, all I asked for was the evidence he had for his claimed deity. But, his first sentence out of the gate is a obfuscation of his own feelings. I don't think any Christian is happy that their chosen deity can't be proven —quite the contrary. Why else would they spend millennia making up pseudoscience in the pursuit of just such an end. They wish, more than anything, that their deity would make himself known in the most horrendous fashion. More on this in a bit. No, this is a lie to cover up the fact that my interlocutor is suffering from cognitive dissonance from the fact that he has yet to find any evidence for his chosen deity.

First of all, he is lying to himself, and secondly, he lies to all he confronts, because he wishes more than anything that the entity that would validate his claim to ideological supremacy was in evidence somewhere—hell, anywhere. Only, all he sees is the evidence against such supernatural claims and propositions. Also, the faith he writes of is that of denial, denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is evidenced in the very next sentence. Christian doctrine does, in fact, claim to know the origins of everything as evinced in creationism. Many people have been tortured to death for even supposing a different scenario. Complete and utter denial.

8am 05-21-11

In citizen Cain's second proffering is so very much more than just the example of a denial of science I mentioned earlier. There is also the judgement of evolutionists, that we "just don't want to submit to a good God." There are more than a couple of things about this statement that I find glaringly offensive to my intelligence. Not the least of which is the fact that an evolutionist can be the scientist that works in a field relating to, or requiring the data from, the findings of evolutionary biology, genetics, anatomy, medicine, physiology, behavioral science, etc. etc.; or an evolutionist can be someone that accepts the overwhelming evidence of the phylogenetic trees from many different disciplines, embryology, zoology, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and animal husbandry that natural selection is the motive force of evolution. The sciences of evolution are merely after the facts, there is no conspiracy to falsify our understanding of nature—this is what religion does as a means to manipulate public opinion so as to garner power, wealth and control of thought.

Then there is the assertion that said evolutionist doesn't "want" ... hold it right there. How does this citizen claim to know what anyone "wants?" Absurd! Why wouldn't someone want to live forever in Cain's simplistic, even childish, understanding of an eternity in what would eventually become eternal prostration, eternal worship, and illogical eternal boredom to ad adsurdum? Who wouldn't want that?

The claim of a "good god" shows that my interlocutor doesn't know anything about the religion under the banner of which he claims superior knowledge of the natural world, even more than scientists that have actually done the work to get the education, the research to get the facts of the matter, to only then submit their findings for public scrutiny by peers in their respective fields. No! Citizen Cain obviously doesn't realize that his religion's god, Yahweh Sabaoth (Yahweh, God of armies), was concocted as a god of war, a god of revenge. But, am I being fair in placing the responsibility of citizen Cain's misunderstanding of his chosen deity squarely upon his shoulders? Besides religion, in what other spectrum of life are we not expected to vet our sources or pay the consequences of our mistake? No! The good god that Cain insists evolutionists do not want to submit, is a god that answers to Cain's own imaginings. This is, in fact, Cain's own god. His personal creation from his own mind. And as such only good by Cain's own standards. I bet this god even hates all the same people that Cain hates. Cain's god is the god to which he wants all evolutionists to submit. How is that for arrogance. But, submit is the word he used, and a key word it is.

See, this is the point about blind faith in a divine authority. Be it represented by, interpreted by, or propounded by an all too earthly human, we are to take it on faith that this figurehead of divine authority, this imaginer of a personal deity, to whom we are to submit in all credulity, forsaking our intellect, our experience, our reason and rationale is the person on earth who has imagined the one true god, as if such a thing could even logically exist. Do you see what is happening? We are being asked to submit to an imaginary concoction of Cain's own making, Cain's own opinion, and Cain's own views, in effect, we are required to submit to Citizen Cain. This is the submission that faith requires. Without evidence of an actual deity, we are required to submit to the misrepresentation of the Christian deity. We are to suspend our rational faculties of disbelief and submit in blind faith. But, most importantly, we are to submit.

After declaring that we should submit, his first assertion about "all the evidence for evolution [he] has seen" seems quite timid. Only, how am I to have any idea what, if any, evidence for evolution he has seen. Though, Evolutionary Theory is supported by many, many facts and literally tons of evidence. Not to mention it has been belabored by every bewildered theologian, every pious pundit, every misinformed school magistrate, and Sunday school teacher, as well as, the scientific community at large and is still the strongest theory in the sciences. For example, Tiktaalik was found in exactly the spot where the evolutionary data predicted. All the phylogenetic trees agree. If they didn't agree, evolution would be falsified. Medicines work. Why else would medicines be tested on (not that I agreed with the practice) animals if we're not all anatomically similar? No! The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, so much so, that it is in the face of this evidence that denial must be maintained for faith, the submission of one's intellect, to hold any sway.

8am 05-21-11

The denial in this particular statement is profuse with self-deception. First, no one has "seen it all" (the previous statement was qualified as to the amount that he had seen). How can someone "think they know?" One either has a considered stance or knowledge of the fact, but not both. The fact of the matter is that evolution is supported by many facts that can be known. Now evolution is verifiable everyday by the discipline of animal husbandry, the manipulation of varieties of breeds. Darwin determined that there were natural motivators of phylogenesis similar to human intervention and manipulation of gene pools. So, my arrogant interlocutor must have something in mind, maybe Macroevolution, it's usually a favorite of the "AiG" crowd. Only, we have plenty of evidence for that as well. The vestigial limbs of whales; the laryngeal nerve in all mammals, most notably giraffes; and the location of parasitic genes across phyla that acts as a fingerprint of the animals ancestry are all very strong evidence for macroevolution. Strong evidence of evolution is what we know we have.

8am 05-21-11

It is only through the denial of the evidence that this statement can be made, especially the oxymoron in the hashtag. But at this point I would like to bring the date at the bottom of all these clips to your attention. It is the date of the famed rapture of 2011 as professed by one Harold Camping. This is, to my mind, the only assertion evincing more arrogance than that of citizen Cain. Some may think rapture theology is merely an epitome of Christian doctrine. I think it is the supreme example of the political revenge innate in all the monotheistic faiths. Especially, as expressed in recent Christian conceptualizations, while not forgetting its origin in Hebrew mythology.

What started out as a nationalistic revolution against an occupying force in Asia Minor and the Near East of the 1st century BCE. Where a people were hoping for an Anointed Savior to solicit a new contract with their deity and relieve them of their Roman interlopers through a vengeful overpowering via supernatural entities billowing through the clouds on chariots of fire, has become revenge against descent from the orthodox beliefs. Christians revel in the idea of watching everyone who disagrees with their unsubstantiated claims suffering in a lake of fire. Yet, even more disturbing than this is the fact that rapture theology is based on poor reading comprehension as best as I can tell. But, I will save that for another entry. For what I would term an exposé on rapture theology see: Rosa Rubicondior: What Does Rapture Theology Say About Christians?

Note:
Originally, I thought it might be best to cover the identity of citizen Cain, to show some compassion for the ignorant, but then I thought better. Shouldn't people be held to account for their views, falsehoods, and claims?

In Response to Christian Criticism

2011-05-09T09:56:00.001-10:00

I seem to have started a running gun fight with Christians at the Wall Street Journal over what is basically a book advertisement blogged in connection to this past Easter. The entry is the typical Lee Strobel spongy assertions based on absolutely no evidence, and, of course, none is provided, nor forthcoming. If one wishes to read all of my comments on that blog text search Beachbum on the threads page, as they are all entered under my name. But I could not get this particular comment to load so I have put it here for those interested. I have also included the comment from William Munney (unaltered, as would be expected) in which my comment is a response.

From William Munney:
1:21 am May 8, 2011

“If people believed as I do, maybe we could finally have peace on Earth. Religions have had thousands of years, thousands of blood-soaked, hate-filled years. Let’s give reason and rationality a chance; superstitions have had theirs and failed miserably.”

Right BB, because atheists and other “rational” people of that kind never hate anyone, right? Apparently you have either not seen or have turned a blind eye to the real hatred(having an opinion opposite to yours is not hatred, much to liberal’s chagrin), in the form of anti-Christian hatred from people who hate you(or try to intimidate you, or discriminate against you, or kill you) just because you believe in Jesus. Just as Jesus said would happen. Why don’t you rally against the real bigots?.

“for as Einstein said, genius is limited, but ignorance is infinite.” Indeed. And maybe you should take a cue from him. Einstein also said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

If you have such faith in your atheism, why do you come here to try and persuade others to abandon God, whom you think is nonsense? Just be confident in your religion(which is what atheism is). Your “god” doesn’t ask you to spread it’s gospel to “non-believers” – as Jesus did for Christians – and there is no hope for salvation in your religion, thus no reason to “help” others reach salvation, so why do you come here to try “to pervert the right ways of the Lord”, “oh child of the devil “?

And My Response:

I am truly sorry that you and many like you have been inculcated into the "suffering Christian" mythology. As you put it, "...anti-Christian hatred ... try to intimidate ... discriminate against ... or kill you ... just because you believe in Jesus." This is, in fact, Christian propaganda.

Have Christians been persecuted as a result of their adherence to their particular dogmas and doctrines? Of course, mostly by other Christian sects. Have Christians gone to war over the belief in a particular god or prophet? Again, yes! Only, it was with every other institution of superstitious claims known throughout history, and they persecuted as harshly (even more so, that's why Christianity disseminated) as they were persecuted. Worst of all, Christians have persecuted their own, based on claims of supernatural authority, ie. God(s) commanded it, eg. the Bible says (Exodus 22:18) we should not suffer a witch, (or Sodomites, or Amalekites, ect. ect.) to live.

You see, first and foremost, religions, all religions, are tools of politics and have been since their inception. This is not to say all governments, as should be the case in the US, but it is manipulation through fear, segregation through in-group vs. out-group (ie. racism, nationalism, denominationalism, Christian Supremacy, etc.), as well as most of the other baser emotions such as xenophobia, homophobia, etc. Also, thought control so that, "it doesn't matter what the evidence shows via science, history, anthropology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.; the (pseudo) facts are as this Evangelist, Politician, Mormon, Creationist, Capitalist, Libertarian, Corporatist, etc., etc., purports," is something other than totally [insert expletive here] laughable.

Politicians have known for millennia that nothing turns a group into an easily manipulated mob (for fun and profit) like claims of persecution from those belonging to an out-group. (By using fictitious claims of persecution about the Roman Emperor Nero, a Roman Church of some 3 centuries hence was able to simultaneously get Romans to denounce their Roman-ness and embrace Catholicism; thereby, converting Roman citizens into Roman Catholics in short order.) They've also known, for almost as long, that similar claims have worked preemptively to justifying the implementation of policies that lead to atrocities whether those claims are fabricated, exaggerated, or merely elaborated, for the mob mentality is nothing, if not, frenzied impetuousness amplified to the point of mindless violence. Yes, the persecuted Christian is a fabrication.

But, to answer your question: "Why don’t [I] rally against the real bigots?" Considering that a bigot is a person with strong and prejudiced views who will not listen to opinions differing from their own, I can only conclude that—I am, all of them.

From my point of view, a person's opinions should be held up to the light of verifiable knowledge and weighed in the free market of ideas against the evidence and the facts gleaned therefrom. That's what I like about logical thought, it strives to eliminate opinion from the conclusion by putting a high value on evidence. This actually puts a twist on an idiom that is currently circulating in the zeitgeist that "a person is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts." In my view a person is entitled to their opinion, or belief, if they can substantially support it with facts based on evidence. Furthermore, because people act on their opinions in ways that affect us all, ie. the political, commercial, environmental, as well as public arena, those opinions, those beliefs, should be scrutinized, debated, in the free market of ideas by people with respect for evidence. Else, a self-proclaimed prophet that believes he can claim several pre-teen and teenaged girls would be free (from jail) to do as he pleased, or maybe, like Mohammad, become the mythological basis for a world religion. Or, how about misquoting famous figures out of context to gain authoritative appeal?

Your quoting of Albert Einstein is nothing short of an appeal to authority made worse by your misapprehension of its meaning as to be, in some way, referring to one of the Abrahamic religions. It was not.

It is from, Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941

And I quote, in part:

"Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein

So it is that many religiose misinterpret Einstein's famous statement suggesting that Einstein was evincing respect for religious credulity. Science without religion is lame, merely because "science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." Whereas religion without science is blind because religion has no access to the truth—it was, as Einstein expressed it—nothing other than the "source of feeling" this aspiration toward something greater than itself cannot be generated via the scientific method that is gleaned from the same sphere as religious aspirations. A purely human motivation in my view that when combined with an educated faith in the concept that the natural parameters we currently understand through evidentiary means can very easily be projected over space and time that is currently understood to be exactly like the here and now. This statement both removes any claim to truth from religions, and at the same time, imbues the human psyche with both the origins of higher aspirations, and the foresight to discern and understand truth of our universe.

Nowhere is this sentiment more succinct than in this statement: "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."—Albert Einstein

You have obviously garnered your misapprehension of atheism from those of a biased bent on the subject. Understanding that there isn't any evidence supporting anything supernatural, let alone a personal deity, is not even remotely religious. Alas, I understand that your comments are an attempt to elevate your belief system by equating atheism with it; do you not see the logical absurdity? Do you not see that religions have used this same method, either purposefully or unconsciously, with everything that has always been human, natural, even culturally innate? You write of salvation as though it was something "out there" something that is attained from a religion; it is not. Humanity is the guardian of its own authority, creator of its own morality and it has always been so. We are the guardians of our universe. I have no lord, no master and neither should you.

As one with an atheistic view and the education that supports it, I understand that the characters portrayed through the Abrahamic religions, which is how you most likely understand them, are, in reality, literary constructs, which have only survived due to their political usefulness. So, in addition to stopping the manipulation of you by way of your emotions and opinions, through evidentiarily unsupported claims, known as religious dogmas, which I addressed above, there is but one reason why I am here: to help others!

In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, I am attempting to free our priest-ridden civil government from the lowest grade of ignorance of which religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thanks.

EOB

Now, if you're not interested in my previous comments, I can understand as I am honestly over-it myself. But, I would recommend reading some of them as I didn't bother responding to the absolutely moronic cracks. Hopefully, they have been, and will be, educational.

Thanks

Research On a Conversion

2011-01-15T13:38:00.002-10:00

After reading the book written in his name, I have been investigating the conversion and writings of this once philosophical mind, Antony Flew. The first thing a reading of the book made very clear was that it totally lacked a counter argument for Flew's own views. Considering the history and bibliography of this man, I would think that this alone represents a ridiculous circumstance of the book's writing. A circumstance that has an obvious explanation; it was not written by the man named on its cover, nor could he have had any input into its authoring. An idea shared by many other reviewers of this work. Which is why I originally opted to not blog the results of my research. There were many other blogs on the topic appearing on the web at that time. I only proffer this minor blog on the topic as a listing of some of the points I found on the net over the years.

Now, after being put in the position of reading an argument that begins as a misrepresentation (Isn't it funny how so many religious apologetics begin life this way?), I thought I would consider the presented arguments on their own merit—just for giggles and grins.

First, I'll say that the book, There Is No A God qualifies, and Richard Carrier concurs, as the weakest argument put forward that I have ever read. Ok, I must admit that I have actually been reading on this conversion of an "atheist" for many years and trying as much as possible to understand Antony's motivation, reasoning, or lack thereof. As such, I come across many opinions on this subject but, none are as coherent as Richard Carrier's Blog and Richard brings up many points due to his correspondence with Flew since 2000. There are many links to insightful writings by Flew and others on one of Richard's other postings at Infidels not to mention the most complete history of this whole sorted story. Also, the New York Times cover by Mark Oppenheimer is a good piece on the unfolding of this book's back story. The story actually starts in 1950 with the publication of Flew's Theology and Falsification and ends with the publication of this junk. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "it's sad." Some examples of the writings on the subject, from Open Society Journals between Antony Flew and Raymond Bradley even the hard to find replies from both gentlemen.

Of course, there are a plethora varying opinions on the book's authorship, veracity, and strength of argument, but that is all they are—opinions. Let the facts—and only the facts—speak for themselves.

Personally I feel Antony Flew is owed an apology, but it is not mine to offer.

formspring.me

2010-12-14T17:44:00.001-10:00

Ask me anything http://formspring.me/Beechbum

Questionable Sophistry

2010-11-27T13:25:00.000-10:00

I ran across an example of sophistry recently in the form of questions that I suppose are meant to confound the issues related to a religious adherence to primitive superstitions and supernatural claims. So I thought I would answer them as best as I am currently able.
What follows are five questions that should be understood as coming from a religious fundamentalist who assumes that they know better the answers than, say, someone that doesn't share their world view. And therein lies the background for this Q & A. Questions are obviously numbered and italicized.

1. Is it possible that God could reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain? If not, why not, and how are you certain of that?

   First one must be making the presumption with this question that a god exists. And of course, this has never been verified. Throughout human history, far too many of those that have claimed they received a revelation from some supernatural authority ascribed the most heinous of atrocities to its commands. And at the same time, many of the most benevolent as well as the most despicable have claimed revelatory authority with equal veracity only with vastly different consequences. From this point of view, along with a comprehension of all the errors, contradictions, falsehoods, and redactions in works that were once claimed as divinely dictated, it is easy to see that revelation is indistinguishable from imagination as used in the act of a fabrication.

   From an anatomical standpoint, living organisms have no supernatural transceiver that has been found to date. Also, there is little structural difference between a human brain and any other mammalian brains. And concerning certainty, I'm as certain that no god could communicate with those that claim one has communicated with them as I am that supernatural claims have never been verified, ever. To begin with, there is no such thing as a supernatural realm from which to communicate. This is just the overly simplistic explanation for those unknown causes; until, we discover those mechanisms that actually cause the phenomena in question. The concept of a supernatural realm will be the mystical Orphic abyss of sophists and charlatans, until it is understood as nothing other than that of which we are ignorant. For the sake of argument, lets assume the impossible is now possible. Revelation is Descartes' dualism (c. 1641) which was debunked just after his own time by his peers on the grounds that evil exists. With all things considered, the existence of evil from a dualistic view puts the onus of every atrocity on that deity's self indulgent head. But in my view, the main nail in the coffin for the concept of Cartesian Dualism, and therefore revelation or divined knowledge, is our ability to be introspective while reaching all but an infinite number of different conclusions. So, no is the answer to the question. Furthermore...

   To know something "for certain" is a claim from the domain of ignorance. It is the deep thinker that realizes there may be unexplored alternatives, a refinement of accuracy, or a revision based on new evidence. To claim something "for certain" only shows that one's knowledge is based not on evidence but on dogma. The accumulation of knowledge is the assimilation of relationships and the elimination of alternatives; therefore, knowledge is best understood as in a constant state of melioration through the accumulation of facts.

   One brief point on the topic of seeing the evidence for god(s) all around us, as the assertion goes. All anyone actually sees is the evidence of procreation. Every tree had a seed; every creature had a mother or clone as the case may be. So, when someone claims that a god reveals itself through the surrounding ecosystem, they are actually ignoring the fact that in nature all living organisms have an antecedent. And, of course, this is better explained through evolution as well as other branches of natural science. As supernatural claims are unrealistic by association, I see appeals to the supernatural as nothing more than an admission of ignorance—pathetic actually.

2. How are you able to know anything for certain according to your worldview?

   By world view in this case, I assume the author is referring to atheism. And by the qualifier, "for certain," I'm assuming they are not taking into consideration that atheism is an evidence based viewpoint. This must mean that they don't accept the human brain or the mind as an innately cognitive faculty. In light of the first question, it would seem that the author is holding to the Cartesian Dualism of René Descartes or some variation thereof. But if that were the case, how would one expect anyone to drive a car, write a play, rape young boys or be anything other than an automaton. One cannot have free will based on divined information. We would be nothing except puppets on a string. This would be the ultimate in control, and the most sinister of deceptions; especially, considering the suffering throughout human history for which this divine authority would be responsible.

The fact of the matter is that evidence is accepted by our judicial system for a very good reason. Evidence is the basis for the very successful scientific method for a very good reason, as well. The value of information as knowledge is directly proportional the amount of evidence supporting that information; while critically considering the weight of all contravening evidence. It is the only way we "know anything for certain."

   Again, your question is based on an intrinsically false assumption. You assume there is a god or gods that would alter human perception for their own enjoyment. This is one thing I know I would find despicable—for certain. Quite to the contrary, the human mind is quite capable of perceiving reality under nominal circumstances.

The question is actually an attempt to hide the fact that absolutely nothing is gleaned from appeals to the superstitious, supernatural, or religious dogmas.

3. Does our discussion have to comport with the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic? If so, how do you account for them according to your worldview?

   You obviously do not realize that an atheist view is the rational view, the logical stance as opposed to the supernatural stance of the theist which is not based on anything but faith. Faith, or denial in the face of over whelming evidence, is not logical. Faith is an emotional adherence to an evidentiarily unsupported claim.

   Furthermore, logical absolutes (ie. Law of non contradiction, Law of identity, Law of excluded middle, etc.) are the parameters (or framework) within which the physical universe operates. Like the principles of thermodynamics, these logical parameters of the natural universe are how relationships of physical entities occur as a consequence of the existence and interaction of these physical bodies. Logic, on the other hand, is a system, like mathematics or physics, that we use to conceptualize these parameters, so as to better understand and communicate that understanding. In fact, logic is a form of mathematics, and much like mathematics, logic, physics, and chemistry etc. are only our conceptualization, our understanding, of these parameters within which the natural universe operates. Logical parameters exist whether or not there is a universe, or inhabitants of that universe to observe those parameters. They are how physical entities will behave and have behaved in the universe as we now know it. Properties of a logical universe operate within these parameters just as these properties also operate within the confines of mathematical parameters as well as physical parameters, etc.

   Therefore, one's world view is irrelevant when considering what was termed above as "laws of logic." Also, don't make the mistake of conflating a concept with its mental abstract conceptualization. Nor can one honestly correlate any logical parameter (Logical Absolute as it has been termed) of the natural universe with its mental representation, its conceptualization. This is where the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, TAG failed miserably while being shown as another pathetic apologetic contrivance. No sane person would try to claim that gravity needs a mind to exist. The same is true for the principles of logical parameters, mathematical parameters and physical parameters, etc. within which the natural universe works. Sixteen of something exists whether someone is there to count them or not.

   Actually, this question misdirects attention away from the fact that claims of supernatural interaction with a logical universe are, in short, unsupportable and untenable.

4. On what basis do you expect the future to be like the past (i.e. the uniformity of nature, the basis for inductive reasoning).

   This is actually a minimal assumption of scientific inquiry but a favorite canard of the less scientifically inclined. Due to a lack of experience with statistics, religionists are less aware of the concept of probability. Based on substantiated historical facts, the probability of the future being exactly like the past is indistinguishable from 100 percent; though, while not being perfect, there is no evidence that physics has been anything other than what it is today. So, considering historical consistency along with the total absence of any contradictory or contravening evidence makes scientific testability and predictability consistent enough to warrant sound expectations with inductive reasoning.

   Also, along with the linear support for predictable expectations there is lateral support as well. The universe has shown itself to be bound by logical parameters, consistent with mathematical principles, and amenable to physical properties. The evidence suggests that this is consistent throughout the universe in both time and space, as any rational world view would suggest. This is also why the concept of a supernatural realm as well as a supernatural entity are logically impossible, physically unsupportable, even scientifically falsifiable per any given location.

   The reason religion and science have been at odds for centuries is because of this very problem. For as science investigates supernatural claims, one hundred percent have been shown to be either completely natural, indeterminable, or false. Furthermore, while almost every scientific advance (all of them concerned with the as yet unknown) contravenes the claims of the worlds religions as well as all supernatural claims along with greatly reducing the indeterminable category, there are always those that claim the impossible and hide it deep inside the Orphic abyss of the indeterminable or some sophistic rhetorical ploy.

   There is an obvious slide-of-hand in this question, as it attempts to coverup the fact that this historically substantiated predictability would have never been the case in a supernaturally amenable universe. It is this simple fact which is the main reason many people come to their senses in regards to religious claims. One of the main reasons why countries consumed by the Muslim faith went from a scientific world leader to a theocratic backwater of humanity is because of the concept of occasionalism (Allah can change the laws of nature at his whim). This ludicrous dogma convinced Muslims that studying nature was a waste of time; since, their deity could stop or alter its principles at any time. Hence, science and technology fell by the wayside in the Muslim mind.

5. How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?

   Without restating answers to the first four questions, of which this overtly generalized inquiry is only a restatement, I will start with the fact that our reasoning works as evidenced by the computer with which I'm writing. Although, it is obvious that you are looking for something else. Assuming that these questions were written using a computer, I will move on to the idea that the reasoning may be invalidated if counterfeited by some Dualistic Cartesian Theater from some deity for its own sadistic entertainment. Only this would mean that every sadistic thought, every evil act by every despotic tyrant, pedophile, rapist, murderer, capitalist, etc. was under the explicit control of this narcissistic sadomasochist. And if one thinks that the devil made them do it, maybe worship of this deity is wasted; since, it is obviously not the most eminent power in the land.

   When the gods (especially the Abrahamic God) wielded great power in the ancient days of infantile man's philosophical development, humanity suffered greatly at the hands of nature while leading short brutish miserable lives in fear and servitude to those who knew that divine authority was an irrevocable, non-falsifiable, and irreproachable—if handled correctly—means of subjugating the masses. Now that man has gleaned a comprehension of nature, the natural universe and our place within it an enhanced understanding from science, of medicine, and nutrition etc, have greatly enhanced man's lot in life. When God's revelations were claimed to be divine dictate of those in power, the pious servile man was the one to suffer the greatest. Since the Enlightenment and the rejection of divine dictate, freedom, freedom of inquiry, progress of individual civil rights, freedom of speech, and pursuit of happiness have replaced serfdom, slavery, servitude and capitulation of thought by force. The evidence supporting man's reasoning abilities is vast and incontrovertible, but one point will make it abundantly clear that our reasoning abilities are a direct result of our cognitive faculties as witnessed by brain damaged patients under the care of competent physicians with access to fMRI scanners.

This is also a question that attempts to hide from the interlocutor the inescapable antithesis that in the days when divine revelation reigned supreme substantially fewer ideas, arguments, or conclusions were even close to correctly reasoned. It tries to camouflage the fact that man's philosophical prowess evolved exactly as one would expect given a total lack of divine intervention. Though the question overlooks the fact that man's morality improved as a direct consequence of his own investigations into the natural world and the discovery of our place within it, authors of such a question invariably claim that morality is the prerogative of their imaginary friend.

Now, I have a question: When have supernatural claims ever been validated, verified or substantiated? A hint:—Never, not once.

No, the power of god(s) is directly proportional to the ignorance of man as evidenced by the following: When man's ignorance was great, fear of the power of god(s) was greater still; but when man's knowledge overcame his fear and ignorance, the power of those mythical god(s) waned. And now that knowledge has brought humanity to the point where those that claim to wield the power of the gods are institutionalized, it is time to put childish things aside.

Thanks for taking the time to read this Q & A. Feel free to leave a comment if you wish.

Bertrand Russell

2010-11-17T21:23:00.004-10:00

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872 – 1970)

It was my pleasure to learning about Bertrand Russell at a very young age. However, it was the worlds loss when he died in 1970. He was, in my personal opinion, one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He influenced many brilliant people through his philosophy. People of the highest cognitive caliber, such as, Albert Einstein or the nimblest of thinkers, Wittgenstein for instance, knew and worked with Bertrand Russell.

One can find out about the details of his long career many places over the net, in books, especially his own copious corpus. I only wish to put a person to the work. Enjoy.

Here are the Taxes about which Tbaggers are complaining

2010-11-10T08:49:00.001-10:00

Bet you didn't know this; that is, unless you had been paying attention.

My Lack of Belief

2010-11-08T22:20:00.001-10:00

This latest video from Qualiasoup is very good at explaining the subtle difference between what some people think about beliefs, or the lack thereof.

Just Another Liar

2010-11-08T00:40:00.002-10:00

August 20, 2010 on Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program via (Media Matters)

I'm doing a study on the liars that influence opinion in this country. And the best case I can display is this retard. But anyone who actually does any reading on Darwin will know that Beck is not presenting one word of truth. And more to the point, he doesn't present a word to back up any of his assertions. And this is the main problem in American media, they are not held to any level of honesty. Worse still is that most Americans are not in the habit of reading or even knowing anything more than their own opinion. So, a factually handicapped noise jockey like Beck can blurt out total falsehoods, and as long as it confirms the ignorant biases of the ill educated—it's going to pass as information. This clip is total garbage that can be totally debunked with a little investment in a book or a few minutes on Google. Beck's propaganda needs no more than to be ignored by those of us who know better and use critical thinking skills to flourish as accepted, relevant information. I, for one, feel this kind of garbage needs to be exposed, as does the perpetrator of these lies.

Juan Williams FIRED: NPR Sacks Analyst Over Fox News Muslim Comments

2010-10-21T10:26:00.003-10:00

"Williams [...] dual role on Fox News [...] drew so many complaints from NPR's listeners that it asked Fox News to stop identifying Williams as an "NPR News Political Analyst" in 2009."

This is all I need to know about the environment in which Williams placed himself. We are held to account for the associations we keep. Fox uses the fascist process (Fascism is not a political ideology, but is a political process engendering fear and bigotry through propaganda purporting degradation of religious superiority, racial superiority, national superiority, etc., engendering nationalism and xenophobia through the false—not to mention overtly simplistic—dichotomy of us vs. them to support a corporatist governmental infrastructure of powerful oligarchies—corporations—where the government puts the wishes of the corporate entities above the rights of the individual citizen.) to support the Republican party. A party which has a long history of using fascist tactics since long before there was a word for the process. Ever increasingly since the '50s, the days of McCarthy, the red scare, and commie witch hunts Republicans have been using this process to accomplish their corporatist agenda (i.e. the antics of the Religious Right, the race baiting of several Congressman, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and many others) culminating in the Fox News Network as the propaganda arm of Republican Corporatism. This is not balanced, honest or in the national interest. This is, however, why NPR fired Williams as the culmination of his rhetoric and those complaints.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Stealing Morality Back from a Fence

2010-07-16T20:14:00.002-10:00

A rebuttal of Mark Shea's:

Shoplifting from the Supernaturalism

In another attempt at obfuscation for the benefit of his godhead (which, for obvious reasons, can't clear everything up for itself) this Catholic now claims that, Christopher Hitchens is misreading the Judaeo-Christian tradition by saying,

“the Jewish people did not get all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay.”

But the claim that we were created in the image and likeness of God, doesn't for a moment suggest that murder, or for that matter—many other immoral acts, are wrong. For this mythological god, incites their practice, as well as, commits many, including murder, repeatedly himself, as its portrait is recorded in the Bible. So, people would not recognize it as sacred from revelation, by reading the holy book or innately, "from the get go," as this Catholic asserts. Again, morality comes neither by this mythological patriarch's example or dictate. Then our quarrelsome Catholic writes,

"Oblivious to the Church’s entire tradition of the natural law..."

while not clarifying what that "law" is, exactly. And, yet again, incorrectly characterizing Christopher's evaluation of the comment as, "a crushing debate point," he is consistent. It is indeed, verified fact, not just a debate point. It doesn't even make sense in the narrative itself, because the society they falsely claimed to have escaped from was a very advanced society with incredible feats of cooperation, so yes, the commandments were at least unnecessary. Societies were cooperating, coexisting, and collaborating with neighboring societies for some 10,000 years, prior to the time this mosaic narrative claims a mass exodus occurred. All cultures have a moral base that vary widely in some details but are very similar in others, and it's obvious which ones are from an evolutionary history that we share with other social creatures, especially primates.

The implausibility of even some spurious historical roots to this myth, the absurdity of the details, especially those connected to the commandments— show it to be patriarchal mythology. Constructed to malign belief in an older matriarchal mythology, related to a fertility goddess. The commandments of this tale were, in fact, redundant at the time of their creation. There is nothing historical about the Exodus narrative. The Jews are, in fact, descendants of Canaanites and were never slaves of the Egyptians. Moses is no more historical than Adam, Enoch, Jesus, Hercules, Apollo, Tom Sawyer, or Superman. The explanation for the general acceptance of the truthfulness of these religious myths is very simple. They didn't have an educational system to curb the myth to fact evolution that critical analysis of the evidence will curtail, then usually eliminate. Even Thomas Aquinas had the education of the average 7 year old today, and the philosophical prowess of a typical Inspirational Channel infomercial talking head, some 1400 years after the mosaic oral tradition took root.

Then this Catholic is once again, I was previously introduced to his various strawman fallacies, drawn to still more deplorable ad hominem arguments. But this pundit has such weak arguments, like any religious argument would be otherwise, that his main tactic is debasement of the opposition, poisoning the well, or the typical false premise. I give you, dear reader, as an example:

"Indeed Hitchens, like all the New Atheists (who are, in fact, creakily decrepit Old Atheists of a school that nearly died out), is ..."

Which is both wrong and irrelevant for many reasons, the first of which is that atheism is not a "school." It is the absents of a belief in god(s), only. While at the same time based on scientific evidence that is being up dated daily. Therefore, while the concept of skepticism is as old as thought itself, the atheist view is based on philosophies and scientific discoveries that are current. And while I am honored to be numbered among the likes of Democritus, Epicurus, Robert G. Ingersoll, Andrew Carnegie, Katherine Hepburn, Francis Crick, Bertrand Russell, Bruce Lee it is obvious that Mark Shea is intent on poisoning his readership's opinion of atheists, but we are not "creakily decrepit" nor has atheism ever "nearly died out" as is shown by the Pew poll that shows the "no religious affiliation" is the only demographic to grow in all fifty states, not to mention the rest of the civilized world. Civilized world, that's another interesting point, ever notice that where ever the Pope reigns so does poverty and deplorable human "third world" conditions, talk about decrepit.

Every despotic totalitarian dictatorship; indeed every claim to superiority, every genocide, every war, even slavery; homicides committed on the basis of someone's individuality, or opinion; claims of collaboration with mythical creatures or powers over the elements of nature, have had the revelatory backing of some mythical god. For this reason, especially, but not exclusively, I entreat everyone to question claims of authority, especially claims of authority based on religious entities, superstitious beliefs or revelation. This is why;
Ideas, beliefs or opinions are never to be held as sacred, ever, the most heinous acts ever committed by man were the result of self serving ideas, unsubstantiated beliefs, and the opinions of bigoted ignoramuses. The whole concept of the free market of ideas is that intellectual liberty is the ability to scrutinize any belief, every idea, regardless of their holder's opinions or appeals to authority. Like your own personal bigotry toward atheists, is more than likely based on unsubstantiated generalities, opinions that you hold toward our world view without justification. Also, your opinion that Richard Rorty was a "real" atheist is based more on your opinion that he disliked science than on the basis of his understanding of theology and its absurdities. Or his understanding of ethology, the study of evolutionary animal behavior, which would have cleared up the misconception evident in the quote, which is actually concerning his philosophy of epistemology, you have used many times that I know of.

You should know that Rorty's philosophy was dealt with in absentia, in the 19th century in light of idealist philosophy with which his pragmatic ironism has many similarities. And that Karl Popper dealt with the validity of observation in the 50's it's called the scientific method. Maybe the similarity to our evolved morality observed in many social animals might suggest that what ought to be, is based on the evolutionary history of our species. In the sense that cooperation, care and compassion are the traits that were successful in our evolutionary past, Prof. Rorty would be wrong to conclude that it is "theft from a covert belief in something that transcends" when we have evidence of altruism in many different species. But Rorty's rejection of science would preclude his gleaning that knowledge. And his rejection of truth in general would preclude your claim to morality just as easily.

The point is this, morality 'Is' and it is not due to religion or anything supernatural, for there is no validity, no evidence, no reality to that claim, so I think Rorty's choice of the words "well-grounded theoretical answers" may be being over emphasized out of context. Science has made great strides in almost every field of endeavor in verifiable ways. And Prof. Richard Rorty may have been the one holding to a Platonic ideology that the imagined is as real as the corporeal, and even more perfect. But anything can be imagined, doesn't make it real. While Karl Popper's philosophy would suggest that all the failed attempts at falsification of the theory of evolution, substantiates our decision to continue to use it in further inquiry into questions posed by behavioral science and the theory of mind.

How someone can logically correlate "god is not great" and "everyone thinks for themselves," with "Nothing Must Be Held Sacred," boggles the mind. Many different things are sacred to many different people, only it is in most cases, like respect, earned not given. Wherein my mother is more sacred to me, than to you for obvious reasons. Life is, arguably, more sacred to me than to you for I live as though this is the only life there is, for everyone. When I was in the service, I was asked many times, what I thought about dying. To which I replied, "it will be the end of pain." And those that think there is life after death are giving theirs under false pretences. Which is another horrendous property of religions, the motivating force employed by the General that yells, "Charge that wall men, who cares if god is on their side this time!" Oh, wait. Anyway, atrociousness... the problem is: an atrocity begins when anyone tries to convince you that something they hold sacred is somehow more sacred than what you hold sacred. Which is exactly what religion does. You can either pretend that you agree and subjugate your importance to that of supernatural claims or stand and be counted as holding—as sacred, claims that are just as important as any asserted by those claiming supernatural authority. It's up to each of us to defend our liberty.

And yes, atheists have killed people, so have Buddhists, football fans, painters and Christians, but of this list, only Christians have killed because of their faith. And again, Hitler was a fundamentalist Catholic (actually go there, Mark, read Mein Kompf, the Nazi program especially #24 do the work). Stalin learned much of his totalitarian Platonist philosophies from seminary school. Marx was sure that religion would falter, and fall out of favor, due to disuse in an egalitarian society. Mao and Pol Pot killed for the same reason all power mongers kill and never has it been for that "atheistic beliefs" canard, there aren't any. And besides, none of these tyrants actually killed, en masse, the pious peons that worked for them, that followed them, that believed in them—did the dirty work.

So basically this is yet again another misguided, mis-characterization of a world view that only wishes to save people from their own irrationality, thereby helping humanity at large avoid recurring historical atrocities, while hoping they don't become victims of their own ignorance. I personally feel that the recurring atrocities were best summed up by Albert Einstein, when he stated:

" Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The Abrahamic religions have had more than 2000 years replete with misery, and culpability in many—far to many atrocities. The religiose should know, it is now inescapably obvious that this superstition has absolutely nothing in common with "peace on Earth" or "Good will toward humanity," can we stop with the insanity already. Let us give rationality a chance, and superstition the boot. In the spirit of the Founders of this nation, who knew all too well the deplorable state of humanity brought about by the unabated indoctrination, the certainty of the dogmatic and the arrogance of ignorance, in a word piety, we should give humanity back to "We the People," for as Thomas Jefferson said:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

Thomas Jefferson knew then what many know now, it is education that guards the mind from infection through the superstitious mind virus. And this is a critical point because once the mind virus gets in, rationalizations may be all that's left to the host. It is evidence that breaks the circular reasoning the Platonic ontology and the apologetic rationalizations that are everywhere displayed. I do honestly hope that people realize one day that the accusations raise against atheism, are the very crimes religions have spawned for millennia. Atheism is the cure not the culprit, regardless of what propaganda people have been told.
~Brian

A Refutation of A Mis-characterization of What Thomas Aquinas Didn't Say

2010-07-14T16:17:00.002-10:00

In the first place, this blog by Mark Shea is very biased with a Catholic slant which is not at all hard to understand since he was Senior Content Editor for Catholic Exchange and a weekly columnist for the National Catholic Register at the time of this writing, which was Sep. 23, 2009.

Mark starts off his diatribe with a mischaracterization of the reasons for similarities in arguments of the so called "New Atheists" with arguments from previous eras, which I'll get back to. A jab at the "Chattering Classes" which is nothing more than his attempt to distance himself from a club of which he is obviously a member by feigning "anti-intellectualism." Why does this nearly always work with the Christians? It even worked in the days of Paul of Tarsus, who was only interested in converting Graeco-Roman gentiles, to Judaism. Maybe it's because, unlike Paul's era when most people were illiterate with the understanding of today's average 4 year old, it's easy for someone to pick up a book on evolutionary behavioral science, ethology. Such as, E. O. Wilson's book, "Sociobiology," Robert Wright's, "The Moral Animal" or any of the work by William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, George C. Williams, or Robert Trivers. Where they could find out for themselves the evolutionary origins of morality, without being high-jacked into the transcendent, by those claiming knowledge of revealed moral prescriptions and proscriptions—which I feel, is the origin of evil.

Now what Mark Shea fails to recognize, is the Bible we argue against has only changed minutely over the last four centuries, and the whole concept of religion is a fanatically conservative one. Not to mention, it is very difficult to make progress with, what can be described as an irrational fear or a delusional arrogance, since they are unabashedly resistant to evidence for fear of offending some bronze age omni—totalitarian dictator. Or, Mark is being disingenuous in his choice of argument, its basis and premise. There is at least one more possibility, but I will leave further conclusions to you dear reader.

Because there are, in fact, many arguments that are new and from almost as many viewpoints. For instance; the argument from ignorance, this Abrahamic deity's ignorance of geography and cosmology; the free will argument; and the argument of morality. There are also new evidences for the older arguments that are fatal to the Abrahamic god(s) and all but fatal to any argument for a supernatural being of any kind, time or place.

Mark's own argument exemplifies my first point, by bringing up the 800 year old Thomas Aquinas to highlight the argument from evil and Occam's Razor. But the current atheological stand on the argument from evil, theodicy, is that it is better framed in the context of a religious argument against a religious claim. Take what has been scientifically verified through meteorology, weather, while considered evil by Thomas Aquinas, is actually a direct result of predictable aspects of nature, and mathematically calculable to a degree of accuracy that would have gotten you, Mark, burnt at the stake 200 years ago. So, tornados are no longer considered evil in the same way as they were in Thomas Aquinas' day, along with Earthquakes, etc. Disease is no longer considered the result of sin, either.

So what, exactly is evil? I'm not talking about sin - yet, only evil. Well for one thing, as an adjective, evil describes fallen angels. Those devils, and demons, which are religious mythical constructs that are only as potent as ones belief in them, and by association god(s). And yes, I chose my words correctly, for the general population of those days were more afraid of the bad than in tune with the good of the spiritual realm. Am I saying that without gods there would be no evil? Maybe! For most of what was considered evil in the pre-enlightened past, was seen as such based on supernatural excuses, apologetics or exegesis, what I call the lack of an intelligent explanation. Quite possibly, I'm suggesting that without supernatural beliefs, actually—supernatural thinking, there is little reason for evil as a description, with its inferred supernatural or transcendental connotations. And, that there is a less metaphysical, less primitive descriptor of the bad things that have happened to all of us at one time in our lives. Don't get me wrong, I know better than most, the atrocities committed by people motivated by greed, want of power and the evil means they employ. I do not deny the incredibly horrendous aspects of man's inhumanity and total disregard for life and health. It's just that we now know, as evidenced in the books listed before, the devil didn't make him do it, as the pun goes.

To be frank, I mean to assert that one of the greatest evils is the very mindset that facilitates the godhead in the first place: Authority from divine sources; unsubstantiated claims of superiority; revelation as a means of divine dictate; divine laws disconnected from our evolutionarily ingrained morality as a species of warm, caring mammals; in short, any barrier to open inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas make up the evil that allows for and has permitted the most heinous crimes against humanity. This is why the foundations for the US democracy, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and the scientific method are so powerfully successful, they discourage the validity of unsubstantiated opinion in inquiry and discourse by insisting upon evidentiary support for claims and conclusions. As I see it, all discourse should adhere to this principle. So, not only does the problem of evil present itself as a fatal blow to the logic of the infinitely good, it seems evil can be the product of the irrationality required for the reliance on, or belief in, the supernatural. It is that evil - hidden in claims of divine authority, as well as what follows, that motivates me to be the activist Atheist that I am.

Now the relationship between Nazism and religion are well documented on the internet (Google - Nazism, Christianity, Pope Pious XII, Jozef Tiso), quotes by the parties in power, books on the subject, a reading of Mien Kompf, even a reading of history will show anyone that is actually looking for evidence that Nazism is fascism (a political movement resulting in corporatism) motivated by Nationalism and racial purity, while inflamed by the imperialism of Christian Supremacy (got to spread the Word). Note that Nazism is perpetuated by self-reinforcing claims of superiority that would have been squelched had anyone bothered to see the evidence (the 1939 Olympics would have been a good start). Hitler's rhetoric concerning the atheistic communists, alone, should be more than sufficient to give most rational people pause concerning his religiosity. It is a case of denial to think that a religiously segregated group were destroyed for other than religious reasons. Reasons that were in fact a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition of the 13th Century, a Catholic persecution of the Jews that inspired Hitler almost as much as his love of the character in the Jesus narrative.

A typical claim of those piously inclined is that Stalin was an atheist, as Hitler himself claimed on numerous occasions including writings, interviews and speeches. But it's a case of correlation confused with causation to assert that it was for atheistic reasons that Stalin ordered the murders as purported in your writing, Mark. Marx himself said that religion would basically fade away do to the lack of its necessity in an egalitarian state. Even Stalin's attack of the Russian Orthodox Church was for political reasons due, in part, to its complicity with the resurgence of a Czarist's revolt. It is reported that Stalin reinstated the Church during WWII, though it never regained the influence it once had, maybe for reasons the clergy have feared for years.

The other despots mentioned ad nauseam in religious diatribes, debates or clerical oratories are guilty of similar atrocities, but again, not for atheistic purposes, or to further an atheistic agenda. Atheism isn't even a philosophy, let alone any reason to kill someone. It is a lack of belief in god(s). Might the propaganda be an attempt to hide something, a misdirection by religionists? Who may have always been afraid of the day people would find out they're not necessary. Or maybe it is something else? There is power in using divine authority or austere revelation, to justify, even incite, bigotry toward a political system that favors, say, the working class over financial elite or a system based on a free market of ideas over dogmatic dictates from pious pundits of bronze age desert goat herder myths. Which might explain why Stalinistic totalitarianism is misrepresented as Marxism or communism in fascist and right leaning political systems, like our Republican party.

As for your assertion, Mark, "New Atheists" have claimed that Nazism or communism are religions, I can only say that I have not heard nor read any such claim and I have heard and read most of their work on the subject. It doesn't even fit their exacting, measured discourse on the subject. Also, that I, or anyone would need to use "transcendent categories" to understand or explain "good and evil" is also a bit absurd since good and bad, right and wrong, etc are temporally relative to each situation, to be judged subjectively, based on evidence, because they are realistically substantial. This is of course, exemplified by our court system.

Then Mark descends to a misstatement of Hume's "ought" from "is" problem in an attempt to bolster a claim that morality cannot be a naturalistic occurrence or is not derived from natural properties of a materialistic universe. Only, the "ought from is" problem which is known as Hume's Guillotine, a problem of knowing the ethical value of a moral choice as opposed to its practice in reference to one's goal is only a problem for those proposing morality as an objective, self-evident truth. But, this isn't even where Mark is going with this "mystification" of the materialistic world view. He only ends up obfuscating the mechanics of thinking with the value of thought, or more specifically the mechanisms one uses in a situation requiring moral judgment, with the moral value of its outcome. Mark actually states:

"In the atheistic universe of Is the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Adolf Hitler” can have no greater or lesser Oughtness than the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Martin Luther King Jr.” They just Are."

In this example of Mark's misunderstanding of "ought from is," thought as a process, and the substantial value of morality he conflates the biochemical reactions required for human thought with the moral value, and then the subsequent results of those thoughts.

The problem with this is, it would only be true in a world where morality were objective. If as asserted by moral objectivists (absolutists) that there is only god's morality as delivered from on high, such as the ten commandments and all that. Then the actions of these objective automatons would be under god's divine authority. If you can't stomach this, imagine for a moment that Hitler had won the second world war. Imagine the mental contortions the Catholic Church would exert upon us in comparing the Der Fuhrer's Final Solution to their very own 13th century Inquisition in subjugating the Jews. Asserting without evidence that their god commanded Jewish extermination. Quoting something like,"vengeance be mine sayth the lord" and command only His retribution, would suffice. See! This is why our Constitution starts with the words, "We the people," because moral value comes from what we humans value, our very own evolutionarily ingrained morality. Ethical principles garnered during our evolutionary history through altruistic cooperation and a simple tit-for-tat philosophy, practiced in an extended family atmosphere. Just in case you were wondering where, when and how our morality originated. I mean before you quote Richard Rorty in his pragmatic ironism, which I disagree with by the way.

I do, however, conditionally agree with the quote you mined. There are in fact occasions where cruelty is understandable. Ask any mother defending her offspring. And note that our evolutionarily ingrained morality is not a hard fast rule (objective or absolute), but as behavioral science contends, and an understanding of its origins and mechanisms will show, morality is relative and moral judgments are subjective. But the reason atheists seem to be unaware of Prof. Rorty's "Why not be cruel?” is because it's based on Professor Rorty's pragmatic ironism, a philosophy, not science and unlike mindless religionists, Republicans and conservatives, atheists don't automatically fall in line—we think for ourselves. Therein lies humanities progress away from the Dark Ages. Thanks to those for which I have great respect; the atheists, deists and secularists of the 18th and 19th centuries. It took admirable courage to publicly defend rationality in a time when religious bigotry could get someone roasted on a spit, and all the more so, since they didn't have the discoveries in the sciences, philosophy, and history that we have today. The scientific basis for morality, for instance, finds it best footing in the 60's. I will say this about your snide remarks, and lame mischaracterizations, they have enabled me to better understand your particular mindset, yes—its fear. But fear of what?

Then there is Occam's Razor, or as you put it, "The Everything-Works-Fine-Without-God Argument."

After more unabashedly boorish and fictitious descriptions that only show the ignorance and bigotry (no it's not too harsh a word, see definition) of this author, he makes a claim that equates Planck's Quantum Theory, the cosmic expansion theory with a myth, an oral tradition of Iron Age desert dwellers. But herein lies the fallacy of this comparison, first 'metaphysical' is a poor choice of words if one wishes to be honest (of course, I don't think Mark cares at all about that) for both cosmic expansion and Planck's Theory are supported by physical evidence and observation. Laboratory work in quantum physics and observation of the universe through telescopes verify the mathematics that supported the hypothesis originally. But Mark would have us think it was a guess, while Hubble, Einstein, Planck, Hawking and Brown would beg to differ.

In comparison the loaves and fishes story isn't supported by any evidence at all while being shrouded in contradictions, like the two differing versions in Matthew 14:17-22 and 15:31-39, differing slightly from their original version in Mark 6:40-46 and 8:5-9 and Luke 9:13-17 is similar to Mark 6:40 and yet another depiction of the Mark 6 narrative in John 6:7-19, when in fact the all of the narratives are a purposeful similitude to II Kings 4:40-44. While showing that this narrative evolved over time, as all oral traditions do (eg. the Father Christmas, St. Nicklaus, Santa Claus), it shows no historical basis for relating it to reality. Which even a cursory apprehension of Pauline theology, especially as expressed in the Epistles will confirm. That is the earliest texts on the "Christos" (excluding, of course, the "Chrestus" and other interpolations, or redactions) portrays a "Son of Man" as "Son of God" once the Sun of heaven in a multi layered spiritual sense that incorporates traits of the Greek mystery cults et al., but doesn't mention an historical "Jesus of Nazareth." Quite damming actually, considering I Thessalonians is the oldest of the writings (books or letters) in the NT. It shows that "Jesus of Nazareth" of the synoptic gospels is a later creation along with the crucifixion which is a fiction within a fiction.

This exemplifies another reason to abstain from making claims of divine authority based on the myths of excessively primitive and superstitious people. It has gotten many people killed for unsubstantiated beliefs, the 927 killed in Jonestown French Guiana, Heaven's Gate suicides, Hawaiians (who died fighting against Christian missionaries about which god) and Native Americans (who's murders were condoned by a Papal Bull from Pope Alexander VI in 1530 CE), people die for beliefs all the time. But contrary to your assertion, Mark, the early Graeco-Roman followers of "Christos" were not ostracized, tortured and killed for their beliefs (no one really cared), but for being obstinate and arrogant enough in their ignorance to incur the wrath of Nero, so as to be framed by him for the burning of Rome, for which of course he, himself, was guilty. For future reference, Mark, except for some accidents and natural causes all deaths can be, to some degree, attributed to one's beliefs generally.

Your next assertion Mark is not a mischaracterization, it's just flat false. You claim that the odds against the universe 10^137 which I'm not sure how you came up with that ratio, maybe some spin off from Hoyle's 7.65 MeV for carbon or maybe it is from your understanding of the concept of constants, but in any case, it's wrong. It is, in fact, possible to have many different universes if certain natural properties are varied to some degree. The possibilities are infinite, actually. But the way you and most religionists wish to see Anthropic Coincidences is in support of the god hypothesis when, in fact, cosmology negates the possibility of a god.

Mark, constants in this universe are constant because they are related, tied, to everything else in this universe. It is the ties, the relationships, that keep them constant. If one variable would change the rest would change proportionally, adjust one constant hypothetically and the rest would find a balance, their equilibrium in that new state, it's quite simple actually. Sometimes I think the confusion comes from the images conjured in some minds, by the idea of "Natural Laws" which from an anthropic view could be misapprehended as laws to be followed instead of axioms derived expressly for the comprehension of the relationships in the physics of our naturalistic universe. In any case for those who wish to know the facts, Victor J. Stenger is a great place to start.

But as has been excruciatingly evident from Mark's writing, to this point, facts are the furthest concept from his mind. So, as he continues in this vein deriding first Prof. Richard Dawkins FRS and then Prof. Daniel Dennett about a simple idea of increasing complexity which is observed in all aspects of the natural world, contrary to the "Woop - There It Is" crowd's god hypothesis of creation. I guess he hopes I will not mention the multitudes of philosophers, scientists, and the scientifically literate that concur with Prof Dawkins' conclusion. What are you afraid of Mark? It seems as though you want to drag humanity back from some precipice, the cusp of rationality, back into the superstition of ignorance. But why? Is it because you know that no matter how many eyes of, and during, the Dark Ages looked to the heavens, no matter how complex they thought it was, no matter how they supposed it worked or the details involved, our ancestors assumed your god did it for anthropocentric reasons? Well, until Galileo opened the eyes of those so self-centered as to presume the universe was created for their enjoyment, utilization or some sort of entrance test. Or is it because whether one uses words like contingent, uncaused, or eternal the burden of proof is still with those that make such assertions.

Furthermore, your reference to Thomas Aquinas in this context is interesting because Aquinas was not a philosopher in the modern sense of the discipline because he started with the conclusion, "a god's existence" and worked backwards from that assumption, meaning he didn't want know, he only wished to prove that god's existence was as he put it, part of his perfect essence. Basically, an exercise in circular reasoning. Begging the question, if you will permit, which came first —the perfect or the essence? Consequently, his view on this topic is in a similar vein, just as hilarious. Not only does Aquinas contradict the Christian god as portrayed in the Bible, along with the "we were created in his image" concept which is thrown out with the bath water. He also puts a cramp in making a son, being the son then trashing the trinity as a... whole, or should I say, "Hole." Aquinas has depicted "nothing" where something should be. Because, what Aquinas has done, in the attempt to describe his god within the concepts of "uncaused entity" and "simplicity of form," is turn the god hypothesis into a hole. A hole is the only thing that fits the criteria he used to describe this being. A description that is exceptionally vacuous, for even a hole has a cause. So, if Thomas Aquinas' description is even close to your idea of a god, it is impossible for it to have created a universe, in the first place, been the god of Christianity, in the second; or in anyway related to the reason why you're writing this diatribe. Oh, one more point I would like to make concerning Aquinas' description while we are on the topic.

This Part 1, Question 3, Article 7, "Whether God Is Altogether Simple?" is a good example of what I call the despotic power of the unreachable entity as an authority, which is the true power of religion. Instead of just admitting that the, "I'm god and I created myself," claim is absurd, they get even more elaborate with the lies, just like anyone on the verge of being found a fraud. But the lie is in the most obvious, indeed the most abundant concept of this description, Thomas Aquinas calls this entity a He, a Him, with His whatever, not an it without genitalia. And don't give me that gratuitous masculine gender junk, the paintings are a good clue. Aquinas and those he is trying to impress are making this authority icon ever more enigmatic while increasing their power over those who would pose such questions, as, "who created god?"

While religionists cloud the essential concept of 'essence', which has, in this context, more to do with what man accepts from this entity, man's acquiescence to the authority of this entity, this icon, than anything it has as a essential property, they use the term as if to denote some form of mental image. Also, one needs to remember, these people believed in ghosts, witches, and demons, etc. So it's not like they had a firm grip on reality in the first place. This is another point in Aquinas' defense of his so called "uncaused" enigma that I think bears more scrutiny. What was their frame of mind, their reference their view of reality? Because Aquinas et al. were trying to describe some sort of omnipresent non-corporeal mind, maybe thinking that this could never be falsified or not realizing the sheer extent of their ignorance of an organ now known as the brain, they relinquished all the ability of man to think for himself. This during a period when inquiry, discovery and education were so repressed by the church, that the only way to derive insight was scripture. They eliminated the only avenue available to reconcile this miscomprehension, our own ability to reason. This is the historical context of Aquinas' writing that is being glossed over by Mark.

These "philosophers" (I only use this term as a flag, for there is nothing resembling a philosopher among them) had no idea how a mind was generated, even René Descartes' Cartesian Dualism is still 400 years in the future. So, as is so often the case, in their attempt to make their authoritative opinion believable, Aquinas and the church brought out the very property that falsifies their fantasy. A mind is generated by a brain and nervous system, but that was still a mystery to men of that era. Which is why, as science progresses, we can scratch various veins of thought, god(s) being one of them. As all that is left, is the ability to use this icon of authority in justifying absurdities, atrocities, suppression, oppression, and hate through bigotry or xenophobia. Horrendous atrocities are, and have been justified through this icon under the guise of its moral authority, of which it has none. Not an iota! A fossil of this mindset is the quip, "good god fearing people," that can still be heard to this day. Only, morality can not be dictated or mandated, as if it were some objective, absolute or an all encompassing scheme.

As the early Platonic philosophers, Aristotle among the most influential of that period (though personally I am more inclined to agree with Lucretius and Epicureanism), thought that the imagined realm was every bit as real, and even more perfect, than the corporeal reality of our senses. Their assumption from ignorance that the images of our mind were not generated by us, but received by us from a central mind that supposedly possessed the powers, the mechanisms, the ability, to comprehend and then transmit the qualia of reality. The very same concepts of the Platonic era of some 1600 years previous. Showing the incredible magnitude of the Judeo-Christian retardation of human progress, I might add. It becomes clear why Aquinas would, by using and somehow justifying Aristotelianism (again concepts that were already 1600 years old at that time), describe this mask over their collective ignorance in this manner, thereby retaining their authority as those in the know, those in direct communication with this all powerful mind. While at the same time facilitating an all knowing, all seeing central mind that all too human authority figures are in direct contact with, even seemingly explaining - fictitiously - how these humans have an inexplicable capacity to comprehend. But, they were very wrong and it caused problems, very big problems.

This authority as described by Aquinas or even in the bible, did not explain the universal motivation of kindness and altruism exemplified by cultures that did not adhere to the dictates of the Abrahamic god(s). As is typical, exposure to new ideas, emersion into new cultures, and understanding at the human level will open one's mind to long held fallacies almost regardless of education. This is the legacy of exploration in the centuries that followed Aquinas. By exposure to other cultures it was discovered our morality was not contingent on adherence to the Judeo-Christian god of Thomas Aquinas. This, more than any other force, was the reason for the decline in the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church. The Renaissance, from the east; the Reformation from the west; then the Enlightenment from the ensuing sciences, this is what brought down the theocracy of the Dark Ages. Because man finally learned that the authority of a central mind doling out altruistic thought, was never needed to justify love, compassion, forgiveness, friendship or trust. Which was found to be a characteristic of every social animal on the planet, of every culture encountered by explorers, even societies more morally advanced than Europeans at the time.

Admittedly, immorality is practiced in every group, a further dramatic demonstration of the evidence against an all powerful central mind, but for authority figures to justify heinous acts to decent people, or sanctify oppressive totalitarianism, say theocratic despots, is the purpose left for this "uncaused" enigma, this "non-contingent" authority. Which is why some activist atheists are so vocal in resisting this fictitious enigma's fan club. This dogma's oppressive powers and unrelenting bigotry, its pursuit of the suppression of freethought and open inquiry that retarded human progress for a millennia, the existence of this, this vacuous darkness, this dulling of the human intellect that simpletons mistake for light, this is the atheist's raison d'etre.

Which brings us to the most blatantly shoddy line in the entire catechism. The one suggesting that there are only two good atheist arguments and everything else is somehow derived from their concepts.

Now first of all, atheism is against the proposition, a defensive position, and as such, we avail ourselves to facts garnered from science, history, philosophy etc. to use against the arguments asserted (the proposition), put forward by theists. Which is the only reason theists get to name the arguments they loose. Like the ontological argument which is an example of circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. Theodicy is a whole line of theological thought contrived to counter the argument from evil which is logically fatal to the biblical god. Only the religiously inclined are in denial about the illogical contrivance that is Yahweh. Which is nothing new of course, the idea of religion is based on a claim of knowledge which is impossible to know. But if there were a single argument for the existence of god that the theists could claim victory with, does anyone think for a moment that they would hesitate, of course not. The only reason religion exists at all, is because in the system of debate one can win, loose or draw to an inconclusive end. But deductive reasoning, critical thinking, reliance on evidence through the scientific method have pushed superstition's influence into some pretty small gaps left by questions that are, as of yet, unanswered. Which means atheist's arguments are the negation of theological assertions as facilitated via various disciplines of inquiry. But more to the point; Can anyone name one discipline of knowledge that has any evidence in support of the supernatural?

Then you fall still further into the abyss of personal attack on some very intelligent men, divulging an ignorance of just how humans learn in the first place. By missing the deeper meaning that is obvious to those of use who have actually read Christopher Hitchens' work (you should try it he is quite brilliant) you display an ignorance, that I could have guessed, of childhood retention of fundament experiences. See, the reason that Christopher "just knew" was because that was the way things added up according to his past experiences. Simplistic? Sure! Mostly on ignorance, I'll grant you. This is the main reason religions start inculcation very young. But the reason he still knows, and has increased his knowledge in this respect, is because he had an open mind to use in investigations and experiments while realizing there are appropriate people to ask the critical questions. It is obvious from Mr. Hitchens' writings that he regards evidence more important than authority and that, more than likely started very young. So, you are in fact, wrong when you assert that his atheism is, "based on faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy." For some that is just how it starts, things just don't add up. Some people just can't suspend disbelief long enough for the delusion to sink in.

But your argument only gets worse from here with strawmen attacks using strawman depictions of Thomas Aquinas (which is why I started by bringing him down to size) and an early 20th century, failing, science fiction writer that found a niche in religious fiction (if you were his agent how would you suggest he broaden his readership).

Then, with all due respect to Thomas Aquinas the person, not particularly your strawman depiction of him, I have an Argument from Intellectual Maturity that goes something like this:

If your god is perfect, and has a perfect plan, why would it suspend such an intricate synthesis? How could even a god suspend natural principles once in motion? Why would it answer prayers that are not part of that plan? Also, why would someone think their selfish reason for asking for the suspension of natural principles would be answered by an all powerful being that created a universe full of life that interacts in such a brutal fashion that no one would wish it on his own pet? Like it would answer your prayers for a new car.

You have got to be kidding me right? Talk about arrogance. This is just one more childish concept that backfires under scrutiny. Not to mention the experiment that showed conclusively that prayer does not work. Or the gulf disaster would be cleaned up already, and the narrative concerning this Jesus character wouldn't be proven mythical by Matthew 18:19.

Mark, in reference to Matthew 12:39, you ask the question:
"First, why would the Gospels record this rather embarrassing incident?"

But only after padding your ego with your rendition of an atheist strawman - again. Which seems to be a problem, for some people can't fathom that— hypothetically asserting they know what a person or group thinks, is fatuous. Possibly clouding the ability to discern what qualifies as evidence.

In trying to see this Jesus character from a Christian perspective is to miss the actual character as originally portrayed in this, and much older narratives. Only barely visible in patches of the NT, is the fundamentalist Jew, most likely Nazorean, that only wished to reclaim the throne of David from the Syrian Kings, pre- Maccabean Revolt (168BCE) or maybe Queen Salome's reign from 76-67 BCE, and the temple for his sect of Jewish fundamentalists. And since this sect followed a similar teaching of the Essene or Sadducean sects, found themselves in opposition to the Pharisee, who were the moderate accommodationists and not well liked by the fundamentalists Jewish sects. Now this character could be derived from an Essene fundamentalist chronologically related to the story, and more visible in it, but I see only speculative inference to such a derivation and much stronger evidence against any actual existence. It is clear however, that this character is an icon made of many messiah narratives, not all of which, are even from the Near East. But to clear up your confusion about what was actually going on in Matthew 12:39, as we are not told what the sign should denote it may be nothing more than sectarian rivalry. Magic not required, but look for what is missing from Mark 8:12, a sign from heaven. Besides, this character preformed many other magic tricks according to the narratives. But then again, in this collection one can find giants, unicorns, fish used as submarines, talking snakes, dragons, witches, demons and angels. The point being, none of it is real, historical, even relevant after the fall of Rome—as it is an apocalyptic fable.

Bringing up Matthew 12:39 wasn't a very good strategy on your part because it gives many in atheology the opportunity to highlight another aspect of Christianity that is probably the most powerful means to atheism short of attending Theological Seminary at Yale one can obtain. As many contradictions in the Bible show it to be a cobbled together collection of apocalyptic fictions, that is, oral narratives that were separated by many years and evolved independent of each other. But, like I said, most were only of any relevance with respect to the Roman occupation. That is until the First Council of Nicaea officially started the process of making "Followers of Christos" the sanctioned religion of the newly reunified Eastern and Western Empires of Rome.

Also, to call the authors of the NT "Chroniclers" or even "cunning frauds" is an extreme stretch by almost any authoritative understanding. The synoptic gospels, especially, are no more than sheep herder sci-fi, stories told to children and slaves, sometimes as moral stories, like Aesop's Fables. Some are more adult apocalyptic or inspirational conquering hero style, but none were meant to be in a canonized collection of books that were to become the basis of a religion - least of all, what would become, Christianity. In fact, Mark is written by a Roman to a Roman audience most likely in a theatrical vein as evidenced by the over dramatized Triumphal March of the Jesus character in Mark 15:15-19. Paul of Tarsus, and Ignatius of Antioch had more to do with your religion than any corporeal, historical or fanatical Jesus. That the verse you mention is in fact a poorly copied verse from Mark 8:12, that then adds the "Jonah and the whale" narrative is enough to raise a brow. But then take a look at Matthew 13:42,50 a simple duplication of verses by careless scribes during interpolation, the addition or subtraction of text after the original writing. But when one is confronted with the evidence that there are literally many hundreds of these errors of an editorial nature, almost as many of a chronological nature, and just as many of a historical nature in this collection of stories, it becomes clear that the scribes that were actually putting pen to paper, put in verses, as they were told, without consideration of context.

Now, is some of this due, at least in part, to a language barrier? Probably, both during transcriptions and later in multiple interpolations and redactions. Is some of it due to politically motivated intervention for exclusion, persecution or retribution? Most definitely. Notice how the Jews are blamed in the four gospels, in a manner that stretches credibility beyond the brink. In short, the books of the bible have been so badly written that it is possible to find justification for anything, claims of anything and contradictions of everything (almost) in this book of Eli, or Elohim? maybe Eloi? or is it Elias? I guess it depends on where one looks, which is precisely the point. Oh, by the way, I have seen more evidence than most, that this Jesus character in the messiah narrative is an amalgamation of many characters, hopes and heroes, both real persons (many claimed to be the messiah, heir to David's throne etc.) and fictitious, a spiritual or dream state, as in Pauline theology, mixed with pagan mythical heroes, Greek mystery cults, even Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern Iron age mythical heroes and philosophers. The Romans were very good at incorporating the cultures they occupied into the Empire, as exemplified by Constantine in 324 CE, when he reunified the Roman Empire.

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. But to understand what that statement means, one needs to know the meaning of the words claim and evidence in this context. But as exemplified by your reference to that old "love" canard, you don't know what love is or how to show it. Although you may have some romantic idea of the concept. Maybe some spiritual or supernatural basis for what are actually very temporal feelings generated by the hormones and nervous system. But in a lab, it is quite easy to demonstrate analytically and scientifically that someone loves someone or something with an fMRI or checking a blood sample for elevated hormones. While the best way is still the old fashioned one, someone that loves you will show it. The same system of examination of evidence used in many professions is the very same system used to determine all we can about the Cosmos. On the other hand, what do parrots that reiterate that old trope think divorce is based on? If it sounds too fantastical to be true, it probably is.

Throughout history extraordinary claims have not stood up to scrutiny. Never has any supernatural claim ever been verified, as supernatural, in fact, most have been refuted with the simplest of tests, like your reference to the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, which was nothing more than retinal damage (not spontaneous mass hallucination, as your strawman dogmatist claims), from staring at the Sun to long. This was attested to by people on the scene at the time, at other sites like Eclipses etc., even predictions of miraculous sun events in the U.S. where observational equipment was utilized to measure and record the event. I do find it humorous that supernatural claims aren't of something as obvious as a 60ft. dough boy or an inexplicable planetary alignment. But no, it has to be something along the lines of bleeding crackers as witnessed by those of an obviously loose grip on reality, if not suffering from full blown delusion.

By the way, science rarely happens in a lab, as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey or any of the scientists listed before would attest. And like any other claim, when the evidence is presented the value of the claim increased. One of the main objectives of the Beagle was to bring back specimens, evidence, not extraordinary claims, as you seem to think was brought back from Africa. Evidence is what can be evaluated. This is just another attempt by a religionist to present a strawman that can be railed against, but has no basis in reality. It isn't just the "New Atheists" that debunk supernatural claims, that has been pursued and successfully accomplished by thinking people of all walks of life.

The "New Atheists" don't expect the Bible to be other than what it is, a collection of fictional stories built from pagan myths, Graeco-Roman mystery cults, Near Eastern origin myths of Jewish Yahwists all wrapped around a political treatise for a fundamentalist Jew claiming to be the heir to the throne of David. It is those that profess to know the mind of this mythical deity, claim that "he" is the origin of life and morality, it is these people that push this book off as authoritative, as factual, even historical. There was a time not to far in the past when a person would be burnt at the stake for claiming the Bible was anything other than the inerrant word of this god, how soon it is conveniently forgotten. It is because of this religious dogma (look it up), bigotry, and pseudo-science that atheists exist. We are what keeps the religiose from turning the Crown Jewel of the Enlightenment, these United States into another Nazi state or theocracy.

Even though there are those that try to show the bible is a book of knowledge, and they are just as wrong as you are, Atheists practice rational inquiry in, and the comprehension of, these texts, the word, by which the devout still swear. But for the atheologist it is enough that these writings don't even display a rudimentary knowledge of simple geography, the flow of rivers, the orbits of planets, etc., in fact, this collection of stories shows exactly the knowledge one would expect an Iron Age desert dweller to know. It also shows the ignorance of a desert dweller with regard to the naturalistic claims that are in error in this canon of fables.

The Hebrews still use a lunar calendar to this day. The pagan's cycle you are unwittingly referring to as time, is actually a calendar for planting crops. Certain sects in Hebrew culture tried to get the Hebrews to convert to a solar calendar, but they never did. The pagan cultures were more matriarchal where the emerging religions were more patriarchal. Is that the cycle your referring to? Or is it more in the tidal calendar range that fishermen use? Maybe you should learn more about calendars, Julian and Gregorian versions. Or is the concept you are alluding to, that old ashes to ashes, cycle of life, thing?

Like your claim that Genesis, I presume, states that the universe was created from nothing, ex nihilo as you put it. But it doesn't claim that at all, you only presume the 'nothing', because it was to have created heaven and earth. What you don't understand, is that which you don't wish to see. Your god was standing on the waters, the heaven was the sky and the earth was soil. But you don't wish to see that, so you don't. The god of the creation myth only created that which the primitives knew, air and land. If you read the Hebrew or Latin, or for that matter, KJV, it is clear as a bell that this creation myth is terrestrial —has nothing to do with the universe, not one planet. The whole claim of a god that created the universe, and the anthropic coincidences is based on a misunderstanding of the Old Testament. God is standing on the water as he creates heaven and earth. This god puts the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, domes that separate the waters above from the waters below and the heavens and the earth (small 'e' as in soil) but doesn't even mention planets. Primitive mystics claimed that the lights moving around in irregular patterns were minor gods, angels or demons. Didn't realize the "lights" were galaxies in some cases. The ancient Yahwists had no idea about the universe, so by extension neither did their god as is obvious from Genesis. So, not only can't it be known by revelation as you assert, it seems those that wish to know the universe, can't even read it, in their holy books.

So, with that I say to you my narrow minded short sighted metaphysician, if you stand by what you write, not only do you not understand, it doesn't seem you want to. The information is out there, the evidence is there to stay, facts are eternal, it's beliefs that fade away. Your god is just the newest in that graveyard for gods, mythology.

Then you concluded with more unsubstantiated opinion about "sane metaphysicians," which I'm not sure that I have ever met, for they differ from a theoretician in their reliance on magical thinking. And you assert, "science is limited," but I say, only by our imagination and powers of reasoning. To delve into supernatural explanations is to surrender, to pretend to know. It is to give unto god(s) that which is theirs, ignorance, then prostration, followed by subjugation based on intellectual limitation. In following a thread that you have pursued throughout this monograph that science is "narrow" and the metaphysical is "larger" you are misinterpreting the relationship science has with the metaphysical. You see, the supernatural realm is where human ignorance reigns, using the tools of science, we chip away at the supernatural realm by shredding supernatural explanations to get at the facts, the evidence shrouded within, while discarding the magical thinking and thereby reducing human ignorance and increasing our knowledge. This is why science, our knowledge, contrary to your false statement: "Everything must fit my narrow empiricist worldview!” is actually quite vast, while its potential is unlimited. Because, again contrary to that statement, science doesn't just command that something "must" do anything. Science has been very successful at investigation and evaluation followed by implementation. Symbolized by the difference between how far science has brought us as a species with spacecraft venturing beyond the boundaries of our solar system. While "supernatural revelation" can only take us back into the Dark Ages. A time in our recent past that your fog, your "metaphysic," which, of course, does not transcend anything, did indeed enshroud the human intellect, human understanding, as exemplified by its effects on the human conditions of that era. The men of The Enlightenment, many of which, were this country's Founding Fathers, brought us out of the dark abyss of ignorance where superstitious subjugation held us in servitude, against our will, for far too long. The supernatural realm is that vast fog of ignorance you named god.

One more thing, the insane asylums are full of people who are there based on their beliefs, but not one person is there based on there scientific inquiry. Then you say:

"It should be noted that the operative term here is 'will not,' not 'cannot.'"

In reference to accepting the evidence in support of scientific claims. I could not have said it better myself. But I feel you should use it for introspection, for as this diatribe exemplifies a comprehension of science, philosophy and especially Christianity, that I can only describe as selective—to the point of neglect. Then, again you hit the nail on the head with the following. Bravo!

"There are two sorts of questioners, roughly speaking: those who ask to find things out and those who ask to keep from finding things out."

Only, after reading this, and some other rants that you have written, they seem to be devoid of all but intellectually limited opinion. What have you learned and from where did you glean your knowledge? What evidence do you have for this supernatural realm, entity, or revelation? You have not expressed it here, or elsewhere that I have read. It seems you have not garnered anything from science, philosophy or your religion. You parrot Thomas Aquinas without thinking critically about his perspective, historical context, limited education, motivation or anything else. Only to top this by presuming to imbue Aquinas' theology with hypothetical statements—you put your words in his mouth. Your assertions concerning the "Sun fraud of Fatima" and the "bleeding biscuits of Betania," show that you are guilty of the very closed mindedness inferred by your statement that I quoted above. It is obvious that you will cling to your supernatural security blanket no matter how frayed it gets by facts, filthy it gets through fraud, faded it's found by differing faiths, or how shrunken it gets by science. You Sir, are among those afraid of facts, cautious of questions, and limited in your literature, not to mention, misguided by your mentors. I honestly think you are confused or fooling yourself, because to follow the evidence where it leads does not lead to superstition or a godhead. And this superstition, this godhead has never been good for mankind, as evidenced by every advance of human betterment and individual empowerment has been in defiance of religion, this godhead, and its dogma.

In this review of your blog entry, Mark, I have found nothing to be impressed with, in fact I found it depressing due to your reliance on misinterpretations, mischaracterizations, unsubstantiated assertions, and strawman arguments. To build strawman arguments out of what you or C. S. Lewis think of atheists is, at best, arbitrary. But I can see where it has saved you from learning even the elementary aspects of your religion, while at the same time fueling your bigotry toward those that have gone to the trouble of basing their world view and decisions on evidence, study, inquiry and mastery of many disciplines other than proselytizing. But Mark, I have one question for you on a more personal note; When you looked back on this, this rant and found that none of it was based on fact nor evidenced in any way and therefore fictitious, didn't an alarm go off in your mind?

I Found Something as Primitive as Tiktaalik

2010-07-05T03:12:00.009-10:00

I found this site by following a link given to me from twitter. I have heard of these evolution or rather, science deniers but I never thought I would actually see one. So, if you would like to see it too, here is: Is Evolution an Outdated Theory? by Josh Greenberger from Feb 14, 2006

And my response:

You start with PRIMITIVE TWENTIETH CENTURY, to which I must comment that it seems to be the simplest of minds that insist on this all capitals as a style of writing. As for the content of the section itself I will get back to it shortly. But, I would like to add at this point that it is safe to say, you don't read much news or anything else for that matter.

Josh, you continue this derision of science, evolution, knowledge etc. in THE TASADAY TRIBESMEN by blaming it for the political and media hoax that was actually uncovered by science - linguistics to be specific.

"And so, a "major anthropological find" enjoyed over a decade of "historical significance" before turning into a "major historical fraud." And had it not been for diligent investigation by the news media, this hoax could very well have remained the "anthropological find of the twentieth century" in history books."

These are claims made by you, the media, and even the logging industry had a hand in the story - not science, and besides, this has nothing to do with evolution in any case. Science did not bring this to the attention of the world, but the media did. Did science perpetrate this fraud? No! A politician did. This immediately shows your bias against science. But why? Is it because science has also shown your religion to be a fraud? That is what I think. Only, let's be clear, I know religions are fraudulent. I am only trying to discern your claim against evolution. Does science have a history of some oddball hypotheses, of course it does. But unlike religion, where the conclusions can't be questioned, in science, all findings are peer reviewed. And the claims stand, or fall, on their own merit. This is how the hoax was revealed in 1986, when Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were removed from power and the politician, Manuel Elizalde, that perpetrated the hoax left the country. But even before that, some investigators had their doubts based on clues garnered by those brave enough to circumvent the armed guards who held positions at the access points in the wall that was built to keep out those that were not hand picked by Elizalde himself. Words like 'roof' that should not have been part of a cave dweller's vernacular, initiated further investigations, by scientists, if what I read here is correct. It was science that revealed the hoax, similar to the case of superstitions and religions.

THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLUTION

See, this is the problem of a limited intellect, in replacing ignorance with something similar to a guess, an unsubstantiated assertion, or some supernatural explanation in lieu of an actual evidenced based conclusion, the simpleton shows that he is quite uncomfortable with open ended or unanswered questions. Science, and in this case the science of evolution, almost always produces more questions than answers. By answering certain questions, we are prepared to ask new ones with the knowledge garnered. That is the battle between religion and science, those asserting unsupported answers that can never be questioned vs. those that never stop asking questions based on the evidence previously gained and finding actual answers supported by evidence. See, science is also an evolving system of questions and answers that breed more questions.

This 'Evolution of Evolution' section would be humorous if not for the fact that so many scientifically illiterate people actually buy into it, as though it has anything to do with facts. It is obvious that you could use some science 101 here. First, evolution is a fact every bit as much as the claim, Paris is a city in France, is a fact or the electrical theory, gravitational theory, etc. The claim you allude to with term "versions" I see as your attempt to obfuscate the fact that scientific method allows for, even, insists on peer modification for the accuracy of the hypothesis. Like aiming artillery, one can usually get the accuracy to target, knowledge or understanding, more perfect. So it's not a falsification of the information but more like focusing, a fine tuning of the knowledge garnered. But we both know you could care less about actual science, for your strawman is easier to attack, which is of course, your main goal.

The comment by Ben Morrish:

"Transitional fossils have been found, indeed almost all fossils are transitional (the only exceptions being fossils of organisms that did not have any descendants)."

is correct; everything is a transitional form, but to know this you would have to know that the concept of 'species' is a human construct that designates whether specified life forms can breed successfully. The life form itself doesn't know or care that is has diverged from it's ancestors to the point that it couldn't conceive a viable or fertile embryo (eg. Mules - horse donkey cross, Liger - a cross between lions and tigers huge but both are sterile). Furthermore, at no point in any species' genetic line does the offspring not carry the traits of the parents and/or grandparents, remember gradual changes, very gradual. You may be suffering from the "chicken or the egg" syndrome, in which religionists intent on disproving evolution can't seem to fathom the idea that at no time in the chicken's evolutionary history was there a "first chicken" or a last dinosaur. The fact is that every egg contained a dinosaur that had just a few more chicken-ish traits than its distant relatives. So to say that you may have dino eggs for breakfast is accurate as well as fascinating. Although, I'm sure you could not care less about the actual facts, why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a great story, they didn't stop early religionists or the authors of the canonized books of the Bible.

Your strawman concerning "punctuated equilibrium." Which is a property of evolution that is held by some scientists who see the gradual accumulation of adaptations as too slow for some situations such as island adaptations. Punctuated equilibrium does not say, "species appear more suddenly and retain their basic forms until they become extinct" as you claim. But what are a collection disingenuous remarks like this to someone who sees lying as just another form of communication? No! Punctuated equilibrium is what it sounds like, species evolve to a point of ecological equilibrium at a rate proportional to their fit, or lack thereof, to the niche to which they avail themselves. This is an associated driver of evolution like natural selection. Which is the Darwinian innovation that superseded Lamarckian "guided, progression of acquired traits." A form of evolution very popular with religionists in their 18th century version of creationism. And, as such, has nothing to do with that lame symptom of the "chicken or the egg" syndrome; a need for "missing links," which is another simple minded, media concoction. But hey, what are a few facts to a guy like you? We can't have a theory that is the basis of biology, pharmacology, genetics, zoology, modern medicine and on and on; get between the religiose and their god delusion or that ever important failed god hypothesis, now can we. But if you are interested in actual knowledge try "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins or anything of his, like "The Selfish Gene" or maybe Jerry A. Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True" or E.O.Wilson's "Sociobiology" ah, hell - anything but Genesis.

If nothing else, you will not be so quick to put your ignorance on display, for all to see, but I digress.

BORN OF IGNORANCE is the next fallacy, I mean...
I could not have put it better myself. Your ignorance has to be inherited, oh wait, apparently that isn't what your alluding to - just yet, anyway. It's a Lamarckian thing anyway - so it wouldn't work! You are right Charles Darwin was ignorant of genetics, but he didn't need an understanding of genetics to clarify a theory based on taxonomic properties of observed species. It was Darwin's theory that initiated inquiries into, what would become genetic principles of, hereditary traits. Although in 1865, Gregor Mendel, a monk in an Austrian Roman Catholic monastery concluded that "discrete hereditary elements" (not called genes until the 1900's when those like Oswald T. Avery discovered that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was the blue print of embryonic development) as postulated during his work with peas some years earlier, were responsible for communicating inherited traits. But the lie in your assertion comes with the claim that genetics shows that evolution doesn't work. Quite to the contrary, genetics has shown just the opposite - very powerfully in fact. We now know that we share 98.5% of our DNA with our cousin the chimpanzee and less but still some of our DNA with fish, field mice and cucumbers. I know the only reason you don't know this is because you don't want to. But hey, what's a little convenient ignorance for your beliefs, right?

You really should read some science books, though, really! Maybe "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin for a start. Although, I am enjoying the humor of your lunacy, it's just that... well, evolution is so basic to so many fields of biological science. For someone actually educated in the field, of your obvious ignorance, the assertions are delusional at best - I feel like I'm laughing at someone who's mentally handicapped. The fact that Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is traceable and shows with few exceptions that our tentative conclusions based on the fossil record are, in fact, very accurate. Which shows that we can be reasonably sure that our assimilative practices are sound with regard to phenotypic relatedness of species. I mean it has gotten so well refined that Tiktaalik, was predicted to be discovered in the strata and with the features it was in fact found in and with. For further reading on the subject see Tiktaalik roseae from the University of Chicago. If there is a stronger way to verify a method of inquiry and explanation, I don't know of it.

How about that abiogenesis, well since you originally wrote this blog we have the replication of RNA ribonucleic acid (ribonucleotides), under laboratory conditions of course. That's inanimate to something deemed animate, as though there is that distinction at that level of complexity. Or the evidence of recent evolution from the altitude acclimation of the indigenous peoples of the Himalayan Mountains, (i.e. Ethnic Tibetans). But I just know you are going to give me some crap about a "link" between species which as Ben Morrish and I have explained and I'm sure you can find elsewhere is, like the god concept, the product of an overly simplistic understanding of living organisms. There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation is a wonderful topic to study. Like Three Spined stickleback fish that has developed into fresh water varieties with fin variations etc. since the last ice age. The variation within the porpoise family, with dynamic differences in the Pacific and Atlantic species. But this isn't what you are talking about is it? You are looking for the evidence of macro-evolution when in reality it's nothing more than micro-evolution over a long period of time, many millions of years, but with mtDNA we have the ability to see back in time for eons. And with the feather covered dinosaurs discovered in China we have phenotypic evidence that birds are dinosaurs. Only, if you are looking for something along the lines of a "crock-o-duck" that is the figment of a fundamentalist's mind virus. The evidence is out there just Google it.

Don't think it has gone unnoticed that you have made many unsubstantiated assertions without the first iota of evidence or an alternative theory of your own, oh wait, are we to assume the "god did it" failed hypothesis of a bronze age desert goat herder myth variety - I await with bated breath for the new evidence in that field of inquiry. Not!

For those having trouble following along, I have taken the liberty of combining some of Josh's many asinine assertions into one relatively coherent rebuttal because so many minor sections are not actually differing thoughts. Some even go so far out that I am convinced he is totally clueless as to what genetic, random mutations are actually. And it is this misconception of what random mutations are with respect to evolution, how they are involved with reproduction, propagation even DNA that has clouded Josh's comprehension of evolution. Only, even forgiving him for this misconception doesn't release him from his responsibility for talking crap about something he knows nothing about. But I will attempt to reel these topics into something other than a semblance of coherency. Josh's more entertaining, yet asinine, claims only rate ridicule in groups. Such is the state of the rest of the assertions, which I must say displays an ignorance of genetic processes that I didn't think possible. Therefore I will deal with them as one grand misconception which is as generous as I can get with this garbage, honestly.

Alas, Josh, you were so close writing about genetic manipulation, "gene splicing" correctly noting that it's not evolution, but that's baby brain stuff. Why didn't you remark on the overwhelming evidence from genetics in support of evolution? It's not that religious blind spot is it, pandering maybe, hypocrisy? Don't forget that unnatural selection has been going on for maybe ten thousand years, domestication of the dog for one, chickens and more recently bananas as well - just a shout out to the Banana Boys, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. But I will agree that gene splicing has little to do with evolution. But knowing of no professional in the field that claims it does, leaves me only minimally interested as to why you would even conflate the two.

But that doesn't keep you from jumping off the deep end does it Josh, where is your evidence for your claim that genetics deals a devastating blow to evolution. I think you have just proven yourself intellectually negligible. All the evidence is actually in the other direction my poorly educated, or at least inculcated and ignorant friend. But please, I beg, show some conformation for this absurdity. Got another one for you, Michael Ruse's "Evolution" is a good compilation of data. Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical. The ones that live to reproduce are the specimens that are most acclimated to the environment in which they find themselves. So, let me emphasize by stating that again; Then you would see that mutations are random but the selection is surgical.

And the absurdities just keep coming. Josh Greenberger please read a book on evolution, it is obvious you have no idea what you are writing about, at all, not even close. In the first place you are obviously conflating random mutation with cellular destruction, which is what radiation exposure actually does. It also shows just how lame your argument is, when no one has even bothered to shred it in 4 years. The display of blatant ignorance is absolutely pathetic. If it wasn't for the link to this site some misguided young lady gave me I would never have known people could be so misinformed about how evolution works or genetics, genes, crossover, chromosomes, genetic drift, selection pressure etc. amazing. The first chance you get, look into the concept of genetic crossover which is one place for a random mutation to slip in. But these are not random molecules or even random base pairs. It is not even random genes, but the exchange of homologous chromosomes during meiotic recombination preceding embryogenesis.

Cellular destruction aside, even chromosomal destruction via radioactive exposure would only end in an inviable embryo which would have a minimal chance of survival. This is because the destruction that you are conflating with random gene selection (mutation) is similar to taking a hatchet to one's DNA, not even the random recombination of distinctive genetic traits as observed with respect to reproduction. Really, look into what random mutation is, might I suggest "Genome" by Matt Ridley, or, and I can't stress this enough, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, but any of the books I listed so far will get you further than you are now with at least some understanding of evolution. And don't forget there is not one scientific organization on the planet that doesn't accept evolution as fact, not one. What you obviously haven't taken into consideration is that the randomness and mutations, that you seem to be overly focused on, have had billions of years to become viable genomes. Even gene clusters that have already been tested otherwise your parents, or anyone else, wouldn't be carrying them. In fact, you are over emphasizing the whole randomness aspect almost as much as you misunderstand what is meant by mutation, really it's beyond believability. But, your argument in this regard isn't anymore thought out than has been exemplified in the rest of this blog. Then there's this:

"To say that a human being is the result of an accidental evolutionary process is sheer lunacy."

What you don't understand is that I absolutely agree, but the only people in the world that would assert something like that is a preacher or a pious devotee of some back woods superstition. There is almost nothing accidental about evolution, the randomness you are so fond of involves a choice from a bracketed group of preformed genetic groups, this is high school stuff. The mutations come from chromosomal packets that have been correctly copied otherwise we don't get a viable embryo. Again, elementary, sustaining my original take on your diatribe - as religiously motivated, complete with blinkered thinking. But, for someone who obviously has absolutely no training in science to claim that evolution is a "product of the imagination" proves my theory that arrogance is, with out question, a property of ignorance.

If you don't think creativity is a part of our evolutionary history then your understanding of the hunter-gatherer is also lacking. Only, how could anyone with as little background in science, anthropology, especially, even claim an opinion - arrogance? It's like your misunderstanding of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' I'm sure, since I know the story of how Darwin was persuaded to use that phrase, and its subsequent misused in certain circles - that reproductive fitness is not what you have in mind at all. In other words you are using the phrase out of context. And because of this blinkered view, you are retarding your ability to comprehend how humor, art, music and many other attributes that you see as unproductive regarding survival are, in fact, a product of our evolutionary history. The truth of the matter is reproductive fitness includes many altruistic traits producing our morality, compassion, love, feelings and from these are derived our need to create, rejoice in happiness, protect and teach our families.

Now as I promised at the beginning of this response I would like to comment on your assertion that the theory of evolution is primitive, which, even if it were true, has no relevance. I think your blathering is just a simpleton's attempt at a poisoning the well fallacy. Didn't Galileo discover the moons of Jupiter in the 1400's and wasn't the Calculus created in the 1700's at the same time gravity was described and by the same man that described it along with many other forces, you know Newton. But I think your main problem is that, due to your religious mind set, you fail to see the scientific method as a growing and evolving accumulation of data and improved methodologies. Hence the rudimentary theory that has actually stood up very well to every attack by everyone from rival scientists to threatened theologians, ill-equipped educators, misinformed Sunday school teachers and fearful fundamentalists, has actually grown to be a very powerful basis for thousands of theories that encompass concepts ranging from behavior science, ethology, psychology along with physiology and anthropology to theories relating to the evolution of solar systems, galaxies etc., not to mention genetic therapy relating to viral evolution, antibacterial evolution, and manipulation through cross breeding.

Then you have the audacity to claim, without a shred of evidence - I might add, that, along with trying to stir the magical thinking of religion and superstition into a mix with evolution, which is science - regardless of your comprehension of such, the following is anything other than a statement of your delusion:

"In the midst of all of this state-of-the-art technology, there seems to be a rather primitive theory which, although steadily losing credibility even among those who have adhered to it for a long time, still has many convinced that it is based on science."

You have yet to come forth with any evidence for any of your assertions, so I'm not holding my breath on this one either, but I'll ask anyway. Is it because the friggin' Pope has excepted evolution as a validated theory? Where is your evidence that evolution is loosing credibility? Where is there any evidence that this scientific fact has even wavered in its strength or for that matter, done anything but get substantially stronger - where?

And, this "hoax" as you call it, has produced 99% of the medical advancements of the last century, infinitely increased our understanding with regard to living organisms, and systems in general. So, your blatant stupidity has only emboldened my original feeling that you are another "Liar for Jesus" unless you can come across with any evidence of what you assert. Also, as evidenced by your, I think intentional, misunderstanding of survival of the fittest, how nuclear force could have some sort of relationship with evolution, by causing random mutations(?) or whatever, and that genetics has only validated evolution while increasing our understanding of it, including our relationships to everything else on the planet, in addition to the stars and planets themselves. I conclude you have an agenda and are most likely clueless as to the actual facts supporting evolution, of which, there is literally tons.

But if I thought for a moment that you actually cared about the truth, I would take the time to enlighten you with ... never mind. All these authors I've listed have sites on the net, very good ones, look into them. And if you need additional evidence for what I've asserted, I have spelled everything correctly, Google it.

Continually combating despotic suppression of the freedom and brilliance of the human mind, by fervently guarding against dogmatic superstition - a product of the arrogance of ignorance.
~ Brian

For There to be a Dinner, Does There Need to Be a Cook?

2010-07-02T19:56:00.004-10:00

This is so overly simplistic that I can't even see why I would respond to the assertion made by one Jessica, as well as many others like her, throughout history. The claim is no more than a, "The creation needs a creator" fallacy. And as such, is simply dismissed with the Epicurean vintage response of; who created your creator? But it is more than that at this point in time. It is time to stop this multi-millennia display of arrogance from ignorance - only I am not so arrogant as to think for a moment I will over come this wanton ignorance. But, I will take this as a teaching opportunity, with the hopes that some will be awakened to the sheer absurdity of this simplistic creation analogy. All I ask, is that one stops asking their particular superstition's interpreter (priest) questions better left to a qualified scientist in the related field.

Now, as to the cooking analogy, it is so lame that it generates a chuckle every time I read or hear it asserted in polite company. For it shows an extreme lack of investigative skills as well as an ignorance of evidentiarily verified hypotheses. And it also shows an educational deficiency in history, science and philosophy by someone asserting a scientific claim that has previously been refuted philosophically. Which shows that arrogance is indeed a property of ignorance.

If this Jessica and I were to walk up to a table covered with prepared food we would both be correct in presuming that the meal had been prepared. But that is the end of the intellectual honesty within this analogy. For starters, just like our origins and subsequent evolution into the primate that we are today, there is evidence, clues as to our place in a continuum. We can trace our ancestry back to amino acids in the primal soup of the early Earth. Our DNA has constituent parts represented in many species related to those from which we evolved down through Homo, hominid, primates, mammals, tetrapods and Chordates etc. In a similar sense, I am sure I could find the constituent parts, even fossils, of a prepared meal in the vicinity of Jessica's illusive culinary creator. But even this, is too simplistic for Jessica's analogy of a 'Creator' of this "dinner" of which she alludes.

If we take a critical look at this analogy with creator myths of many cultures, all of which are vastly different, in an attempt to maintain intellectual integrity, we find that it is totally inaccurate. For Jessica's analogy to be representative of the Judaeo-Christian creation myth, she and I would have to had known of a table that had been covered with this prepared meal since before recorded history. And of course every Moses, Paul, and Mary would have put their two cents into an explanation of its origin. Some with the motive of interpreting its relationship to the species to which they belonged, thinking it was a meal intended for human consumption while making excuses for the parts that were poisonous to humans with anthropocentric apologetics that created more questions than were answered. Still others are invoked into defending long held beliefs about the origins of this creation because it's key to myths they profess to be the bed rock of their faith in this superstition's power. While still others notice particular regularities that are measurable even evidentiarily predictable based on what they have discovered and changes they have observed and continue to observe. In the mean time, I notice that only 3% of the meal is even suitable for human consumption (of the living space on Earth humans can only avail ourselves to about 3%) which means that the anthropocentric explanations of a cook having us in mind as the recipients are fallacious at best. This invigorates me to postulate, then investigate alternative origins of this meal. Thus begins an inquiry into the actual properties of this supposed creation with other people checking my work for accuracy through repeatability and falsifiability of our claims.

At the same time Jessica scrambles to overcome the one property her superstition has, which, until now, had served her and those who believed as she did quite well. The fact that they could descend into the supernatural realm at the first hint that evidence would conflict with, or contradict, their pseudo-scientific claims as to the origins, and method of creation of this "meal." Unfortunately this only worked with claims and methodologies that were as poorly postulated or contrived as their superstitions. Furthermore, it left Jessica and her ilk with no evidence to support their assertions, which left a bad taste in their mouth in regard to the scientific method. Which they only subscribe to when it supports some detail that they think leads to their "cook" being the "chef." So Jessica et al. fell back on the fuzzy logic of their theology, while at the same time making pseudo-scientific claims in an attempt to obfuscate valid theories that have insurmountable evidence currently compiled, verified and integral to the continuation of medical advancements as well as many other fields of human endeavor. The problem is, theology is a subject many scientists, such as myself, indulge in as a hobby and, as such, have become quite skilled in the deconstruction of theological absurdities with the very evidence that Jessica and friends strive to obtain. Only, they have been handicapped by the very beliefs they are failing to defend.

Science has not only shown insurmountable evidence supporting biological evolution through natural selection, but physics is also inclined to evolve with an attraction of dissimilar charges being high among the forces involved. We now understand that this "meal" came about in incremental steps as opposed to all at once, as postulated through the "cook did it" theory. In fact, the solar system, life on this planet, and as it turns out, the whole universe came about in much the same way; small incremental accumulations of simple building blocks adding up to ever more complex bodies and relationships. Much as if our analogy was grown through the accumulation of simpler foodstuffs, in fact we have noted primitive vestigial versions of similar "meals" on other planets and in other systems. Meanwhile, Jessica and those motivated to maintain their failed god hypothesis, diligently write and rewrite their myths in an attempt to find gaps where science has not, as of yet, shown the light of discovery. But in so doing, have relinquished much to science and belittled themselves and their "cook" to the point of embarrassment and hypocrisy. And all this in an effort to defend a religion that has produced the Dark Ages, Inquisitions, witch hunts, Nazism, justification for racism, slavery, bigotry, misogyny and genocide, stifled higher learning for more than a thousand years and an endless list of other evils that continues even to this day.

Isn't it time to realize that no "cook" would have prepared a "meal" so wasteful that in relation to the universe we don't even amount to a billion trillion trillionth of its mass, nor is anyone implying that the "meal" was the intelligent agent that built itself, but is the result of a natural propensity for systems to find an equilibrium, a natural balance, if you will. And besides, the first cause argument has been refuted since Occam's Razor postulated that the universe did start without a creator and Stephen Hawking's theory of quantum fluctuations as the beginning of the universe.

And as for the "cook" itself, if one is proposing that the god of the Bible is the cook, then where is the evidence that it, ever did anything? The accounts in the old testament have been totally refuted, it has been shown to be anything but a historical document, and laughable as in any way scientific. All the books related to the canonized collection have been redacted endlessly, as well as fallaciously. Even the Bible itself is its own contradictory evidence. But, why would those who are so sure of their god bother to actually read the books from which their superstition is derived. Is it because anyone can see from the evolution of this deity, while following the Bible itself, that it is a concoction of a primitive waring goat herder tribe of bronze age desert dwellers? Even this Jesus construct in the the New Testament is the amalgamation of many post hoc old testament prophecies and Near Eastern pagan beliefs, Platonic ideologies, political treatise, and rhetorical theatrics. Such as the Pauline idea that Jesus was a theological idea not historical. Or the author of Mark using the Roman "Triumphal March" as a visual rhetorical device in the passion narrative, that is, the description of the crucifixion. The fact that there is nothing in the Bible that would not be known to anyone living at the turn of the era. It seems your cook didn't relay any of the important information about making calendars, personal hygiene, where babies come from, Australia - oh, and kangaroos. Who could make kangaroos and not want to tell everyone about them.

I know people such as Jessica and those of a similar persuasion, will never do the work it takes to actually learn anything about the religion they adhere to. Or for that matter, show any consideration for the sciences that have made their lives so much better than those who wrote the tomes upon which their superstitions are based. I have been a theologian for more than 45 years, so can say with some confidence that fundamentalism is a form of ignorance, and as a military man, can back it up with my understanding of those "by the book" types in that career field.

As two of my heroes have said:

Albert Einstein ~ "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

And Thomas Jefferson said, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

When you are ready to stop "availing" yourself to the "lowest grade of ignorance" and free yourself to think for yourself, you'll find a beautiful world of discovery out there.

Are We Able to Quantify the Supernatural?

2010-06-30T19:50:00.006-10:00

The supernatural is not exactly quantifiable. Or is it? Now through ethology, behavioral sciences, we know that any mind initially gives intelligent agency to stimuli of unknown origin - fear of the unknown - as a defensive mechanism. Through this grew the supernatural realm as a home for those superhuman beings that perform some incredible tasks, that no one actually witnessed, but due to an ignorance of natural properties is, of course, their only other means of an explanation. When they might have just admitted they didn't know.

Eventually, it became culturally acceptable to postulate supernatural (remember, they were originally only superhuman) beings as the responsible party for mis-fortunate happenstance. This lead to authority figures claiming expert knowledge, then privileged knowledge, eventually revelation as to the concerns of those supernaturally powerful beings (eg. spirits, gods, demons, etc). And while ignorance run-a-muck, authorized charlatans collaborated to institutionalize their "explanations" as far as their influence would allow. This led to the authoritative justification of regional superstitions (i.e. religions). These institutions quickly capitalized on the power of unfalsifiable, unquestionable, unapproachable authority figures that hail from an (until recently) unreachable sphere. This will, one day, be seen as the most advantageous, as well as covertly heinous, if not the only, property of the supernatural realm. This property will be used religiously by both religious and non-religious totalitarians, despots, dictators, sadomasochists, pedophiles, preachers and Sunday school teachers to convince people that some supernatural something-or-other gave them the authority to profess the intimate thoughts and wishes of this god or whatever. Making them, in effect, demigods.

Then these powerful charlatans persecuted people of discovery and inquiry, burnt libraries, (eg. The Library of Alexandria, early Pythagoreans, etc.) repressed education, limited the reading even possession of holy writings to the initiated (clergy), while at the same time, forbade reading of much else for more than a thousand years. In so doing, knowing full well that in absence of knowledge - superstitious explanations would reign supreme, pursued some of the most horrendous acts ever perpetrated against humans (mostly women), based on ridiculous supernatural claims of witchcraft, demons, devils, magic potions, daemonic possession etc. This fear and ignorance was even found to work as bigotry against groups of people mentioned in the holy books as culpable for the persecution of one of these supernatural demigods. These inquisitions had the effect intended with people turning against each other for fear of retribution by the supernatural, even when no one was around, or the church for the crimes of knowing too much about herbs or the human body, or being from a foreign land, having a speech impediment or any number of things. In this way ignorance was maintained, and the supernatural realm retains its power.

Then science broke through with Galileo, Bruno, Newton, Darwin et al., the reemergence of the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians via the Renaissance era. The Schism, Reformation, Enlightenment eras, the printing press, King James Bible, Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," Thomas Jefferson's realization of dogmatic superstitious totalitarianism throughout man's history and the role ignorance played, James Madison's understanding of Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" and boom - freethinking is the light breaking through the fog of primitive beliefs. A beacon shinning into the foggy blackness, the nothing, that is the supernatural. We learn of our actual origins, thanks to Charles Darwin. Medical understanding explodes with the knowledge of these new found relationships. The anthropomorphic god of the biblical testaments becomes a parlor joke for all but those that pander to, and the unwashed masses, while charlatan sophists scramble to find new excuses for these god(s) of the gaps. And scientific advancements greatly enhance the human experience: drugs, planes, trains, satellites and computers. We look back at our history with new sight only to see that superstitions, the supernatural, and those supposed authority figures, both demigod and god were not only wrong, but in actuality, the problem.

Of course, there have been religious resurgences since the Enlightenment era. The single worst thing about democracy is that if populism isn't held in check by higher courts, mob mentality turns democracy into fascism. With Christian Supremacy morphing fascism into Nazism (read Mein Kompf), while nationalism will embolden something similar to Nazism into a "Third Reich". All of which was supported by the vast majority of Bishops and the Vatican of the Roman Catholic Church. In the United States, relatively far right organizations, politicians, religious groups and their adherents have partnered with powerful corporations to rewrite history (Texas SBOE recent ruling). These same far right groups are attempting to redefine political philosophies (read Liberal Fascism). Also they are continually reintroducing fallacious, fictitious evidentiarily unsupported claims as scientific, in an attempt to obfuscate the evidence for evolutionary theory with ID otherwise known as creationism. Science is expanding our knowledge of the properties and regularities of this natural realm, while our knowledge of the cosmos pushes the boundaries of the old real estate for these supernatural beings beyond known space and its temporal origins.

Then it's realized that in the history of human kind, never has any supernatural claim ever been justified, let alone verified, and poof! The evolution of the supernatural realm has come full circle only to be quantified for what it always has been - the figment of a primitive mind in search of an explanation for things that go bump in the dark.

An obvious expression of evidence for the claim of the supernatural origins would be that all isolated populations have supernatural entities in their history and culture, but due to the isolation, these entities have differing properties like names, likes, dislikes, powers, proclamations, responsibilities and modes of retribution, except ironically, when it comes to using naturally occurring cataclysms as one of its forms. Even what is considered morality varies widely between geographically isolated groups. My favorite example of course, is India, but the American Indians are on every level a study in migration, cultural interaction. Also, if one hypothetically travels backwards through time, they will find that the isolation increases with the limitations of travel between these geographically isolated groups. And it is noted by most Cultural Anthropologists that there is a link between language migration and an accompaniment of superstitious beliefs.

My Response to: An Answer for Atheists

2010-06-17T18:18:00.001-10:00

Earlier today I looked into an internet link I received in a tweet from one Mark McCray. As titled above, it quickly became clear that what I was reading was, at best, a pious rant from a religious bigot. And I'm not one to throw that term around lightly. The way I see it there are certain qualifiers that are required before anyone cross the line into bigotry. So, I follow with an excerpt:

First, I would rather you be honest with yourself and with me. You are not an atheist. There are none. At best (worst?), you are among a group of people who knew God perfectly well, but didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, and have descended into silliness and confusion so that there is neither sense nor direction left in your lives. You pretended to know it all, or claim to not be able to know anything definitive, but are illiterate regarding life.

The first point, a red flag if you will allow, assuming atheists are not being honest then following that with presenting his opinion of what we are not, as fact. Then he denies, I as an Atheist, exist. The psychological properties in those three sentences alone might be symptomatic of a delusion known as grandiose complex otherwise known as that "holier than thou" syndrome. Then in the very next sentence he claims to know a supernatural entity, that I have also known said entity - but deny it and don't subjugate myself properly to it. Then he purposely claims I am not sincere, while accusing me of claiming something I would never claim only to follow that up with saying I'm ignorant of about life. Though I live a similar life to his.

bigot
Noun: 1. A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

To the charge of bigotry I would also like to add arrogance. Furthermore, I think this qualifies for the word 'hate' or at least denial, because it is the opposite of love (total acceptance), something that the Abrahamic pundits profess is there motivation, even though there is centuries of historical evidence to the contrary. But the above, isn't the end of it. Mr. McCray follows this with a quote from Paul, which serves in the same vein as the above paragraph with all the bigotry and arrogant delusional assumptions an illiterate iron age desert dweller can muster. Even if redacted by literate pious pundits with political ambitions countless times throughout history, it is still arrogant bigotry. In the first place it denies that there were many different beliefs in the Near East (not to mention the world) at the time of its writing. The strong Platonic influence on its writers is glossed over because apologists wish this work to be understood in the context of our understanding of reality not the Platonic version of reality of that time. When it was written with the idea that, as Plato understood it, the corporeal was not the most real part of reality. In other words, few if any today believe in the god(s) of biblical times. If you wish to read it: An Answer for Atheists

And my response follows:

To be honest, I feel pity for [Mr. McCray]. It is obvious from multiple clues that you have been inculcated, indoctrinated and habituated into an extremely narrow world view replete with fallacious strawman depictions of people with differing views than your own; in short - you're a bigot. And you may yet learn that there are many people in your life that are atheists which you have overlooked. I hope it opens your eyes.

One day, soon I hope, you will be awakened to the acknowledgement that your hate of atheists is based on your fear that the doubt they represent will be actualized in time for you to realize it.

As for your post, as a Theologian, I can note that you are creating god in your own image as evidenced by the Bible you choose to quote. Please, in the future, cite only authoritative biblical tomes; Not NIV, Living Bible, The Message Bible etc. for these are fabrications, not translations or transliterations of the text.
Now, just because you cannot see around this image that you have created in your mind, this imagined deity, doesn't mean others have that same mental deficiency. Have you forgotten that you learned of god at you mother's knee, so to speak? Telling atheists that they are not being honest with themselves shows your primitive mindset, an inability to realize that there are independent minds from your own that are at least as viable, if not more so, as your own. It is truly a shame, for it evidences that your faith is based on baser human interactions like xenophobia via stigmatization, leading to abhorrence based on ignorance. That's the look on the Neanderthal's face the first time he encounters those recent immigrants from Africa he has heard so much about, us.

The reason religions still exist is because people like you still exist. I know this is going to be hard for you to grasp, but I will give it a try: There are people in this world, still, (eg. you and many other religionists) that need the motivation of reward in the hereafter, the security of fatherly guidance, or the inhibitions produced by an all seeing eye in the sky to be good and decent people as I'm sure you yourself have read, maybe even expressed in the past. Atheists, have moved beyond those needs, evolved if you will, to a point of independence of thought, an ability to utilize critical thinking to minimize emotional influence of interpretation, to a point of philosophical self sufficiency and self determination, while motivated by the knowledge that our culturally innate morality is a reflection of individual good and bad being reciprocated by those in our own and extended families, (i.e. clubs, city, state, country) as the premise of Confucius; Treat others as you wish to be treated, says. In short, religions still exists because religious, superstitious, people still exist. But as evidenced by atheists being a growing demographic, our society is evolving beyond the need for such an emotional crutch. Maybe, someday soon, we can all be good for goodness sake.

One more point, so as to not waste 45 yrs. of theological study. You quote Paul who never acknowledged the historicity of the crucifixion. He recorded twice that JC was hanged from a tree (i.e. Acts 5:30 & 10:39 NRSV) not crucified in the corporeal sense and was engaged in converting Hellenistic gentiles to Judaism. Which is contrary to the writings of the later Jesus narrative that was not interested in converting or even helping non-Jews (see Matthew 15:24-27 & Mark 7:27 where this JC character calls the Greek woman's people dogs) so much as regaining the throne of David, explaining the extensive redaction of this sectarian, apocryphal, political treatise. In other words, "the fool says in his heart" Psalm 14:1 is not the only lie in that book.

So, before you try to denigrate any particular world view with that "holier than thou" attitude remember that religions (superstitions) are a very old and primitive human contrivances from which critical thinking grew in opposition to and to the detriment of - many years ago. Though, on a brighter note, while it may be too late for you (I would like to think not), your descendants may know the freedom of thought and power of intellectual independents our Founding Fathers had envisioned for the citizens of this great country and in their turn shed the shackles of dogma and fear. Thanks.

Porky Pig The Pledge of Allegiance

2010-06-15T16:57:00.000-10:00

Kids say the Darndest Things

2010-06-12T14:40:00.000-10:00

http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?attachment_id=3425">

In Defense of Rational Thought

2010-02-20T00:40:00.002-10:00

Sometimes, it is worth noting the confusing contradictions of religious fundamentalists for posterity. Some time back I sent the following tweet to @mmcelhaney:  http://tinyurl.com/yf9hyz8 and part 1 http://tinyurl.com/ydhd8po Watch and grow wiser. To which he wrote the blog here. This is a response to that blog and I fear he didn't grow at all.

Marcus McElhaney Tries his hand at Bible BS again. The most obvious point is that he does not confront Matt directly but instead addresses yours truly, in this blog.

As to your first point, @mmcelhaney, I would like to bring to your attention that the bible is a work that was canonized 1,685 years ago, when it was transliterated, edited, then rewritten into a form markedly different than the book now being discussed. But, due to the advances of science, the book has been completely discredited as a collection of lies, myths and allegories. The story that has not changed is the fundamentalist diatribe of apologetics that continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist then reverse engineer the story to support the assumption. That is the consistent part of this never ending story that you so arrogantly portray as an ecclesiastical point, when all it points to is typical apologetics are the greased pig of revelatory interpretation. In other words, it is next to impossible to nail down the facts when they are moving around in a sea of ignoramuses. This is why most theologians no longer hold to the interpretations of 100 years ago and many would even disagree with yours today. Every time science advances your ecclesiastics take a step back, purposefully positioning your deity further out of reach of scientific inquiry into the Orphic abyss of the supernatural, with apologies and several 'but's'. And with that:

1. God of having bad moral standards: (KJV)

   a. Slavery:
How about the rules for owning Hebrew slaves or a family of slaves, see Exodus 21:2-6. What should happen to an aggressive master Exodus 21:20-21 and on. These are in the list of commandments - some 613 of them. How about the rules for selling your daughter in Exodus 21:7-9. Maybe 1 Cor. 7:21 where it is said that one should be content as a slave and not seek freedom or Eph. 6:5-6 on slaves being obedient to their masters.
   b. Genocide:
Genesis 8:21 The book of your religion says he killed every living thing. Then in Exodus 12:12 he supposedly kills all first born or how about Judges 6:16 where he is said to have killed all Midianites or 1 Sam. 15:3 in which it is written that he commanded the deaths of all those poor Amalekites.
   c. Human Sacrifice:
First of all, the sacrifice of the daughter of Jeph'thah, your god(s) was complicit in the act for there were many chances for an omniscient entity to change the outcome and nothing was done in that regard. Second Molech was also a god, which was what bothered your version - for he is a jealous god(s). And last but definitely not least, he sacrificed his own son, remember the crucifixion.

In 2- 4 Marcus, you insinuate that Matt was incorrect or corrected himself, I'm sure you need to listen to it again for he does not correct himself but his interlocutor, because slaves are mentioned in the ten commandments (the tenth one about coveting maidservants or menservants) and are more explicitly discussed in those verses I mentioned above, Matt did not misspeak.

5. People that are so arrogant as to presume to know the unknowable, are also those that are so arrogant as to presume to know without learning by reading what is knowable.

6. The bible or god(s) character is an observers opinion, and personally, I think Matt was being quite generous, for in my opinion, your god(s) is a contemptible war monger.

7. Accuses God of not caring about what you do but only what you believe.
Titus 3:4-6 (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Christ Jesus our Saviour;

And there are many more on both sides of that argument, but the main thing is the first 5 commandments are about worshipping that sadistic artifice of the deluded.

8. Our morality is the result of millions of years of evolution, cooperation, and cohabitation within an extended family. All the morals in the bible are the expected ethics of a bronze age tribe of desert goat herders, so yes, none of us need that book for the apprehension of ethics useful in today's societal interactions. Especially when that book also holds up some of the most heinous acts ever committed by humanity as testament of a leader's good works.

9. He said "infinite punishment for finite deeds" and the theology you follow preaches that your deity is infinitely good therefore what he does or sanctions is purported to be good, i.e. the many crimes perpetrated in the bible. And we all know that's BS, no matter how 'mysterious his ways,' as apologists put it.

"Our sins are so bad that it equals the need of an innocent man to be tortured to death to balance the debt. Our sins are not finite."

This quote is an example of a "scapegoat," quite typical in Bronze age cultures, just as the many human and animal sacrifices asked for and sanctioned by your mythical patriarchal deity who shares this blood lust with many of the mythical patriarchal deities of Mt. Olympus. This is an example of how absolutely damaged ones perspective can be due to these delusions. No one can take your responsibility away from you, no one can pay for sins that were never perpetrated or may never be committed in the future, and why do we owe someone other than the victim of our transgressions anything? One shouldn't base their perspective on the narrative of bronze age myths without expecting their morality to be crippled in this way. The manufactured self-loathing of Christians as a product of their origin myths, doctrines and dogmas is in part, part of a mechanism that subordinates the ordinary human being to ideologies and the purveyors of those ideologies. The genius of our Founding Fathers in this regard was the realization that any authority supported by these ideologies was actually in the hands of those interpreting origin myths, doctrines, and dogmas which have never been supported by evidence of any kind. In attempting to fit this preposterously insane concept into the reality of the 21st century, one needs to chisel out room for the absurdities, thus creating the vacuum easily filled by these types of ethical atrocities. Of course every Christian I know starts making excuses at this point, for what boils down to a total lack of character and fortitude in the face of questions of morality.
To all the fundamentalists out there, the crucifixion narrative - never happened and that's the good news. No one should carry the guilt of such an obligation on their shoulders. I can't believe anyone would try to justify the torture of an innocent human - that's just sick/ religion.

10. The problem is that humans, according to your theology, are purportedly being tortured for not living up to the unattainable standards set by the mythical creator in this bronze age story, the point being that our short comings are this characters responsibility, he, in this origin narrative, supposedly created everything. The tests are his to set and judge, this is distorted superstitious irrationality and very bad writing, so why not cut to the chase in this fictional story - eliminate the games and torture humans outright. It's all a script for a sick 'B' movie.

Even the Unitarians, a concept to which many of our Founding Fathers subscribed, realized as early as the 17th century that the trinity is a load of irrationality created by starting with the conclusion and reverse engineering an explanation that actually never made sense. But in effect god was himself and JC and the holy spirit, monotheism if one closes one eye and the brain when looking into the apologetics. Do you feel stupid yet? Really, it's not good news if you don't. The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem.

This god character is, without a doubt, extremely evil for not protecting his creation from another of his creations. In every story in which someone is responsible for creating something harmful, their immediate goal is to correct the problem except in the Christian myth. What's the excuse for that one again? And as for moral superiority, there are few people alive today that are not far more ethical than the characters in that canonized myth, especially the main character. And, it has been my observation that those perpetrating the most heinous crimes against humanity, have done so using the instruments of religious inculcation, indoctrination, subjugation and the same dogmatic adherence to totalitarian revelations without any evidence to support their claims.

The child analogy to which Matt refers is quite accurate actually, for our father who art in heaven blah blah blah... Some apologetics are so lame as to be embarrassing even to the likes of that jail bird Kent Hovind - or maybe not. This sky fairy of yours is the one claiming to love his creation —humans, but only humans of the Near East and then later Europeans as Pope Alexander VI proclaimed in 1493 that Africans and later Native Americans were not under the protection of God (they didn't have souls) and thereby sanctioning enslavement, torture and murder of indigenous peoples all over the world— being perfectly omni-benevolent, but isn't torture in any form wrong. This is how the evolution of morality works in reality, as we become wiser we also become much more ethical, understanding and tolerant eg. abolition of slavery, women's equality & suffrage, human rights, democracy - none of these things are advocated by biblical Christianity. The child being tortured in the basement for misbehaving is symbolic, simplistic, but accurate when one considers that smarting off to ones parents is a capital crime in the ten commandments, punishable by death.

The problem with Christians is that they don't even know that they are using religion in place of actually thinking. The sins that Matt is talking about are not in the bible they are the tools used by those brain washing, inculcating, and indoctrinating children to the point that they can't see anything except through their god(s) goggles. Matt is talking about what fearful people do to feel good like a child sucking their thumb, holding on to that security blanket of eternal life or espousing comforting, but ludicrous, claims in the face of evidence to the contrary. When many logical conclusions have presented themselves and many having been confirmed by multiple sources; hence, I think this lying for Jesus is a sin.

In light of the evidence from cosmology, holding on to the Genesis myth like it is the last thread of a security blanket should make anyone question their stand. Evolution is so damning to religion because without Adam and Eve there is no original sin i.e. the Tree of Knowledge narrative, or more accurately, the rest of Genesis is a confirmed myth. Instead of moving forward with knowledge that can help humanity we are stuck defending the freedoms of people from the tyranny of theocracy. Christianity has never given humanity anything substantive, science has progressed in spite of religion which is only the organization of primitive superstitions into a force for totalitarianism.

Libertarianism Leads to Fascism at Best, Anarchy in the End

2010-01-22T18:36:00.004-10:00

The question was put to me in the form,
"So what does Mussolini have in common with the Libertarians?"

When what I actually asserted was that,
"Libertarianism, logically leads to fascism at best, anarchy at worst."

To which came the reply:
"How does Libertarianism logically lead to expanded government interference?"

Followed by the first question above.

Libertarianism is all about individuality, individual liberty, individual power but, it breaks down at the level of companies, corporations, and capitalism. Because of two points, the first of which, is supremacy of power in numbers, not only employees but also those influenced in the market, that is patrons, consumers even competitors will be under the influence of said company's ideologies. And secondly, the accumulation of wealth, the real power, will without a doubt be used to suppress the individual. The Libertarian's liberties are suspended not by an accountable government for the sake of social cohesion and cooperation, but by a totalitarian capitalist enterprise for the sake of profit, expediency and monopoly. This will lead, in turn, to a collapse of the free markets, inter-corporate warfare, intra-corporate power mongering and eventually anarchy. This state will be supplanted by an extremely ridged dictator or worse a theocracy. This state, as our history shows, will be overthrown by various degrees of democracy from which the cycle will begin again to perpetuity. So as an ideology, it fails on the grounds that it becomes very Darwinian which is extremely antisocial.

Although, this is quite damning to the libertarian ideology it is not the primary concern chronologically, or a direct answer to the question.

Some assert that Fascism is the control of industry by the government, it is not, and is best understood from the viewpoint of the public as a partnership, a complicity of cooperation between government and industry to the detriment of the population at large. But Fascism is, actually, only a step on the way to the logical conclusion of libertarianism (which I described above) from the democracy we have now. For as government concedes power and industry garners that power through the accumulation of numbers and the real power, financially based, government will become the complicit protector of the emergent corporatist system which is Fascism.

If you are wondering how this could come about, just watch the News - it is happening right now. Even with a cursory understanding of Hitler's Germany, gathered through a perusal of authoritative history on the subject. It is easy to see the chilling similarities in Germany, during Hitler's rise through the economic system of Fascism, and the last forty years of events in the US. Hitler availed himself to a multi-tiered approach (because it was readily available), just as the Right Wing in this country has been doing since the dawn of the cold war. Hitler used the economic devastation of a global depression to finally tip the political balance in his favor after a decade of ideological suppression of those people, the outsiders, gypsies, gays, Jews, Lutherans, any but the true German Catholics. He would expound vitriolic diatribes about the evil "atheistic communists" at the Homeland's gate, to instill fear and loathing in the ignorant masses. Who were ripe for such manipulation through their Catholic ideology and Stalins unbelievable brutality in a system that was neither true communism or Marxism, but a dictatorship based on a cult of personality, (Stalin learned basic properties of this style, from his years in seminary.) mixed with a loose interpretation of Marxism. This is the USSR of history, but I digress.

After gaining the trust of the masses with his simple black and white, either you're in or out, with us or against us exclusionary ideology that appealed to the baser instincts of the masses under the guise of true Catholicism (another ideology that appeals to baser emotions), he was free to mandate regulations that lead to Nazism through a political process known as Fascism. The Libertarians, standing there with their mouth agape, wondering where it went wrong were then tossed aside in a war torn pile of confusion. They thought they were free of the opinions and voting rights of the "outsiders," those Elitists, those that didn't follow their god, didn't live or work hard like they did, those that met challenges in different ways, those that were not supposed to be qualified to take their jobs. They thought they were free. The libertarians were glad to see business booming do to the public regulations and deregulation of the German Military Industrial Complex. They thought they were free to pursue happiness, they thought.

You see, libertarianism has a basic flaw in its logic and ideology that is not readily visible to those who long for the freedom to be self-serving, selfish, or self-centered: we are members of the populace, a society and in a society power must stay with the majority. The Libertarian is left with only the semblance of freedom, the myth of liberty, a childish wish that can lead to so many heinous ideologues gaining power of which Hitler and Mussolini were only two. But more specifically to the political process known as fascism, libertarianism has another flaw that is, at its root, far worse than selfishness, it is based on a Herbert Spencer's Social elitism (sadly, this was inappropriately named Social Darwinism), a survival of the fittest, a jungle mentality that states; Those that can - should, and those that can't, should be left behind. Forgetting, for obvious reasons, that we are all in this together. This is what Ayn Rand never understood. This is why no one should trust Ron Paul, Teabaggers or libertarians. And, this is why our Founding Fathers are my personal Heroes, they were Liberals that new the best system for liberty was a combination of Greek and Roman systems that could be governed by the Three Tier system described in Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws"(1731), a book banned by the Pope, by the way.

So, to the question:
"So what does Mussolini have in common with the Libertarians?"

The answer is:
"Mussolini's Fascism manipulated a longing for social, national and cultural supremacy of the population not understanding that this leads to, and is fueled by, social elitism (Herbert Spencer's, survival of the fittest). The consequences of which, leaves the powerful internal institutions (like churches and other corporations) at the helm, while destabilizing the government, initially. Then, Italy regrettably found itself manipulated by and at the whim of powerful corporations. Libertarianism is vulnerable to the same 'survival of the fittest' mentality; but worse than that, it is a corporatist ideology that has nothing to do with our Founding Fathers. Mussolini had to have regretted his decisions as much as the libertarians of Hitler's Germany."

Who's Rights of Conscience

2010-01-12T01:45:00.003-10:00

I keep seeing this passage over and over again in Christian literature; "rights of conscience," as if it is in the Bill of Rights. In the original 'draft' of the First Amendment James Madison included a similar line,"No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." But this was not included by Congress originally and until acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) which was followed by Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, (1925) that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Right's restrictions applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation, states had some leeway with the Constitution.

Obviously, this "rights of conscience" is a canard, in Madison's original it is "equal rights of conscience" which would include those of us against religious encroachment into private lives. As in, I cannot in good conscience keep loving couples apart for the sake of a superstitious tradition. This by itself isn't the point though, it is that the rights of individuals are being impeded by those using their supposedly threatened "rights of conscience" as a battle cry. I am so sick of majority power feigning persecution while persecuting every minority in sight. The Nationalist Socialist Party used this same tactic more than 80 years ago, by proclaiming Catholics the persecuted minority and attacking the gays, gypsies, foreigners, and finally Jews, we all remember the Nazis. I know reductio ad Hitlerum, but I do see a correlation.

But I don't think that romantic unions are something that religions need be a part. I happen to be a civil union proponent. But not for gays, per say, no I think marriage should be like and as common as baptism or bar mitzvahs. But I also happen feel that the population of the planet is at a breaking point. Not everyone is qualified to be a parent. I think children are the leaders of the future and our most precious possession.

I ask,"Would you convert for cash Antony Flew?"

2010-01-10T19:28:00.002-10:00

The religious are clambering all over each other to hail Antony Flew, the ex-atheist who has "changed his stance on the existence of god" and then wrote a book about it. But wait, with all the new atheist authors out there eg. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens et al. how could someone stand out in that crowd? I thought. Then this idea came to me.

As I read Flew’s book, I was very interested in why he would change his mind, of course. His original position was powerful and I was desperately looking for his new evidence, or how he was going to rebut his own, earlier arguments. After all, I am convinced few people, who are presently thoughtful atheists, would be easily convinced that there is evidence for a supernatural entity.

But I was sorely disappointed. It was as if Flew either forgot his earlier arguments against God or just chose to pretend he didn’t have any. For several hours I pondered over this issue. How could someone so logical just pretend his earlier arguments didn’t exist? How could he ignore what he had professed, or written earlier in his career? I mean, if he couldn’t really answer his earlier arguments against God, (in the book he omitted discussing most of them at all) how in the world did he change his mind? I have viewed this video of him seemingly incoherently answering an interviewers questions, as if his mental faculties are diminished due to age. What I thought I saw in that interview may have had more to do with my interpretation than with Flew's condition, but I think there is something to the notion that he may be loosing the edge, he is an octogenarian now. Then...

Flew, you sly old dog. I’m on to you. Although, I can understand why you would do it, for you, it makes perfect sense. Since, just bare with me a moment, you know there isn’t some imaginary sky fairy watching you, you really have nothing to worry about as far as retribution in an afterlife. You don’t have to worry if you, dare I say, lie! I can see what would motive someone to this contrivance. Your fame is dying down, the New Atheists are being hailed as the rationalists to reckon with, maybe... stealing your thunder? Damn that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, etc. What else can an old man like you bring to the debate? Why would people want to read what you have left to say? If only you could get into that religious book market. But you would need to change your story, then you would have the whole religious community “worshipping” you - "the famous atheist who was smart enough to see the light." Cough! Then, once again, you will become an intellectual hero. Anyway, who cares, which side of a philosophical point is idolizing you, hailing your name, or at least making you famous? Christians, atheists; does it even matter to you? Of course not! If they buy the book, maybe speak your name, you’ll be happy.

So, how could you do this, without demolishing your hard earned reputation in philosophy? Change your story, of course, but how? A death bed conversion would only put your reputation in disrepute, not enough time for a book deal or those insistent interviews. But if you were to, say, convert now - but not a full Christian conversion, no - to a god of the gaps deistic meta physic, that holds to an a priori creator. This doesn't contradict all of your prior work, not all of it. So, that’s what you did, isn't it. But hey, now you’re back in the limelight. Now your name (and book) is back on the world stage. Sure, you had to jump the fence. Tell me, is it easier to play stupid or sophistic?

Undoubtedly you had to go against your own mind, but who cares, right? There’s no punishment waiting for you after you die. But there are those pesky New Atheists out there that have seen this world through similar eyes as yours. We both know this. But hey! Why not, I mean it's not like you are making a difficult life, worse for the rest of us? Go ahead, change your tune, become famous again - rake in that cash. I’m sure the income and notoriety will cleanse that taste out of your mouth after your conversion. But what if your family is forced to live in a new age of bigotry, zealotry, or hate mongering that your new found world view heralds, your recent conversion bolstered. What if! Ah, what do you care? Denial, is a great thing. Isn't it?

And as for your new audience, it's great isn't it, they’re willing to believe anything and I mean anything. To them, you will be almost as famous as JC himself, maybe more famous to those clinging to what is left, of a belief in the belief. You should have no problem becoming their poster child, no problem at all. Right, Antony? All you have to do is forget what you professed earlier, which I can attest you have done so well as to have many of your would be ideological compatriots thinking in terms of Alzheimer's, or another dementia, touché. Even in your book, apparently, since you failed to reconcile your own arguments, just as many Christian apologists fail to do.

I understand. The money, the fame, they can drive some to do... things. And since we both know there’s no evidence supporting a supernatural realm, or anything relating to the supernatural that has ever been verified in the history of mankind, it's safe to logically predict there isn't much of a chance we will find a deistic realm. Let alone, a supernatural realm for some mystic to be keeping score of our lives, so, why the hell not?
Enjoy your money and fame Flew. The turmoil you have left in this revolution is not insurmountable, the turbulence you stir in your wake will only hone my skills of insurrection, so go ahead Flew, forget what you have learned. In the end, I’ll have my dignity. But who knows, I might convert to deism myself, if that is what it takes to stop the bigotry. But seriously, I doubt it. I like fighting toe to toe, way too much Mr. Flew.