Teenage Atheist

An exuent.

2011-08-30T15:40:00.000+01:00

As you may or may not have noticed, I have been more or less absent from the blog for the past few months. I apologise if I left anyone hanging for a post or response, I have been enjoying my final few months of peace before my return to school. As it happens, I am also heading into an aggravatingly important academic year which will be deciding my college and course placement. Because of this, I am regretful to admit that this means that my absence will only continue.

My ethos for the year is simple: work hard, play hard, and I plan to stick to it. Unfortunately, even though I thoroughly enjoy blogging, it falls under neither heading and so you won't be seeing much of me for a number of months. I must give priority to school and, of course, I must have some form of escapism (outside of writing/blogging), hence the 'play hard' addendum.

I do, however, plan to return. Whether it be under this alias or another, I will be blogging again at a later date. I guess I just enjoy it too much. I've put too much effort into this blog to take it down, so don't forget to browse the archives!

So, before I impart, farewell for now readers! Stay sound, reasonable and happy! Take pride in your atheism and spread ripples of logic where ever you can.

Peace out!

What happens when faith overvalues evidence...

2011-07-05T16:08:00.000+01:00

I came across this randomly the other day. It's a quirky and comical way of demonstrating the fallacy of faith so I figured I'd share. I don't know who the author is so I can't credit, but enjoy it anyway.

Why we bother... Guest Post

2011-06-25T12:05:00.000+01:00

Here's a wonderful guest post written by Isaac Wolfe from the Sexy Atheist. Enjoy!
___

It was Christmas night, 2009, when I finally decided that my threshold for bullshit had gotten clogged, and so help me I would clean it out with my bare hands.

I laid in my sister’s bed – the only bed in the house – underneath three duvets, as my sister couldn’t afford to heat the house much above 50°, the absolute minimum. From the living room, I could hear the sobs of my sister (who slept on the couch) as well – she had received a very offensive gift from our father. Tears slid down my face, and I absolutely wept, feeling that I was responsible for the whole predicament. Actually, I kind of was.

What the hell, world.

After a long, harrowing spiral, I had finally crashed with a bang on the floor of a bottomless pit. Months ago, I had lived in a fancy, middle class house with my father, complete with a plasma TV, a grand piano, and a mother-fucking chandelier. Now I lived in a three room apartment with my sister – a bedroom, a bathroom, and a living room / kitchen. We’ve subsided on rice, ramen noodles, and extremely salty canned food. Exclusively.

I was scared shitless about the future. So, I did something very instinctual, and, well, rather hypocritical.

Prayed.

That’s right, I, Isaac Wolfe, atheist and sexy teen extraordinaire, prayed. It was a funny sight, really. Wearing nothing more than my boxers, I was just a curled-up lump on a mattress. Enjoy:

I’m pretty sure you don’t exist, but hey, there’s no harm trying, right? It’s me. Yeah, that kid who got caught skinny dipping in the creek that one time – but seriously, you don’t expect families to have picnics that far upstream! But, that’s besides the point.

The reason I’m here tonight, is, well, because I’m kind of in a predicament right now. A suckish one. I've heard you're omnipotent and all, so I suppose you know the details. Wanna, uh, help me out? If it's no trouble?

Um. Thanks.

Bye.

…Are you still there? I said bye. Get off the line.

///

So how did I end up in this sticky situation? Well, let’s start at the beginning.

For most of my life, I lived with my mother. We loved each other, absolutely and irrevocably. So, when an opportunity came up in Florida, which involved a lifestyle she had always dreamed of but didn’t include me, I severed ties with her in the only way that would work: telling her that I couldn’t stand living with her, that I was moving to my father’s house and she was leaving to Florida, that’s that. I followed through, and so did she.

Unfortunately, there was a problem. My father was – is – a fundamentalist, conservative Christian with anger problems to match. That was all fine and dandy at the time – my mom was a casual Catholic, and I supposed that I loosely believed in God as well, so it wasn’t too different. The only contrasting thing was that now I had to go to church every Sunday, instead perhaps a couple time a year. That was fine with me – Christianity was fascinating, especially the reactions it invoked. I was content for a time, and so was my father.

Until I figured out that my attraction to other men wasn’t just a phase.

Until, at the local library, I picked up a book called The God Delusion in passive interest.

Until my father, after installing spyware on my laptop, found out what these two things had resulted in.

And that was that. After enduring screaming and threats, a forced encounter with a ‘re-orientation therapist’ who tried to tell me that my sexuality was to be feared and hated, and finally a physical encounter, I was out on the cold October streets, with nothing more than a duffel bag full of clothes and a backpack full of textbooks.

I had basically nowhere to go – my mom was essentially excised from my life, and telling any of my friends about the whole ordeal would likely culminate with an investigation by child services, destroying any chance of me seeing my father again. However, in a burst of intuition, I walked to a café on the other side of town, where I waited for my sister to arrive at her shift. Without even requiring an explanation, she took me in.

We survived, barely, my sister working overtime, paying not for only one mouth but two. In school, contrary to intuitive thought, my grades skyrocketed as I put on a fake cheerful mien to erase any suspicion that something in my home life was awry.

Which, eventually, brings us back to Christmas night, and my adventure praying to a non-existent sugar daddy. Gift-wise, that night, I received a journal and some shabby books of my sister’s that I could have borrowed any time I wanted. My sister, from our father, received a five dollar bill taped to a piece of paper that condemned her for harboring me and told her that she was going to Hell.

As you may have guessed, after my plea for help, I waited.

And I waited.

And you know what happened, babycakes? Absolutely nothing.

So, after crying some more and waiting for my sister’s sobs to turn into snores, I put on some clothes and walked across town to my father’s house, where I snuck in through the window (unlocked, just as I had left it) and took the laptop from my room (which I had left there, for some stupid reason). And then, when I got back to my sister’s apartment, I opened the laptop, connected to the Wi-Fi of the nearby McDonalds, and sent off about ten e–mails to the first businesses I had come across online, telling them that their websites were dull and that I wanted to rewrite them for a small price.

None of them responded. Except for one.

Within a week, I was two-hundred dollars richer. I surprised my sister by whisking her out to a fancy Italian restaurant, and telling her to order anything her little heart desired, except for the mushroom raviolis because god, seriously, they’re disgusting. And then from there, everything got awesome. Web copywriting became an actual source of income, and my sister and I stopped living like weird Asian hobos.

Now, you’re probably wondering: what the hell is the moral of this story?

A while ago, I received an e-mail from a man, who compared me to an odd bunny rabbit that liked to jump up and down and point out that the tooth fairy wasn’t real. I’m an atheist too, he wrote, but I don’t understand why you’re trying to take away religion from people. It might not be your cup of tea, but why try to get rid of it for the people it means something to?

That’s where my story comes in handy. We atheist bloggers are not trying to exterminate religion as a whole (usually), we’re trying to exterminate the kind that causes people to attack their children, the kind that makes people fly themselves into the side of buildings. Are you a liberal Christian who can differentiate between what’s obviously a reflection of the social times in the Bible and what’s the core message? Awesome, you rock, join the party.

People like Raithie and I aren’t trying to be some big meanies taking away some precious part of your life. We’re just trying to prevent sob stories like this, by giving people the ammunition and awareness to determine their beliefs with, or if necessary, fight with.

The fact of the matter is that there are many kids in the situations similar to that I described, and the fact of the matter is that they probably aren’t as bad ass as me and they won’t find a way to fix it.

And, as sad as it is, at the end of the day, some god will not come down and fix their lives for them.

Exams be calling

2011-05-17T22:22:00.000+01:00

It's that time of the year again.

So the reason for my inactivity lately isn't because I've grown lazy or disinterested in the blog; it's those damn exams. Ick. They'll be over within two weeks, however, so I hope to return to my regular posting schedule afterwards.

I realise my posting schedule has been quite choppy recently, and for that, I apologise.

However, I will be back soon!

Ciao.

A question for theists

2011-05-07T22:51:00.000+01:00

If no god existed, would you still want to believe in one?

The most interesting question still remains to be "if you're parents were Hindus instead of Christians, would you still be a Christian?" (presuming it is a Christian who is answering).

However, the former is still an interesting musing, methinks. Willful delusion certainly gets you out of the nasties and I think it could be revelatory of one of the motivations behind belief, of course, assuming the answerer is honest with themselves. Regardless, I think it's a worthwhile pondering and I'd be interested to hear a theists point of view on such a question.

Is trusting a scientist an act of faith?

2011-04-26T14:52:00.000+01:00

An interesting comment came up on one of my posts recently. I figured it would be more appropriate to address it as a post as opposed to it getting lost in the comments section given the regularity I hear such a remark.

"Let's be real. You are proud that you "don't believe". However, if you are 17 years old as you say you are, you have not had the time to develop the scientific skills to prove what you claim to believe about evolution (as a source of life, the universe, and everything). Nor have you had the time to objectively examine the possibility of the existence of God or gods. You are exercising the same amount of faith as a devoutly religious person. So instead of saying that you don’t believe in God/gods, you would be more accurate to say that science is your god, seeing that you have chosen to blindly believe what scientist (or school teachers) have said. You have accepted the “findings” of others without applying the discipline to objectively search out the matter for yourself."

I'll deal with the first paragraph for now.

"Nor have you had the time to objectively examine the possibility of the existence of God or gods. You are exercising the same amount of faith as a devoutly religious person."

Objectively examine? I don't see any evidence and I have most certainly looked. If you can supply me with substantiated and incontrovertible evidence, I will most gladly accept the existence of your particular god. As for the semantic arguments for deities, I find none of them in any way compelling and most can and have, in fact, be quite easily refuted.

My apprehension to believe without evidence or reason to is not an act of faith. It is simply me not being selective as what I apply my skepticism to. My unbelief in pixies, for instance, is not a faith based position. I will remain skeptical of their existence until you can successfully persuade me that they do indeed exist. I await evidence.

"you would be more accurate to say that science is your god, seeing that you have chosen to blindly believe what scientist (or school teachers) have said. You have accepted the “findings” of others without applying the discipline to objectively search out the matter for yourself."

Now that's quite presumptuous.

Firstly, I follow logic and reason. I look at what's presented to me and base my understanding on the proof and sensicality of the material that I am presented with. Science is certainly not my "god".

Secondly, I don't need to have a life experience to be reasonable or logical. Logic is not dependent on age, and my age has nothing to do with it.

Thirdly, nobody trusts individual scientists. Scientists are people, and people are all-too commonly subject to bias and error. However, science as a process is a different thing altogether. It is based upon contemporary and critical peer review of each and every scientists findings. Because of the competition involved between these individuals, all trying to scrutinise and disprove another's hypothesis whilst validating their own, the truth emerges.

If someone was able to completely annihilate the theory of evolution with a revolutionary idea that was corroborated by substantial evidence, it would enter the cold and calculating process of peer review. If it survived this overwhelmingly rigourous and wonderfully critical (and also, unending) process, it would then be accepted as a valid hypothesis and researchers would proceed to integrate the old knowledge with the new data. It's a refreshingly self-corrective process.

Due to the exacting nature of the scientific method and the ruthless and uncompromising procedure of peer review, truth is able to seep through the cracks of human error and vested interests.

I trust this method and it proves itself everyday.

Faith has nothing to do with it.

The Problem of Evil and the Free Will predicament

2011-04-15T21:47:00.000+01:00

Aside from the blinding lack of evidence within any and every assertion inducing the supernatural, the problem of evil and suffering is one of the most pronounced stumbling block for most religions. Trying to reconcile the flaws of this world with a supposedly benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being serves to be a profoundly difficult conundrum for theists to satisfactorily resolve.

Of course, Epicurus realised this over 2000 years ago, and expressed it more than sufficiently, too:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

As a quick addendum to the above argument, here's a piece from a wikipedia article concerning the problem of evil:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

The typical theist response usually goes along the lines of free will. For instance, if a god were to remove our capacity for committing evil (or just evil in general) it would thus inhibit our ability to choose to do good, ergo no true free will.

However, I have a number of objections to this.

Firstly, and most importantly, there is no evil in natural suffering, unless of course someone enabled it to happen. If a rockslide crushes a town or a tornado demolishes a living area, there was never any malevolent intention for it to happen. There was no devising or scheming on natures part, there was no underlying motive and there were no decisions made for it to occur. It just happened. Without deliberation. Without purpose.

As you should see, it has nothing to do with free will. It is an entirely unintentional event. It is also entirely preventable and with zero impact on free will. Yet rock slides and other natural disasters occur every day. Why? Does god enjoy watching his lego blocks crumble? Does he not consider it unjust that he is allowing millions to suffer from excruciating agonies and to die mercilessly and unnecessarily because he is, for whatever reason, unwilling to give us a world that doesn't spontaneously erupt every so often? Where is the benevolence in enabling such unnecessary misery?

There is none. If God could prevent such atrocities, and if he doesn't, he is accountable for his inaction which results in the deaths of billions. He is responsible. Designing a world susceptible to such disasters and then inflicting their influence upon his creations by allowing them to happen does not fit well on the resume of an all loving entity.

There are many more questions I could ask. None of which can be thoroughly resolved unless adopting the perspective that there is in fact no god to allow for this to happen in the first place. Well, either that or gods a royal prick.

Secondly, not intervening when someone is suffering from the evil of another individual because you're concerned about their "free will" is not an admirable characteristic. Allowing a child to be abused for the sake of the abusers freedom to do so is NOT acceptable. It is NOT benevolent. It is NOT the right thing to do. I really can't stress that enough.

If I knew of a child that was being physically and sexually abused, would you consider me a good person if my excuse for refusing to take action was: "oh, well I didn't want to take away the free will of the parents, you see. Forcing them to succumb to the law would turn them into robots without any choice of their own. It's better if they choose to do the right thing on their own."? No. Of course you wouldn't. You would cast me, and rightly so, as a despicable person who is just as malignant and pathetic as the parents abusing their child.

Yet, this is not how people view gods position on the issue. People disregard the rights and free will of the actual child being abused in favour of the free will of the abuser by defending this "free will" stance. I sincerely object to this. I find it abhorrent.

Thirdly, is god omniscient and omnipotent? Is it then not reasonable to assume that an all knowing, all powerful individual would be able to create a perfectly harmonised and peaceful world without affecting free will? If not, you'll have to redefine the terms of his omniscience and omnipotence. They seem to be limited.

Lastly, you cannot absolve the creator of responsibility if the creation succumbs to the nature that was originally instilled by the creator. If someone programs a computer to design and propagate viruses and malware, you blame the programmer, not the program. As Lawrence Louis of American Atheists says; "If the creation (i.e human beings) transgresses law established by the creator, it is due to the weakness that was instilled in the creation by the creator. Adam and Eve would not be weak enough to succumb to the temptation of the serpent unless they were created weak."
___

If such a being exists, it is not worthy of praise or rituals. A being who sets up his faulty creations for such horrific suffering and then using this as a basis of judgement is nothing but an over powerful, malicious tyrant. I will not bow to anyone that willingly allows what I see in this world daily to happen. Such a being deserves nothing.

It's time to stop the pretence

2011-04-01T20:11:00.000+01:00

I haven't had time to put together a blog post, so instead, I humbly offer up this essay I wrote last year. If you find it waffly at times, I had a page limit to reach and a designated title to stick to...

Given title: "Let's stop all this pretence! Let's tell each other the unvarnished truth for a change!"

Little white lies are everywhere. They're so darn tempting that we can't help but incessantly fall prey to their irresistible allure. We never tell Mary that her dress is actually hideous for instance, or that it was her that was completely out of line last weekend. No, instead we choose to coat the truth in a thick lathering of misinformation and deliberate omission; crafting a rich broth of blatant and bubbling mis truths. This is done usually out of a desire to prevent offence and to conform to an imposed societal etiquette; but it's also of vital necessity for a general social cohesion.

Humans are communal creatures. Our durability as a species is a result of us living as a collective unit. It is therefore essential to suppress the volatility that would undoubtedly erupt if humans were to express all of our basal and abrasive ponderings to others. So, it's understandable that evolution would endow us with a sufficient sensitivity to cautiously tread around peoples egos and to comfort them through the flimsy guise of falsehood. However, this inherent and ingrained sense of responsibility to console others by means of deliberate misrepresentation seems to have evolved to an extent that we persistently lie to even ourselves. The most dominant being the pretence of religion.

Humanities most valuable asset is the mind: its capacity and enigma is astounding. Our lumps of grey matter, safely encased within our cranium, allow us to experience overwhelming emotion and curiousity, to cultivate novel and vastly complex ideas, to innovate, to advance and to understand. It also deems us worthy to gift us with one of the most powerful and cutting instruments in our mental toolkit: logic. People use and appreciate the effects if this immaterial implement every single day. Its influence stretches from deciding upon the best way to organise the teacups in your dishwasher to sending astronauts to the faraway reaches of the cosmos. It demands reasoning and evidential support, and because of this, it works. It is the basis of civilisation and it allows the world as we know it to be.

Yet, somehow, as soon as religion and mortality are considered, all requirements of logic and standard reasoning go out the window. People immediately discard all semblance of skepticism and rationality when it comes to their own particular brand of fairytale, it seems. Tell someone that an invisible, flying and undetectable squirrel follows you around all day and you'll be met with nothing but ridicule. They'll rightfully demand substantiated proof, and until you comply with sufficient corroboration, they will inevitably continue to laugh and jeer. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", they'll proudly recite, and then by the next breath, blindly profess their legalistic loyalty to the one tiny, and just as unfounded, segment of Christianity that they happen to subscribe to by pure chance of birth. It's a dumbfounding contradiction.

So, then why are these fundamental axioms so readily dismissed once religion becomes involved? Why can't we accept the ugly and unvarnished truth, in exchange for a glimpse at the thrilling rawness of reality? To me, the answer is simple. Religion stems from a very primal and influential fear. When brooding over our own mortal predicament, rationalities answer - that your essence fades alongside your palpable self - becomes disconcertingly unappealing. No one wants to hear of dissolving into nothingness. No one wants a void of unending vacuity. This answer, this blunt reality, however unlovely and unromantic, is all logic has to offer on the subject. So people reject this utterly distasteful notion, and instead, allow their own revulsion over the prospect to fully justify its impossibility without indulging in any of the typical routines of reason. Fueled by our own intrinsic abhorrence over our all too delicate existence, we desperately cling to the soothing and whimsical fantasies religion has to offer.
Simply put, we lie to ourselves in order to glaze and soften a profoundly unpleasant reality.

However appealing and fanciful this sugar-coated notion may be, it's nothing but a child-like pretence, and frankly, the world deserves better. Is it not enough that we, such a select few and despite such astronomical odds, are the ones who get to appreciate the monumental privilege that it is to simply be? How presumptuous must one be to demand or assume eternity, when so many get only nothingness? This thought obviously isn't of concern for some. Yet there's a definite value, as well as a liberating honesty, in settling with this far from fantastical truth. Realising the fleeting and fragile nature of our glimpse at life, is the only way to truly understand its rarity and significance. Its constantly lingering presence may cast an unwelcome shadow at times, but it's a stark and much needed reminder to truly value our brief witness to the cosmos.

Its time to stop the pretence.

Thanking God... a dark satire.

2011-03-20T18:10:00.000Z

So I decided to joyously compile a list of well deserved thanks to this oh-so wonderful and all-embracing Man in the Sky. It's important to acknowledge where credit is due, you see.

Thanks for creating me an atheist with evidential standards for belief, not complying to them and then expecting me not to be one. My existence has revolted your followers for thousands of years and they have of course acted in accordance with this divinely endorsed revulsion. It sure hurt a lot, but thanks for the recognition!

Thanks for all the stories of death and torture and bigotry as supplied by your lovely book. All of those threats of a fiery Hell, genocidal purges, misogyny and homophobia provided me with some excellent light reading. Pity you didn't know that your followers would take your divine words to heart. Or did you, with all that omniscience and stuffs? Oh well, thanks anyway!

Thanks for all those misogynistic laws, too, like ordering women to keep silent, understand our unworthiness and to just be generally submissive so that we can be abused without kicking up a fuss. Without all that heavenly designated sexism, us women might have actually thought that we were equal to our male superiors. What a horrifying thought.

I heard that over 99.8% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. I get bored easily, so thanks for maintaining such a nice variety, even if it is through ruthless and entirely unnecessary destruction and death. I never liked those dinosaurs, anyway. We're way prettier!

Regarding all those terrible tornadoes and earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanoes and asteroids and blizzards and avalanches and famines and droughts and landslides and all those other terrifying natural disasters, well... by your standards, they all seem pretty preventable to me... seems like an awful waste of life... but what do I know? My distaste for human suffering is obviously just ignorant. And I do admire how you express your love so mysteriously and with such a relentless creativity! I am humbled - thanks!

Thanks for encouraging blind and unquestioned faith in replace of human reason. It's so much easier just to let you do the thinking for us. We don't need silly things like space ships or human rights or cancer cures, anyway! We have you and your commandments!

Sometimes I don't always understand why you permit, much less create, diseases and the like, mainly due to all the unnecessary misery and despair. But then I remember, you're just testing us all! Thanks for the thought!

Sometimes, I also don't understand why you neglect 3/4 of the population. But then I realise that I couldn't fully appreciate my own situation without a suitable contrast. Seeing all the needless death and destruction happening elsewhere is obviously your plan to make me realise how lucky I am. I feel kind of bad for the others, but thanks for keeping me safe... instead of millions of others... I guess?

And lastly, before I go, thanks for putting such nice little stories about creation in your book, by the way. Genesis is just so much easier to grasp than stupid things like evolution. Those dumb scientists need to realise that there's more to life than "evidence", jeez. We have your book, after all!

Thanks!

For all the crazies out there, this is a satire. And no, I'm not trying to be rude. Next time you thank your God, think of all the people that aren't thanking him and their reasons as to why they are not. Selective intervention does NOT equate to omni benevolence. Thanking God for the success of your trivial pursuits whilst ignoring all of the horrors others are forced to endure, is just insulting. If you're going to "thank him", don't forget those that can't.

Science saved my soul

2011-03-16T18:01:00.000Z

I realise that I had another video post not long ago, but I came across this gem and felt that I would be selfish if I didn't share it. You may have already seen it already, but regardless, enjoy it.

Off skiing again... sorry!

2011-03-04T20:44:00.000Z

Well, as it turns out I'm off skiing again on Saturday, folks. So yay for me, but not so much yay for the blog. What with packing and finishing off some homework, I won't be able to get a post up this weekend, with the possibility of missing one next week too, but I will certainly try.

So, I'll get back to you all soon. Don't forget about me!

Oh, and while I'm gone, admire this photo from last year and be jealous. Alternatively, just get lost in the below .gif. I swear that I've lost countless hours gazing into its cuteness.

Farewell, for now!

Celebrating religious holidays without religion.

2011-02-27T17:47:00.000Z

What is your opinion on "secular religion", such as secular judaism or atheistic paganism, where people reject a religions supernatural claims but celebrate its holidays and rituals?

I was asked this on my Formspring recently.

I celebrate Christmas: I love the season. It's a perfect mid-winter festival; an excuse to celebrate & create some memories. It's purely a secular holiday for me.

Participating in such "religious" holidays or rituals can be enjoyable, therapeutic and of course; secular. It's a wonderful opportunity for some celebration and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

Someone (gordongoblin) responded with a nice insight in the comments to my recent Christmas post:

"I disagree that Christmas is religious any more than Thursday is. It is a linguistic remnant that the name of a god is wedged into the name, nothing more. Christmas belongs to everyone now, just like Thursday does."

I think that sums up everything there is to say quite succinctly. So what do YOU celebrate that has its origins or is typically associated with religion? I'm curious.

.

A poetic demolition

2011-02-21T22:30:00.000Z

A friend showed this to me recently, and despite my initial apprehension, I was quite impressed.

For those that haven't seen it, skip to 2:06 or 2:39 to get the ball rolling. Keep watching, it's actually done quite well.

Enjoy.

The Dictionary Atheist scuffle

2011-02-11T19:15:00.000Z

There has been a flurry of excitement and discussion within the atheist community lately regarding one of PZ Myers recent blog posts where he professes his hatred towards "dictionary atheists", ie, those that, according to Myers, announce that:

"Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term."

I figured I'd go ahead and voice my response for the funsies, even though I am a bit late on the taking. Oops on my part. Anyway, here goes.

For starters, lets examine the actual definition of atheism. I'll take the standard: "the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

If you meet this criteria, you're an atheist. Period. Anything else is additional. Let's continue.

"As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else"

To the individual, this is entirely correct. My atheism isn't simply a definition, but a part of my identity. I associate my atheism with a myriad of my own personal values and life experiences. It must have connections to other aspects of my being in order for the doubt to seed and enable me to reach its conclusion, and so it is definitely more than a singular "platonic ideal" floating around within my psyche. But, my own route and interpretation of atheism is frankly, irrelevant. It doesn't affect the meaning of the term atheism, at all. My "version" is not applicable to all people that lack a belief in deities, which is essentially the only thing that atheism itself entails. It isn't compatible with the collective, and can thus quickly be considered irrelevant.

"If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing."

Agreed. I don't understand why or know of anyone who would respond with a dictionary in that scenario, but I get the point he's making. I have explanations and reasoning for my atheism and it is hence more than mere unbelief, which is all there is to the definition. Yet once again, my reasoning is not universal.
If someone asks of my position regarding deities and religions, describing myself as an atheist perfectly suffices the question. If they request further elaboration regarding my motivation or logic behind my stance, I will comply with much more than the standard definition. When I do this, however, I have left the confines of atheism, which is but a particular branch of my worldview, and am now indulging in other areas of this view that contributed to my atheism but are not indicative of it.

As Myers later acknowledges, atheism is simply a consequence of a worldview. It is not the root of it. Any paths and attitudes adopted to attain this outcome are merely contributory: they are not necessarily values of atheism.

"My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values."

People become atheists because of certain values, but these values don't necessitate atheism. Following this, it doesn't make sense to try to conflate them with atheism itself. Regarding the second sentence, I have to agree with vjack of Atheist Revolution: "Nobody is claiming that the atheist movement is nothing more than people who lack theistic belief. Nobody. But the atheist movement is about a hell of a lot more than just atheism! Atheism (i.e., the lack of belief in gods) is not by itself bringing people to conferences to hear PZ speak, to donate money to political causes, or to join freethought organizations. We come together because we give a damn about social justice, separation of church and state, civil rights, etc. And yet, none of this is part of the definition of atheism."

Myers later clarifies his position in a follow up post:

"I'm not redefining atheism, nor am I declaring the dictionary wrong: I'm saying it is insufficient. Also, no one is a Dictionary Atheist, and the folly lies in pretending that you are one... Everyone who is an atheist is so because of other, prior ideas."

Once again, I'm in agreement with this. Yet, I don't know of anyone who would consider a one line definition a sufficientl summary of their atheism. Obviously, it is derived from a rich tapestry of prior ideas and often means far more than any single sentence could evince. But, these are individual and separate concepts. "Dictionary atheism" is not the extent of someones atheism, merely the only common factor between all atheists. As someone succinctly worded it in the comments of Myers response post, "Atheism is the conclusion, not the philosophy." and as vjack of Atheist Revolution puts it: "we should instead view it [atheism] as one of many building blocks supporting our worldviews."

The root of religion.

2011-02-03T20:48:00.000Z

A few weeks back, I was in school at lunch time chatting to a group of friends. Since a number of my friends are, what they describe as "spiritual", the conversation turned to ghosts. I was surprised by one particular girls answer as I wouldn't have tagged her to be a ghost-believer. I usually find the most fruitful discussions evolve from getting the believer to answer to their own beliefs, and so, rather than going off on my own tangent, I simply questioned her. The conversation (roughly...) went as follows...

Me: So, why do you believe in ghosts?
Girl: Your soul/spirit/essence has to go somewhere.
Me: But why do you believe in a soul?
Girl: You need a soul to get to an afterlife.
Me: But why does there need to be an afterlife?
Girl: ... You can't just cease to exist.
Me: Why not...?
Girl: (recoils at the implication) ... I don't know... You just can't.

Dominos. With a semblance of skepticism and a persistent curiousity, her argument crumbled. What she considered to be deductive reasoning and a rationalisation of her beliefs, was based upon a wispy, unresolving and frankly, hollow, "I don't know". What a foundation. The follow up, equally shallow and meaningless, is simply an appeal to an emotion. Existence, like to the rest of humanity, is pretty damn significant to her and even imagining the thought of true nothingness, is difficult. She has allowed her own personal distaste over the prospect to fully justify its impossibility without indulging in any further explanation. Her 'logic' is simple: she doesn't like it, she doesn't want it, and that settles it.

I admit, it humoured me to watch the pillars of her reasoning disintegrate. 'Why', that wonderful, valuable and ever-so promising monosyllabic word, swiftly and acutely sliced through every single layer of her argument with graceful ease, revealing the root of her pronounced faith: death. A fear of it, more precisely. And so the foundation of her entire rationale, connecting ghostly apparitions to the ubiquitous ponderings of what happens after life, is based upon nothing but an emotion. A raw, unreasoned and unquestioned feeling - the instinctual (and perfectly natural) revulsion over the prospect of her own demise. And that's it - although she wouldn't like to admit it and most certainly would never phrase it in such a cutting fashion, but that's the base of her beliefs; the root of religion.

We all have an innate biological drive for survival. Without it, you quickly plummet from natural selections favour; dissolving your propensity for a genetic legacy. This inherent and overwhelmingly powerful aversion to death (particularly in a dangerous situation, of course), is essentially your DNAs motivation to survive long enough for you to be able to successfully serve as vehicle to carry your genes to the next generation. This crude and visceral disposition is the base of the fear and causes things like adrenalin rushes and crazy heart rates. Since we are sentient beings capable of abstract thought, we can also fear death on an intellectual level: by realising and appreciating the significance and temporal nature of our being, and therefore contemplating the idea of our non-existence.

So, as result of all that biology and philosophy, our end answer is that death truly sucks and is to be avoided at all costs.

A mask to the eerie...
And here is where religion steps in to save the day, or more appropriately, delude the uninformed. Most religions come packaged with a very shiny and colourful lure - the promise of your survival past this finite world. Whether that be perpetual bliss in the clouds, unending misery down under or some form of continuous reincarnation, where some essence of you gets the privilege of lingering on in this earthly domain and simply continuing to be; it sure trumps cold, hard, mortal reality. This intrinsic abhorrence of our own delicate existence is soothed by the whimsical fantasies religion has to offer. It hazes the truth, subdues the fear and masks the inevitable finality that is death.

Since the scope of religion is narrowing due to the progress of science, theists have a lingering tendency to put death at the base of their reasoning. After all, it's an integral part of our humanity; something which we fight against with every breath. It deserves significance.
Believers no longer rely on gods to grow their crops or to explain why rainbows exist: science provides acceptable explanations for such occurences, yet, for the most part, death remains in the realm of the supernatural. In such minds, it's untouchable by science. People just don't want to hear of a void of nothingness. They don't want to accept sciences explanation this time round. Death is simply something most people don't want rationalised.

It's the perfect root for religion to rest upon.

Atheist or Theist? [Poll]

2011-01-15T13:45:00.001Z

And so this blogs first poll is a success. It received a substantial amount of votes, making it quite easy for me to deduce the nature my readership and viewers: atheist. Unsurprising, really, considering the theme of the blog, but it would have been interesting to see atleast less of a gaping disparity between the atheist & theistic camps.

Atheist: 858 votes (80%)

Agnostic: 117 votes (11%)

Theist: 48 votes (4%)

Other: 39 votes (3%)

Total votes: 1062

The new poll, "Should atheism have a symbol?" is up and running (as well as my take on the matter) - so please cast your opinions on the right! If you selected "maybe..." or just have a line of reasoning that led you to a yes or no, an elaboration in the comments here could be interesting.
___

Have an idea for a worthy poll? Respond below or contact me!

Should atheism have a symbol?

2011-01-12T19:54:00.000Z

I was asked recently whether or not atheism should have a symbol on my Formspring account. It's an interesting question and worth pondering.

Symbols are subjective representations that mean different things for different people. They help to unify a group of individuals by placing them under a single banner or cause, often instilling a tremendous sense of solidarity. Yet, I don't think that atheism should have a symbol.

Before I begin, there are many atheist organisations that do have symbols, American Atheists or Atheist Ireland, for example. This is because these are official organisations.

But, atheism isn't an organisation. It isn't a movement. The only thing connecting us atheists together is our shared lack of belief in deities. It is not a religion that needs symbolising, it is not a belief - only the rejection of one, and hell, it's not even a positive assertion, merely the default position of unbelief held after being confronted with one.
As Cliff Walker puts it, "atheism is but a minor aspect of any atheist's identity, saying only what is not." We don't see designated symbols for things like aflyingteapotism or the people that don't like luminous shoe laces, so why should atheism need one?

Of course, I'm sure many ardent atheists will readily answer this and with very convincing arguments. Atheism is indeed simply the reaction to an unfounded claim, but at the same time, it is different. Religion is a prevalent force in modern times, and as atheists, we're perpetually bombarded by its effects and proclamations, and often victims or observers of its divisive, primitive and hateful bigotry. Things like the Crusades, the Inquisition and the condemnation of individual thought and scientific progress make atheism all the more important. The treatment of Galileo, the attitude towards stem cell research, the outrageously ignorant and foul declarations against the use of condoms, resulting in millions of completely unnecessary and easily avoidable deaths due to the spreading of aids, religions undying compulsion to interefere and intervene in state affairs, its promotion of homophobia, misogyny and general bigotry, and of course, its treatment of atheists. (For a well articulated and dynamic compilation of reasons on atheists and anger, see here.) All these things justify an atheists desire for a more formal opposition towards religion, and certainly differentiate things like aflyingteapotism from atheism.

But, atheism still isn't an organisation. The dismantling of religions power and intrusive inclinations are up to the society - secularisation is what we need, and this comes about through time and education. By allocating a symbol to represent the entirety of atheism, you are effectively equating yourself to a religion, and the mindless drones religion breeds will latch vehemently to this seeming correlation. By instating a symbol, atheism becomes more of an organisation, which shouldn't be what atheism, the default human condition, is about. By implementing a formal symbol or logo, it'll encourage the herd "us versus them" mentality and would make the transition from believer to unbeliever seem like a bigger gap, and could even turn away potential candidates.

Religion is the root of a lot of bad things in society and history, but atheism itself isn't the force to combat it, and designating atheism a symbol won't get us anywhere. As atheists, we're individuals who encourage and appreciate rational thought. That's it. We don't need a symbol.
___

So what do you think, should atheism have a symbol?

Unintelligent Design: Blind Cave Fish

2010-12-27T20:33:00.002Z

When discussing evolution with Creationists, I love to bring up the case of the Mexican Tetra, more commonly known as Blind Cave Fish. These fishy critters are wondrous emblems of the blind processes of evolution and prove to be conspicuous hollows in the Intelligent Design movement.

So, what are these things...?
Blind Cave Fish, are, well, blind cave fish. They are characterised by their lack of pigmentation (resulting in a pale/pink coating) and their absence of eyes. What makes them so interesting to study is that they used to have eyes, and even the die-hard YECs will acquiesce to this reality. Of course, this is due to the fact that the fish are born with partially developed ones. However, this construction soon comes to an abrupt halt, a layer of skin forms over them and the eyes disintegrate to become the useless vestiges of an image-filled past. Why, you ask? Well, that's due to their habitat: as suggested by their names, they live in caves. These caverns are dark places; devoid of lighting and rendering a set of optics as merely aesthetic accessories in its somber depths. It is thus safe to say that any orbs of light sensitive cells are now thoroughly unnecessary due to the complete and overbearing absence of light. And so, it's unsurprising to find these animals without a pair of functioning optics. To the creationist, however, it's a bit of tiffy. Why would their oh-so-immaculate designer create blind fish, with partially formed eyes, and then grow flaps over them?

Ah, so what exactly happened...?
As we have already established, the fishes dwellings are lightless environments, making navigating by light detection impossible and rendering photon-receptors irrelevant. However, they didn't always live in such conditions - which is why they still contain the remnants of their ancestors eyes (and why they begin to form in the embryo). For whatever reason, selection pressures pushed them towards caves, and there they survived and prospered, passing their genes through the generations and gradually lessening their dependence on the spherical tissue we know to be eyes.

However, the cause of the eye loss is not known with any specificity. It could be due to energy constraints or efficiency: the formation and maintenance of an eye is quite a costly procedure. By preventing the construction of the now superfluous organs, the creature is otherwise unaffected and the energy and resources can be expended elsewhere in more useful body structures and tissues. This is called economical adaptation, and although it makes sense, it doesn't seem entirely applicable to our Blind Cave Fish. This is mainly due to the knowledge that whilst embryos, they initially develop the framework for eye construction, which later degenerate, which isn't exactly economically ideal. We can explain the messiness of this in a similar way to that of the human eye or the giraffes recurrent laryngeal nerve, evolution can't backtrack. It can only overwrite past revolutions.

Another explanation is that out of random chance, some Mexican Tetra don't fully develop eyes (due to broken genes, etc.) and this spread throughout the population despite not having any particular benefit or disadvantage. This could have happened due to the mutation that caused the eyes to cease developing being coupled with another advantageous mutation or simple genetic drift. This is referred to as being the neutral theory, but once again - it doesn't seem to be a satisfying explanation. The Blind Cave Fish don't have broken genes, and according to PZ Myers, "transplanting a lens from a cavefish species with eyes to the blind cavefish embryo is enough to rescue the eye, which then develops into a perfect and functional visual organ."

There is another solution discussed here, which is based on based on pleiotropy and developmental interactions. You can look those up elsewhere.

And so, we don't know with certainty that exact details of the transition - but we know that it happened. It could have been for any of the above reasons, perhaps even them all playing some role, as well as to simple factors such as how the eyes consist of delicate tissue which has a potential for injury and possibly infection. Despite not knowing the specifics (how could we?), we have a general understanding of the concept and we can recognise the fingerprint the fragmented processes of natural selection have left us.

The Creationist response...

...is quite hilarious. They initially assert that such anomalies don't comply with evolution, because, apparently, evolution can only work towards complexity. This is just willful ignorance and anyone who spews such garbage has absolutely no idea what they're talking about and deserve nothing but laughter. I shouldn't even bother explain this, but here it is: evolution is just adaptation. It goes whatever the hell way is necessary. Whether that be a progression to complexity or a regression to simplicity doesn't matter in the least. Suitability to the environment is all that matters.

Or, the Creationist misses the point entirely by stating the fish work perfectly for what they do. Duh. The point is they still have the remnants of eyes. With all that unnecessary baggage and energy wastage, this Creationists designer isn't very eco-friendly.

Another is just a case of severe intellectual dishonesty. In this article, a creationist tries to dismantle the correlations between evolution and the Mexican Tetra. It only reinforces the veracity of the process.

For instance, the author or the article actually outlines natural selection at work whilst trying to explain how the "Curse" caused copying errors which eventually resulted in the eyeless fish.

"The eyed fish would thus have a lesser chance of surviving to produce offspring. Those fish carrying the ‘eyeless’ genetic defect would have a greater chance of passing it on to the next generation, so it would not take many generations under such circumstances for all the fish to be of the ‘eyeless’ type."

Yeah, that's natural selection in a nutshell, and given enough time, will inevitably lead to complex or more adapted structures.

"It is not showing us how the first stages of a new, complex adaptation could arise"

Oh yes, the "no new information" non-argument, as outlined and refuted here (and in countless other locations). Regardless, evolution works both ways, it doesn't matter what way you look at the process. If a system can mutate, this mutation will interact with other genes etc., which will result in novel combinations and thus, novel material. Whether this causes a reduction in overall complexity or whether it causes a progression towards more complex structures doesn't matter, it is still the same process at work.
___

Sorry for the length of this one. I don't know what happened.

This atheists Christmas.

2010-12-23T10:46:00.001Z

I've seen some atheists be annoyed or even at times offended by Christmas and its followers greetings. I understand their reasoning, particularly if they live in woo-inundated areas, but I still love the season.

The religious origins of Christmas are meaningless to me. I don't feel offended when someone wishes me "Merry Christmas!", it may mask an assumption that I am indeed a Christian, but I just see it as a seasonal greeting. And the cribs and Jebus carols don't bother me in the least.

(My cat doesn't approve, however.)

Aside from the exams that notoriously precede the holiday, I love Christmas. I love seeing the tree sitting cozily in the corner and smelling that christmas tree smell. I love how nearly everyone is on holiday and are usually in good spirits because of it. I love the general social scene that surrounds it. The snow, the nice food, knowing that skiing usually follows it, I love it all. It may be typical, but I love the simplicity and unoriginality of it all. It's such a break from the rest of the year.

I don't follow any of the traditions to commemorate baby Jebus, I simply abide by some of them because they're what I associate with Christmas. I thoroughly enjoy the annual pedantic Christmas tree hunt for the best and most awesome tree and I love when people are over for a big Christmas feast. Now I'm not that big on turkey, but the blackberry crumble afterwards more than makes up for it. And of course - I'm stuck in the terrible habit of agreeing to go surfing on the 26th with one of my buddies. It's never a good idea, yet I can't pass it up...

And so, my Christmas is a happy one. And things don't seem too different this year, thankfully. Exams are over, it's a winter wonderland outside, I can smell the tree from where I write this and I'm off skiing & snowboarding in a few weeks with friends. Life is good. And so is Christmas.

Happy holidays, folks.

ARGH

2010-12-12T21:08:00.000Z

I just wanted to apologise for the lack of posting recently. I promise, I haven't forgotten! I've just been excruciatingly busy with school and christmas exam study and tree buying and gift shopping and essay writing and maths. Lots of maths. Ugh.

The exams start on Thursday and are finished as of next Wednesday, regular posting should resume from then onwards! There may be a brief hiccup at the beginning of January due to skiing, but things should return to normality quickly.

To my few readers, thanks for sticking with my ramblings. You're awesome.

Christopher Hitchens Debate

2010-11-21T20:24:00.002Z

I found some free time and sat down to watch this recent series of a debate with Hitchens and Dembski. It's long (10 videos, I believe) but even if you just sit through one - you should enjoy it. It's interesting & thought provoking (on Hitchens part, I can't say much for the other guy) with plenty of kickass classic Hitch moments.

Enjoy!

On a sidenote, sorry for the lack of posts recently - Christmas exams are approaching... As for news - I hit 17 a few weeks ago, woo!

The sky is not a canvas.

2010-11-01T14:02:00.001Z

"How can there be a painting without a painter?"

As I look at this picture, my symmetry infatuated mind is struggling to avoid making comparisons to a work of art. It wants to stare at the unreachable, the incomprehensible; and then compare its being to the mere product of a man.

But my mind can't resist.

When I stare at this celestial cloud, I see a rich, bountiful colour pallet. In the darkened edges of the photo, I see the painting technique Sfumato - the blurring of detail to give the illusion of depth. On the strands and arms of the gaseous entity, I can see the fine swishes and strokes of a paint brush. I can visualise water slowly rustling its way through the canvas, causing the paint to trickle and blurring the once distinctions of colour to a wispy, nebulous art form.
If I look further, past my own mentally superimposed painting effects, I see shapes. They may be hazy and indistinct, but my mind - hardwired to spot patterns - connects a few dots and rationalises the lifeless cloud to form shapes and images I recognise. Due to this enforced abstraction, I see a cloaked figure standing upon a precipice; gazing across a glimmering brightness. Beneath the whiffs of dust and gas that my brain has recognised as a cliff, I see taunting silhouettes that remind me of dragons and storybook villains. Hell, I'm pretty sure I even see a seahorse.

But why am I bothering to tell you this?

Because this anthropomorphism is everywhere. It's great for recognition and understanding (which is probably why we tend to do it), but it distorts our whole concept of nature. The sky is not a canvas. There are no faces in the clouds. A nebula is not a whim of some heavenly figure, but a product of interstellar gases. Our vast universe is not a divine creation, but a wonderful consequence of physics. Our history is not the immutable dictation of any higher being, it is a random, and in our existences case, extremely fortunate, stream of insignificant events.

And this fact doesn't dim the beauty of it. Pointing at the overwhelming complexity and brilliance of the universe, and declaring it to be the mere whim of whatever god you happen to profess, is just insulting.

But people often do this. They gasp at the enigmatic, the inexplicable, and then use these unknowns (or their own ignorance) as a compass to God, or other private beliefs. For instance, one of the most common reasons I get when I ask someone why they believe in God, is the argument from design, going along the lines of...

"But the world is just too magnificent, too complicated, too refined and ordered, for it to have come around by a string of random accidents. There must be a designer, and that designer is God!"

...This is what happens when we look at a sunset and think of a painting.

"A painting without a painter..."
There's nothing wrong with marvelling over nature and considering its purely naturalistic constitution and formation as unfathomable. As long as you don't fall into the classic pit hole of seeing it directly as a creation, there's no harm in comparing it to that of a product of a conscious designer. It's just important to remember that it's not.

A painting is defined as something created using paints by a painter, meaning that by its very definition, it is the product of a designer (the same applies for a building/sculpture/creation etc.). So, to use this argument to prove the necessity of a creator of the universe, is begging the question. The premise - that the universe is a creation - is flawed at worst, and postulation at best, and therefore whatever deductive reasoning followed can safely be considered irrelevant.

You can't prove that the universe has a creator by simply defining it as a creation that needs a creator. Circular reasoning is circular. You first must prove your initial assumption - that the universe requires a creator - and then prove why your particular creator/cause is the most suitable.

The universe just is, and is best described as a happy consequence resulting from the laws and processes that we understand through science. Since there's no requirement for a creator yet known, and nor does it look likely, you're better off clearing away the haze of supernatural bluffs using good 'ol Occam's Razor and stare nature in the eye in all its naturalistic glory. Don't insult it with primitive preachings and all-too-human meanderings; the sky is not a canvas - and thank goodness it isn't.
___

I realise my atheist readers know this already, but "how can there be a painting without a painter?!" is just too annoying for it to be left untouched. Thoughts?

Godless certainty

2010-10-23T21:29:00.000+01:00

It isn't uncommon for me to be accused of as arrogant due to my atheism. I (apparently) foolishly and presumptuously dismiss all possible notions of a creator and that a true skeptic would at least acknowledge the possibility of a god.

Bollocks.

There's such a thing as reality, and although it's a nuisance for such theists, I, as an atheist, feel intellectually obliged to adhere to it. And of course, one must implement it into their positions.

Pesky absolutes...
I don't know with 100% certainty that a god doesn't exist. I can never know that. Science can only take us so far when it comes to absolute certainties. We can follow the gradient and edge as close as possible to such certainty, but we can never reach an absolute. In this regard, we're all agnostics. But agnostic, meaning without knowledge, doesn't thoroughly define your position. It merely explains how the proposition of an unfalsifiable being can not be disproved, which for obvious reasons, is true. So until I am shown evidence of the extraordinary claim that is God, I'll count myself as an atheist.

Okay - so we've established absolute certainties are off the table, but that this doesn't disallow us from creeping as close as possible to them. After all, we launch shuttles into space by nearing such certainties all the time. It's how science works. So, although I'm open minded to the possibility of there being a god, I find it far, far beyond unlikely. The complete lack of evidential support is too indicative in itself for my skeptical mind to accept it. Yet, my certainty goes further than this. If I was to ignore my evidential demands for a moment, I'd still remain doubtful of the existence of such a being. Why all the suffering? The imperfections? The lack of viable, logical arguments for the existence of such a being? The tangled and contradictory beliefs? The seemingly selective interventions? Or whats with all those false prophecies, immoral scriptural teachings and those millions of gods people have believed in with the same tenacious veracity that the monotheistic followers profess nowadays? Or of course, how god is simply, and most importantly, unnecessary...
There are just too many holes for me to embrace such a nonsensical and unfounded concept. So, my degree of certainty for my atheism is pushed to the far (near absolute) end of the scale. I'm as convinced as my fallible humanity will allow.

"But you still don't know for sure that God doesn't exist!"

If "sure" means with 100% certainty, then yes, I don't. But hey, you can't be so certain that an invisible, dancing leprechaun doesn't exist either. Or Odin. Or an immaterial, three headed flying banana man. And this is where implementing reality to your positions comes in.

Anyone could randomly concoct and mash together some incoherent grunts to form a name, splash it with some traits and then use the quoted logic to force the recognition of its possibility upon all the non believers.
And that's quite absurd. One rightly dismisses such bald assertions until proven. The saying is "innocent, until proven guilty", after all.

But lets sweep this aside for a moment and ponder upon something interesting. Does our capacity to dream and visualize something, somehow allow for the possibility of it to materialize to an actual reality? Do all of our most random, baseless and abstract thoughts really have the potential to exist in the naturalistic universe?

At the end of the day, it all comes down to evidence. Cold, hard and verifiable proof. And this inconvenient requirement separates gods from teapots, fact from fiction and atheism from theism.

So, overall, I'm pretty damn certain of my atheism. But give me proof, and I'll reconsider.

Double standards...
There's one more point I want to ponder regarding the proclaimed certainty theists demand from us atheists, and its that of a double standard.
Am I convinced by the theory of gravity? Definitely. Evolution? Yup. Am I convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that I have a €2 coin sitting next to my keyboard, as I write this? I am. But can I say with an absolute, unconditional and unequivocal certainty that it is, or that the theories I mentioned will never be superseded or modified? Of course not, and yet I accept them. Why? Well, they conform quite sufficiently with my evidential requirements and standards, knowledge and intellect - they make sense, and I have no reason to deny them. They explain the evidence and there are no competing theories even remotely close to stealing the spotlight.

And so I am certain.

So, why would my position on the God hypothesis be any different? Why does the rejection of the supernatural require such a definitive certainty that we don't even apply it to any real life scenarios?

It doesn't.
___

Be you atheist or theist, how certain are you?

Because Jesus loves you.

2010-10-02T22:47:00.010+01:00

This photo is depressing. Yet, it's the only thing that seems to get through to Christians when they come out with outlandish things such as "Jesus loves me, he helped me get through my homework / soccer match last night!"

I try to avoid using too much emotion when posting, but why would an all loving God allow this to happen? I cannot even find the words to express how horrific it is... Any Christian who declares that God helped them through a broken leg or heartbreak should be ashamed of themselves.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus

I fear nothingness

2010-09-19T17:56:00.002+01:00

"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries, we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades, we must close our eyes again." - Richard Dawkins

Since I've entered the atheist blogosphere, I've come across a number of posts regarding facing death as an atheist. Some are them are incredible pieces of writing, and I agree with and applaud them for being so inspiring. Yet, I can't seem to accept it as rationally as the rest of you do.

"I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.” - Isaac Asimov

I can't argue with the logic of this. It's flawless and profound in its simplicity. Death is the end of my existence, and without existence, I cannot fear. I won't ever even realise that I have died, I may only notice the moments preceding it: I can only miss being alive while I am alive. I will never actually experience the end since there is nothing to be aware of, and yet despite this logic, the thought of death still terrifies me. Perhaps it's my greatest irrationality.

It's the thought of not existing that gets me, that all that is me will just flicker out of existence. My memories, my thoughts; everything that I am and have been will just dissolve into a never ending nothingness. And to me, that is a bleak, bleak notion. I love existing. I adore thinking of, observing and experiencing this precious life. I love hearing the beautiful sounds, seeing the magnificent sights and feeling the overwhelming emotions that make us human. I love having something to to call a me and simply being. I don't like the idea of returning to a void of nothing.

I want to witness the future. I want to watch science unravel the mysteries of the cosmos, conquer disease and sickness and possibly engage in some form of extra-terrestrial contact. I want to exist and continue on existing! But, alas, wishes alone cannot materialise. I must accept the inevitable finality it imposes, however much I dislike the notion. Here, I can empathise with the theists position. I understand the allure of the afterlife and how difficult and unappealing the atheists view can be (for some). But, I will not let my logic succumb to wishful thinking and emotionalism. I cannot, and will not, abandon what I know to be true in replace of my desire for a happy ending. I'll opt for reality over fantasy every time, however dreary the consequences it poses.

"I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain

Undoubtedly, this is completely true. Up until roughly sixteen years ago, I never existed. And this hasn't affected me in the least. However, now, I do exist. And that's where it changes. Now that I've had a taste of this wonderful existence, now that I've enjoyed the monumental and astronomically unlikely privilege of being, I don't want to leave. After all, parents are never scared of harm coming to their children until they are born. Lovers never worry about losing the other until they meet. Unless you have something, you can't truly understand the effects of losing it.
I'll admit that this analogy is slightly strained. When one loses something within life, they are aware of it and thus experience the loss. When one loses life, you cannot be aware of it as you are no longer conscious. You lose the capacity to miss and feel anything, and thus, you cannot miss life once death has taken over. But, since we have not yet ceased to be, we can imagine the loss (and of course experience it indirectly) and still hold the desire to live. Now that I have the opportunity to life, I don't want it taken away.

The thought of losing existence is terrifying, because life is all we really have. Once that has been snuffed out, we have absolutely nothing. We are no longer anything. Once our circuiting has switched off; the entirety of you - your memories, personality, habits, quirks and history, is gone. It's like a lamp switch except that there's nothing to turn it back on. The moment your brain flicks off, you're lost forever. You've faded into an eternity of nothingness, remembered only by the legacy and bones you've left behind. Even if we were able to restart you brain somehow, the mind that is you is still dead. Everything that is you, is gone.

An unbroken thread
There is an upside to this, although I feel that it pales in comparison to the stark realisation of death. One day, I will cease to be. My body will decompose and the impulses in my brain that allow for my consciousness will slow down and eventually stop. The atoms that momentarily coalesced to become me, will disperse and return to form other beings and organisms of the Earth, perhaps even reaching the rest of the cosmos. After all, this has happened to every being and structure in the universe. As Carl Sagan puts it, we are merely "star stuff": the sentient, astounding results of nuclear fusion within stars and scattered by ancient stellar explosions. The atoms in my right arm were probably even formed in a different star than those found in my left hand. Perhaps even in a different galaxy. And these stars themselves are the results of a cohesion of Nebulas, those breathtaking cosmic gas clouds people love to awe over. And I definitely think that's there's a beauty in this; us being children of stars, eventually returning home, only without us to realise it.

The time limit death imposes forces us to truly appreciate the rarity and significance of the fleeting glimpse that we get of life. It motivates us to not dwindle and waste time worrying over the unavoidable or the trivialities of life. Its presence serves as a reminder to embrace our temporary awareness; to truly value our brief witness to the cosmos.

There's no point in masking it with promises of eternal bliss and whimsical fantasies. We have a much more awe-inspiring history than any religion can offer. We're "star stuff" after all, and whether we like it or not, we will return to just that.

Unintelligent Design: Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

2010-09-08T18:31:00.004+01:00

Part 2 of the Unintelligent Design series. (Part 1: The Eye)

(Blame Shakespeare for the delay)
__

The mammalian Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (branching of the Vagus Nerve) is a wonderful example in favour of unintelligent design. Any engineer will notice the unnecessary inefficiency caused by the awfully pointless route it takes. Why? It's purpose is to deliver "motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box)" to basically connect your brain with the larynx. Due to this relatively simple task and the close proximity, you would rightly assume that the nerve would take the shortest and most direct route. Like by the few centimeters it takes to get from the brain to the voice box. That would be great design! Praise Jebus!

...Dammit. Sorry Creationists.

Back to seriousness. So what actually happens with the nerve? Well, instead of taking the optimal (and intuitive) route, it skips past the larynx, loops underneath the heart, traverses back up the neck and then finally reaches its destination it previously skipped. It doesn't take a genius to realise this is utterly unnecessary and downright terrible design. For humans (and most other mammals), this means our wiring is seven times the length that it needs to be! As the above image demonstrates, Giraffes unfortunately get the worst end of the stick, with their laryngeal surpassing 13 meters in length (also resulting in the giraffe being almost mute), as opposed to the simplest pathway of a few inches. This is pretty much the epitome of inefficiency and inadequacy.

A perfect fit for evolution
A common creationist response is "if it's so inefficient, then why is it okay for evolution?!". This isn't a refutation nor is it even a chink for evolutionary theory. It's just a proclamation of ignorance.

Evolution can only work with what it has. There's no restart or reverse button when it comes to inheritance and natural selection, only a modification of existing features. Because of this, evolution couldn't start afresh when our fishy ancestors began to evolve a more mammalian-like morphology. It was forced to utilize the already present engineering and had to lengthen the wiring instead of backtracking and reversing the entire process. The reason why our ancestors had such wiring in the first place is simple: for fish, it's the quickest route. They lack the mammalian neck and so the most direct and reasonable pathway was to "innervate one gill slit, and pass near the gill arch. Since then gills have evolved and the gill arch has became a dorsal aorta." (Thank you, Wikipedia)

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's three thousand encapsulating the transition:

So it's easy to see how this fulfills the prediction regarding the messy and imperfect design of evolution. We expect such jagged arrangements, it's an inexact art. For the Creationists, however, it's a bit more difficult - but it's nothing some deliberate ignorance on the subject won't fix. Or, of course there's always the typical "we don't know everything about it yet!". That's probably true, but it's certainly eluded science for quite some time, and is a pretty lame argument. It's an appeal to ignorance, and doesn't hold up well against scientific scrutiny. Another response I've come across is simply that "it works fine for what it was designed for." Well, it works, I'll give them that, but not exactly well. Wouldn't an intelligent designer opt for the most efficient and streamlined solution? What's with the excessive wastage and the blatant over-complication?
A more "scientific" (sounding) response to the problem by Creationists is this, but it was soon demolished by this, not unlike any other Creationist article.

Synopsis:
The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve follows quite an anti-intuitive route, involving a huge detour around the dorsal aorta instead of taking the obvious and most direct pathway of a few inches from the brain to the voicebox. This results in the laryngeal being up to seven times longer than necessary, and up to 15 meters longer in giraffes, rendering them near mute. This route is explained by the evolution of mammals from fishes as proven by the fossil record. Although the example is not definitive proof for evolution, it complies perfectly with our expectations and thus is a fantastic indicator of the rugged and unintelligent processes of evolution.

School hates blogging.

2010-09-01T21:03:00.001+01:00

I realise that I'm not the most active of bloggers. I have neither the time nor inspiration to be able to produce posts daily. Even if I had the time, I still can't see myself being able to consistently deliver relevant and topical content. It never ceases to amaze me how some people are able to so reliably dish out great content so often. I think, for me, it would just turn to dribble. So instead, I try to get roughly 2 posts out per week of sufficient quality. It gives me time to do regular life stuff, brainstorm suitable ideas and to eventually materialize it whilst still being able to uphold a certain degree of... coolness. It just works for me.

I'll continue to strive towards a 2 post per week minimum. However, since I am now back to school (and to an annoyingly important year), I'll probably need a bit of time to get used to the new schedule. That said, I will definitely have a post up by the end of the week. I figured I would warn you in case I end up being swamped by the cruel constraints of classrooms and homework. Ick.

And for the record, if you notice some old comments reappearing on previous posts, it's just because I'm manually transferring some of them from the old system, since they were lost due to the template shift. Some of them raise valid/common points and for the sake of my sanity, I want them to have been shown to be dealt with. Others are just interesting.

Thanks everyone for actually reading and commenting on this blog. I am genuinely amazed that I actually have readers.

Ciao for now.

I'll create my own meaning, thanks.

2010-08-29T23:53:00.002+01:00

No, an atheists life is not devoid of meaning, purpose or happiness. Perhaps to some extent to an individual, but it's definitely not applicable to the collective. We're a diverse lot, unified only by our lack of belief in deities and don't deserve to be thrown together under one heading. Atheism isn't a world view, only a part of one and us godless heathens come in large variety of flavours. On I go...
___

Firstly, the word "meaning" is useless unless you specify and define what you're referring to. It's a human construct and will probably differ with each individual. To get the ball rolling, I will assume the (vague) definition of it being ones subjective value and perception.

That's pretty simple. We all perceive the world differently. We have different memories and experiences and prioritise these according to the emotional impact they had on us. If multiple people read the same book, each person will grasp certain details and correlations that pass over another, purely because those specifics happen to have meaning for that particular person. It's entirely subjective; derived from the context of their life and weaved from a complex matrix of interlocking factors.

Biologically speaking, us humans are compulsively drawn towards patterns. We instinctively search for disparities and form parallels between them in order to make it more appealing and understandable. To quote Richard Dawkins; the human mind is an "inveterate analogizer". We habitually find meaning in slight similarities between drastically different situations. We have a tendency to focus on particular details (subjectively prioritised) in order to extrapolate the full picture and then further connect the dots along the way with our neat, patterned and "meaning"-saturated lines.

And that's why "meaning" is merely a construct of the mind. We're drawn to it likes flies to honey. Christians, or any theist for that matter, don't get to preside over a monopoly on meaning, despite their self-proclamations. We all get a slice, whether we want to or not.

What would god add to the equation?

How meaningless must ones life be, in order to need a "higher being" to give it meaning? If you depend upon a celestial skydaddy to enrichen your life, your life can't be all that meaningful. Meaning is what you extract from your life and surroundings. It's an entirely personal discovery. You acquire it from your memories, experiences and from the people who you love and consider close. What is meaningful and special to you, is what essentially offers your life meaning. Your the one with the chisel, not any ethereal, invisible being.

I, for definite, don't need any imposed meaning in my life. I'm perfectly content with the universe being without a predefined path or purpose. What could an absolute god-given meaning possibly add to the equation, anyway? Nothing! It makes no difference. Your life is still defined by the inter-connections of reality; your beliefs, perceptions, environment and those people that you meet and depend on. Your happiness and "meaning" is still the derivative of those things, along with many other factors. Throw god in and the only thing that changes is that there's an oddly powerful creator who may or may not require submission and pampering by worship. The balance remains the same: god adds zero.

So, thanks for the offer of "divine purpose", theists - but no thank you.

Reality will suffice.

What is God?

2010-08-25T11:25:00.000+01:00

I received this in an email recently, and felt I needed to relay it. It's a great piece of writing and upholds a very valid point. Enjoy.
___

"ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT GOD

When an atheist and a Christian debate about God, there is an implicit agreement between them as to what a God is. Maybe the atheist shouldn't accept this implicit definition so readily.

Imagine the following conversation:

John: A blark exists.
Steve: Prove it.
John: It has rained for the past three days. That is my proof.

I'm quite sure you can see the problem with that conversation. What on earth is a blark? Steve doesn't know, so he can't possibly determine if John's evidence is legitimate. He should have first asked, "What is it that you are claiming existence for?", or more simply, "What is a blark?" We'll give Steve another chance:

John: A blark exists.
Steve: What is a blark?
John: I don't know.

Neither John nor Steve know what a blark is, and so at this point, the conversation must stop. The undefined is undiscussable.

Now let's turn this into a conversation about a deity. How would your average Christian define God? Being a former Christian, lots of things come to mind for me. God is omnipotent. God is omniscient. God is Love. God is omnipresent. But what are these actually saying? They're not telling us, as the Christian would have you believe, what God is. They're telling us that God's knowledge, the space he occupies, or his power, are not limited. In short, they're telling us what God is not. Furthermore, even these are only adjectives, not nouns. I could say that a dog is brown, fast, and hungry, but that doesn't get me an ounce closer to explaining a dog to an alien who's never seen one. In fact, look in Christian religious encyclopedias and you're bound to find God described as "ineffable", meaning indescribable. Ineffability is necessary to preclude such questions as, "How does God think? What is he made of? By what means does he exert his will?"

Ask the question, "What is a dog?", and an answer is ready. A dog is a biological, carbon-based organism found on the planet Earth. It is a member of the canine family, and it is primarily carnivorous in nature. I could go on and on, but the important thing is that I can answer the question, "What is a dog?" objectively. Therefore, we can talk about dogs. Let's return to John and Steve:

John: God exists.
Steve: What is God?
John: I don't know.

Just as when discussing the blark, the conversation must stop. You cannot discuss the undefined. Thus, all religious claims are rendered total gibberish, along the same line as claiming that you have a snoogle fretup in your vixsrod.

Now, the theist response is very predictable, but easily refuted. "God is so magnificent/amazing/complex that we can't understand him as mere humans!" In short, the theist would claim that God is inherently unknowable. In that case, I have one question to ask the theist. How do you know that God is unknowable? To say that something is unknowable is to claim knowledge of the unknowable - an obvious and irresolvable contradiction. In fact, logic precludes one from claiming that anything is inherently unknowable. It is absolutely impossible to adduce evidence for such a claim."

From ShellsOnTheFloor (shellsonthefloor@gmail.com)
-Thank you for the wonderful contribution!

New look!

2010-08-23T15:42:00.000+01:00

As you may or may not have noticed, Teenage Atheist has a new template! I figured it could do with an update & finally some colour. The comments on the old posts (before Intense Debate) have been lost, which sucks. But, I guess the new layout is worth it.

Like / dislike?

My thoughts on the Ground Zero Islamic Center

2010-08-21T19:22:00.005+01:00

There's been a lot of talk floating around about this lately, and despite being all too slow on the uptake, I figured I'd offer my own opinion on the matter.

I agree with what seems to be the majority atheist opinion (from what I've encountered). That is, that the opposition of such a plan is profoundly unconstitutional. You can't selectively designate freedom. It doesn't work that way. It's freedom of religion, after all: it isn't solely applicable to Christianity. If there are exceptions, it isn't true freedom. It's hypocrisy. Freedom doesn't promise an invulnerability to offense; it doesn't guarantee you will be in agreement or even comfortable with what's happening. It only means that people around you enjoy the same freedom that you do.

And although I support it, I can sympathise with the opposition, but only a tad. Yes, the 9/11 attacks were claimed to have been vindicated through Islam (although it goes much deeper than religion). And so it is understandable that an Islamic Center near the the site could be deemed "insensitive", however, it's not that big of a deal. People are acting as if the Center is to be placed upon the actual wreckage. It isn't. However, it would probably be more wise to build it somewhere else, given the ruckus it has caused.
To me, atleast, it seems that the close proximity was deliberately selected because of the offense it would incite. It's hardly surprising that people would be appalled by the decision.

That said, you can't conflate a terrorist group with the entirety of Islam. Muslims, just like Christians, are entitled by right to practice their religion and to build a place of worship. There's no disparity in their rights, they get the same as everybody else.
The Center serves as a fantastic embodiment of religious freedom. I just hope the Muslims see it that way.
___

I'm thinking of applying to build an atheist help center in Mecca. Anyone interested?

Our gift to the Universe

2010-08-14T21:09:00.006+01:00

The universe is without inherent meaning. It just exists. If humanity vanishes tomorrow, it wouldn't notice. It is completely apathetic of our presence. In relation to the cosmos, we're nothing but insignificant, crawling clumps of matter on that "pale blue dot" we call Earth. If you zoom out further, the galaxy that contains our tiny blue dot becomes an indistinguishable speck amongst the ocean of billions of other galaxies within the universe. Zoom out yet again, and this indistinguishable speck potentially becomes an almost undetectable smidgen in comparison to the (theoretical) multiverse. It's all pretty big. And we're incomparably minuscule.

The universe doesn't care about us, but that doesn't mean we can't care about the universe and our place in it.

And that is precisely where it changes. Because we are living, sentient beings - we can watch and wonder at the universe. We can live, breathe and taste it. It is all we are and have, and it, in turn, is all it has. Us humans can look at it, awe over it and offer it an infinite array of subjective meanings from each one of us. We subconsciously bring the vast void of space and dust to life and appreciate the elusive mystery it begets. We're the eyes and mind of the cosmos; the only way it has of knowing itself. So, it is us, mere humans, tiny specks on a tiny planet, that have the privilege of instilling the universe with 'meaning'.

And I think that's awesome.

How God evolved

2010-08-11T13:52:00.003+01:00

Gods are reflections of societies. We make them, in our own image, to answer our needs and to project our own ideals.

Societies, ancient and modern, desperately need something to grasp and give meaning to, for most at best, a mediocre existence, and at worst, a difficult and painful life. Societies then adjust their gods to adhere to the standards of the time and to explain new mysteries. These gods are mere idealistic projections of the current view on the supernatural. Unsurprisingly, this constantly changes.

As society evolved morally and socially, the divine followed accordingly.

Ancient views...
If you look at the Roman or Greek gods, they were entirely human when it came to character. Whether it be Zeus or Old Testament Yahweh, these were violent, jealous and spiteful beings with entirely human desires and attributes. Simply put, these were merely more powerful versions of Man.
The Greek god (one of many), Zeus, was perceived to spend his time punishing people who didn't treat their guests with respect, flashing his thunderbolt and ensuring Atlas continued to hold up the sky. His other duties (or associations) included managing the Universe (a typical and enduring attribute in religions) and escapades with the ladies, resulting in countless children such as Hercules and Helen of Troy. Many of the ancient gods were believed to have acted similarly and incessantly bicker among one another.

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. – Robert A Heinlein

Looking at the Christian god of 2000 years ago doesn't help the religious case either. This god was believed to be a real hardass. Instead of encouraging us to utilise our mental capacity through skepticism and independent thinking, he condemned anyone who dared doubt his existence or not adhere to his attention-seeking demands of prayer, worship and the odd blood-soaked sacrifice. He had a thing against homosexuals, fortune tellers and witches, too, and was quite the misogynist. He also felt the need to give us guidelines on how to treat our slaves and would annihilate populations from time to time.
Ofcourse, these gods weren't always this terrifying. Since their characters were modelled after humanity, they had some pretty inspiring parts chucked in as well, but the moodswings and deeds that the gods were believed to have committed clearly reveal the time frame and mindset of the time.

Overall, the ancients perception of divinity was often a fearful representation of a societies values, culture and ignorance. The society inadvertently dictated the creation and design of its own "higher being" and derived the gods meaning and teachings from the society itself, not the other way around.
Society doesn't play catch-up, god does.

Modern views...
In the last 300-400 years, the Western understanding of god has evolved to become a more humane, tolerant and softened being. The Christian god (for the most part) no longer spends his time sentencing his creations to eternal hellfire, shunning homosexuals or tutting at our sex lives. Instead, he's become a more accepting, loving and distant god.

Although many still claim to have personal relationships with whatever god or gods that they happen to believe in, the attribution of natural disasters, coincidences and micromanaging of the cosmos to the supernatural is fading. As science fills the gaps and replaces myth with fact; the religious respond in turn by adapting and minimising their gods duties to fit with these discoveries. What was previously considered to be fact, such as the direct creation of man (or other religious versions/equivalents), is relabelled as allegorical fiction. As secular principles are introduced, previous moral systems inferred from theological scriptures and tradition are recast as primitive and oppressive. These outdated ethics are trimmed and fashioned to fit in with society once again.

As convention is overturned and attitudes shift, god follows shortly behind.

Conclusion...
The religious often like to hijack morality. They claim that we acquire our own meaning and ability to distinguish right from wrong as a god-given gift. Unfortunately for them, this is backwards. Morality is a natural consequence of natural selection, and we often inject these values into whatever idealised being the society is calling god at the time. As time passes, these change, and the gods change along with it.

How God evolved.

Swordfighting Jesus and Coconut Gods

2010-08-08T23:13:00.003+01:00

This isn't all that a substantiated post, but I felt this particular gem needed some viewing. Enjoy!

Read this.

Short excerpt:

"From: David Thorne

Date: Wednesday 10 March 2010 7.12pm
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Permission Slip

Dear Darryl, I have received your permission slip featuring what I can only assume is a levitating rabbit about to drop an egg on Jesus.Thank you for pre-ticking the permission box as this has saved me not only from having to make a choice, but also from having to make my own forty five degree downward stroke followed by a twenty percent longer forty five degree upward stroke. Without your guidance, I may have drawn a picture of a cactus wearing a hat by mistake.As I trust my offspring's ability to separate fact from fantasy, I am happy for him to participate in your indoctrination process on the proviso that all references to 'Jesus' are replaced with the term 'Purportedly Magic Jew.'
Regards, David.

From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Thursday 11 March 2010 9.18am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Permission Slip

Hello David The tick in the box already was a mistake I noticed after printing them all. I've seen the play and it's not indoctrinating anyone. It's a fun play performed by a great bunch of kids. You do not have to be religious to enjoy it. You are welcome to attend if you have any concerns. Darryl Robinson, School Chaplain

From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 11 March 2010 11.02am
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Dear Darryl, Thank you for the kind offer, being unable to think of anything more exciting than attending your entertaining and fun filled afternoon, I tried harder and thought of about four hundred things. I was actually in a Bible based play once and played the role of 'Annoyed about having to do this.' My scene involved offering a potplant, as nobody knew what Myrrh was, to a plastic baby Jesus then standing between 'I forgot my costume so am wearing the teachers poncho' and 'I don't feel very well'. Highlights of the play included a nervous donkey with diarrhoea causing 'I don't feel very well' to vomit onto the back of Mary's head, and the lighting system, designed to provide a halo effect around the manger, overheating and setting it alight. The teacher, later criticised for dousing an electrical fire with a bucket of water and endangering the lives of children, left the building in tears and the audience in silence. We only saw her again briefly when she came to the school to collect her poncho. Also, your inference that I am without religion is incorrect and I am actually torn between two faiths; while your god's promise of eternal life is very persuasive, the Papua New Guinean mud god, Pikkiwoki, is promising a pig and as many coconuts as you can carry. Regards, David."

Continue at: http://www.27bslash6.com/easter.html

Fanged Chickens (... and atavisms)

2010-08-04T17:02:00.007+01:00

Firstly, apologies for the delay in getting something up here since I returned from the trip. I've been busy surfing (I'm addicted...), dragging friends to see Inception, other social things that eat your time and I might have bought Starcraft 2. Big woopsie there.

Continuing on...
___

One of my favourite things to bring up when chatting to Creationists are atavisms. In their response, I only ever get silence, unrelated meandering or a loud exclamation of "falldidit!".

So, what are atavisms...?
Atavisms are evolutionary throwbacks. Going by dictionary definition - it's the "tendency to revert to an ancestral type". These apparent anomalies occur due to organisms preserving (phenotypical) features in their DNA, they're simply deactivated and thus not expressed. However, a random mutation occasionally occurs which reactivates these genes. This results in the creature having (sometimes) primitive and ancestral features. For example, if a grandfather had a specific trait or characteristic that was not present in any of his children, it is still possible for the grandchild (or great, great grandchild) to possess such a feature. This is because the genes are still there in all the intermediates between the grandfather and the great grandchild, they were simply not expressed.

Some interesting examples...
Whales with legs:
As I hope you know, whales don't have legs. They do, however, have a vestigial pelvis. This is because whales are descended from terrestial mammals that had hindlimbs. It is argued that the pelvis is still utilized, although this is more of an evolutionary workaround and modification of function. It is still not the original and obvious function that it once performed. The interesting thing is, though, is that there have been multiple cases in which whales have been found with functional atavistic limbs attached to the vestigial pelvis. From an exterior and superficial glance, they simply appear like extra hind fins as opposed to legs, but if you examine the anatomy - the "fins" include fully formed femurs, tibula, fibia and digits (toes). These aren't the sole result of random mutations (only the reactivation of present genes), the information must be already there. Such features don't spontaneously spawn in individual organisms unless they're of atavistic nature.

Chickens with reptile teeth:
Another one of my favourite examples of atavisms is from chickens. It goes as follows: chickens don't have teeth. They did evolve from creatures that had teeth, however; dinosaurs. This means it's possible that chickens may retain the genes required for the growth of such choppers. As it turns out, they do. Scientists have even been able to induce "alligator-like" tooth formation in chicken embryos. This is only possible because of the genes being present, which, according to Creationism - they really shouldn't be.

Tailed humans:
During embryological development, all humans develop tails which later recede. Once again, this is because the genes are still present. A better example (and all the more difficult for Creationists to deal with), is when humans are born with tails. Some Creationists try to cast these evolutionary gems off as simple malformations: mutations with no trace of an ancestral state. However, they never address "true" tails (pseudo tails are simple skin and fat). That is, a functional appendage with skeletal, muscular and voluntary control, including vertebrae, nerves and muscle. This is not a simple "malformation". Just like the mamalian eye, it's an evolutionary "throwback", a biological legacy and a reflection of our history. It's an atavism, Creationists, deal with it.

Other:
There are many other great examples. Eg, snakes with hindlimbs, re-emerged extra toes on horses, ulna and fibula found on minature horse, hind fins on dolphins, people with enlarged ape-like canine teeth etc.

Creationist response:
As I said earlier, I rarely get a related response when I bring this up. The few times when I do receive a reply (and when it's not the typical meandering or blaming of the Fall), I get the image to the left shoved in my face along with "does this mean we evolved from goats?!" and a sly smile, as if they've just proven science wrong. Creationists - that's not an actual horn! Cutaneous horns are unusual tumours which seem to be caused by exposure to radiation over a long period of time. Mrs. Zhang Ruifang didn't have any goat-leftover genes reactivated. It's not an atavism, move on.

Potential falsification:
Atavisms must only show features included in the species evolutionary past - they must be ancestral. Otherwise, we either messed up the family tree or we have much more to learn about these odd reappearences. They must only revert to the ancestral type. Yet, there are absolutely no examples of atavisms contrary to the phylogenetic tree, ie, reptiles with fur. They all follow what evolution expects and predicts them to follow, nothing else.
___

Another slice of evidence for evolution. If you're a Creationist, I'd love a response explaining how you fit them with your beliefs, since these are fantastic indicators of a complex evolutionary past.

Got a question? Use the Contact Me tab or do it anonymously via my Formspring account.

Thoughts?

Inactive for a week

2010-07-17T12:26:00.002+01:00

I'm going on a surf trip for a week, so I won't be able to get much up on here, unfortunately. I might be able to find some time (and internet access) throughout the next few days, but overall, I'll be inactive.

Enjoy the week!

Christian Response to the Question Quiz #1

2010-07-15T21:12:00.001+01:00

A response from the 15 Questions for Christians quiz. I figured it would be better to dedicate a new post to it as opposed to answering in the comments section.
I realise this post is a quite lengthy, but it needs to be in order to accurately respond to each claim.

1. Why are you a Christian and not a Hindu/Muslim/etc.?

Christian:"I was brought up in a christian home but have experienced a very secular life, so lets put this in context, until about a year ago, I only had one christian friend the rest were athiest/ agnostic. I chose it because it sounded the most plausible to me, ironically i found Athiesm too lazy ;)."

My response: The assumption that a God exists and that he acts a certain way (according to the Bible) is not the most plausible. To be rational is to start with a blank canvas and to work your way up from there, using nothing but what you can observe and test.
The Bible was written 2000 years ago, and if anything, reflects nothing but the social context of the time. It is not a reliable source. Christianity is not the most plausible answer. It creates more questions than it answers.
Also, atheism is not lazy. It encourages independent, rational thought without resorting to the easy option of "GODDIDIT!". Most atheists are atheists because of scrutinizing their past beliefs. It's not lazy. That's also not "ironic".

2. Why is your religion correct?

Christian: "Its correct in the way that it tells that Jesus came down and offered salvation for sins. there is evidence that supports this claim, such as Jesus' historicity, eye witness accounts, culture etc but i wont get into those on this forum. As to the second question, it says in Romans that if you search fro God, them he will reviel himself to you, ever heard of Saint augustines invisible church?"

My response: Outside of the Bible, there is no valid evidence for Jesus' existence. Using the Bible as evidence is circular reasoning. It is not consistent even with itself and for the most part, it was written long after Jesus was said to have died.
To your second point - many other religions have similar claims and beliefs. There is no reason as to why Christianity is the "correct" choice. And again, the Bible is not a valid source. It's contradictory, inconsistent and you using it to explain the existence of God / why Christianity is correct is circular reasoning.

3. If you were born in ______, would you believe in ______?

Christian: "I have no way of answering this question, i honestly dont know what id be."

My response: That's true. However, as I said in the rest of the question, you can look at Saudi Arabia in which the majority are Muslims and all claim to be the "one true religion", and you can look at India in which the majority are Hindus and all claim to be the "one true religion". The point of the question was to demonstrate how your upbringing affects your beliefs.

4. What makes your "evidence" so compelling?

Christian: "btw that last statement was very presumptious, you have no idea of people on this forum are indoctrinated. also this is a HUGE question how do you expect someone to answer on this kind of a forum? but anyway, I would firstly start with general thiestic evidences such as anxilogical agruement kalam etc, then I would go into the historicity of the bible, Jesus etc. I would also use logical arguements supporting my view of God while trying to negate others. this is a very broad question did you want specifics?"

My response: Considering peoples religion is usually decided by their parents, which is decided by their parents (and location) etc., it is safe to say that ones religious beliefs are generally instilled via slow (sometimes inadvertent) indoctrination, ie. baptisms, communions, Sunday mass, etc.
The historicity of the Bible and Jesus is untrue and invalid. I'm curious as to what these "general theistic evidences" are and what your "logical arguments supporting [your] view of God" are.
Keep in mind that everything you say has been claimed by people of other religions. You have to prove how they are wrong and why you are right.

The questions are to get people thinking.

5. Why are there so many denominations in most religions?

Christian: "well every religion has what they would call facts, for example its a fact in Christianity that jesus died on a cross, for our sins. there are however interpretations of that fact, which comes out with about 6 atonement theories. the denominations sprang out of those interpretations."

My response: The reason I asked the question was to outline how there are so many different interpretations of the Bible etc., which proves that you can take it whatever way you want. There are over 38,000 different denominations in Christianity alone. If the Bible was indeed a result of divine revelation, there shouldn't be so many ways to look at it. You also have to consider why your particular denomination is the correct one. Also, a just God wouldn't cause so many people to believe in so many different things, and then condemn them for picking the wrong one (or due to their upbringing).

6. Why is the Bible inconsistent?

Christian: "i believe Luther said it best when he said the bible was pearls amoung dirt. you have to know that the bible is inspired not dictated, so while eternal truths are maintained error does happen, although alot rarer than some peopel think, for example songs/poetry is mean to convey emotions, worship not to be 100% accurate."

My response: You cannot be sure that any of the Bible is valid. The inconsistencies, contradictions and immorality revealed in the Bible does not hint towards any divine origin. A lot of the valued messages in the Bible were said before Christianity.

7. Why does the Bible order you to kill so many people? And why does it support things like slavery?

Christian: "there are many views on this question, two popular ones are like you, said it was the cultural thing of the time, which the people did not god. However others state that God was showing them what the penalty of sin was, which was death, to them it is alright for God to take a life. These are just examples.... I advise you look into it more ;)"

My response: I have looked into it. A benevolent being would not order the death of homosexuals, liars, witches, fortune-tellers (God believed in witches and fortune-tellers? Hmm...) etc. Also, some of the things that God condemned were genetic (homosexuality), and if God was omnipotent and omniscient, he would not allow for it to happen if he was going to condemn it later.
Also, note that genocide, rape and murder etc., were all encouraged (as long as it was in Gods name) and condoned in the Bible. If such direct orders were misinterpreted, well, there really is no reason to trust the Bible.
Another also, are you saying God considered murder to be fine as long as it was to "show others what the penalty of sin was"? To say that murder is okay as long as it has Gods stamp of approval is seriously disturbing.

8. How do you decide what parts of the Bible to take literally?

Christian: "we ask ourselves questions for example.
what does the text say?
Are there any clearer texts about this issue?
what was the culture of the text?
how is the text written? song/historic/poetic etc.
I wont bore you with other question we ask but I hope you get the gist."

My response: If it's divine revelation, it should be infallible and timeless, and therefore no need to cherrypick specific parts to believe. If it's entirely human written and inspired, it should contain inconsistencies, contradictions, agree with the social context of the time etc., all of which are in the Bible. If rape is acceptable in the culture, a benevolent and omniscient God would see it for its immorality and would most definitely not condone it. If such direct orders were so overly misinterpreted, there is no reason to trust the Bible.

9. Why is there suffering?

Christian: "Why isnt it that you dont think God has a good reason? You see the statement that you saying implies that these statements mutully exclusive, the statement God having a good reason is only to show that they arnt neccessarily mutually exclusive so tell me why they are?"

My response: People suffering incomprehensible pain cannot be a part of a "good" divine plan, all whilst others get off scott-free. It is beyond "unjust", in fact it is downright cruel on Gods part. Upkeeping the assumption of such a being and saying "God has a good reason!" doesn't work. There is unimaginable and incomparable pain and suffering that some humans are forced to endure due to no fault of their own. Allowing for such a living hell is not acceptable if you have the potential to stop it.

10. Why is there a Hell? And how does an never ending punishment justify a finite crime?

Christian: "How christians answer this depends on their theology, Annhilationism, universalism, seperationsim etc, so this question is easier for some christians than others.

I believe in Seperation, not hellfire Ill justify my views if you like.
Firstly Sin isnt a finite crime is a kind of corruption that inhabits all those that sin, imo i havnt studied it in depth, and why hell, well if you want you can choose God and be with him or reject him and not be in his precense, hell is to give you the choice of your way or Gods, its the inevitable outcome of free will."

My response: See: Hell: A burning contradiction
Hell is a finite crime. It's like torturing your child for the rest of their life for something they did in school, except Hell is ofcourse infinitely worse.

God could have went around the free will barrier by simply reducing our animalistic instincts of aggression, anger, violence, lust etc., since they are all purely physical and measurable processes that result from impulses in the brain. God could have mitigated these instinctual desires (and hence reduce sin) without affecting freewill.

11. Why do so many prayers go unanswered?

Christian: "again presumptious you have no idea of God answers the prayer in ways other than the person intended this is pure speculation on your part.
Ill try and answer the others when I have more time, but they are very good questions I can see you have thought about this alot good for you!!! :)
also i hope this made sense i didnt have time to check it."

My response: It's not presumptuous. I can clearly see that at least the majority of prayers go unanswered, and this happens to be around the same as random chance and not praying. Prayer has been proven to be ineffective in multiple studies. No medical miracles occur. For example, God doesn't grow back limbs or eyes etc., basically anything deemed impossible by scientific standards. The only "miracles" that are claimed to occur can be explained scientifically.

Why would a God answer one persons prayer about a relationship, and then ignore someones prayer to see, hear or walk again? Or even survive? The prayers that people claim to have come true are simple coincidences. No inexplicable miracles have ever been recorded and verified.

12. What would falsify your beliefs?

Christian: a good philisophical arguement would probably do it, none of this popular arguementation really does it for me but there are some good arguements out that that have left me thinking so we shall see.

My response: I would have thought that a complete lack of evidence would be a great starting point.

13. Why is God conveniently defined as immeasurable?

Christian: look up perfect being theology, thats were we get the omnimax. so yeah that is why he is called immeasurable.

My response: Why would a "perfect being" be so reluctant to prove his existence? Blind faith and suspension of reason is not a virtue. God is defined as immeasurable so Christians don't have to worry about evidence or science.
Since God seems to have an eternity of suffering (or "detachment from God forever") planned for unbelievers, and is also so reluctant to offer proof of his existence, it's not exactly a fair or moral test.

14. Why does God not make any appearances, now that we have the technology to record and measure it?

Christian: what are you saying, that he couldnt make himself known to people in bronze age palestine? and im not sure how this is relevant, does it matter if he makes an appearance or not.

My response: If God appeared only to a group of primitive, violent people in the desert, there is no reason why he would not appear to any of the more civilised parts of Earth or even nowadays when we can accurately record it. It does matter if he makes an appearance or not, because he is requesting blind faith and dogma and then supposedly condemns people for not believing because they require more than popular consensus. Even if he does not condemn people, if religion is to play a major role in ones life, it is unreasonable to leave it unquestioned and without rationality and evidence.

15. Why are Adam and Eve punished for doing something before they knew the difference between right and wrong?

Christian: here is an article that should help shed some light onto it.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240170 short version the word mean knowledge as in experience rather than intellecual knowledge.

My response: If they could not distinguish between right and wrong until after they "experienced" it, it makes no sense to punish them for doing so. If they do not understand the differences, they cannot comprehend Gods order or the meaning of their actions by violating it. If they truly knew nothing of evil, they would not see the evil in their actions by eating the fruit.
___

Thanks for answering!

Respond to me below or use the Contact Me tab. Want to have your own go at the questions? Test your faith using my 15 Questions for Christians quiz!

How Rome influenced the design of the Space Shuttle

2010-07-13T23:18:00.003+01:00

This isn't something that I usually blog about, but it came up in a conversation I had with a friend recently and I felt compelled to relay it. Enjoy.
___

How the Romans influenced the design of the Space Shuttle (or how a horse influenced it, either way works), in an odd string of cause and effects.

Chariots to roads...
In Ancient Rome, a standard width for the War Chariots needed to be established in order to determine road width (and general safety of roads) and to secure some form of resemblance between the Chariots. This standard was limited due to the materials then being unable to support excessive weight and length. So, the Romans decided that the width of two standard horses (with the chariot behind) would be an ideal metric, since the design promised lasting durability, speed and uniformity. Once the width of the chariot was standardized, the roads followed suit in accordance with the decided metrics.

Unsurprisingly, the Roman roads were built exceedingly well, and as a result, they lasted.

Roads to railways...
Since the roads endured the test of time, they continued to be used long after the Roman empire had collapsed. Hence, the chariots width became the prevailing archetype for roads right up until the last few hundred years. This led to Wagons and Carts to be constructed in accordance with road width, which as we now know, was decided by the Romans. In turn, this resulted in modern railways and trams being built with the same metrics (4 feet, 8 and 1/2 inches), since they were based on the road and cart width (as well as all tools being standardized to that width).

Hence, the Romans inadventently standardized the width of our trains. Oddly enough, it doesn't stop there.

Railways to Space Shuttles...
Next to the Space Shuttle on the launch pad are two huge "Solid Rocket Boosters" attached to each side. These boosters were designed by engineers in Utah, and thus later had to be transported via train to the launch site. Unfortunately, the traintrack runs through a tunnel, and this wasn't wide enough to carry the SRBS. This complicated things and forced the engineers to reconsider their design of the boosters in order for them to be hauled to the Space Center.

Summary:
Horse width >> Chariots
Chariots >> Roads
Roads >> Railways
Railways >> Space Shuttle

I think it's downright incredible to realise how one decision two thousand years ago led to a limitation of the Space Shuttles booster size, and hence, how the Ancient Romans influenced our most advanced transportation system ever built.
___

So, any thoughts on this odd chain of events?

An atheists response to Christian conversion

2010-07-12T23:39:00.000+01:00

Firstly, I apologize for posting this, but I couldn't resist.

You ain't got no pancake mix!

___

On a sidenote, I recently discovered the joys of StumbleUpon. Here are a few of my gems (so far) regarding atheism:

What does the Bible tell us? http://i.imgur.com/4bDU8.gif
Gods you don't believe in: http://lukeprog.com/religion/gods.html
You're going to Hell if... http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/to-hell!.htm
A compilation of proofs of Gods existence: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Oh, and don't forget to Ask Me Anything!

/Raithie

New comment system

2010-07-10T21:44:00.003+01:00

A new comment system (Intense Debate) is now installed. This allows for threaded replies, a comment rating system, Commentluv etc. It makes it easier to track conversations as you can now reply directly underneath the comment you want to respond to.

You can sign up for an Intense Debate account here. Unfortunately, it's not compatible with Google accounts, but you can comment anonymously or with OpenID (as well as Twitter, Wordpress etc.). So there's no need to sign up to anything.

Happy commenting!

Why I don't eat babies

2010-07-08T16:55:00.002+01:00

A common Christian response to atheism is: "What's the point of being moral without God?"... It fails, miserably.

By asking such a question, the Christian is stating that the only reason why they bother being good to other people is because they crave reward and fear punishment. It's pathetic. They are saying that the only reason why they're not out raping, murdering or committing genocide is because of them being fearful of God or lust for immortality. That is not morality. That is a selfish and cowardly position devoid of sincerity and genuine compassion.

So why bother being good?
I'm an atheist, so why am I not out raping and murdering for the giggles? I mean, I don't believe in God, so that means I don't have to worry about being judged. Right?
Nah. I'm good to others because I realise that this life is not some sort of rehearsal for the big show. This is it. And I don't want to waste mine or anyone else's being an ass. I care about other people and do to others as they would like to be treated (well, I try). I don't need a God to tell me what's right and wrong. I use my own judgement and do what I believe to be right. I may be fallible, but I'm not a jerk.

And to the people that claim that our inherent understanding and recognition of basic morality is a reason to believe in God, well, that's simply not the case. It's a purely naturalistic concept and it isn't confined to humans. Nonhuman animals are known to demonstrate altruistic behaviour, ie, Chimpanzees feeding Turtles, social play, empathy, mourning etc.

A naturalistic explanation:
Humans are social creatures. We constantly rely on external forces and peoples in our own survival. In order to depend and interact with others, we must have an inherent comprehension of what's acceptable. Thus, our innate sense of morality is not of divine origin. It's a biological drive that's a direct consequence of natural selection. A society that tolerates murder and lying is severely unstable. Simple principles of right and wrong help strengthen a community and allow for growth. It's the glue that ties and unifies a population so that we can live in a cohesive and viable environment.

Overall, our reliance on groups and abstract way of thinking has allowed us to define and acknowledge morality. Because of our intelligence, we can account for other people and "put ourselves in their shoes". Immoral behaviour is detrimental to society, especially if it is commonly done. Ergo, it isn't unreasonable to say it's a simple byproduct of natural selection.

For example:

We use language so we can communicate; lying distorts and defeats this purpose. When someone yells "run!", you need to be able to trust them. Lying negates this.
Murder can't be tolerated. It destabilizes the population and conflicts with other desires.
Rape can't be tolerated. It's unbottled sexual desire and aggression
Demonstrating empathy and practicing compassion is rewarded as it is beneficial to the society as a whole.
Etc.

So what of the other things that we typically attribute to humans, such as love?
Love is a biological construct. It's the result of the way we're wired up. Once again, it ties in nicely with natural selection. A child has a higher rate of survival if both parents are together and are working in a combined effort for the child. This enables the child to survive and grow until he/she can reproduce, too. If a man has multiple children with multiple women, the mother is then forced to raise the child alone, and thus, the child's chance of survival decreases. Hence, some sort of binding force is needed to keep the parents together. Out comes love.
I realize this is a stripped down synopsis and quite a simplification, but you get the gist.

Conclusion:
Overall, our sense of morality is dictated by what works for society. Our emotions and attachment to others serves as a biological function to maintain harmony and to allow for group dependence. Nurture plays a part by refining and reinforcing these intrinsic values.
I live a good life not out of fear of damnation or because I desire eternal life, but for goodness' sake alone... which I believe is the only genuine way to live, with or without God.
___

Got a question? Use the Contact Me tab or do it anonymously via my Formspring account.

PS: Apologies for the chimp pictures. I originally put them up to demonstrate other apes emotions etc., and well, I just couldn't take them down. Cuteness!

Related posts:
Unintelligent Design: The Eye
Peppered Moths
An explanation
Mutations
Sieves and pebbles

Thoughts?

Re: Personal Miracle

2010-07-04T19:57:00.003+01:00

This was left in the comments on the post: "First hate mail". I wouldn't be surprised if it's simply a parody (blame Poes Law), but since I've seen similar spews in the past, I'm going to assume it's of serious intent.

"Why I know That There is a God and That He Loves Me

A Personal Testimony.

Allow me to share a story. Not too long ago doubt was creeping into my head about the Lord and then a miracle happened.

It was 3 years ago and 50 members of my church were enroute to a bible camp in the Blueridge Mountains of Virginia. They were traveling in a chartered bus. As they sang hymns, Satan was up to his old tricks. You see, the bus driver was an atheist alcoholic socialist and that day he was filling his coffee mug with vodka. As the bus wound up through the switchbacks, the driver became progressively drunker. Then it happened. It was that day that changed this poor sinner's life forever. Entering a particularly tight switchback, the besotted driver finally lost control of the bus and it plummeted 1500 feet down into a ravine where it exploded into a fireball incinerating the flock. The only survivor that fateful day was a young boy who was thrown from the bus by his father seconds before it hit the bottom.

This young boy suffered severe brain damage from hitting a rock head first and will have to wear a football helmet and drool cup for the remainder of his life. But his survival proved to me that miracles do happen because God does exist and loves me. The Lord used that accident to bring me back to his flock.

Hallelujah!

Praise Jesus! Just open your eyes to his miracles and you will see them everywhere"

Thanks for the story. Before I launch in to discuss it in detail, I must ask how you knew the bus driver was filling his coffee mug with Vodka, since you claim the bus "exploded into a fireball". Secondly, I'm curious as to why the passengers let the bus driver drink, because from the way you described it, it seemed pretty obvious. But this is a digression.

I'm afraid your story had the opposite effect on me than what you were intending. I don't think you realise the implications of such a tale.

The problems...
You're trying to tell me that atleast 49 people were "incinerated" and that a boy now has to live the rest of his life with severe brain damage. You then tell me that this is a miracle, and thus, Gods will. Frankly, I find that sickening. If this God was immature enough to crave your attention and faith, what's stopping him from proving himself to you without killing all those people? After all, he IS omnipotent. It sounds like he didn't think it through (which negates omniscience). Or else he's a sadistic freak who opts to murder and destroy the lives of people (and his followers, at that) in order to regain the faith of a single dwindling believer. Doesn't sound all that loving (which negates benevolence).

If you're claiming the miracle to be how the boy survived, well that sounds like mere coincidence. After all, everyone else perished. And it's not as if the child got off scott-free. You're also ignoring that parents tend to try to save their children. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't. Isn't it odd how supposed miracles occur at the same rate as random chance? Hmm... that's a tough one. Perhaps, God's very selective of who to help (and he always ensures he never does the impossible, ie, regrowing a limb. No medical mysteries are allowed, that would detract from unfounded faith). Or, perhaps "miracles" are just theists grasping at straws when unlikely events occur. I think this is the case.

Conclusion:
Implausibility does not mean impossibility. It doesn't necessitate divine intervention. Improbable things happen all the time.

So, how arrogant must you be in order to claim that atleast 50 peoples (not counting family and friends) lives were obliterated in order to return you to "His flock."?

___

Got a question? Use the Contact Me tab or do it anonymously via my Formspring account.

Thoughts?

First hate mail!

2010-07-02T17:31:00.000+01:00

Haven't decided as to whether it's a joke or not, but it made me smile. ;-)

"your a terrible person so you are nothing but a pile of s**t!! you ignorant used your common sense! better shut up, you will never succeed. You have no right to say that god is evil, immoral, immature, sadistic, unjust, egocentric, genocidal, racist and misogynistic prick.
Are you talking about yourself? Do you know what comes out to our dirty mouth describe who you are!!!
why the f**k i waste my minutes reading and commenting in this stupid blog!! that is pure of nonsense ideas this is the dumbest I ever read! You only display good comments you are such a stupid person!! unbiased , don't ever dream that you will succeed even in writing you ass!!!!!!! you write stupid things your blog is full of silliest and dumbest things I ever read.Unreliable blogger. No credential to prove your claim no professionalism in the way you write, you sound like a garbage talking...better just don't write and just keep your f**kin mouth shut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Don't you just love some constructive criticism? It's great to know there are Christians out there spreading Gods love! Oh, and try reading the Bible from time to time. Here's one of my favourite quotes from it, it really helps me get through the day:

(Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT) "Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children."

An ace example of Gods love.

Also, I do show comments. I have enjoyed a number of good discussions with theists here. It's spam that I delete.

/Raithie

RE: "You can't disprove God or prove evolution"

2010-06-29T13:02:00.005+01:00

This was left in the comments on the page "Why are you angry at God?"

Theist: "What do you guys believe in?

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, so that would mean that you believe in something that cannot be proven, therefore it is only a belief, just as believing in God is a belief."

My response: Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of a belief. Just like a disbelief in unicorns, pixies and fairies. Strong atheism actively asserts that there is no God, but weak atheism only asserts a disbelief, which is not a belief in itself. Given the complete lack of any evidence pointing to a supernatural deity, atheism is the default position.

"Calling atheism a belief is like calling bald a hair colour". Don Hirschberg.

The definition of God is both indefinable and unfalsifiable, which renders it a meaningless term. If you're going to throw around the "You can't prove God doesn't exist" argument, you're faced with the conundrum that you cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster or Zeus or any of the other thousands of Gods invented by mankind. The burden of proof lies on the person making such grand claims.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Christopher Hitchens

Theist: "Or is it evolution that you believe in? Evolution is not a proven fact, it is a theory that has not been proven as fact, therefore it is only a belief. That would mean you believe in something that has not been proven. How is this any different than believing in God who cannot be proven?

Just looking for clarification."

My response: I don't "believe" in evolution, I accept it. There is an overwhelming amount of proof for evolution. For example:

Genetics,
Comparative anatomy,
Transitional fossils,
Atavisms,
Vestigial organs,
Vestigial behaviours,
Similar morphological features,
Observed instances of speciation,
Observed natural selection,
Observed microevolution,
Junk DNA (broken vitamin C gene in particular),
Artificial selection,
Embryology,
Instances of "messy" design (ie The Eye),
Predicted species distribution,
Etc.

Evolution can be proven. This has been done so many times. Take a look at my Peppered Moths post for some information on observed evolutionary changes. You also seem to be confusing the word "theory" with the colloquial usage of the word. "Theory" in everyday language simply means an unsupported view or hunch. In scientific terms, however, a "theory" is a well substantiated and documented explanation for our observations and results. It ties the raw data (the facts) together to establish wholesome explanatory and predictive power.

Calling the theory of evolution "just a theory" is like calling the theory of gravity "just a theory". And I'm reasonably confident that you wouldn't dismiss gravity. These are not laws, they are theories. The difference being that a law is a description of a fundamental principle in science, whilst a theory is an explanation.

So, accepting evolution is drastically different to believing in a supernatural being. Thanks for the comment.
___

Got a question? Use the Contact Me tab or do it anonymously via my Formspring account. Are you a devout Christian? Test your faith using my 15 Questions for Christians quiz!

Thoughts?

Christopher Hitchens take on Christianity

2010-06-28T13:40:00.000+01:00

A few of Christopher Hitchens arguments against Christianity.

Personally, I love it. Especially in his first points referring to the delay for "God" to intervene and how it occured in a desert, superstitious and violent area as opposed to (relatively) peaceful and educated civilizations such as the Chinese or nowadays.

Interesting to ponder. Thoughts?

Formspring question: Why are you angry at God?

2010-06-26T22:54:00.003+01:00

Question: Raithie, I read your blog. you seem angry at God. Why? What did he do to you?

I'm not angry at God. I don't believe in God. Hence why I refer to myself as an atheist. If you think I'm angry at God, you didn't read the blog properly.
Through the blog, I outline the contradictions said by Christians and believers. I find it immensely irritating when Christians cling to the Bible and then have the audacity to claim that their God loves me. The biblical God is not good nor is he loving. He's a genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic, jealous and a temperamental being. He condones and orders murder, rape and oppression of women. He thrives on prayer, worship and blind, unquestioned faith and then sentences people to an eternity of suffering for either using their reasoning and skeptical nature or simply believing in the wrong god due to location of birth. That is not just. To even impose the fear of such a horrific concept is pure evil, and Jesus of the bible does it on a number of occasions.
That's why I dislike the biblical God. He's a sadistic, tyrannical piece of fiction.

Just take a look at the world around you and you'll see, at the very least, that "God" is apathetic to our existence. There is too much suffering, pain and utter anguish for a supposedly omnipotent, benevolent being to allow for it. I also find myself to be annoyed at how so much money is donated to religious organisations and used for the building and running costs of churches, synagogues, mosques etc. There is no need for such fancy and ostentatious buildings or even to have such buildings at all. Give the money to charities or humanistic organisations, and the money will actually help someone and something.

Those are some of the reasons why I dislike theism. I do not believe in any god.

___

Got a question? Use the Contact Me tab or do it anonymously via my Formspring account.

Direct link: http://www.formspring.me/Raithie

I'll answer as soon as possible.
___

Related posts:
What makes a God good?
Hell: A burning contradiction

First Formspring question

2010-06-25T11:55:00.001+01:00

Question: "What is the education system like in Ireland? I hear the Catholic Church runs the show."

My response: It's actually quite good. Most schools are Catholic, but this doesn't make Catholicism obligatory. Religion is not even a forced subject; it's voluntary. It used to be extremely religious etc., but that has changed, thankfully. Religion has very little influence on any of the schools nowdays.

Religion is still linked with the state, but it holds an extremely weak position and is slowly weakening.
___

Got a question? Use the Contact Me tab or do it annonymously via my Formspring account.

Direct link: http://www.formspring.me/Raithie

I'll answer as soon as possible.

Got a question?

2010-06-24T13:33:00.001+01:00

I recently made a Formspring account in order to make it easier for people to ask me questions. Ask me anything and I'll respond via Formspring or this blog.

Direct link: http://www.formspring.me/Raithie

___

Feel free to ask me anything!

Why "Personal Experience" fails.

2010-06-23T10:35:00.003+01:00

I was recently engaged in a Twitter debate regarding the validity of the "personal experience" claim by theists.

Here is my response:

"My question: If personal experiences are actually valid, then why do so many people of different religions and Gods claim to have them? And what of the people who claim that God told them to kill people?

Christian response: The answer 2 this ? is COMPLEX. It is simple if U assume there is not spirit world. Bam. All experiences are invalid and have some natural explaination.

My response: Complex? It's actually quite simple. Many people claim to have had religious experiences and believe it firmly to be true, all because they believe in their particular God or set of Gods. If so many people claim to have such experiences (and ofcourse the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens etc.,), and if each belief is separate and contradictory to another - this invalidates the claims of "personal experience". Atleast the majority must be wrong or lying.

You tell me to drop my assumptions. Yet you don't realise that I already have. Atheism is the default position. I don't assume the beliefs and writings of primitive, violent people from 2000years ago. I reject them for what they are because they are inconsistent, contradictory and reflect nothing but the social context of the time. (Hence, rape, murder and genocide are all condoned)
I see the potential humans have for imaginative tales, and I see why they are so appealing - religion conveniently ties in with our instinctual desires and fear of death and the unknown. Over the years, thousands of Gods have been created to explain things we didn't understand. The God is nearly always a reflection of the culture of the time. For example, modern Gods are much softer and nicer than before, when they were jealous, violent and dangerous beings.

You're starting with the presupposition that God exists and when confronted with contrary evidence, you stick to your assumption and cast it off as "complex" or too difficult for humans to understand. That's not a valid argument. It's an excuse.

Apologies for the length."

Her original response: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/229up0
My original response: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/dc8859730bf72feef63949dede4ddc35

Thoughts?

Pascals Wager

2010-06-21T19:44:00.003+01:00

I keep seeing Christians throwing Pascals Wager around, as if it actually holds water. For those of you unfamiliar with the proposition, here it is:

"If you believe in God and there is indeed a God, you have everything (heaven and immortality) to gain.
If you believe in God and there is in fact no God, you have nothing to lose.

If you don't believe in God and there is indeed a God, you have everything to lose (Hell).
If you don't believe in God and there is in fact no God, you have nothing to lose.

Hence, if you live as though God exists, you could potentially gain infinity, so it's the rational choice."

Sound reasonable? Not quite.

Assumptions:
1. The first thing I notice with the wager is the number of assumptions it makes. The most blatant one being that an omniscient God would be deceived by the deliberate feigning of belief required in this gamble. Some Christians try to do away with this by claiming that they already have the faith that is needed to qualify - however, this invalidates the need for the wager and thus is pointless for them to use.

2. The next assumption I notice is in the second line: "you have nothing to lose". I whole heartedly disagree with this. If you live your life performing pointless and meaningless rituals and prayer, you are wasting your life. By praying for someone to recover rather than than actively doing something about it is wasting both your time and theirs. By praying that God helps the poor and victims of natural disasters (that he failed to prevent), you are not helping in any way. In fact, I would consider it to be more of an insult. It's a way of saying you're too lazy and selfish to actively do something about it yourself, so you'll "pray" instead in an attempt to prove your supposed "good nature".

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer" - Anonymous.

If God doesn't exist, all those trips to mass, religion classes, communions, confirmations, all that money the Vatican thrives on, the money sent to churches rather than helping the poor etc., immediately become pointless. So, instead of living your life to the full, you're potentially wasting it thinking about death and accepting mediocrity inadvertently becomes easier because apparently in "Heaven", you'll get all those nice things you currently live without. As Karl Marx stated, "religion is the opiate of the masses", and I couldn't agree more. So you do in fact have something to lose; a life spent accepting and enjoying the fragility, rarity and beauty of the one shot that you get. Richard Dawkins considers this the "Anti-Pascals Wager", he sums it up as follows:

"Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc." - Richard Dawkins

3. The next glaring assumption is that an atheist has "everything to lose" if there is a God. Now, this is a rather icky area for the Christian, because it means that God rewards average or even immoral lives, as long as it's coupled with blind faith, and then condemns any form of skepticism that resulted in him failing to prove himself to the person, even if it's entwined with a moral and worthy life. That doesn't sound very just. Of course, the entire concept of Hell itself is barbaric and contradictory of a supposedly benevolent being. If you're looking for what traits a true benevolent God would possess, click here for my take.

4. The last assumptions are that God would favour blind faith and suspension of reason as opposed to utilizing our capacity for rational enquiry and evidence. It also assumes that one can "decide" their beliefs to the extent that it's not a deliberate feigning. You can't decide to love or truly believe in God. It doesn't work that way.

Conclusion: So if we assume that the Christian god is both existent and benevolent (which are both attested by Christians), then God would never have such an unjust system of deciding punishments and reward in the first place, and then would also not have such a vicious and eternal punishment as the biblical Hell, we come to the conclusion that the unbeliever is in fact not losing anything that a believing Christian wouldn't.

A just God would judge someone on the content of their character as opposed to the content of their scripture.
Okay, so that's the assumptions cleared up. Moving on.

The Paradox:
Allow for assumptions: Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there is a God and that he doesn't see past this little deception (feigning) of beliefs. And let's say he still rewards you for "fooling" the system. And lets say that this benevolent being judges people purely on what they believe as opposed to what kind of a person they are. And lets say that if you unfortunately and inadvertently happen to believe in the wrong god or goddess or set of beliefs / interpretations, God tortures you for eternity whilst rewards the morally lazy cheaters in heaven because they either believed the indoctrination as a child, never questioned unfounded dogma or decided to "bet their chances" via an entirely selfish gamble. Now that we've allowed for those assumptions, let's move on once again.

Yet another problem: Pascals Wager only offers a mathematical advantage if you are only considering one particular religion and conveniently ignoring the rest. This equation disregards every other potential god(s) or goddess(es) believed to be true by humans as nonexistent. Now, I'm all for that - except Christians continuously fail to apply the reasons for dismissing all other possible gods to their own supernatural deity, and thus discount their validity in the wager, and then have the arrogance to claim that the gamble is still sound for their purposes. In reality, there are thousands of options that would need to be considered in the wager. Picking (or being brought up in) the wrong one becomes an extremely hazardous decision / upbringing.

Christian Response:
Most Christians try to get around this by saying that the argument leads to "generic theism", and that this is all that's needed to reap the benefits of the wager. I have two things to say to that. Firstly, most religions condemn "nonbelievers" and this includes everyone that is of a different religion as well as atheists. In this situation, the wager falls apart. Secondly, the idea of "generic theism" does not constitute Heaven in any religion. Each religion subscribes to a fixed set of beliefs and usually require a legalistic adherence. "Generic theism" is considered heresy since it defiles the teachings and tries to get the easy way out by covering all options. In this situation, the wager falls apart according to the religious teachings itself.

Why it fails:
So, if you're going to adhere to such a gamble, you have to address every potential pothole. You could argue that by selecting any religion (although "selecting" a religion is almost impossible - generally speaking, you are what you're born into), you are raising your chances of getting into some form of heaven, but at the same time, you're increasing your chances of being condemned by every other religion. As well as living your life in selfish deceit or wishful thinking.

So overall, Pascals Wager is worthless. It's not an intelligent decision based on probability, but a selfish and deceptive one that fails to acknowledge the very belief that Christians so dearly cling to - that God is omniscient.

___

Thoughts?

Respond below or use the Contact Me tab. Are you a devout Christian? Test your faith using my 15 Questions for Christians quiz!

What makes a God good?

2010-06-19T21:11:00.003+01:00

I'm tired of Christians telling me that their God is omnibenevolent and loving and then turn around and talk about the Bible, Hell or to shame gays or unbelievers etc. If the Bible is indeed a true revelation and hence indicative of his character, then God is nothing but an evil, immoral, immature, sadistic, unjust, egocentric, genocidal, racist and misogynistic prick. He supports the oppression of women and orders them to be submissive. His instructions are that nonbelievers, witches, fortune tellers, homosexuals, liars, people who commit adultery, girls who aren't virgins before marriage etc., should all be murdered and will spend an eternity choking, burning and screaming in unmatchable pain and suffering.
Christians try to get away with this by basing certain aspects of his character and history from the Bible, and then irrationally discard anything contrary to their new, loving God because it doesn't fit well with modern society. However, this doesn't work. You can't cherrypick the parts you like and claim them to be "divine" and true, and then cast off anything contrary as "metaphorical" simply because they don't match up with the modern understanding of morality.

So, if there truly is a divine being, and if he is truly benevolent, then what is he like? Well, I could go the Christian or biblical way, but that's so riddled with holes and contradictions and, well, definitely not "benevolent", that it's the opposite of what anyone would consider an all loving being. So I'm going to go about this from a purely rational and unbiased viewpoint.

So what makes for a good God?
Firstly, a truly loving God does not discriminate based on beliefs. He/She would judge people by the content of their character as opposed to the content of their scripture. A good atheist would be compared to a good Christian, and an immoral atheist would be compared to an immoral believer. Simple belief does not cut it.

A good God would not condemn skeptical or independent thought. In fact, this would be encouraged. Blind and unquestioned faith is definitely not a virtue and should not be treated as such. It's the kind of thing that flies people into buildings.
A good God would not rely on the attention of his creations, especially since he would be the designer. There is no reason for an omniscient, supernatural being to crave the attention of mere humans, and there is certainly no reason for him to condemn them for not praying and stroking his ego. He would want his creations to enjoy and appreciate their limited time on the Earth rather than wasting it in useless worshipping behaviour.
A good God would not have a fixed justice system in place, in which there are only two "ways to go". There would be no Hell or Hell equivalent.
And lastly, but probably most importantly - a benevolent God would not allow for such misery and suffering here on Earth. There would be no horrific diseases, natural disasters, starvation etc.

In short, the characteristics of a benevolent being are:

Indiscriminate of beliefs,
Just to all,
Asks for nothing but moral behaviour,
Differentiates only by character - not beliefs / lack of beliefs,
Encourages rational and independent thought and enquiry,
No Hell,
Prevents undue suffering upon the Earth,
Etc.

I can't help but notice the disparity between this ideal and truly benevolent being and the supposed all loving God of the Bible.

And what would an evil God do?
Well, quite frankly, an evil God is best described as the biblical God. His creations are simple pawns on his playing board made to satisfy his sadistic and egocentric behaviour. He builds faulty beings purposefully in order to curse them eternally for exercising this faulty nature. He demands worship and punishes people if they do not oblige (unknowingly or not) to his attention seeking requests of prayer, worship, proselytizing etc.
An evil being is one who knows exactly how to make individuals believe (omniscient), but would refuse to do so - instead forcing the ultimatum to either blindly follow consensus or to face eternal misery and punishment in Hell.

An evil God would segregate based on beliefs and eternally torture and burn anyone who does not live according to his rules.
An evil being would condone murder, slavery, genocide, homophobia, misogyny etc., and even order killings to be carried out upon humans who break his rules or do things as trivial as working on the Sabbath day, having sex before marriage etc. (All of which are ordered and condoned in the Bible, may I add.)
An evil God would thrive on incurious, unquestioning and sheep-like behaviour and his main concern would be to gain more followers.
An evil being would allow for agonizing diseases, deaths and natural disasters. He would possibly even inflict such things deliberately in order to "cleanse" or "purge" his creations from time to time, ie. Noah's flood, Jews in the desert, etc.

These all sound awfully familiar with the "Good Book" ...

So, in short the characteristics of an evil being are:

Sadistic,
Hateful,
Egocentric (requires continuous worship and belief),
Discourages independent thought,
Encourages incurious behaviour and unquestionable dogma,
Encourages blind faith and suspension of reason,
Genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic, allows for slavery etc.,
Allows for Hell,
Allows for horrific suffering on Earth,
Etc.

Sadly, all of those traits are associated with the biblical God. Admittedly, at times that is not the case, but if the "Holy Book" was indeed a result of divine revelation, no such beliefs or writings would be included.

___

So what was the point of this post? To outline the differences between the Christians view of a benevolent being and that of a rational and truly benevolent being and to highlight the similarities between an evil being and the biblical God, which is what Christians base their beliefs on, even if partly.

___

Agree? Disagree? Love or hate? Respond below or use the Contact Me tab. Are you a devout Christian? Test your faith using my 15 Questions for Christians quiz!

Raithie.

Unintelligent Design: The Eye

2010-06-17T11:36:00.003+01:00

A refutation to a common Creationist argument. They keep spouting it, I keep refuting it and they keep ignoring it. That pattern gets frustrating.

Creationist proposition:
"The human eye is so intricate and perfect for its function that it must have had an intelligent designer! It's irreducibly complex and could not have formed through solely natural means!"

Refutation:
In order to answer this claim, I'm going to break it into two sections. Firstly - I'll deal with the supposed "perfection" of the idea.

1. "The human eye is so intricate and perfect for its function that it must have had an intelligent designer!" I will certainly admit that the human eye is incredibly complicated and a downright wonderful tool. There's certainly no dispute there. However, the problem with the Creationist claim is that the eye is "perfect". Although it definitely looks the case, in reality the human eye is far from ideal. If anything, the human eye is a testament to our evolutionary past. It's a biological legacy.

Basically - mammalian eyes are backwards. Here's a simple explanation by Richard Dawkins:

"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer)."

This backwards engineering fits in perfectly with evolutionary predictions. Natural selection can only work with what it inherited from the previous generation (and species), and hence it cannot start fresh and fix these blatant errors. So evolution is forced to create workarounds and retrofits to fix these problems (ie. the brain filling in information for the blind spot by guesswork), and unsurprisingly, that's exactly the case.

So, Creationists...
Please remind me why the eye is such a wonderful example of the perfection and fine tuning of nature. I really would love to know. It doesn't make sense for an omnipotent creator to design such faulty humans. If you claim that the blind spot isn't that much of a big deal, well I have two responses for that one.
Firstly, why would God give his supposedly prized creations backwards wiring anyway? And why not give us magnificent eyesight like that of the Mantis Shrimp etc., or even the design of an Octopus eye? (See the end of this post)
Secondly, although a blind spot isn't life threatening - it is far from ideal. And the eye is forced to utilize workarounds to fix this problem. There are also certain forms of Macular Degeneration that cause the blind spot to become more noticeable and hence, a major inconvenience.

2. "It's irreducibly complex and could not have formed through solely natural means!"
The eye is not irreducibly complex. Nothing is. Having something as simple as a photosensitive cell can provide a sufficient advantage for it to out-compete its predators and competition. Thus, the trait will spread throughout the population due to the filtration (reproductive success) system adopted by natural selection. (Click here for a detailed analogy of how it works.)

Here is a possible path proposed by Charles Darwin (thank TalkOrigins for the summary):

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

Any improvement (regardless of the scale) will offer a survival advantage and will help the organism to both avoid predation and to locate food sources more efficiently and accurately. The claim that our eyes are perfect or irreducibly complex is plain silly.

___

Convergent evolution: Octopus (Cephlapods)

I figured a suitable way to end this post would be to compare our eyes to that of the Octopus and squids.

Cephlapods split from the line of fish before the first backbone and bilateral symmetry evolved to become the primary form of life on Earth. Thus, they evolved in quite an alien way in comparison.

But why am I talking about Cephlapods? Because they got eyes right! Their retinas are not inverted! Their optical nerve does not drive a hole through the visual field in the retina! Thus, they have no blind spot - and their eyes, from an engineering and architectural standpoint; are "well designed"! So, why did "God" mess up ours? Hmm...

___

Thoughts?
Respond below or use the Contact Me tab. Are you a devout Christian? Test your faith using my 15 Questions for Christians quiz!

Peanut butter refutes evolution!

2010-06-15T21:36:00.004+01:00

I usually try to add more substance (and refutations) to my posts, but this just made my jaw drop. Enjoy.
___

Oh noes. The foundations of naturalism are ruined!

I wasn't sure whether I should bother post an actual refutation to this. It's just too much stupid.

I mean, evolution and abiogenesis obviously predicts life forming in peanut butter...!
I'd love to know whether any other Creationists agree with this?
___

For all of those that have seen the video already and laughed hysterically (like I did), watch it again, and then again! It gets me everytime. I must have contributed thousands of views to that video. Favourite parts? Share below!

Hell: A burning contradiction

2010-06-13T19:55:00.007+01:00

I recently entered a conversation about Hell with a Christian, and quite frankly I am absolutely appalled.

The Hell that I am talking about is the Hell according to the Bible:

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”

That sounds outrageously evil. In fact, the only thing that's more horrific and sickening than Hell itself is the being that supposedly created it and allows for its existence. According to the Bible, that being is God. And yet, somehow, he still manages to get away with "benevolent" attached to his name and character.

I cannot even begin to fathom how anyone could justify perpetual misery and torture with a finite crime - regardless of the scale of the sin. Absolutely no action done here on Earth could possibly be justly sanctioned by an eternity of suffering and torture. Hell only highlights the hideous, horrific, vicious, revengeful, spiteful, unchristian, ungodly, unforgiving nature of the biblical God's punishment of his own creation . This punishment is probably one of the greatest of all proofs for the non existence of the biblical "supreme, benevolent being". A revengeful Christian God is an oxymoron.

Some Christians even go as far to tell you that unrepetentant sin deserves such brutal and grotesque punishment. They then even apply this to nonbelievers; claiming that atheists and the like will burn and choke for eternity due to their cynical and questioning nature that "God" himself apparently gave them. If that were the case - it seems like this omniscient and omnipotent (and of course benevolent) "God" is setting them up solely for a miserable existence. It also means Gandhi and everyone who isn't a Christian, is also going to Hell. Seemingly, peoples good nature is nulled if they dare doubt His existence. How dare they believe the wrong fairytale...!

I don't believe in God because I see absolutely no reason to believe in the supernatural, I realise the potential humans have for stirring up imaginative tales and because how gullible people can be, especially if it fits in with their own instinctual desires. Whether I'm a good person or not is nothing in the biblical God's eyes - I don't believe therefore I deserve only an eternity of torture! How sad. Quite frankly, I find it deeply disturbing, sickening and simply revolting that people can believe and preach such things.

Analogy 1: ("Sinner")
I'm going to throw out a scenario. A child (let's name him Bill), pulls a girls hair during class and commits a few other minor "sins". The teachers response to this is to torture him continuously for the rest of his life, regardless of whether he apologizes or not during this time. According to the "Good Book", that's how Hell works. Except, Hell is infinitely worse because it never ends. Someone could be burning and suffering for zillions and trillions of years and God still wouldn't care, certainly not enough to do anything about it. If he felt he really must punish someone - why did he opt for the most brutal and unforgiving option possible?

Analogy 2: (Atheist / wrong religion)
Now let's say that Bill didn't pull the girls hair, but he heard someone else did. Now he didn't see it himself (no evidence), and he knows that the boy who claimed to have done so is always lying about such things (human nature). A teacher then comes along and asks Bill what happened. Bill truthfully answers that he doesn't know because he didn't see anything, however he sees it as unlikely because there are a few contradictory tellings of the story and the boy in question is always lying. The teachers response is to throw him in a dungeon to be tortured until he dies from old age from a life full of nothing but anquish and incomprehensible suffering. Except, once again - Hell is infinitely worse!

But it's all okay - because God still loves them and will forgive them and... oh wait, no, he doesn't and won't - Hell is eternal and inescapable.

The "Happy Hell" Christians:
And for those Christians that thought you could get away with claiming that Hell does not exist and still accept the Bible as a divine revelation - let me give you a few quotes from Jesus in the "Holy Book": (and all from the New Testament)

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire"And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

“where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”

"everlasting punishment"

"place of torment"

"everlasting fire"

"eternal damnation"

Hmm... I wouldn't be to happy to hear that from the Son of God. Sounds a bit sadistic, to be honest. So, since most of Christians don't accept the Hell of the Bible - why not? You believe the rest of the fairytale. How can you decide what you believe or not, considering the Bible doesn't actually differentiate between the two?
It seems like you're just cherry picking your favourite parts (the bits that just sound nice and good and happy) to fit an ancient, primitive tale into a modern society. Either accept the Bible fully (and that God is a malevolent prick) or discard it. Preferably the latter. Science and reality prove to be a much more interesting and accurate read.

___

Want to tell me how right / wrong I am? Respond me below or use the Contact Me tab. Are you a devout Christian? Test your faith using my 15 Questions for Christians quiz!

Peace.

.com domain!

2010-06-10T22:38:00.002+01:00

You can now find this blog at www.teenageatheist.com!
~Spread the word!

Questions for Christians

2010-06-09T19:58:00.007+01:00

A few questions for theists (mainly Christians) to ponder.

Religious diversity
________________

1. Why are you a Christian and not a Hindu/Muslim/etc.?
There are thousands of different religions and gods out there to choose from. Do you believe the way you do because of your parents / upbringing?

2. Why is your religion correct?
Once again, there are thousands of different gods and religions to choose from. The majority of them condemn unbelievers - meaning all unbelievers are going to hell. That constitutes every single person except for the "one true religion". What makes you think yours is? And what about the people that simply never heard of your religion?

3. If you were born in ______, would you believe in ______?
If you were born in India, wouldn't it be likely that you would be a Hindu? Or if you were born in Turkey, wouldn't it be likely you would be Islamic? There are hundreds and thousands of options and variants.

4. What makes your "evidence" so compelling?
Why do so many people of different religions claim to have personal experiences in relation to their God(s), and why are they false, and yours not? What makes yours right? Why do you believe in your God, other than indoctrination as a child?

5. Why are there so many denominations in most religions?
For example, in Christianity - there are over 38,000 different denominations - all interpreting the Bible differently and with different laws and teachings. Which one is right? And why are so many of them contradictory?

Religious texts
________________

6. Why is the Bible inconsistent?
The Bible is incredibly inconsistent. For example, at one point in the Bible - it claims that seven of every kind of animal were brought on board the Ark. A little bit later, this turns to two of every kind.

7. Why does the Bible order you to kill so many people? And why does it support things like slavery?
For example, Liars, Homosexuals, people who work on the sabbath day, girls that have sex before marriage, etc., should all be killed, according to the Bible.
Why would a book inspired by an infallible and benevolent God focus on trivial and immoral orders and passages in the "Holy Book" and condone slavery, whilst leaving out simple things like equality? My answer would be that the Bible only reflects the social context of the time - and if a God did indeed intervene in its writing - it would not be so imperfect and immoral.

8. How do you decide what parts of the Bible to take literally?
For example, many Christians accept evolution - but that requires them to not accept creationism, which is a fundamental part of the Bible. How do you decide which part to take literally and which part to accept as "parable" when the Bible does not differentiate from the two?

Injustice
_______________

9. Why is there suffering?
Why would an all loving, omniscient and omnipotent God allow for such brutal and unfair suffering in the world? Why are there countless natural disasters, starvation, brutal diseases etc.?

10. Why is there a Hell? And how does an never ending punishment justify a finite crime?
Why would God design people to be a certain way, and then condemn to an eternity of suffering and torture for breaking his rules, when he knew what they would do in the first place? Why would a simple unbeliever be forced to spend an eternity in Hell, by a supposed loving, merciful and forgiving God?

11. Why do so many prayers go unanswered?
This is self explanatory.

Miscellaneous
________________

12. What would falsify your beliefs?
Would any evidence falsify your belief? Or are you 100% based on pure and blind faith?

13. Why is God conveniently defined as immeasurable?

14. Why does God not make any appearances, now that we have the technology to record and measure it?

15. Why are Adam and Eve punished for doing something before they knew the difference between right and wrong? And why is every human punished for their sins?
I could also ask why God planted that tree in the first place. Seems to do nothing but add trouble.

________________

15 questions for Christians!
If you wish to answer them, please note previous Christian responses, such as here.

Thoughts?

Peppered Moths

2010-06-07T00:27:00.001+01:00

One of my favourites examples of Natural Selection in action is the Peppered Moth. This is because we have been able to observe and record rapid adaptation induced by Natural Selection on these creatures. To start off, there are two types of Peppered Moths - a light-coloured variant and a dark-coloured variant. Each was dominant during a particular time - the dominance going to whichever was more suited to its environment than the other.

___

Before the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of Peppered Moths were light coloured. This was because their light colouration offered them an advantage in camouflage against light-coloured trees that were common in England. This effectively helped them to hide from possible predators (birds), as it ensured it was difficult and unlikely for the predators to differentiate them between the trees, so naturally - this kind of Peppered Moth was dominant.

However, the pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England caused the trees to be darkened from soot and the lichen to dry out. This immediately led to Natural Selection disfavouring the light coloured moth as they were easily spotted from predators. As a result, the dark coloured moths instantly had a huge advantage is terms of camouflage, ie. they weren't as visible when resting upon tree trunks and weren't as likely to suffer from predation. Unsurprisingly, the dark Peppered Moth populations (which had previously been below 2% of the Peppered Moths) began to thrive and dominate due to this new found advantage. The light-coloured moths, on the other hand, were unable to compete and avoid predation - so their numbers dwindled and the torch was passed on to the dark moths. This is Natural Selection.

When the Industrial Revolution ended and environmental standards were introduced, pollution decreased massively. This resulted in the light-coloured moths becoming common once again and are currently earning back their dominance, and all within 200 years. If that's not evidence for adaptation resulting solely from Natural Selection, then I honestly don't know what is.

___

I'll end this post by briefly outlining some of the Creationist responses to this example.

-That's only microevolution! They didn't speciate!

And nor do I claim them to. Remember that all this happened within a time limit of about 200 years. If a population can reverse their colouring (twice!) during a period of time that short, then imagine what this could lead to within a much larger time frame. Changes on the micro level can accumulate and lead to huge changes, given enough time and selection pressures.

However, there actually are examples of observed speciation in other species.

-No new material was created!

This is an example for Natural Selection, not Evolution. It clearly demonstrates how an unconscious force can filter and choose specific advantageous traits (and remove deleterious ones) without resorting to an intelligent guider.

However, new material can very easily be created and has been done so in laboratory experiments on a number of occasions.

Thoughts? All view points welcome! I enjoy controversy.

Sieves & Pebbles

2010-06-02T14:41:00.002+01:00

How can order come from disorder, without any intelligent intervention? That's a question I get asked a lot by creationists, and is surprisingly easy and satisfying to answer, especially since some consider it a killer blow towards evolution. Basically, some state that it is impossible for such complexity to arise purely by chance from disorder. Of course, it didn't arise purely by chance - natural selection and accumulative change are pretty significant contributing factors and are definitely not random - however, that's not the aim of this post.

I have two examples that I quite like to use to explain how natural selection is able to order things without relying on any conscious or intelligent being. My first, is quite simply a sieve. A sieve filters flour via consistency; allowing the smooth flour to pass through while simultaneously blocking the lumps. You could argue that the sieve was designed to allow such filtration, but natural sieves are pretty common in the wild. So, no outside mind is needed - a human shaking the sieve can quicken the process - but it's not necessary. Hence, a sieve can inadvertently and unintentionally separate and filter the flour without resorting to a designer. A sieves dividing mechanism is a wired mesh, natural selections dividing mechanism is death.
That particular example may be a bit of a simplification, but it still managed to separate the flour using a simple wired mesh, not unlike how natural selection manages to separate mutations (neutral, deleterious & beneficial) via survival (reproduction) and death. In both examples, an unconscious and mindless process created apparent order without any deliberate intent or planning involved.

My next example is a bit better. It being the formation of pebbles. Not following? Read on. It's actually quite simple and is a good comparison to natural selection. Let me explain further. Pebbles are incredibly smooth and almost perfectly rounded, and this is a result of purely naturalistic processes, mainly - waves. Such a mindless and blind force like a wave has "carved" and shaped these previously rough pieces of rocks and smoothed and rounded them until they became the form we see them in today.

This apparent design doesn't stop here. If you looked close at a pebbled beach, you would notice that the pebbles seem organised. Large pebbles are grouped with like, and small pebbles are grouped with other small pebbles. This segregation and apparent organisation is a result of the movement of waves without incorporating any outside factors such as intelligence which is usually associated with such apparent design. So once again, an inanimate and unknowing process has adopted a filtration mechanism to divide and order disorder without any active intent or thought involved. Order has come from disorder and without intelligent guidance.

To sum up, both pebbles and a sieve can be used to describe how organisation can come about through purely naturalistic processes. The obvious organisation and near perfection of the pebbles is a fantastic example of this. These analogies are not to be taken as a direct relation to evolution - only as a comparison to natural selection as it explains how simple filtration can occur without any mind planning it (and how effective that filtration can be). The results being quite spectacular - smoothness, segregation and organisation - all indicators of apparent design, but in reality stemming from unintelligent and inadvertent processes and situations. In comparison, natural selection filtering the beneficial mutations from the deleterious ones, which usually disable continued reproduction, shouldn't seem so far fetched after all.

Thoughts?

An encounter

2010-05-29T23:08:00.001+01:00

I recently joined an online discussion forum about evolutionism and creationism. I figured it would be a great place to refine my knowledge about both and see how I could hold out in a debate. Now, it's not the best of forums to have chosen - as the moderators are extremely biased towards creationists - but it's got a core group of active members and I liked the idea of knowing who I was debating with.

I have only been there for less than two weeks, and I have already watched evolutionists get banned either for repeating the exact same offences as previous, unbanned creationists, or doing something as trivial as "using gods name in vain". Anyway, I have learned to deal with it and ensure that I give them no reason to ban me, despite them almost provoking me at various times (the rules don't apply to them, apparently, so they get to treat me as they like - unless it's too blatant for even a creationist to ignore).

Despite the completely fraudulent and brainwashed arguments coming from the creationists - what surprised me most was their complete and utter lack of understanding of evolution. I had wrongly assumed, that since they were so vehemently opposed to the very concept of common descent, they at least had an idea of what they were talking about. Sadly, they proved me wrong.
So other than their extraordinary ability to waffle without understanding, they also showed me how good they were at cherry picking arguments and responding only to select parts of your post, ignoring anything they wanted by casting it off as "irrational and false" without offering an explanation as to why that's the case (other than the bible not agreeing with it, of course).

To demonstrate, I'll reiterate their understanding of evolution and natural selection, that so obviously falsify evolution.

animals can't just decide to grow a new limb!
natural selection can't order things if it's not intelligent!
you weren't there to see evolution happen!
science is out to disprove creationism!
evolution is a faith!

I wish I was joking, but those are some of the responses I have received. Admittedly, there are some of the less well thought out ones, but they keep being thrown at me along with a chorus of the other creationists agreeing in unison, as if they have somehow proved me wrong. If you've read my last two posts and are not a brainwashed creationist, you should be able to point out the gaping errors with those claimed "refutations". If not, stick around - I'll be dedicating posts to refuting such arguments in the future.

Mutations

2010-05-29T00:53:00.003+01:00

So, in the previous post, I explained quite simplistically how Natural Selection and Accumulative change works. I briefly skimmed over mutations - I classified them into the groups: deleterious, neutral and beneficial, however, I would like to go into a tiny bit more detail. Mainly - how these mutations occur in the first place. The reason being, random mutations are vital to evolution - without them, evolution could not take place and you wouldn't be sitting here reading this. They enable creation of new material and variety which inevitably results in evolution.

I'll start with a definition:
"A mutation is a change in genetic material".

Mutations are basic copying errors. Due to the vast amount of genes in your body and hence a vast amount of copying needed - it is unsurprising that mutations are so common.
Mutations can spread via heredity or acquired throughout an individuals lifetime, for example - significant UV exposure resulting in skin cancer.
Here are examples of mutations: (The strands and sections I am referring to are DNA strands)

A point mutation (one nucleotide being replaced by another)
A section may be snipped out.
A section might be inserted.
The entire gene might be duplicated.

It is most likely for a neutral mutation to occur and it is least likely for a beneficial mutation to occur, with the deleterious ones being somewhere in the middle. However, with enough time (generations) and a filtration system like Natural Selection, the deleterious mutants can slowly be pruned out of the population while the advantageous ones are simultaneously being favoured. This results in a gradual progression towards increasing complexity and adaptation.
To further demonstrate my point - I will offer a few examples of beneficial mutations (the detrimental ones being obvious)

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Pesticide resistance in insects.
Immunity to HIV.
Lactose tolerance/intolerance.
Sickle cell resistance to malaria(decreases efficiency & fitness but decreases likelihood of getting malaria).

My favourite example being antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The random mutations that caused such immunity have even been observed and catalogued in the lab! In the cultures of bacteria exposed to the antibiotics - the vast majority of the bacteria died, unsurprisingly. All it took was one bacteria to randomly generate this mutation to instantly gain a survival advantage. Since the rest of the bacteria had been wiped out from the antibiotics, all the bacteria had to do was to replicate itself constantly until an entire new population of immune bacteria had spawned. That is evolution on a micro level.

I'll apply some of the micro changes to a living creature. For example, if a Peacock has a mutation that results in it having dull, muted feathers - it won't attract a mate and spread its genes.

If a Cheetah is unlucky enough to have a muscle degenerating mutation, and hence is born with weaker limbs, it will not catch the gazelle.

If a Mantis Shrimp is born blind or simply has unclear vision (in comparison to the competition) - it will not spot as quickly the necessary prey and food source.

As a result of these unfortunate mutations, the organisms tend not to survive - at least not long enough to reproduce which is the only way of spreading on its genes and coinciding mutation. The mutations that offer benefits to an organisms are able to out compete their peers and hence are able to pass on their successful genes.

___

So, mutations are mindless and random. They're messy and unpredictable and therefore imply disorder. However, with Natural Selection being the wonderful sieve that it is - order can come from disorder and wonders, if given enough time, will form.

Surprisingly, that's all that's needed to account for the extreme biodiversity found on Earth today, and coupled with Natural Selection and accumulative change, is all that's needed to link us to a common ancestor.

An explanation

2010-05-27T22:43:00.002+01:00

So, since this blog is going to be primarily dedicated to evolution and sometimes addressing creationism, I figured the best way to start would be to explain what it is.

Here is a standard definition:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

Simple enough. However, there is a very common misunderstanding about evolution that I want to address (especially among creationists). And that is that evolution is random. That is thoroughly untrue.
Let me explain. Evolution is based upon random mutations - that part is correct - and it is these random mutations that allow for the diversity and variety of life. But the evolutionary process itself is entirely unrandom. This is because of Natural Selection and Accumulative change.
I'll start with the latter, accumulative change. Random mutations are constantly occuring. Hundreds of them have even happened in you, but only around three have actually been significant - i.e. changed a protein. These mutations come in three forms: neutral, deleterious and beneficial.

The neutral mutations are those that either do not affect you in a noticeable or anatomical way, and therefore neither aid nor inhibit your survival and therefore aren't recognized by Natural Selection. For example, uneffective duplications of DNA.
The deleterious mutations are harmful and hazardous to an organisms survival. They either result in an organism dieing immediately (within its generation) and hence not passing on the mutation to its progeny via genetics, or slowly get screened out through generations via Natural Selection. For example, poor eyesight, weaker muscles, slower reflexes etc.
The beneficial mutations are advantageous to the organisms survival. These greatly contribute to the health of the individual and usually result in the organism being able to compete more effectively and pass on more genes to its children. Because these genes are favoured in the environment, they spread throughout the population via Natural Selection. For example, clearer eyesight, more accurate sensory system (whether sight, olfactory, audio or tough), immunity to certain diseases etc.

Now that we've classified the mutations, let's procede with accumulative change. Evolution works through gradual, progressional and generational change, i.e accumulative change. Each precursor is similar to the current individual and to the successor, but becomes more and more different the further you go back through the generations. I am the transitional form between my parents and my children, for example, and am (and probably will be) very similar to both. However, the further you go back along my family history, or the further you go forward (although you'll have to wait), the more different my ancestors and successive grandchildren will become. Hence, there is no leap between species. Only step-by-step progressions.

Now to Natural Selection. Natural Selection basically acts as a filtration system between the beneficial and deleterious mutations. What survives due to the enhancing traits from mutations is able to compete better and hence is passed on to more children. The organism that is unlucky enough to randomly generate the deleterious mutations, has more of a chance of dieing and being unable to pass on his genetics alongside the detrimental mutation.
An important point to remember is that Natural Selection is not a conscious process with any deliberate intent. This is a common mistake and misrepresentation among creationists. Just like how a sieve orders and filters flour via the consistency, Natural Selection orders and filters life via death of the detrimental mutations.
To explain that sieve analogy further, a sieve adopts a filtering mechanism via a wired mesh. Life adopts a filtering mechanism via death. Both are unconscious processes without any deliberate intent. The only flour that gets through the sieve is the flour that is powdery. The lumps are separated and remain in the sieve. The only life that gets through Natural Selection is life which is well adapted to its environment. The organisms that are not well adapted die off before they can produce progeny. So the detrimental mutations are separated from the population via death. To sum up, the sieves dividing mechanism is a wired mesh. Natural Selections dividing mechanism is death.

The sieve analogy is applicable but it is a simplification. There is a lot more to evolution than simple filtration, but that is the basic concept of Natural Selection.

__________

And there we have it - Natural Selection, Accumulative Change and Mutations all neatly summed up in a blog post! I think that is a suitable introduction to evolution, and I will leave it at that for this post. I'm sure I will provide further insights as to how those mechanisms work in mroe detail at a later date, as well as many new topics to be covered, but for now I'll leave it at that.

An introduction

2010-05-27T22:12:00.002+01:00

This blog is more of a test than anything. Through it, I intend to articulate my thoughts and hopefully refine my own views. I also intend to talk about science, evolution in particular, and relay how wonderful and undeniable it really is. I will discuss my encounters with various Creationists and repost some of their claimed "refutations" of evolution and methodologically analyze and refute each of theirs - the difference being mine are based on science and a lack of brainwashing ;)

Anyhow, we'll see how it goes.