The Insanity of Christian Inanity

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

8am 05-21-11

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

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

8am 05-21-11

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

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

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

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

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

8am 05-21-11

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

8am 05-21-11

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

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

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

In Response to Christian Criticism

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


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

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

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

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

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

And My Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I quote, in part:

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

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

Nowhere is this sentiment more succinct than in this statement: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."—Albert Einstein

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

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

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

EOB

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

Thanks

Research On a Conversion

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

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

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

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

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

formspring.me

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

Questionable Sophistry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872 – 1970)

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

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

Here are the Taxes about which Tbaggers are complaining

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

My Lack of Belief

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

Just Another Liar

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

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