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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As two of my heroes have said:


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


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


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

Are We Able to Quantify the Supernatural?

The supernatural are not exactly quantifiable because supernaturalism is a baseless ideology about imaginary entities that cannot exist in any reality. Here is my simple yet logical argument for this position.

In The Beginning

What are the possibilities for the origins of supernatural entities? 

They cannot just pop into existence, because there would be nothing for them to pop from, nothing for them to pop out of, or anywhere for them to pop into, and that "magic" stuff would need to be generated from something somewhere before there was anywhere. Could these entities be formed from, evolve or developed from, or even be synthesized from natural entities? No! The ability to contravene the laws of nature would need to come from material that was not subject to these laws, but all material is subject to the laws of nature. This material would need to be immaterial, which is impossible. So, from where could supernatural entities possibly come?

Let me break this down. To begin with, the concept of absolute nothing is false. At no time in the existence of reality could absolute nothing ever exist, because from nothing nothing can come. There would be nothing to generate anything and nothing to generate it from. Therefore, if there were ever absolute nothing, there would be nothing forever. So, something has always existed. And, the strongest evidence of any science tells us that this is energy. Everything is and has always been energy. Quantum energy, packets of energy, systems of interactive quantum particles, are the building blocks of everything. Everything. And, since energy has always existed because, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy can be neither created nor destroyed in a closed system. The universe includes everything in reality, which makes it a closed system. The scientifically determinable parameters regulating natural interactions, otherwise known as the laws of nature have always existed in reality. Since these parameters have always existed as evidenced by the facts that, first, energy has always existed, and second, that these parameters exist because the resulting balance, systemic harmony, and stability, to keep the concept simple, are the reasons anything exists at all. 

So, with this in mind, how might the supernatural come about or exist? Supernatural entities would need to contravene these parameters before they have ever achieved the developmental level of quantum particles, before they actually existed. These simple facts eliminate the unnatural, the supernatural, and the supranatural from the realm of existence. They cannot even be logically imagined, which is why so many scary movies are funny when not insulting the viewer's intelligence. From the perspective of logic, the law of identity describes why supernatural entities cannot be a part of the natural universe in the same way it explains why infinite entities cannot exist. Then from the breakdown of what a supernatural entity would be composed of, so that it could escape the laws of nature, we are left with a noncognative construct, immaterial. The immaterial is exactly nothing. Otherwise it would be subject to the laws of nature. In other words, some thing, anything, and everything is subject to the laws of nature. Just how much a misunderstanding of nothing figures into ideologies, especially anthologies of ideologies like religion is a topic for another blog entry.

In short, supernatural entities cannot possibly exist. This eliminates gods, ghosts, demons, devils, spirits, souls, heavens, hells, an afterlife and magic. And this is exactly what the evidence has consistently exposed. 

How Did We Get Here

Now through ethology, behavioral sciences, we know that the time required for primitive perceptual processes with assimilation and interpretation, memory retrieval, thought strings, and motor neuron activation takes too long, so imaginatively suggestive feedback loops initially give intelligent agency to stimuli of unknown origin. Better safe than sorry. It's an ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy), a safety feature we feel as fear of the unknown so as to activate defensive mechanisms. Dumbfounded by the absence of intelligent entities, the inexplicable grew into wild claims of unnatural beings escaping into unnatural realms after performing some imagined feat. Ephemeral feelings generated a story for which there was no evidence and that no one actually witnessed. This story from those feelings about something inexplicable has reproduced so prodigiously that it has evolved into ideologies like supernaturalism and superstition, story genre like myths and legends, and anthologies of mythology and ideology like religion. What started out as the pretense of knowledge in an atmosphere of ignorance (i.e., belief), became the motivation and excuse for the most heinous atrocities ever committed by humans. But far worse, what could be excused as an ignorance of natural properties and their psychology, when they might have just admitted they didn't know, became a habit of deceit, an institutionalized habit of assuming the conclusion from which to build a back story. Belief is not only an admission of ignorance, it was born in an atmosphere of ignorance where it nursed on deceit. There is nothing good about belief.

Eventually, it became culturally acceptable to suppose that supernatural (remember, they were originally only unnatural) beings were responsible for both fortunate and mis-fortunate happenstance. This led to authority figures claiming expert knowledge, then privileged knowledge, eventually revelation as to the concerns of those supernaturally powerful beings (eg. spirits, gods, demons, etc). This was necessary to claim control over these powers (yes, those biblical powers), and then to manipulate fear and thereby control the population for political purposes. In some popular forms of this manifests as anything from racism and enforced conformity to an ideology to tyranny of a majority or the stampede of stupidity that takes humanity into war or over a cliff into extinction.  And while ignorance runs-a-muck, authorized charlatans collaborated to institutionalize their "explanations" as far as their influence would allow. This led to the authorized justification of regional superstitions (i.e., poly- and monotheistic religions, nationalistic gods, and nationalism; see King Josiah and his High Priest Hilkiah and their Pentateuch). These institutions quickly capitalized on the power of unfalsifiable, unquestionable, unapproachable authority figures, like war gods, that hailed from an (until recently) unreachable sphere. Charlatans learn to use this Orphic Abyss as a most advantageous, be it ever so heinous, value of supernaturalism. This value will be used religiously by both religious and non-religious totalitarians, despots, dictators, sadomasochists, pedophiles, preachers, and Sunday school teachers to convince people that some supernatural something-or-other gave them the authority to profess the intimate thoughts and wishes of their immaterial-nothing-whatsoever. Making them, in effect, demigods, to those who don't see them as metaphysical naturalists, atheists, and freethinkers see them: deluded. Oh yeah, the sociopaths love this demigod status every bit as much as they hate scientists exposing their chicanery. 

Then, as if this were not enough, these powerful charlatans persecuted people of discovery and inquiry, burnt libraries, (eg. schools of philosophy, the Library of Alexandria, early geometers, astronomers, etc.) repressed education, limited the reading of, even possession of, holy writings to the initiated (clergy), while at the same time, they forbade reading or public interpretation of much else for more than a thousand years. In so doing, and knowing full well that in the absence of knowledge their superstitious explanations would reign over great suffering, pursued some of the most horrendous acts ever perpetrated against humans (mostly women and minorities), based on ridiculous supernatural claims of witchcraft, demons, devils, magic potions, daemonic possession, biblical dogma, etc.

This fear and ignorance was often found useful in sustaining bigotry against groups of people mentioned in the myths of their holy books. For example, Jews have been held culpable for the crucifixion of the mythical demigod for centuries. These inquisitions had the effect intended with people turning against each other for fear of retribution from their tyrants of interpretation or some unimaginable supernatural tyrant, even when no one was around. The clergy would terrorize nonconformists for the crimes of knowing too much about nature, anatomy, or for possessing foreign knowledge; they would persecute an intellectual gift as fast as a mental impediment. In this way ignorance was maintained, and supernaturalism retains the power of ideological manipulation.

Then science broke through with discoveries from foreign lands, embarrassingly obvious biases against brilliant thinkers like Galileo, upstanding activists like Bruno, the explanations by Newton and Darwin. Laws related to thermodynamics, quantum physics, astrophysics, and chemistry were built on the discoveries of great thinkers and the reemergence of the ancient Greek philosophers, mathematicians, and algebra via the Renaissance Era. The Schism, Reformation, and Enlightenment Eras freed many thinkers; the printing press allowed public scrutiny of Christianity's earlier versions, foundational flaws, and the King James Bible made it obvious that the Abrahamic religions were not the concoction of gods. Then Spinoza, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, works that inspired Thomas Jefferson's realization that dogmatic superstitious totalitarianism imprisoned thinking throughout man's history, the role ignorance played in this, and the function education would play in eliminating it. James Madison's elucidation of Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws" kicked the Church to the curb, and boom -- freethinking is the beacon breaking through the black hole of primitive beliefs. A beacon shinning into the foggy blackness of interpretive nonsense, into the depths of the nothing, that is, the supernatural. And there was no there, there.

We learn of our actual origins, thanks to Charles Darwin, genetics, physics, and many other important sciences. Medical and anatomical understanding explodes with the knowledge of these new found relationships. The anthropomorphic gods of the biblical testaments becomes a parlor joke for all but those who pander to the beliefs of the uneducated, while charlatan sophists scramble to find new excuses for the inexplicable absence of these god(s) and their disappearing gaps. And scientific advancements greatly enhance the human experience with advent of modern medicine and technology. We look back at our history with new sight only to see that superstitions, supernaturalism, and those supposed authority figures -- the pundit, the politician, the priestly wannabe demigod who settles for demagogue, and the god-fraud fostering a personality cult of power worshippers -- were not only the wrong people to be followed or even listened to, but also the source of the worst answers to the most important questions. As it turns out, these sociopaths have always been the problem. And don't get me started on business people in government, a member of the exploiter caste in a public service post, really? It is for this reason that pious pundits should not be in government, but I digress.

Of course, there have been religious resurgences since the Enlightenment era. Fear has been exploited time and time again to siphon power from social groups; it's what religion was concocted to do. The single worst thing about a democratic society is that if populism isn't held in check by higher courts, mob mentality turns democracy into fascism. With Christian Supremacy morphing fascism into Nazism (read Mein Kampf), and corporatism into something similar to an Orwellian dystopia, the darkest days of our democracy and the human species are just around the corner. All of this is supported by the vast majority of Christians, including Bishops, the Vatican, and end-times fundamentalists. In the United States, relatively far right organizations, politicians, religious groups and their adherents have partnered with powerful corporations to rewrite history (Texas SBOE recent ruling), revive the Confederacy through the Southern Strategy, and make political footballs of equal rights for women, reproductive rights, gay rights, racial, and immigrant rights. These same far right groups are attempting to redefine political philosophies with some of the lamest sophistry I have ever read (read anything by Murray Rothbard, the oxymorons of Neoliberalism, or the landfills full of religious idiocies). Also they are continually reintroducing fallacious, fictitious evidentiarily unsupported claims as scientific, in an attempt to obfuscate the evidence for evolutionary theory with a rebranding of the same old creationism. Science is expanding our knowledge of the properties and regularities of this natural realm, while our knowledge of the cosmos pushes the boundaries of the old real estate for these supernatural beings beyond known space and its temporal origins.

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

An obvious explanation for multiplicity of claims of supernaturalistic origins would be that all isolated populations imagined supernatural entities in their history and culture, but due to their isolation, these entities developed differently. Their names, likes, dislikes, powers, proclamations, responsibilities, and modes of retribution, even ironically, when it comes to using naturally occurring cataclysms as one of its forms, reflect the era when and area where these entities were imaginatively defined. Even what is considered ethical behavior varies widely between geographically isolated groups. My favorite example of course, is India, but the American Indians are, every bit as much as the Middle East, a study in cultural migration and syncretism through cultural interaction. Also, if one hypothetically travels backwards through time, they will find that the isolation increases with the limitations of travel between these geographically isolated groups. And it is noted by most Cultural Anthropologists that there is a link between language migration and an accompaniment of superstitious beliefs. Talk is cheap and beliefs are cheaper. How is that for a quantification of the supernatural?

I suppose you thought that this would be a blurb on the irrationality of superstition and the supernatural. Well, to quantify the baseless foundation of a baseless ideology that is the cornerstone of so many baseless anthologies of myths and ideologies, I had to expose  its quantifiable value. The only quantifiable value of the supernatural is as a means of emotional manipulation.

Now, I prefer to finish all discussions of problems with my best suggestions for their solution. And anthologies of ideologies based on supernatural claims have caused unfathomable suffering. It qualifies as a major problem. So, here is my best solution. Education. No, not your typical public school education that inculcates compliance, conformity, obedience, and complacency to the point of apathy. You have to possess intellectual integrity and self determination to sift through the fraud and find the facts. 

My next blog will take us deeper.

My Response to: An Answer for Atheists

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

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

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

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

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

And my response follows:

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

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

As for your post, as a Theologian, I can note that you are creating a god in your own image as evidenced by the Bible you choose to quote. Please, in the future, cite only authoritative biblical tomes; Not NIV, Living Bible, The Message Bible etc. for these are fabrications, not translations or transliterations of the text.

Now, just because you cannot see around this image that you have created in your mind, this imagined deity, doesn't mean others have that same mental deficiency. Have you forgotten that you learned of your god at your mother's knee, so to speak? Telling atheists that they are not being honest with themselves shows your primitive mindset, an inability to realize that there are independent minds from your own that are at least as viable, if not more so, as your own. It is truly a shame, for it evidences that your faith is based on baser human interactions like xenophobia via stigmatization, leading to abhorrence based on ignorance. That's the look on the Neanderthal's face the first time he encounters those recent immigrants from Africa he has heard so much about, that is when he sees us.

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

One more point, so as to not waste 45 yrs. of theological study. You quote Paul who never acknowledged the historicity of an Earthly crucifixion. He recorded twice that JC was hanged from a tree (i.e. Acts 5:30 & 10:39 NRSV), and this would have been in his Platonic sense (see, Revelation 12) but not crucified in the corporeal sense. This, I'll call him pseudo-Paul for no Hebrew was named "Paul," was engaged in converting Hellenistic gentiles to Hellenistic Judaism. Learn something about Philo Judeaus of Alexandria (20BCE - 50CE) and his Platonic anointed savior. Which is totally obfuscated by the forged, redacted, interpolated, rewritten, and repurposed writings of Roman fascists attempting  to control primitive plebes with their "Jesus" narratives. Roman scribes rewriting these Platonic myths lost the plot so many times the NT is a literary example of schizophrenia,  why else would a god humanize himself to impregnate a girl with himself so as to sacrifice himself to himself as a scapegoat for sins he, himself, inflicted on a mud man and rib woman but argue that he was not interested in converting or even helping non-Jews (see Matthew 15:24-27 & Mark 7:27 where this JC character calls the Greek woman's people dogs). So much for regaining the throne of David, or the Great Commission forged by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early fourth century. Explaining the extensive reworking, repurposing, and redaction of this sectarian, apocryphal, political treatise is an intensely involved pursuit I haven't the time for now. But all the same, "the fool says in his heart" Psalm 14:1 is not the only lie in that book.

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

Thanks.

Porky Pig The Pledge of Allegiance