Author Archive for Arcanum

Reach for the Sky

I love cathedrals and Allegri Miserere. The videos are better viewed in HD.

1 HD



2 HD

… greatly exaggerated …


"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."


So said Mark Twain upon hearing of the reports of his own demise in the New York Journal.

Those who believe that the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch *, were written by Moses must not have noticed the following in Deuteronomy 34:


5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him [b] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.

And so it goes for another five verses. Are we to assume that, like Mark Twain, Moses would have said that reports of his death and burial (by who?) were greatly exaggerated after he laid down his quill after Deuteronomy 34:12?


12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

Rather arrogant of him, if so!

In fact, the consensus amongst unbiased biblical scholars is that the books attributed to Moses actually had 4 sets of authors, J, E, P, and D **. This interpretation of the evidence is know as the Documentary Hypothesis.

The central fact of these sources and editing remains the dominant model among critical scholars, though not among most fundamentalist or orthodox scholars, who remain committed to traditional beliefs.

The phrase "traditional beliefs" is a euphemism for stubbornly ignorant, in my opinion. It is no surprise that fundamentalist and orthodox scholars are in denial of any and all evidence that indicates that the Bible is an internally inconsistent, human invention.

* Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

** J and E in the flood story

Buried Secrets

Playlist: NOVA: The Bible’s Buried Secrets

Archaeology and the Hebrew Bible.



More: the PBS website has very interesting additional information on its website. This includes an illustrated timeline that places the program's rather erratic timeline into correct order.

Incredible Human Journey

Ancient tools.
A BBC documentary: The Incredible Human Journey.

This program shares elements of a program in which an American geneticist, Spenser Wells traces human migrations as revealed by the Y-chromosome.



Human migration routes beginning about 100,000 years ago, based on mitochondrial (yellow) and Y-chromosome (blue) DNA evidence.

Related: Innovation Linked to Human Migration Out of AfricaMassive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" TheorySkull Is First Fossil Proof of Human Migration Theory, Study Says (January 12, 2007)Massive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" Theory (February 21, 2008)Sex-Based Roles Gave Modern Humans an Edge, Study Says (December 7, 2006)The Genographic Project & Genographic AtlasHumans Migrated Out of Africa, Then Some Went Back, Study Says (December 14, 2006)

The Great Escapes

Deconversion:



More playlists about biblical errors and contradictions:
Bart Ehrman - 2007 lecture at Stanford
Misquoting Jesus - Edited Edition
>Transcription Errors in a Total Invention

holysinecure
Search for Truth about the Bible

More videos and playlists about deconversion
Another Great Escape : a series of videos by a Brit.
Dissonant Discomfort : a very good video that examines, within the framework of theoretical psychology, the emotional stages of deconversion.

Pulling the Rug …


... out from under theistic fallacies of imagination:




Who Invented the Bible?

This playlist includes 11 of 12 parts of a BBC program examining the authorship of the Bible. An academic theologian examines some of the evidence. The revelations are marred only by the fact that apologists are given the opportunity to rationalize the evidence away. Balanced reporting would have permitted atheists to point out the glaring errors in their denials and excuses.

Ah well, at least the program discusses the fact that the Bible is a flawed human invention! Archaeology falsifies the historicity of the OT. Biblical scholars agree that authorship is not as it is presented (except some Pauline letters and James). The program does briefly mention that the Gospels contradict one another.

Much about biblical errors was omitted — accidental and deliberate transcription inaccuracies, widespread contradictions, and additions to the Bible that were made as late as the early 17th century. That is without even mentioning the alternate versions of Christianity that were practically erased from history by the victorious version of biblical fiction.

However, the program only runs less than 2 hours, and a complete exposé of all the problems would probably take weeks.

Another Great Escape

Deconversion - deconverts



More deconversion playlists:
The Great Escapes

Videos about deconversion:
Dissonant Discomfort : a very good video that examines, within the framework of theoretical psychology, the emotional stages of deconversion.

Worse than reported?


I have posted very little on this blog recently because I, along with a great many people, spend time on the atheist-religionist battleground on YouTube.

Numerous studies demonstrate an inverse or negative correlation between religiosity and:
intelligence
educational level
education in science
liberal moral attitudes
acceptance of the fact of biological evolution

My observation of discussions between atheists and religionists on YT suggests that the inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity is considerably more pronounced than is reported*. That is, based on level of performance in discussions, creationists and religionists are collectively much less educated and logical than atheists. This observation could, of course, be skewed by the possibility that those who make religious videos, or who visit atheist and science videos in order to fight for religion and creationism, might not be a representative sample. Intelligent theists could be watching entirely different types of videos, or not bothering to engage in discussion.
* "Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind." ~ Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13
My recollection could be faulty, but a summary of these studies was once available on the internet. As I recall, most of those studies in Bell's meta-analysis were based on results for American college students. This would confine the results to that section of the population that is already intelligent enough to attend college^. This could blur the distinctions between the two populations, perhaps moreso because such a small percentage of the American population is atheistic. The pertinent question would be what proportion of theists versus atheists actually complete high school and attend college.

Obviously, the results could be skewed in an opposite direction to that reported by Bell — the differences might be less than reported. However, this possibility is confounded by the fact that scientists, particularly eminent scientists, are much more likely to be atheistic than religious.

"In 1998, most members of the National Academy of Sciences rejected the notion of God, with the highest rate of disbelief noted amongst biological scientists." Table. ~ Larson, Edward J.; Larry Witham (1998). "Leading scientists still reject God". Nature 394 (6691): 313. Available at StephenJayGould.org, Stephen Jay Gould archive.
None of this should be taken as denial of the undoubted fact that many theists are intelligent, or that some atheists are unintelligent and/or poorly educated. Instead, the populations overlap in both level of education and native abilities.

Fundamentalist Christian families in the US take pains to ensure that their children are indoctrinated into literalist beliefs. Mainstream Christian families encourage indoctrination into more moderate beliefs. Both sets of "converts" necessarily include intelligent children.

However, intelligent, rational indoctrinees seem to be the more likely to deconvert. My impression is that fundamentalism loses more indoctrinees than mainstream religion, but this might be a false impression that results from the resentment towards religion that many fundamentalist escapees feel. Deconversion can be very painful and protracted for fundamentalists, and can result in alienation from family and friends. Resentment and a desire to help others through deconversion is understandable.


^ For comparision: sometime in the 80s, it was reported that the average IQ of college graduates was 110, whereas the average IQ of graduates of Harvard Medical School was 135.

Fistians and Fuzzy Illogic

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.


: Social bookmark this page :
..

Taking the Ricky

Creationism with Ricky Gervais

Creationist Dictionary for Dummies


Excerpts from the definitive Creationist Dictionary for Dummies:

Apologetics

: concocting fancy excuses for the reality that there is no evidence for any deities.

Belief: mental state that is equivalent to knowledge if 1. the Bible says it's TRUE, 2. enough fellow believers agree that it is true.

Cognitive Dissonance

: an uncomfortable feeling that arises when creationists are faced with facts and logic; a feeling that elicits classic creationist coping strategies.

Coping Strategy (Creationism)

: see entries for crealogic, creation science, critical thinking, education, evidence, PROOF, theory, or invent your own.

Crealogical

: see entry for Logic (Creationism)

Creation science

: science fiction for those who literally swallow godidit myths

Critical thinking

: negative thoughts about any unwelcome idea

Education

: anything regurgiquoted from AiG or a similar website

Educational Qualifications (Creationism)

: anything that can be purchased online, or claimed to have been attained, without a requirement for learning (similar items can be purchased by online ministers).

Educational Qualifications (Science)

: something to be approached with derision or incredulity.

Evidence (Creationism)

: anything taken, or invented, to supports one's favourite belief.

Evidence (Science)

: something that must be denied, derided, or twisted to creationist purposes.

Faith: creationism must be RIGHT because lots of fools believe in it.

Falsification: 1. declaring ad nauseam that unwelcome facts are WRONG, 2. inventing misinformation for the sake of making an illogical argument against a scientist, evolutionist, or atheist, 3. Lie-orama.

Godidit (also Goddidit)

: of course He did!

Knowledge: any strongly held belief, regardless of intrinsic truth value.

Lie-Orama: expensive falsifications that depict dinosaurs cavorting with humans.

Logic

: 1. quoting cherry-picked scriptures, 2. regurgiquoting misinformation, 3. resorting to fallacies of logic, particularly in emotional arguments.

Logical argument (Creationism)

: using creationist logic (aka crealogic) and making irrelevant, negative remarks about the holder of any unwelcome idea.

Logical argument (atheism, science)

: dangerous, faith-testing arguments from generally better-educated evolutionists, scientists, and atheists.

PROOF

: declaration that CREATIONISM IS RIGHT and GOD EXISTS.

Refutation of creationism

: something that must be ignored, or denied, at all costs.

Theory

: the latest desperate creationist invention that is intended to deny reality.

© Creations for Literalists


Unpaid Advertisement: see our new apologetics publication Applied Fallacies of Logic, the definitive aid for those occasions when trolling, false flagging, and votebotting are just not enough.

Another Unpaid Advertisement: MacLiar's Guide to Disreputable Colleges and Universities, the definitive guide to unaccredited purveyors of false qualifications or should-not-be-accredited religion-affiliated institutions of lower learning.

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

_____________________
There are so many falsehoods in creationism that AronRa speaks very, very quickly. Not a dull moment.



My God, creationists are STUPID

God of the Gaps pens Misleading Pseudoscience for Dummies, an allegorical text that scores Z- in science.
(Blasphemy is a victimless "crime". Besides, I enjoy it!)

I mean it. Creationist are not only ignorant, but they are arrogant about it. I say this because they flaunt their ignorance and crow about their deluded, uninformed beliefs as though this is a cause of pride. To assume that one knows more than the experts is arrogance in my book.

Ooops, I'm forgetting that the Bible is the supreme science textbook. Never mind that its metaphysics has been soundly and repeatedly falsified.

I shall be eternally [joking] grateful to Bishop Ussher for providing a falsifiable date for the biblical "age" of the Earth, and by extension of the universe.

Creationists either lie or propagate falsehoods told by other creationists. They either do not know the facts or they deny them. They are not only illogical, but they often contradict themselves within a few sentences. If their pronouncements are challenged, they invent "information". Again, frequently contradicting what they said prior to the challenge.

They do all of this within the context of poor grammar, and bad spelling. Not to mention CAPS, which make them RIGHT.

Here's a fool ranting about the universe. I particularly enjoyed this one because of the hilarious malapropism. The fool can't even accurately name what he is denying.




"They are starting to piss me off,they earth is not billions or millions of years old.They have no proof that the big band theory is true,but they teach it like it really happened."

(That's fair. Creationists piss me off. Have done for a long time.)

Um, it's the Big Bang, not a mega-orchestra.

Yes, the Earth is about 4.7 billion years old (judging by meteorites). The oldest known rocks are over 4 billion years old.

No, radioactive decay does not lie, and no, geologists do not use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the Earth. (Our planet is far too old for this method to be applicable.)

Um, scientific hypotheses attempt to best explain observable facts. If hypotheses survive falsification, they graduate to being termed theories. This means that scientific theories follow upon something that actually happened.

What more could one expect from someone who equates the rapid inflation of spacetime to a very large collection of brass, wood, strings, and hot air? Or did he mean a huge collection of guitarists accompanied by drummers and amplified to deafening levels? Hence the bang? Either way, I'm willing to bet that he'd also deny cosmic microwave background radiation, even though he's undoubtedly heard that.



.

Tick Tock

Permit the components of clocks to mutate and undergo natural selection, and what do you get? Experimental refutation of the jumbo-mumbo argument for intelligent design creationism.



YouTube.

Articles : eSkeptic Michael Shermer Not Intelligent, Surely Not Science David Brin The Other Intelligent Design Theories: Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution Robert Camp Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way that SETI is? Tom McIver Who Designed That? Creationism v. Intelligent Design Bruce Grant Intentional Deception: Intelligent Design Creationism Burt Humburg & Ed Brayton Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District Reading Room Intelligent Design & Creationism


Blogs: Greta Christina The Blind Watchmaker Makes a Watch: A Nifty Video About Evolution : No More Mr. Nice Guy! The watchmaker is blind, and the cretinist emperor is naked : Pharyngula How to evolve a watch : Tangled Up in Blue Guy Debunking the “Watch in a Box” Strawman : BlogCadre How to evolve a watch : cartoon The Watchmaker

Behe Retreats

Michael J. Behe, populariser of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo for credulous creationists.The sole contribution of intelligent [sick] design creationism advocate, biochemist Michael Behe comprises the scientifically refuted notion that a multicomponent functional system could not have arisen by "Darwinian" evolution.

In essence, Behe argued that because removal of any component would render the system non-functional, such a system could not be produced by continuously improving the initial function (which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system (p.39 of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution).

Behe's books, of course, appeal to those who know very little science and who are passionately committed to belief in special creation, particularly the disguised creationism passed off as "intelligent design theory". In the July 1 New York Times, evolutionist and atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins reviews Michael Behe’s new book, The Edge of Evolution. Dawkins points out that Behe has been forced to retreat from insistence upon "irreducible complexity" to further bad science and inaccuracies. He refers to Jerry Coyne's more detailed critique of the scientific distortions that Behe has resorted to in his desperation.

Michael Behe's illogical arguments for intelligent [sick] design theory are such an embarrassment that Lehigh University has placed a disclaimer on their Department of Biological Sciences website:

"The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

One can only imagine that if Behe had not already had tenure when he began publishing religious pseudoscience, then the university would have sent him packing to knock on the doors of that infamous junk tank, the misnamed Discovery Institute.

In The New Republic, Professor Jerry Coyne has published a good critique of Behe's retreat from disproven "irreducible complexity" into attributing mutations to God's intervention. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism is Behe's feeble attempt to conjure up creationist pseudoscience for credulous dummies.

Sites Elsewhere : Panda's Thumb An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe, An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe (Part 2) ERV Michael Behe, please allow me to introduce myself..., Hello again, Michael Behe! Science After Sunclipse Chu-Carroll on Behe’s The Edge of Evolution