March 22, 2009

Christian Integrity - Lying for jesus

Someones pants are on fire! They are Chris Fox's!

After a long day of preaching about the virtues of faith based morality and the immorality of the godless how could a christian pastor relax? Well, for one such baptist pastor, Chris Fox, he decided his time would be best spent going to an atheist blog, unreasonable faith, and pretending to be an atheist while spouting some of the most vile opinions i have ever heard.

See, when the mentally defective are unable to defend their own position what they like to do is misrepresent the position of their opponent, it's called a strawman argument. and when the intellectually dishonest are unable to defend their own position they like to lie, pretend they are their opponent and misrepresent their views just so later they can point to their own fabricated post and shriek "look, i told you they were immoral!".

On this one occasion this so called "christian" decided that all atheists must be in favour of killing babies and decided he would pretend to be an atheist and make the following post;
What’s wrong with killing babies? I see no problem with it. I have enough mouths to feed. I don’t get the argument and I am an atheist. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in anything characterized as good, bad / right, wrong. So, what’s the big deal?

Despite being a low-life, deceitful, sinister, lying hypocrite Chris fox has also admitted to the more heinous crime of being a potential baby killer, should his faith ever fade.

what the religious don't understand is that by admitting that right and wrong can only be identified in line with their particular god they are essentially admitting that the only reason they don't "kill babies" is because they believe an invisible man is watching them. Which is probably the most immoral reason for doing good ever conceived.

Since the post was made Chris Fox had made an apology, well, they usually do after they are caught. I wonder if the apology would have been so forthcoming had the lie remained between him and his invisible friend? probably not... You aren't sorry for being a deceitful liar Chris, you are sorry that you got caught.

It makes one wonder if they actually believe in this shit any more than i do, Because hardly any of them abide by the standards they routinely demand for the rest of us.

March 06, 2009

Are You An Atheist Blogger? READ THIS!

A while ago i grabbed the corank subdomain "atheism" but didn't get a chance to promote it.

For those who don't know, corank is a bit like digg in the sense that stories and links are submitted by users and then voted on. The most popular get promoted and bring a lot of traffic.

So i'm hoping that if we all kind of work together we can help each other increase our readerships and at the same time create quite a nice atheism portal which would help us bloggers see what is popular in the "atheospere" and which subjects are in need of having an opinion expressed at them.

You can see the front page (which is quite bare at the moment) here. And here is a page detailing how bloggers should link to corank in order to have sites submitted. You can also submit links manually or easily create a bookmark which can be clicked whenever you are at a page you like.

You can simply link your articles by including the following code somewhere in your page in plain sight (to get most votes). If your story has not yet been submitted the first person to click it will get the opportunity to submit it, or else a click will count as a vote. (see mine at the top of the right hand column)

<a style="font-weight: bold;"
href="javascript:void(location=('http://atheism.corank.com/submit?url='+encodeURIComponent(document.location)+'&amp;title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title)+'&amp;source=k'));">Vote for this
article</a>


If you use a blogger blog, create a new gadget, select text or javascript and paste it in.

So i encourage you all, bloggers and readers, to start submitting and start voting. In case you are wondering, it;s fine to submit your own blogs and urge your readers to vote for you.

That link again atheism.corank.com

any question?

February 20, 2009

Top 10 Arguments Against Evolution (and why they are wrong)

Irreducibly complex system exist which could not have evolved - This one was actually proven in a court of law to be false. Systems termed "irreducibly complex" are only irreducibly complex in their present form. But as long as at all stages it proved to be beneficial, Even slightly, Then the mechanisms would be retained, even if along the way, at different stages, it didn't resemble, or even perform the same function, as it presently does.

Ken miller explained this using the mousetrap. Behe said the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly because, like a mouse trap, if one part was removed it failed to perform it's function. ken miller shot this argument to pieces by wearing a mouse trap with only 3 parts as a tie clip to court. Does it's perform the function of a mousetrap? No. Does it perform a function which could be selected for and considered "beneficial"? yes.

Evolution is not testable - Every new fossil dug up, every genome sequenced, every new species discovered, every new simulation run is a test of evolutionary theory. If what we discover doesn't fit in with what evolution predicts then evolution is wrong. In the 150 years it has been around not a single new discovery, Including DNA and genomes which weren't even known of in Darwin's time, Has told us anything other than what we would expect to find if evolution were a fact. They all end up telling us the exact thing which we would expect to be true if evolution was a fact. The EXACT thing we would expect.

To prove it wrong just discover something which should not be true if evolution is right. I'll help you: The gene for feathers in humans or a chicken in the Precambrian.

There is evidence against evolution - No there isn't. There are poorly understood, fallacious arguments which are parroted, But not a single discovery which should not be true if evolution is a fact. Like i said, Find something which invalidates evolution, like the gene for feathers in humans of a Precambrian chicken; something beyond the flawed probability arguments and baseless assumptions. Find us something real, something tangible, Which should not exist if evolution were true.

Evolution has not been observed - At all levels evolution has been physically observed. Everything from new bio-synthetic pathways and speciation to variations of features in a population due to natural selection.

Even in the short time humans have been here we have changed, through selection, wolves into dogs and teosinte in to corn and we have caused the emergence of pesticide resistant insects and even the formation of a bacteria which eats nylon, something which has only existed for 50 years. Even the humble banana which ray comfort claimed was the "atheists nightmare" only exists because we cultivated it. Humans invented the banana through selection. This is what a wild banana, ya know, the one your god made, looks like.


All mutations are bad - Most mutations actually have no effect and sit happily in the genome not causing any problems. Every person is born with around 200 mutations. We all have 200 genes not found anywhere in our lineage. Some are bad, granted, But those organisms generally die off and so the mutation isn't propagated. The good ones, like a mutation that causes thicker hair growth in cold climates, rapidly propagate throughout the species. Examples of good mutations can be seen in antibiotic resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant insects of drug resistant HIV. Sure they suck for us, But for the organism concerned, they are beneficial mutations.

The probability of cells spontaneously forming is too low - Cells, like all life, Slowly evolved. The first cell was nothing at all like the cells we find in modern day organisms. The first cell would have been nothing but a self replicating molecule, And we have created those in a lab.

No transitional fossils have ever been found - This argument is so weak and out of date even the mouthpiece of young earth creationism, AIG, warns it's follows not to use it. The fact is we have enough transitional fossils to tie together all the species in the class of eumetazoa. We even have transitional forms alive today. Cut open a snake and you'll find a pelvis, a whale and you'll find vestigial legs. Even humans have a vestigial flaps in their eyes which are remnants from reptiles (if you want to see it it's right near your tear duct) and smaller mammals (the tiny lump on your outer ear). we even have about half a dozen pre-human hominid fossils depicting our own evolution since we departed from the branch which lead to chimps, gorillas and baboons.

Speciation has never been observed - Another which AIG advises it's followers don't use. Speciation has been observed in everything from flies to plants. Search "observed speciation" for countless of documented examples.

Evolution violates the 1st law of thermodynamics - Evolution does not operate within a closed system and as such is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - Same as above, plus; The increase of complexity gained by evolution comes at the cost of the decrease of order of the sun. As the sun "dies" the energy expended comes to earth and is used by organisms to grow.

A denial of evolution - however motivated - is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason into ignorance; Dr Tim D White

inspired by cdk007

February 04, 2009

Infallibility Of Pope Questioned By Cardinal

A part of the dogma of Catholicism is the infallibility of the pope, The idea that the pope is preserved from even the possibility of error.

So when the pope decide to end the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, The Holocaust denying Bishop, One would expect catholics to accept it. After all, The pope is "infallible", Isn't he? But what actually happened is they were almost unified in their condemnation (which is nice of them).

Even within the ranks there was descent with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, The leader of the roman catholic church in England, Sending a letter to Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, saying the pope had done "great damage" with his "imprudent" remarks.

The Cardinal, in his letter, went on to say: "I am writing to express my dismay at the effect of the Vatican decree... Specifically I naturally deplore the comments made by the Englishman, Rev Williamson, in his denial of the full horror of the Holocaust. His statement and views have absolutely no place in the Catholic Church and its teaching."

So are catholics starting to question the authority of the pope? And does the pope harbour views he may been taught whilst he was in the Hitler youth.

Holy Communion, The Movie

Ritualistic, symbolic, human cannibalism anybody?

At least the director of the films left out the abuse of young boys, which is more than can be said for Catholicism.

February 03, 2009

Alternative Expelled Movie Poster

This, while being a parody, accurately describes the theme and motives of the recently forgotten and critically shit upon creationist propaganda movie Expelled: no intelligence required allowed, Which in turn is a perfect demonstration of the dishonesty, quote mining and fabrications of the "ID" movement.

I don't know who made this (if you know tell me and ill link to them) but i got it from defence of reason who in turn got it from PZ's blog.

February 02, 2009

Probably The Dumbest Creationist Argument Ever

On a forum i frequent they have a "politics and religion" section and it is brimming with creationist fundies, muslim fanatics and born again assholes. yeah, great fun.

Though most of the fundies have learned their lesson and don't try to debate evolution any more, we sometimes get the odd cretin who doesn't know the score come in and start parroting the creationist bullshit he has heard on a Kent Hovind (convicted fraudster) creationist propaganda video.

On the odd occasion, when one of these idiots ventures into unfamiliar water and tries to conjure an original thought, we get something quite spectacular. Spectacular in the sense of; wow, that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

Yesterday one such moron made this argument against evolution.
Despite your evolution approach, its still yet a theory.

If Evolution happens, how come we don't see humans coming out of chimps and chimps coming out of humans?

If Evolution happens, what do fish evolve into?

Evolution is Pokemon's thing.
Stupid, eh? You haven't heard anything yet.

When i asked him if he was serious (you never know if these types of comments are atheists making fun of creationist argument), he said.
Try living in the arctic and see if you grow fur.
Try living in the desert and see if your body adapts to it.
Try living in a volcano and see if you can withstand being boiled alive.

With your dumb theory I would grow fur, I would be able to withstand heat and withstand being boiled alive.
Besides being a ridiculously stupid argument the thing that really angers me with these people is how they expect to hold an opinion regarding the validity of a science when don't even understand what the science is claiming.

It wouldn't be too bad if they admit that their beliefs are based on bronze age dogma and creation myths and stop pretending they have come to an informed conclusion after studying all the evidence.

January 30, 2009

Penis Sucking And Amputee Porn

... Good, Now i have your attention.

Like all good bloggers i keep a close eye on my visitor stats to see where my readers are coming from, who is linking to me and how they got here. Part of this obsession involves looking at referrals from search engines to find out what people have searched for before finding themselves here.

A few things have surprised me; like how well i rank for chimpanzee chromosome 13[search] or endogenous retrovirus prove evolution[search]. Now i know those phrases don't have much competition in terms of results, but i am up against some highly respected science journals, blogs and sites there. I think i rank well because both articles made the front page of digg and subsequently got a lot of backlinks.

The thing that has really surprised me though, and which i am less proud of, is how well i rank for penis sucking[search] and arm amputee porn[search].

Still, you never know, maybe someone somewhere will start out looking for amputee porn and end up becoming an atheist. That would really piss the christians off.

What, if any, funny, unrelated or outrageous search terms do people find your blog by?

Another "christian" Rapes A Child

A Canadian man who described himself as a pastor was sentenced Monday to five years in prison for sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl he claims was his wife.

Daniel Cormier, 57, was convicted in October after members of the now-defunct Church of Downtown Montreal became suspicious of his relationship with the girl. Cormier, who led the church, has maintained he did nothing wrong when he married the girl, then 10 years old, in 1999 during a ceremony at his church.

"I would say that there's no remorse," prosecutor Anne-Andree Charette said outside the courtroom. "He just tried to find justifications." The girl, now 19, testified she was too young to grasp the concept of marriage but said she remembered the sexual abuse in vivid detail.

Cormier is currently on trial in another case where he is accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl — also during his time as a pastor.

He denies the accusation.

Well well well, it's almost become "not news worthy" when one of these con-men abuses their position of trust to abuse a child. It's almost as if we have come to expect these people to have some kind of sexual depravity, or at least a sex life contradictory to what they preach to others

January 26, 2009

Who Would Send Sir David Attenborough Hate Mail? Christians, Of Course.

"They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance," Sir David said during an interview with the Radio Times about his latest documentary on Charles Darwin and natural selection.

This year marks two centuries since Darwin's birth and 150 years since the groundbreaking On the Origin of Species was published.

Telling the magazine that he was also asked why he did not give "credit" to the Lord, Sir David continued: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

He said: "It never really occurred to me to believe in God - and I had nothing to rebel against, my parents told me nothing whatsoever. But I do remember looking at my headmaster delivering a sermon, a classicist, extremely clever... and thinking, he can't really believe all that, can he? How incredible!"

Sir David also said it was "terrible, terrible" when creationism and evolution were taught in schools as equivalent, alternative perspectives. "It's like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five... Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066."

Speaking about the relationship between people and the rest of nature, Sir David said: "People say to me: 'What is a mosquito for? They're no good for anything!', The basic notion that the world is our oyster, that we have domination over all things, that they are here for us..." Asked where that view comes from, Sir David replied: "The Bible, of course. Genesis, chapter one."