A Creationist's Sophistic Argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

####

Note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

####

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creationist's Fictions Rehashed, Again!

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

A subsequent comment:

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



To which I replied:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant Defense of ... Wait, what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Do You See Modern Religion?

What is modern religion, really?

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

What is modern religion?

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

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

The Insanity of Christian Inanity

    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