Monthly Archive for August, 2009

Believing in magic…and then some.

Published

on August 31, 2009

After reading a post by the Secular Thinker, I repaid a visit to Ray Comfort’s blog to see what tripe he came out with today.

This is what I get-

A simple-minded man once maintained that the story of Pinocchio was true. A wooden doll did become a human being. He not only believed that it was true, but he maintained and that he had evidence to back it up. He said that its proof was that there was such a thing as a wooden doll of the type spoken of in the story, and that it has been also proven that there was once a child that looked like that doll. Therefore, in his mind, that was evidence that the wooden doll came to life. He didn’t see the disconnect between the two thoughts.

Then he said that his theory was scientific, he was intelligent, and anyone who didn’t believe as he believed was unintelligent and unscientific. Yet everyone knew that non-life cannot become life.

Ray Comfort brings up this story of a mystery man believing something on anecdotal evidence, who claims it is scientific (and by the way, claiming something scientific does not make it so). Why would Ray tell us this story? The hint is in the final sentence. A nickel if you guess what he’s going to write about next…

Such describes the modern atheist. He has an adamant belief that there’s no evidence that there are any gods, and yet he himself is part of life. He believes that non-life produced life, and he doesn’t see the disconnect. Then he tries to justify his belief by embracing the wild speculation of Darwinian evolution, the theory that he believes is "not complete but is more compelling than believing in magic."

While I certainly wouldn’t state that all atheists have an adamant belief that there’s absolutely no evidence that there are any gods (and God with a capital “g” too Ray, your God isn’t any exception), I would ask that if he does, so what? The only thing you should be able to do before you criticize this atheist is demonstrate that there is evidence for a god claim. And if you make a God claim, and fail to demonstrate how it is true, then anybody is justified in disbelieving your claim and stating there is no evidence (that we know of) for it.

Ray then goes on to say that the atheist believes life came from non-life. You see, Ray Comfort is a man who offers his readers nothing but gross characterizations, false dichotomies, and straw men fallacies. The fact that we may admit not knowing how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume we mean nothing came from something. That’s untrue. Also, because we do not know how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume that God must’ve done it. He still fails to demonstrate how this is true, not realizing that when you posit a positive belief you should have evidence to back the assertion up lest you be condemned to false beliefs. Then, like is custom for Ray, he ties the theory of evolution into his post (no surprise there).

I have practiced magic for many years, and have watched the astounded expressions of thousands of people whose eyes where easily fooled by my hands. Prestidigitation has taught me that human beings are extremely gullible, and never has there been such mass gullibility as with the case of those whose believe the theory of evolution without compelling evidence. For them, a bump on a whale-bone becomes positive proof that whales had legs, or some amino acid means that chickens were once dinosaurs. Obscure non-transitional fossils become attestation that humans are actually primates. This is the conviction of the simple-minded, who believe anything that paleontologists and professors pontificate.

I agree, people who accept the theory of evolution without looking at the evidence are gullible- fortunately, most rational people I know have indeed analyzed the evidence. Ray Comfort may understand that his statements are either gross mischaracterizations or flat out lies, but he either does not know or care. If he does not know, he should do some more research on his part and read the comments on his own blog to gain a better understanding; if he indeed does not care, however, then he is intellectually dishonest. His last sentence, besides being mildly insulting, is highly ironic. Ray Comfort is a man who will believe anything in that canon of 66 books written long ago. Do the claims in these books have to be substantiated? No. That’s good enough for Ray.

No doubt the argument will continue until Kingdom come between those that love God, and those that don’t. But I have looked at the "evidence" for evolution, and I don’t believe as they do. I am not afraid of their "starter information" because their "finish" doesn't exist.

Ray offers up a false dichotomy: Either you accept evolution and hate god, or you love God and reject evolution. Not everybody who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist. There are many Christians who accept the evolution (Kenneth Miller, for starters).

I choose rather the evidence that is backed up by the power of the Creator, who promises to reveal Himself to those that obey Him (see John 14:21). There is no greater evidence for truth. When God reveals himself to any human being, the argument is over.

Ray Comfort, there is greater evidence than that for truth- any evidence at all.

________________________________________________________

On a side note, I decided to turn on word verification for the time being- these spam attacks became worse than I thought. I hope you don't mind.

Coolest intelligent design protest of the year

Published

CD-Host

on August 31, 2009

OK we have winner for 2009 (yes it is early and if someone else wins even better). The winner is.... The Raëlian movement(wikipedia article). The protest was for intelligent design. It was on Venice Beach in California, the women went topless the men wore bras. The religion teaches about the revelations received by a French journalist who covers the race car circuit over a period of 6 days by aliens who are the biblical Elohim.

Beneath The Veil

Published

PsychoAtheist

on August 31, 2009

Eight years ago whilst sitting on my sofa and channel-hopping through the TV schedule I happened across a riveting documentary. A young female reporter of Afghani descent had decided to travel to Aghanistan and see the land that her father had spoken so fondly of. Nothing so unusual about that you may say, there are now hundreds, if not thousands, of reporters male and female cutting about Afghanistan. Note the first three words of this paragraph - 'Eight years ago', this particular young female reporter was entering Afghanistan at the height of the Taliban's power, when they ruled the country with an iron fist and the religous 'police' were universally feared. When public executions in the main football stadium were a regular occurrence (and well attended!) and women especially were subject to the most barbaric and inhumane treatments imaginable.

Why do I bring this up now, eight years later? Because this particular documentary was one that has stuck in my mind in the intervening period and because it is now available on Google video. The reporter in question is a young lady named Saira Shah and she deserves the utmost respect for having the fortitude and courage to enter the theocratic nightmare that was Aghanistan under the Taliban and show the world what was happening.

That is why, ladies and gentleman, we should endeavour to ensure that situations like this are not allowed to flourish.

Kosher Milk and Darwinism

Published

Aaron Kinney

on August 31, 2009

Zvi Shkedi, an observant superstitionist and creationist of the Jewish variety, has posted a knol about evolution, and boy is it a bad one.

I believe I came up with a fair offer in response to his knol. I left this comment for him to read:

A knol about evolution, written by an observant Jew who has previously posted a knol about kosher milk. In that kosher milk knol, the first sentence says, "Only milk that was milked in the presence of a supervising Jew is kosher."

Zvi Shkedi believes that the nearby presence of a human who happens to practice one particular brand of magic/superstition (Judaism) will somehow affect that milk's composition.

I'm wondering if Zvi Shkedi can devise an experiment to distinguish kosher milk from non-kosher milk. Perhaps some chemical analysis? Or would rune stones of some type have to be consulted?

Perhaps enough bobbing of one's head back and forth in front of an ancient stone wall could be the mechanism by which the kosher milk could be distinguished from its non-kosher heathen milky peers?

The reason I bring this up is this: If Zve Shkedi succeeds in quantifying, testing, and demonstrating falsifiability of his kosher milk assertions, then I will renounce my atheism, convert to his particular brand of Jewish superstition immediately, believe every word he wrote in this article, and implore all my fellow Darwinist-atheists to follow suit.

MAZEL TOV!

The God Squad at Reading Festival ’09

Published

Blue Ladybird Shell

on August 31, 2009

Another year of Reading over, with amazing performances from Radiohead, Billy Talent, Bloc Party & Placebo. Disappointing headliners this year (Arctic Monkeys & Kings of Leon) but then Radiohead were one of the best I've seen after 5 years of festivals. Arctic Monkeys were good, just not my idea of a headliner, although from what others have said I'm very glad I went to see Billy Talent instead of Kings of Leon. So I'm back home now, after surviving another year of the cess pit, and debating whether to buy myself a ticket for next year.

The Christians at Reading were out in full force again, although this year they were sadly not giving out free drinks meaning I had to fork out for my own soft drinks. The board just outside of the festival had a new question: 'Why Did Jesus Die?' However, it was a good source of amusement while walking to the pub for an extortiontely priced breakfast. Some of the more memorable answers were:

He was a Crystal Palace fan
Suicide
Attention
The Wizard Theory: To prove he was the greatest wizard of all time

My personal favourite was the wizard answer, although I think he failed in his quest - at least Gandalf took a Balrog out with him. Sadly I couldn't take any photos, my old camera has sand in it from my last trip to Whitby and I wasn't able to fix it.

Sunday saw the return of last year's question (If you had one question to ask God what would it be) although most of the answers were too long to glance at while passing by. The only one I saw was 'Who's your Dad?'

If the Christian's aim was for festival goers to take the piss out of them, then they achieved their goal. Or maybe they just enjoy wasting their bank holiday weekend.

Another group of Christians were from the New Testament Church of God, and they were giving out plastic bags with leaflets in them. These Christians obviously don't want to save the planet, the last time I checked you could give out a leaflet without using a bag. It did come to one good use, allowing me to sneak a bottle of vodka into the festival! The leaflet contained a book with 'encouraging words every day', although it's main aim was to encourage you to give them money to keep open their prayer hotline. It was called the Word For Today, but only £13 a month would allow the distribution of 'Word 4U 2Day' to youth groups - because we all know that text speak is just the way to indoctrinate the young people of today.

Finally there was a guy giving a talk outside Waitrose, which from what I could gather whilst walking past was about there being more to life than making money. I would say there is more to life than standing outside a supermarket preaching at people who are there to buy vodka and crates of beer.

How to ease the pain of crucifixion

Published

Stephen Twigg

on August 31, 2009

I know I should not, but this picture is really calling to my evil side:

The Sad State of Science Reporting

Published

Anna Lemma

on August 31, 2009

Congrats

Published

possum_momma

on August 31, 2009

Congratulations are in order for my friend Berlzebub and his family.

He's the proud new papa of two beautiful baby girls.

Okay, Dear. You’re an Idiot.

Published

Rev. J. Reed Braden

on August 31, 2009

An old man on one of my friend’s Facebook walls started an argument about socialised health care and government scholarships for college students. He was vehemently against all sort of government spending and frequently derided my younger friends as naïve and stupid because they were younger than him.

One of my friends, a young woman, was told to shut up after he ignored everything she said, making it clear that not only did he not want to discuss anything with anyone younger than himself but he especially didn’t want to discuss anything with a woman younger than himself.

Unfortunately, he deleted all of his comments after I eviscerated him the second time, so all I have are my two contributions to the argument.

Okay, dear. You’re an idiot.
What is good for the country is good for its people. Period. It does no good for a person to acquire wealth and have the best health insurance if everyone around him is poor and sick. If the uninsured of the US die from the next big pandemic (say, N1H1), how much of the work force will be obliterated? And if it’s just the poor and uninsured who die, how will the rich people mow their lawns, flip their burgers, park their Porsches, walk their dogs? It is most definitely in the nation’s best interest to insure all of its citizens’ health, and any intelligent person with wealth will concede that. Jon Stewart made a good point of this [2:10 in Part 2]. Paying for the wellbeing of those around you secures your own wellbeing.
As for other areas of government funding, like in education, it is absolutely ludicrous to say that you should pay for your education and your children’s education and no one else’s. How many brilliant people from poor backgrounds should be denied a decent college education because some millionaire’s drool-factory children are filling the desks at Harvard and Brown? Should all bright children with poor backgrounds be resigned to fix auto radiators while the deluded alcoholic children of former Presidents get shuffled through both Yale and Harvard Business on their father’s oil money?
This argument goes back to well before 1821 when President Thomas Jefferson penned his autobiography. Jefferson speaks in it about how, “One provision of the bill [a bill to revise to the constitution of the College of W^m & Mary] was, that the expenses of these schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax rate,” and how the public elementary school system was founded. He speaks of the opposition to this bill by wealthy landowners and says, “I shall recur again to this subject, towards the close of my story, if I should have life and resolution enough to reach that term; for I am already tired of talking about it myself.”
The argument that wealthy people should take care of their family alone and that tax dollars should not contribute to putting underprivileged children in schools of higher education, the argument you are trying to make now, was already old and tired in the early 1800s!
The United States military is one of the best and most efficient military systems ever developed. It would take a fool to argue against that. The military is a “socialist” system, to use Conservative lingo. It is entirely funded by your and my taxes and I feel so much safer at night knowing that our military branches watch over our nation as we peacefully sleep. I would not trust that task to Blackwater (now known as Xi) or any other private company. The government does it best. Are any conservatives out there gutsy enough to call a Marine a Commie pawn to his face? Our brave firefighters and police officers are also part of a “socialist” system. Where is Glenn Beck to point out the “evil communist plot” of safety and law enforcement? One of the funniest pieces of mail that the “socialist” US Postal Service has ever sent me was a recent handbill from VA Gov. candidate Bob McDonnell that decried, “government-run health-care.” It was delivered promptly by, “government-run courier service.”
Honestly, the government–your and my taxes–are the best and most efficient way to insure the health and education of its people. The government has greatly maintained hundreds of millions of miles of roadways, power lines, sewer pipes and railways. The government has secured the safety and order of every American and its property expertly. Even with the highest percentage of handgun owners of any other developed nation, the US has managed to keep its murder and violent crime levels surprisingly low, with some admitted room for improvement. The government has protected the security of America and its allies and interests with deadly efficiency in such a way that no government in its right mind would cross us.
Now why can’t the government use that same efficiency to ensure our health and education? Sir, it seems to me that you have a psychological disorder. You gladly fork over money for shooting brown people and jailing black people, but why not for keeping all people healthy and educated? What do you have against humanity at large?

Later…

Sir, I assume by your political views and the country of your residence that you are a Christian. I would ask you what you think about Jesus in Matthew 19:21-24. “21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Or Mark 12:28-31: “28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
Matthew 25:31-46 has some good stuff too. “31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.”
Or, I guess, Jesus was talking to people, “of that time,” because, “things are different now.” Or maybe it was, “a metaphor for blah blah yadda hmmph.” That’s what I usually hear in response to that argument, but honestly, it’s a weak argument to begin with. The argument from authority is weak, especially when said “authority” is a figment of our imagination… but I would imagine that people who believe in that crap would at least try to follow it. Nowhere in the Bible does it advise its followers to horde their cash.

Posted in General

Skeptical Monkey Redesigned

Published

The Monkey

on August 31, 2009

Skeptical Monkey redesigned its website. This improved version focuses on content and sports improvements in SEO and speed.

Video: Atheist Ronald Numbers debates creationist Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute

Published

Stephen Twigg

on August 30, 2009

An excellent video where blogger Ronald Numbers debates Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. This video is an excellent look into the mind of a creationist as Paul tries this way and that to pretend that intelligent design is not creationism. (70 mins) enjoy!

Fistians and Fuzzy Illogic

Published

Arch

on August 30, 2009

Fundamentalist Christians have taken to calling themselves Evangelical Christians because "fundamentalism" excites deservedly negative sentiments. The name may have changed, but the problems remain the same.

I have decided to refer to rigid, right-wing, bigoted, Biblical literalist creationists as Fistians. These are the Christians who give Christianity a bad name because of their unJesusian lack of compassion and their obstinate ignorance in opposition to knowledge. (I considered coining the term Fustians, which does have the advantage of rhyming appropriately with "fusty". I opted to rhyme with Christians and with "fist". I reserve 'fundamentalists' for anti-modernist movements in various religions. Besottism refers to a subset of zealots.)

Fistians and pseudointellectual advocates of intelligent design creationism share the religiosity-motivated credulity that typifies LAME thinking in the Misinformation Explosion Age.

David Colquhoun addresses this problem of intellectual dishonesty and fuzzy illogic in a Guardian Unlimited article entitled the age of endarkenment.

The past 30 years or so have been an age of endarkenment. It has been a period in which truth ceased to matter very much, and dogma and irrationality became once more respectable.

Colquhoun is author of the Improbable Science blog in which he expands upon his exposition of the reasons that we should be concerned about the "New Credulity.":

This matters when people delude themselves into believing that we could be endangered at 45 minutes' notice by non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

It matters when reputable accountants delude themselves into thinking that Enron-style accounting is acceptable. It matters when people are deluded into thinking that they will be rewarded in paradise for killing themselves and others. It matters when bishops attribute floods to a deity whose evident vengefulness and malevolence leave one reeling. And it matters when science teachers start to believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

In my opinion, the root causes of this problem of fashionable ignorance lies in a number of failures:
● the failure of educational systems to teach critical thinking skills and to instil a love of learning and truth-seeking.
● the failure of the media to make it clear which competing position is valid, rather than boosting ratings by pumping up the volume on issues that supposedly have no clear right side and wrong side.
● the failure of experts to insist that expert knowledge should not be discarded simply because it is opposed by a vociferous, jeering, ignorant rabble of the religiously motivated.
● the failure of those in power – such as Giorgio Dubaya Bush – to eschew endorsement of religiously motivated ignorance.
● the failure of polite liberals to vigorously point out the deluded and deceptive content of creationist pseudoscience, misinformation, and unfounded attacks on scientific knowledge.
● the resultant failure of the lay public to doubt popular bandwagons and to realize that they must be cautious about what or whom to believe in this Misinformation Explosion Age.

And, very difficult or impossible to remedy:
● the failure of religious organizations to ensure that their ministers are well educated and not highly prejudiced (theological colleges are devoted to teaching apologetic deceptiveness).
● the failure of political organizations to ensure that those ministries that are tax exempt are not the religions that preach hatred, lies, and intolerance.
● the failure of search engines, websites providers, and publishers to assess the value of content (for example, search engines can determine whether a site is contaminated by spam and phishing, yet do not provide warning that content is false or unreliable.)

Because peer pressure is not confined to teenagers, the public, as Madison Avenue well knows, will respond to that side of an argument that is presented flashily, passionately, repeatedly, and with the appearance of certainty.

The public, particularly that in America, has been deluged with messages from religion, which is treated with dare-not-criticize protection. As a result, America ranks alongside Iraq in its level of religiosity despite its position as the standard population (IQ=100) against which IQ scores are standardized.

However, the price paid for holding religious belief sacrosanct (if you will excuse the pun) includes the confusion of students, the deterioration of educational standards, and the near demise of critical thinking, knowledge, and rationality.

Most people reduce their efforts to the minimum necessary to meet expectations. So, if we permit continued dumbing down of standards and lowering of educational expectations so as to protect self-esteem, intellectual standards will fall still further. So long as we present the implicit and explicit message that truth does not matter and that every opinion counts, we will maintain the ever decreasing standards.

In nations that value education and intellectuals, politicians who live down to the "average guy" image are not elected to the most powerful executive positions. As the world has recognized with disdain, Giorgio, purchased Ivy League degree or not, would not have appealed to voters. More particularly, he would not have appealed a second time to voters were they able to detect executive deceptions.

...section index...

: Social bookmark this page :
..

Weekly biblical inaccuracy/contradiction #2

Published

Stephen Twigg

on August 30, 2009

This week we have a biblical contradiction regarding the rather nasty biblical concept of children and father's carrying the weight of the other's sin (I know, it's rediculous). There are 2 contradicting instructions:

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

OR IS IT....

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

I suppose it's up to the fundamentalist here to choose which one depending upon their agenda at the time!

New York and “Two Principles: All The Religion We Need”

Published

S.A.

on August 30, 2009

nyc

Once I rented, and then sat in awe watching the nine-part classic Baseball from Ken Burns, I knew I’d made a wise choice in subscribing to Netflix. Access to great documentary series like this, that my local video store does not carry, made it a simple matter to get my hands on the rest of the incredible films made by Burns and his brother Ric. My wife and I just finished the sixteen-plus hours of their New York series, which I cannot praise highly enough.

Anyone interested in American history in general will appreciate this series of PBS films; lovers of Gotham will be enthralled and utterly captivated. I certainly was.

The first seven episodes, which comprise the original version, are each two hours in length and cover the history of the city from the time of Henry Hudson, up through the late 1990′s. Some of the specific events that are dealt with in detail include the initial founding of New Amsterdam by the Dutch, the role of the city during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War draft riots, the creation of Central Park, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, the creation of the subway system, the role of Tammany Hall, the impact of the urban renewal projects, and the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge. Iconic figures, some familiar, and others not, are painted in rich detail, including Austin Tobin, Robert Moses (“If the ends don’t justify the means, what does?”), Fiorella La Guardia, Boss Tweed, Alexander Hamilton, Al Smith, Petrus Stuyvesant, and DeWitt Clinton. You’ll be surprised just how they, and many others, shaped this chaotic, utterly unique city into what it is today.

An eighth episode was added in 2003 that covers, as one might expect, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. And while this epilogue includes much disturbing footage of the attacks and the aftermath, and was physically painful to watch at times, the majority of the two-plus hours running time was devoted to the fascinating history behind the construction of the towers, and how most of the residents at first despised them, but eventually came to embrace them. Philippe Petit’s famous high-wire crossing is covered in detail (with plenty of direct commentary from Petit himself) and was absolutely spellbinding.

I was especially impressed with the way that the final episode closed, looking forward to how the city would rebuild Lower Manhattan, a process now well underway with the construction of the gorgeous tower that will be One World Trade Center.

Mario Cuomo, the former governor, had this to say about a memorial for 9-11. Despite a few ideas I’d take issue with (atheism is a religion?), I was quite moved by this sentiment, and his notion of what religion really should be:

I would like to see some depiction of all the religions. List them all: Atheism, Ethical Humanism, Catholicism, etc., and you notice that each of those religions, these value systems, have two principles they share in common. And the two principles started with monotheism and the Jews. Zedakah and Tikkun Olam. Zedakah means generally, we must treat one another as brother and sister. We should show one another respect and dignity because we are like things, we are human beings in a world that has nothing else like us, and we are to treat one another with love, charity, use your own words. The second principle is what do you do with this relationship. Well, we don’t know exactly how we got here, why we got here, etc., etc. That’s for minds larger than ours. But we know that we are like kinds, and we should work together and make this as good an experience as possible. Tikkun Olam. Let us repair the universe. Now, Islam believes that. Buddhism, that has no God, believes it. Every Ethical Humanist I ever met believes it. Those two principles: we’re supposed to love one another, and we’re supposed to work together to make the experience better: that’s all the religion we need, really, to make a success of this planet.

Random Hitchens Quote #2

Published

PsychoAtheist

on August 30, 2009

[Religious belief] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate? I've been to North Korea. It has a dead man as its president, Kim Jong-Il is only head of the party and head of the army. He's not head of the state. That office belongs to his deceased father, Kim Il-Sung. It's a necrocracy, a thanatocracy. It's one short of a trinity I might add. The son is the reincarnation of the father. It is the most revolting and utter and absolute and heartless tyranny the human species has ever evolved. But at least you can fucking die and leave North Korea!
Christopher Hitchens

'Nuff said.

More evidence emerges against intelligent deisgn

Published

Stephen Twigg

on August 30, 2009

One of the phrases often used by intelligent design proponents is 'irreduciable complexity'. They used this to try and show that the bacterial flagellum was an example of intelligent design until this was shown to be incorrect. Another area that the hypothesis's supporters often talk about is the complexity of cells and irreducibility of the cell components.

New research has shown that the components of cells have been found in other areas, a finding that supports 'neutral evolution'.

This report is from Weird Science:

Intricate cellular components are often cited as evidence of intelligent design. They couldn’t have evolved, I.D. proponents say, because they can’t be broken down into smaller, simpler functional parts. They are irreducibly complex, so they must have been intentionally designed, as is, by an intelligent entity.
But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.
The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mitochondria are descended from free-living bacteria, which several billion years ago were swallowed by complex cells. The mitochondria soon became central to the cells’ function.
Mitochondria couldn’t have lasted in their new home without the help of a protein machine called TIM23, which delivers other proteins harvested from the cell’s body. Bacteria don’t possess TIM23, suggesting that it evolved in mitochondria. This seems to pose a cellular chicken-and-egg question: How could protein transport evolve when it was necessary to survive in the first place?
The essential paradox applies to other protein-transporting cell systems, providing disbelievers of evolution with a key part of their critique. As articulated by intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, “This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function or the system breaks down.”
According to evolutionary theory, however, cellular complexity is reducible. It requires only that existing components be repurposed, with inevitable mutations providing extra ingredients as needed. Flagella, the hairlike propellers used by bacteria to move, are one example of this. Their component parts are found throughout cells, performing other tasks.
Intelligent design mavens once cited flagella as evidence of their theory. Scientific fact dispelled that illusion. The mitochondria study does the same for protein transport.
“This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general,” write the researchers, led by molecular biologist Trevor Lithgow at Australia’s Monash University. “The complexity of these machines is not irreducible.”
When they analyzed the genomes of proteobacteria, the family that spawned the ancestors of mitochondria, Lithgow’s team found two of the protein parts used in mitochondria to make TIM23.
The parts are located on bacterial cell membranes, making them ideally positioned for TIM23’s eventual protein-delivering role. Only one other part, a molecule called LivH, would make a rudimentary protein-transporting machine — and LivH is commonly found in proteobacteria.
The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.
“It hasn’t been possible up until this point to trace any of those proteins back to a bacterial ancestor,” said Dalhousie University cell biologist Michael Gray, one of the researchers who originally described the origins of mitochondria, but was not involved in the new study. “These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.”
“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”
Citation: “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine.” By Abigail Clements,1, Dejan Bursac, Xenia Gatsos, Andrew J. Perry, Srgjan Civciristova, Nermin Celik, Vladimir A. Likic, Sebastian Poggio, Christine Jacobs-Wagner, Richard A. Strugnell, and Trevor Lithgow. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 33, August 25, 2009.

Once again, we have a prime example of science pushing back the need for an intelligent designer, showing that things are not intelligently designed, it's just that their origin has not yet been found!

Atheists In The Arab World? You Betcha

Published

Baconeater

on August 30, 2009

There is a group on Facebook named The Intellectuals. It is full of atheists and/or freethinkers from the Arab world. There are 950 members currently.

I think this great, and it does quash a few misconceptions that I, and many others I'm sure, have about freedom of speech and atheism in Muslim territory.

I still don't know how much backlash an atheist in Egypt or Iraq gets from being a known atheist or how courageous, if at all, it is to be an open member of this group, knowing full well that one's Muslim friends would quickly find out that one thinks belief in Allah is full of crap.

I found out about this group because my blog happens to be one of the many GREAT atheist blogs linked on their Facebook site. They do have very good taste it seems.

I'm not courageous enough to join that group yet. What would my non atheist friends and family think? Do I need to explain myself that much to them? Besides, I'm not an Arab and I don't live in a Muslim country, so I'll use that as my excuse for now.

I stay away from my atheism on my Facebook site for the most part, though I do identify myself as a non believer and I have a few atheist bloggers as my friends.

I'm curious what the description of The Intellectuals group means. Maybe one of my readers can help me out. Here it is:

جروب لأرشفة أهم المدونات والمواقع والمنتديات الإلحادية واللادينية -والمناهضة لمظاهر الظلام الديني- على شبكة الإنترنت

Hovindism of the month #1 – Everything came from nothing

Published

Stephen Twigg

on August 30, 2009

Welcome to the first in our monthly series on hovindisms. A Hovindism is a false claim about science that are made by Kent Hovind in his video series and debates (before they locked him up, but that is another story). Although we call this section Hovindisms, these claims are also generally made by any young Earth Creationist.

This month, Kent's claim that the Big Bang Theory says that:

"There was nothing, nothing exploded and everything appeared"

This claim about the Big Bang Theory is so wrong, it's really painfull. First of all, the theory does not state that there was nothing. The theory states that there was infact, a singularity. Now, where this singularity came from, is outside the relms of this particular theory and is left for other theories such as 'M theory'. This theory only deals with the expansion of the already existing singularity.

And that's the second point, the theory does not state that nothing 'exploded', it states that a singularity 'expanded', there is a huge difference. Lets look at some definitians here:

Explosion: An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave. [1]

Expansion: to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of. [2]

From this, you can see that there are no simularities between the characteristics of an explosion and expansion. An explosion is a chemical reaction, requiring an environment to react with. An explosion will also give off gases and a shock wave. An expansion is simply an increase in the volume of the object, in this case a singularity.

I've heard creationists in the past, when backed into a corner, to say that 'well, a singularity is nothing', well, wrong. Time for another definitian:

Gravitational singularity, a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume. [3]

Now, you may look at that and say that something with zero volume is nothing, well, wrong. It is it's characteristic of having an infinate density that gives it it's zero volume. If something has infinate density, then it has a characteristic, it exists!

So there you go, a taster of how Kent Hovind warps true science. If you want to read further on the real Big Bang Theory, I suggest this article as a good starting point.