From the Australian TV show Compass, we have a documentary, "Atheism - An Australian Perspective".
They chose to talk with 'moderate' atheists and present a good, touchy-feely viewpoint. The atheists interviewed hint that religion is necessary for many people and we need to learn to all get along. I don't disagree with this view but I think it should have been said that people are free to have religion but they must recognize its place: keep it personal. The only truce I can see with religion is if the religious accept that they keep their religion applying only to themselves and not attempting to enforce it on others - which, of course, especially applies to the children of the religious!
From the Australian TV show Compass, we have a documentary, "Atheism - An Australian Perspective".
They chose to talk with 'moderate' atheists and present a good, touchy-feely viewpoint. The atheists interviewed hint that religion is necessary for many people and we need to learn to all get along. I don't disagree with this view but I think it should have been said that people are free to have religion but they must recognize its place: keep it personal. The only truce I can see with religion is if the religious accept that they keep their religion applying only to themselves and not attempting to enforce it on others - which, of course, especially applies to the children of the religious!
This is a funny 'debate' between the congregants of 'The Best Church of God' and Sunsara Taylor. I've never heard of Sunsara Taylor but if she's been on The O'Reilly Factor and he didn't like her, it's probably someone worth checking out!
For an amateur skit, I thought they did an excellent job. I especially liked the introduction of the first man, "he owns a hardware store, a gun and a woman!"
This is a funny 'debate' between the congregants of 'The Best Church of God' and Sunsara Taylor. I've never heard of Sunsara Taylor but if she's been on The O'Reilly Factor and he didn't like her, it's probably someone worth checking out!
For an amateur skit, I thought they did an excellent job. I especially liked the introduction of the first man, "he owns a hardware store, a gun and a woman!"
Venomfangx has just released a short video about death threats his family has received. His website has also gone down. He's blamed atheists for threats in the past so it's odd he's blaming Muslims this time. I don't remember him ever directly attacking Muslims in his videos:
As much as I'd like to see his videos and 'ministry' disappear (and maybe he get some mental help) I certainly couldn't support crazy death threats. But, it makes me wonder, why would Muslims pick on him? Is he trying to find someone to blame for his parents yanking the website? Always something weird going on with Venomfangx...
Venomfangx has just released a short video about death threats his family has received. His website has also gone down. He's blamed atheists for threats in the past so it's odd he's blaming Muslims this time. I don't remember him ever directly attacking Muslims in his videos:
As much as I'd like to see his videos and 'ministry' disappear (and maybe he get some mental help) I certainly couldn't support crazy death threats. But, it makes me wonder, why would Muslims pick on him? Is he trying to find someone to blame for his parents yanking the website? Always something weird going on with Venomfangx...
I haven't blogged in awhile (arguing with theists a lot on Facebook!) but here's an interview I found of Carl Sagan, on Charlie Rose TV, before he died:
I haven't blogged in awhile (arguing with theists a lot on Facebook!) but here's an interview I found of Carl Sagan, on Charlie Rose TV, before he died:
Frequently I run into people who say that "science doesn't know everything" or "there are many ways of knowing". This drives me crazy! Here we are living in an age of science and technology that is gathering knowledge at an exponential rate and yet, people want to turn their back on it and declare it to be wrong.
Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience TV show brought up an excellent point to remember when talking to people about this issue. Ask them:
"If you had a better way of acquiring knowledge and truth, how would you demonstrate it?"
Of course, the answer would be to use a scientific approach! In other words, we'd need to use science to prove a better method than science...
Matt also had another great example on the show. He told a caller to pick Heads or Tails. The caller said, "heads", Matt flipped the coin and it came up Heads. There is no way the caller could have known heads would come up but yet, they made a correct prediction - one could say the caller 'knew' it would be heads. However, what benefit is there to studying how the caller knew this? Did the caller 'know'? Did the caller have a currently unexplainable method of 'knowing' how the coin would land? Maybe, but in order to find out, we'd have to test his claims! In order for the caller's claims to knowledge to have any validity, the caller would have to demonstrate that they can predict the coin flip with a far higher frequency than chance on repeated trials. In other words, use the scientific method, to know.
Frequently I run into people who say that "science doesn't know everything" or "there are many ways of knowing". This drives me crazy! Here we are living in an age of science and technology that is gathering knowledge at an exponential rate and yet, people want to turn their back on it and declare it to be wrong.
Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience TV show brought up an excellent point to remember when talking to people about this issue. Ask them:
"If you had a better way of acquiring knowledge and truth, how would you demonstrate it?"
Of course, the answer would be to use a scientific approach! In other words, we'd need to use science to prove a better method than science...
Matt also had another great example on the show. He told a caller to pick Heads or Tails. The caller said, "heads", Matt flipped the coin and it came up Heads. There is no way the caller could have known heads would come up but yet, they made a correct prediction - one could say the caller 'knew' it would be heads. However, what benefit is there to studying how the caller knew this? Did the caller 'know'? Did the caller have a currently unexplainable method of 'knowing' how the coin would land? Maybe, but in order to find out, we'd have to test his claims! In order for the caller's claims to knowledge to have any validity, the caller would have to demonstrate that they can predict the coin flip with a far higher frequency than chance on repeated trials. In other words, use the scientific method, to know.
Slightly different thoughts today. I was reading about tidal and wave power and it looks like it could be a viable technology that could provide a significant (15%?) amount of power, clean power. But then I got to thinking...
One person talked about how mother nature is providing tidal power for free and we are just wasting it by not using it. But, what did they mean by that? How is tidal power being 'wasted'? In other words, if we aren't using the energy, where is it going?
If a tidal power generation operation were to take 50% of the energy from the tide, that means that 50% of the energy the tide used to provide is not being used naturally. So, if we take tidal energy, what effect does that have on nature?
Lots of questions.
My first thought is heat. Eventually, all energy is lost as heat. Therefore, current tidal energy must be being converted into heat. Is that heat warming the water? Will the removal of the tidal energy result in lower water temperatures thereby affecting life in the water? Tides also cause mechanical erosion so a reduction in tidal energy will slow erosion - that's probably a good thing but I'm not sure if erosion provides benefits to sealife in the form of releasing minerals?
I think back to when people would have looked at an untouched forest of trees and marvel at all the wood they could cut down and then eventually cut the whole forest. Or when the nearly inexhaustible supply of cod on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland let to the virtual destruction of it. By siphoning tidal power on a large scale, what effect will we have?
Opinions and links to resources would be appreciated!
Slightly different thoughts today. I was reading about tidal and wave power and it looks like it could be a viable technology that could provide a significant (15%?) amount of power, clean power. But then I got to thinking...
One person talked about how mother nature is providing tidal power for free and we are just wasting it by not using it. But, what did they mean by that? How is tidal power being 'wasted'? In other words, if we aren't using the energy, where is it going?
If a tidal power generation operation were to take 50% of the energy from the tide, that means that 50% of the energy the tide used to provide is not being used naturally. So, if we take tidal energy, what effect does that have on nature?
Lots of questions.
My first thought is heat. Eventually, all energy is lost as heat. Therefore, current tidal energy must be being converted into heat. Is that heat warming the water? Will the removal of the tidal energy result in lower water temperatures thereby affecting life in the water? Tides also cause mechanical erosion so a reduction in tidal energy will slow erosion - that's probably a good thing but I'm not sure if erosion provides benefits to sealife in the form of releasing minerals?
I think back to when people would have looked at an untouched forest of trees and marvel at all the wood they could cut down and then eventually cut the whole forest. Or when the nearly inexhaustible supply of cod on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland let to the virtual destruction of it. By siphoning tidal power on a large scale, what effect will we have?
Opinions and links to resources would be appreciated!
AND it came to pass that God had a son, but not really, so He made Mary pregnant with His son, but had an angel do the deed instead.
AND His son came to be a man but was really a God.
BUT, there is only one God so the Son is God and God is the Son but yet the Son is a man who is on earth and God is the Father who is in Heaven but also on the earth as a Son.
IT came to pass that the Son was tortured for the sins of mankind as a sacrifice to God, who really is the Son on earth and the God in the sky. Thus God as the Son was tortured to please God, who is also the Son, to please God, the Son.
THE Son was then crucified and sacrificed to God, but God is the Son and the Son, God, so God sacrificed Himself, to Himself as penance for the sins of mankind.
THE death of the Son pleased God (who is now the dead Son) so God, who is now dead, resurrected the Son, but really resurrecting Himself even though He is really dead and couldn't have resurrected Himself if He is dead.
AND so, the Son died, but not really since the Son came back to life and now lives in Heaven with God, who is really the Son, so God and the Son now both live in Heaven even though there is only one God that is actually two Gods living in the same body as God and Son and mankind is saved.
AND if you don't believe this story you go STRAIGHT TO HELL!
AND it came to pass that God had a son, but not really, so He made Mary pregnant with His son, but had an angel do the deed instead.
AND His son came to be a man but was really a God.
BUT, there is only one God so the Son is God and God is the Son but yet the Son is a man who is on earth and God is the Father who is in Heaven but also on the earth as a Son.
IT came to pass that the Son was tortured for the sins of mankind as a sacrifice to God, who really is the Son on earth and the God in the sky. Thus God as the Son was tortured to please God, who is also the Son, to please God, the Son.
THE Son was then crucified and sacrificed to God, but God is the Son and the Son, God, so God sacrificed Himself, to Himself as penance for the sins of mankind.
THE death of the Son pleased God (who is now the dead Son) so God, who is now dead, resurrected the Son, but really resurrecting Himself even though He is really dead and couldn't have resurrected Himself if He is dead.
AND so, the Son died, but not really since the Son came back to life and now lives in Heaven with God, who is really the Son, so God and the Son now both live in Heaven even though there is only one God that is actually two Gods living in the same body as God and Son and mankind is saved.
AND if you don't believe this story you go STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
