formspring.me

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

Questionable Sophistry

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

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

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

My Lack of Belief

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

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

"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

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

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

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