Doesn't Complexity Disprove God?

The argument for god often comes in the form of an appeal to complexity. Usually a theist will reference the complexity of the cell and it multitude of functions, The intricacy of DNA or the "fine tuning" of the universe when making their case for the existence of god. But doesn't complexity make a better case against the existence of a "designer" or a god?

If we think about what "god" would ultimately be, It would be an entity that created everything. He devised the laws of the universe, He decided what our tolerance to radiation should be, How much water we need to drink. He would be consciously responsible for everything, Every last aspect of every system would be made by him. There is no law, No force, No energy, No substance and no part of any organism that wouldn't be consciously devised.

If that is the case and we assume god can do anything, Why make things so complex? Simplicity would be the best route and god should be able to make things infinitely simple. Why have cells, or even atoms.

If god was in charge of everything why not make the cell as Darwin and his contemporaries envisioned it. A blob of goo. If god is capable of doing anything why is the cell so complex and prone to failure when it could be a simple blob of goo? In fact, Forget the cell, If god can do anything why are animals and plants not just one animated conscious blob of goo, Why do we have so many intricate components when god could have made it so simple?

To me the answer is simple. The cell, And humans, have evolved to function in a set environment. The universe appeared, laws were set and now it's up to organisms and cells to evolve to work within those laws. No god was involved at any point, because if he was, Everything would be a lot simpler.

Are You A Christian? Take The Test!

Here is a nice opportunity to see if we can find any "real Christians" out there. Let's see if we can find anyone willing to stand by their claim that the bible is the word of god and that they follow that word. Or are they all, As i suspect, frauds who simply pay lip service and are actually no more "christian" than i am.

Matthew 5:42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Here's the thing, I need to buy a car and i don't have much money. I am looking for a moderately priced car (£3000/$6000), So can i have the money please? We can see right there in Matthew 5:42 that you should give to him who asks of you, I am him and i am asking.

If you would like to do this anonymously please deposit $6000 in my paypal account: godbegoneblog@gmail.com

Other Atheist bloggers, if you need something and don't have the money, Don't worry, All you have to do is ask a christian and according to the bible they should give. So let's see how many "real christians" we can find. or are we only going to find the same christians that we always find, The ones who selectively read the passages and dismiss anything that they don't already agree with.

Top 10 Ways To Piss Off An Atheist

To make it a little easier for Christians i thought id put together a list of the 10 most effective ways to piss off an atheist. They know as well as we do that their case for god and creation holds no water, So the most they can hope to achieve is to get Atheists a bit wound up.

1. At every available opportunity refer to Atheism as "a religion".
2. Be utterly adamant that creation/intelligent design is a "science" while pointing out that evolution is "just a theory".
3. Prove that god exists by pointing out where in the bible it says so.
4. Make sure that any biblical passages you agree with are "the word of god" while at the same time dismissing any you disagree with as being "metaphorical" or "out-of-context".
5. Refer to Atheists as Illogical, Faith based and fundamentalist. Or any other term that has previously been used to accurately describe you.
6. Refer to Kent Hovind as "Dr Kent Hovind".
7. Use the fact that the Atheist can't fully explain to you how the universe was formed as evidence that god done it.
8. Don't worry about details such as the logistics involved with Noah's arc, How the human race came from two people without there being incest or why the bible contradicts it's self so often.
9. Say you will pray for him, And make sure he knows you said it out of spite.
10. No matter how many times you are corrected and how much evidence you see to the contrary... Always claim that America is a Christian nation founded by Christians on Christian principles.

Some of these may be in the "281 tricks to irritate an atheist", But i haven't checked.

Not Only Mohammad Gets "Turned On" By Children

And i thought it was only Mohammad who was interested in underage children. Jesus was at it too!

Westboro Baptists To Protest At Heath Ledger’s Funeral

The hate filled soldiers of christ, Westboro Baptist church, Who are known for picketing the funerals of American soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq has announced that they intend to protest Heath Ledger’s funeral because the actor played a gay cowboy in the movie “Brokeback Mountain.”^[1].

“You cannot live in defiance of God. He (Ledger) got on that big screen with a big, fat message: God is a liar and it's OK to be gay,” said Shirley Phelps in a statement sent out by the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church.

Well let's just look forward to when old man Phelps dies. Have your signs ready! We are going to have a party at that filthy scum bags funeral!

Aren't Christians Supposed To Be Humble?

I always thought christians were supposed to be humble. But i fail to see how they can be humble and believe what they believe at the same time.

A humble person wouldn't assume an entire cosmos consisting of trillions of stars spanning trillion of light years would be created just for them and their cult.

A humble person wouldn't assume whoever created this vast expanse of space would be interested in monitoring their actions, Even their thoughts, Every minute of the day.

A humble person wouldn't assume that the creator of this cosmos would be willing to come to earth as a human and be tortured for their sins.

A humble person wouldn't believe the creator of the cosmos is their bestest buddy.

A humble person wouldn't believe that the creator of the universe was in need of their constant worship..

If you look at the above statements it becomes clear, Christians aren't humble. They are as self-obsessed and egotistical as their imaginary god.

Anti-Abortion Christians Can't Think For Themselves

Thanks Max for emailing this in.

This video always makes me laugh [embedding disabled]. It's another example of christians trotting out ready made answers and rhetoric that they have been trained to say, But when they are asked a question that they don't have a pre-planned answer for their brain stops working and they resort to referring you to their "leader" so he can tell you what thier opinion is.

Listen, Christians, If you are going to assume you have a right to tell people want to do at least have the decency to think it through using your own brain. Otherwise you are simply wasting our time and exposing yourselves as imbeciles incapable of having an original thought or opinion.

This is why if you have an opinion on a serious subject you have to base your opinion on what YOU believe and what YOU have researched, Not base it on what your religion demands you believe and rely on the boil-in-the-bag answers that come attached.

[Let's not make this a discussion about the rights and wrong of abortion]

Christian Nation House Resolution 888 - Rewriting History

Thanks to Rick for emailing this in.

We have seen the religious right attack science education in order to impose their theological beliefs on public school science curriculum. House Resolution 888 is the first official attempt to encourage theological beliefs to interfere with accurate education about Americas history.

House Resolution 888, While a mostly ceremonial resolution, Is just another step towards a theocratic America where history is rewritten and taught as fact. If these people are so damned "christian" why do they have such an obscene propensity to tell so many filthy lies?

Don't be fooled by the phrase "religious diversity" because the only religion mentioned in the 70 paragraph resolution is christianity.

Read the resolution

what can you do?
If you want to help you can go to secular.org and email your Representative demanding that they oppose this unconstitutional resolution.

Pope Says: We Need More Exorcists

The Pope has ordered his bishops to set up exorcism squads to tackle the rise of Satanism. Vatican chiefs are concerned at what they see as an increased interest in the occult.

They have introduced courses for priests to combat what they call the most extreme form of "Godlessness." Each bishop is to be told to have in his diocese a number of priests trained to fight demonic possession.

The initiative was revealed by 82-year-old Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican "exorcistinchief," to the online Catholic news service Petrus.

"Thanks be to God, we have a Pope who has decided to fight the Devil head-on," he said.

Phew... At last the catholic church are using their money for "good". None of that praying crap that costs nothing, I want to see millions spent training Priests to cast out imaginary demons from people who are more than likely either attention seekers or mentally ill!

I wonder, Will people be subjected to this nonsense voluntarily? Or will the local priest decide who gets "exorcised"?

Christopher Hitchens To Debate Creationists

Christopher Hitchens, Atheist, and Jay Wesley Richards, Co-author of the privileged planet and anti-evolution charlatan, Are to debate at Standford in the Dinkelspiel Auditorium on 27th of January on the subject of "Atheism vs. Theism and the Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design".

The creationists have certainly stacked the cards against Hitchens by making him the only Atheist and Evolution supporter to be involved. His opponent, Jay Richards, Is a creationist, Obviously, But the debate is also hosted by a creationist, Ben Stein, and moderated by yet another creationist and evangelical christian, Michael Cromartie.

I know Richard Dawkins doesn't do these kinds of debates as a rule but i think he would have been a better choice, For us at least. As much as i like and admire hitch, He isn't a biologist and won't be as adept at exposing the scientific dishonesty and deception that these liars will inevitably vomit in the form of an "argument".

Part of the subject is the evidence for intelligent design. So as long as Christopher Hitchens keeps pressing them on this he should be fine, Because there simply is no evidence for intelligent design once you remove the disproven arguments like irreducible complexity or the logical fallacies such as their argument from design (it looks like it's designed, So it must be). Once the shit is shoveled off of their opinion, And that's all it is, And opinion, You are left with nothing. No evidence, No experiments, No peer review. Just a bunch of christians sitting around, Lying, Not understanding science and then agreeing with each other.

I also hope Christoper watches the NOVA show about the dova trial. If these people can lose their case in a court, Get their "theory" torn to shreds and, at one point, Even be proven to be guilty of lying in their deposition, Which is a criminal offence, They are certainly no match for The Hitch.

What Religious Scum Do To Children

What would it take for a human being to mutilate the genitals of a defenceless child? One of two things. They either need to be a psychopath or they need to be religious.

I almost feel bad for lumping in psychopaths with religious scum, I doubt all psychopaths would be capable of inflicting such barbaric torture on a child. But with the religious, They are capable of anything providing it can be suggested to them at some point that it is what their god wants.

Here the newyork Times has a slide show depicting what goes on in an annual female circumcision ceremony, Conducted by "Female circumcisers" in the sanitary conditions of a school classroom.

Pay attention to picture four which has the caption "Tears are wiped from the face of a 9-month-old following her circumcision". Take note of the look of sheer terror on that babies face. A human who is only 9 months old is being tortured for god.

This is why Atheists oppose religion. It gives vicious scum a licence to abuse, torture and inflict their own primitive idiocy on children who deserve better.

Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?

Thunderf00t has been making a great series of videos and putting them on youtube highlighting some of the more idiotic statements creationists make and the lies they tell and then proceeding to rip them to shreds using science, Evidence and most importantly, Common sense.

The [GBG] blog (me) have been in the process of collecting these videos in a channel titled "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" so they are easy to find. I have also been collecting other videos in channels about atheism, Evolution, Science and conferences that you may enjoy watching. these channels get updated as i come across more videos, So keep checking back.

If you like watching creationists get destroyed though their own ignorance by people a lot smarter than themselves i suggest you subscribe to Thunderf00t, potholer54 and cdk007

Deafening Science

We have come to a point in our understanding of the universe, Our understanding of how stars and planets are formed and our understanding of how species emerge that it makes it very hard for anyone to persist in the notion that all are a result of a supernatural, conscious entity clicking his fingers and willing them in to existence 6000 years ago without looking like an ignorant fool.

The overwhelming evidence supporting sciences and the difficulty of denying the scientific explanation hasn't stopped some people continuing with their delusion though.

I have noticed a lot of times when having debates with creationists, Especially on forums, That they churn out the same facile analogies (some crap about a watch), Say that evolution doesn't explain how life it's self emerged (even though evolution wasn't intended to explain that) and regurgitate every counter argument that they have previously heard someone else regurgitate. I think creationists have one brain which they share, And it's only the person who is in possession of that brain who can muster the imagination to create such illogical arguments, The rest can only muster the intellect to repeat what they have heard.

Of course, The good thing about debating with someone who doesn't actually understand the argument they are refuting and can only regurgitate counter points they have previously heard is that all you have to do to beat them is raise a point that not only do they not understand, But also have never come across a counter argument to. The one i like to use the the evidence supporting evolution that we find when we look at Endogenous Retrovirus DNA in primates. This argument tends to stop them dead in their tracks. On the first hand they could read up on it and understand it, But if they do that they would have proven evolution to be true, To themselves at least, Or they can refute it without knowing the first thing about it, and even the most idiotic creationist isn't prepared for that level of intellectual martyrdom.

I'm sure there will always be people claiming the supernatural cause, Just like there will always be people claiming the world is ending tomorrow. But just like how the nutters on the street have to change their sign every time the world doesn't end the young earth creationists are going to look dumber and dumber each time new evidence is discovered that could falsify the old earth and evolutionary theory but end up supporting them fully.

Canadian Thought Police Protect Islams Precious Feelings

Fascist opponents of free speech, Namely Islam, Have demanded writer Mark Steyn be brought before a judicial hearing regarding comments he made about Islam, linked to his book "America Alone", in which he warned against the imperialist threat from Islam that the west is facing due to their obscene birth rates, Their desire fort Jihad and their unwillingness to act even remotely reasonable.

Why do we feel obliged to bend over backwards to cater for these peoples precious feelings? Why are they entitled to protection against criticism?

Here is what Pat Condell Thinks about it;

Fossilized Darwin Fish Discovered

Tiktaalik roseae -- a 375-million-year-old fossilized "fishapod" discovered on Ellesmere Island in 2004 -- has been hailed as an "evolutionary icon" because it represents the crucial transition from sea to land for some of the Earth's most primitive creatures.The discovery was announced amid global fanfare in 2006, and Tiktaalik is now the showcase species in a report released last week by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to promote the study of evolution and counter calls for U.S. schools to teach creationism.

Now Neil Shubin, the University of Chicago biologist who discovered the High Arctic fossil, is poised to release a populist recounting of his Canadian find -- Your Inner Fish -- in which he traces the primordial origins of the human race to such lowly creatures.

"It is far worse for Huckabee. Before apes, his ancestors were fish, worms, and other creatures," Mr. Shubin told Canwest News Service yesterday. "With jaw bones that correspond to gill bones in fish and sharks, a body plan shared with headless worms, and with parts of a DNA recipe shared with relatives of jellyfish, Huckabee's ties to some of the most humble forms of life on our planet run deep indeed."

The planned launch of Your Inner Fish next Tuesday has already prompted a prediction from the leading U.S. evolutionary scientist Don Johanson -- co-discoverer of Lucy, the "missing-link" ape -- that "creationists will want this book banned" because it so convincingly discredits their world view.

Evidence For An Incompetent Designer

Arguments from design are moronic and yet ever so popular. The religious always enjoy arguing that god exists using what, To them, Appears to be phenomena that can only have occurred through the conscious, purposeful actions of a designer. If you see a watch.... Blah, blah, blah.

In this post i am going to take a leaf out of their book and present an "argument from incompetent design". If they can argue that god exists by listing things that they think were designed, I can argue against gods existence by listing things that could not have had a designer, And if they were designed, The designer was an incompetent imbecile.

99% of all planets are incapable of producing or sustaining life. What were they? do-overs? practice goes? I can hear god now; "no, that doesn't count.. I was just practicing. The next one is the real earth.... Good job i made the universe enormous!".

Our eyes can only detect a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. There are a lot of things that would be handy to be able to see, Gamma radiation and x-rays for example, You know, Shit that can kill us.

99% of all species that have ever lived became extinct before humans even arrived. What was the point of that? What kind of "designer" would create a planet for us to live on but do most of his work and creating before we even get here. It would be like setting off the fireworks before the guests of honor arrived.

We sleep for one third of our life. I don't see the point. If we are designed why design us to waste so much time?

CO,CO2 and CH4. Three gasses that we can't see, Can't smell which can kill us. Thanks for that!

Our mouth is too small. If i, As a human working for a design company, designed the human jaw knowing full well how many teeth is has to accommodate i would get fired. Most adults have to have wisdom teeth pulled out at some point simply because their jaw is too small. One of two corrections should have been made to the original design. Either leave some teeth out or make room for them.

Carrying on with the theme of the mouth. How hard would it be to give us separate holes for drinking, breathing, eating and speaking? We have one hole on the front of our face that is expected to do four jobs? Even dolphins have separate holes for breathing and eating so it's not like he hadn't thought of the idea.

What's up with that genitalia? It's like putting a theme park next to a sewage works. I can't think of two less appropriate functions to give one organ than expelling waste fluid and making babies.

Did we have to look so much like bald monkeys?

From this list you should be able to see that the human body was not designed. And if it was designed it was designed by a cretinous imbecile who i wouldn't trust to flip burgers at McDonald's. Is this the best your perfect god could do? He's a fucking embarrassment. Don't just look at the pretty stuff when you are looking for evidence of a designer, Make sure you check out the monumental fuck-ups as well.

Church For Fat Lazy Christians

I have just read an article about the emergence of a new type of church goer. They are christians who are so lazy and apathetic towards their faith that they can't even be bothered to get off their fat, sweaty arses and go to church. Instead they sit indoors and watch a streaming podcast online while stuffing their faces with chips and soda.

I guess when most of your energy is spent concocting devious plans to get myth taught as science or forming opinions on things such as where another man is allowed to put his penis actually getting up and doing something is hard work. I'm sure they still pray, Another way to do nothing and act as though you made a difference.

A Pew iResearch Center Internet study found that 82 million Americans, 22 million more people than the entire population of Britain, Spend their Sunday mornings sat in front of their computer watching an online streaming version of a sermon.

"Jesus told us to go into the world; He didn't specify how," says Pastor Mark Batterson. HA! He's got you there Jesus.... Think it through next time, You idiot.

Don't think that by worshiping online you can save some money by dodging the tithe or collection plate. The National Community Church accepts MasterCard and Visa and offer a secure online payment facility.

Dinesh D'Souza Wins 2007 Bad Faith Award

Dinesh D'Souza, The conservative, noisy pip-squeak who always looks like he has borrowed his dads suit and is about as "christian" as Easter eggs, Has come from behind to walk away with new humanists Bad faith award of 2007 with 525 votes (22%) beating the pope who came in second with a meager 414 votes.

Dinesh D'Souza is an Indian born christian who makes his money today on the back of what he likes to call the "new Atheist" movement. He is a man who, As soon as he escaped India, Quickly took the opportunity to write books regurgitating every fallacial argument he could remember refuting Atheism and in his spare time created books blaming the cultural left for 9/11.

As his prize New Humanist will be making a £20 donation to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science on his behalf.

Well done DD, You deserved it.

Agnostics Need As Much Faith As Theists

It seems a lot of the time agnostics misuse the term "agnostic" and use it to mean "non-aggressive atheist". Most agnostics will say they don't believe in god, Which makes them an atheist, Not agnostic.

If we look at what the word agnostic means we see it's definition is; A person who believes the existence of god is unknowable. Now, This isn't to say that they "don't know" if god exists, It is to say that regardless if god exists or not, They are of the belief that it impossible to know.

So given that the existence of god is unknowable either way, What possible rationale could they have to believe god doesn't exist? For Atheists the rationale is simple, There is no evidence. But for someone who believes that even if god does exist it would be impossible to know a lack of evidence can not be a contributing factor to their disbelief, Because their belief is that even if there is a god there is no way to know.

I personally believe that if god did exist we would know about it, Which makes a lack of evidence a reasonable reason for my disbelief. But if you don't believe a god exists and call yourself agnostic you need as much faith as someone who claims god does exist.

When Your Creationist Propaganda Film Is A Flop, Resort To Bribery

Sensing that the creationist propaganda film expelled: No intelligence allowed is about to be a huge flop in cinemas getexpelled.com have resorted to bribing schools into forcing their students to see the film by offering kickbacks in exchange for ticket stubs ^[1].

Schools could receive a donation of up to $10,000 if they take their students to see the film on what have been suggested as "school-wide mandatory field trips" ^[2], ie get all your students and force them to go.

Teachers are then instructed to collect ticket stubs and send them off to receive their bribe kickback "reward".

Interestingly, Considering intelligent design supposedly has nothing to do with religion or god, The people at getexpelled.com are targeting christian schools. Now why would they be doing that?

where we can help Christian schools raise up to $10,000 while educating their students, parents, and staff of the controversy that is surrounding the Intelligent Design and evolution debate.

Koran Is A Made Up Book - Who Would Have Thought!

We can expect a reasonable, balanced, logical discussion from Muslims about the validity of the Koran now - Not - because new evidence has been revealed that suggests the Koran isn't the word of god, Wasn't dictated to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel and is actually a collection of Christian and Jewish stories and poems that were collected by it's writers centuries after Islams supposed conception.

In Islam, Disproving the validity of the Koran is as big as proving that Jesus didn't exist to christians. The Koran is in essence Islams Jesus and the belief that it was dictated to Mohammad by Gabriel is the base of the entire religion.

To reasonable people this has been obvious all along. Of course the Koran wasn't dictated to a man in the desert by an angel, That kind of thing simply doesn't happen. But it would be nice to have some evidence that proves it.

Mike Huckabee Wants To Rewrite Constitution To Be More Like The Bible

In a move that can only be described as a desperate attempt to rally the fundamental christians and piss off everyone else Mike Huckabee sensationally said America should amend the constitution so that it's in "gods standards" on Monday in Michigan. I couldn't imagine anything more barbaric that having a constitution that met the christian gods petulant, Vindictive, egotistical and violent standards.

This should be seen as an official statement declaring Mike Huckabee's intention to turn America in to a theocracy.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

[HT: mojoey]

The Fact Of Evolution And The Lies Of Creationists

I am mostly writing this post so i have a link to send people to when they leave replies on the blog that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of evolution. I'm fed up of writing the same stuff over and over again.

In this post i am going to clear up a few things about evolution and try to set the record straight, Explain a few misconceptions that creationists have and expose a few of the lies they tell.

Evolution is just a theory.

How many times have you heard this? A lot of creationists assume, Wrongly and probably intentionally, That a theory is somehow less certain than a fact. They assume that a theory is on a lower rung of the hierarchical ladder of certainty that eventually leads to fact.

In science "theory" has a different meaning than the general word "theory". When most people say theory they mean a guess or speculation. In science a theory is simply a way to explain facts. A theory doesn't eventually become a fact, It explains facts.

It is a fact that animals change, Over time, Based on natural selection. The theory that explains this fact is the theory of evolution.

Evolution Doesn't Explain The Origin of Life

That's right, It doesn't. But then, It never claimed to and it never intended to. History class doesn't teach you how to play a trumpet, Does that mean all history is wrong?

Darwinian Evolution only ever claimed to explain the origin of the species, That's why he called the book "the origin of the species". Evolution starts when the first life forms came about and natural selection became a factor. There are sciences that explain how cells could have first formed and how life came about, But Evolution isn't one of them.

Irreducible complexity Proves a Designer

Well it would, If creationists could find a real example of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is a phrase that Michael Behe came up with to describe a characteristic or mechanical part of an organism that requires all of it's parts to be intact from the beginning for it to function and for natural selection to have something to favour. The trouble is, For Behe, That every time creationists think they have found something irreducibly complex evolutionists point out that it had a beneficial function at each stage of it's construction and thus had something for natural selection to favour.

Ken Miller used the mousetrap to explain this. A mouse trap can only function as a mousetrap when all of it's parts are intact. If, for instance, we only have the base, The spring and the arm of the mouse trap it can't kill mice and doesn't function as a mousetrap. But it does function as a tie clip. It still has a beneficial function and as such has something for natural selection to favour.

We Should Teach All Theories And Let Students Decide

No, We shouldn't. We need to teach children the truth at all times. Everything that is taught in a classroom has endured the scientific process that leads to it being taught. If intelligent design can get through this process then it is more than welcome in a science class, If it can't get through this process it is going to have to stay where it belongs, In theology.

The process that all other sciences goes through is;
Claim > Research > Peer review > Concensus > Text book.
The process intelligent design want's to go through is;
Claim > Political preasure > Text book.

If intelligent design is a fact let us see your research. let us see what kind of experiments you do to test your hypotheses. If you can't produce these and can't get through the scientific process you have no business being taught in a science class.

There Are No Transitional Fossils

The trouble with refuting this claim is that when evolutionists are asked to present a transitional fossil they aren't seen to be refuting the claim made by creationists, They are seen to be producing two more gaps where transitional fossils are missing.

It's a dishonest tactic used by creationists. It is simply impossible for evolutionists to comply with this unreasonable request without presenting fossils of every animal species on the planet at every stage of it's development.

As evolutionists find more and more fossils they rightly believe they are adding to the fossil records and adding to our understanding of evolution. But in the illogical mind of the creationist they are simply creating more and more gaps in the fossil record because each gap we fill by finding a fossil creates two gaps either side of it.

Suffice to say, There are transitional fossils that show characteristics and traits developing over time ^[1]. All we need now is for creationists to develop the integrity and courage to accept them.

Darwin Didn't Believe in Evolution

This statement is usually a result of dishonest quote mining from creationists. They simply look for small snippets of text, Take it out of context and then use it to support their argument when in actual fact the whole quote does nothing to support their claim at all, And is actually the direct opposite of what they are claiming.

Scott Huse fell foul of this type of dishonesty on page 73 of his book The Collapse of Evolution when he quoted Darwin ^[2] as saying; "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

It looks like Darwin is saying the eye couldn't have evolved by means of natural selection, Doesn't it? But if we look at the quote in it's entirety it paints a completely different picture of what Darwin thought about the evolution of the eye. He goes on to say; "...Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

The point Charles Darwin is making here is that, With small beneficial mutations, Even the most seemingly complex organs and functions of an organism can be produced by natural selection.

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism

The only difference between intelligent design and creationism is the spelling. We know that the name change came about in an attempt to get it taught in a science class and to trick people in to believing it's an actual scientific theory, And not religious mumbo-jumbo.

This is evident by looking at a draft of the intelligent design text book "of pandas and people" where the phrase "cdesign proponentist" was found when a sloppy editor didn't correctly replace "creationist" with "design proponent".

The titles of the drafts alone are evidence that ID is creationism. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges^[3].

This article will be expanded as i become reminded of other lies told by creationists and other misinformation spread by them and their devious organisations.

Biblical Events On Google Earth

The Glue Society were commissioned to create four images depicting biblical events as they would be seen on Google earth, If Google earth had existed at the time of the supposed events.

Noah's Ark on mount Ararat

Parting of the Red Sea

The Crucifixion

The garden Of Eden
I wonder how long it will take for some bozo to start referencing these images as evidence of biblical historical accuracy.

Ron Paul Should Read The Constitution

Thanks to Ben who linked to this article written by Ron Paul about how the secular, "elitist" left are waging a war on christmas, Making society immoral and how the founding Fathers envisioned a christian nation with churches as the moral compass of society, Which is funny when we look at the stuff christians get up to.

Ron Paul likes to bang on about the constitution and how he is fighting for it but maybe the guy should read the damned thing, And take some time to read the bible, Especially the bit about lying. Ron Paul, Like other christians, Knows full well that the founding fathers wanted a separation between church and state and they fully believed that the state should support no particular religion. This fact doesn't stop Ron Paul saying the exact opposite.

Paul harps back to the good-old-days and points out that "christmas isn't the same anymore" and that it has lost the "good will to all men" feeling, And instantly blames secularists. Apparently, According to Paul, Secularists hate christmas and feel "offended" when they see nativity scenes on private property and want a legally anti-christian nation. If christians need christmas to exercise good will they are in more trouble than i thought. what kind of morality is that?

The thing is. Secularists don't hate christmas. They just don't want to have to pay for it. Nobody cares what you do on your own property with your own money Ron. But buying christian symbols to celebrate a christian festival on public land with tax payers money in not constitutional, You should know that, Mr Constitution.

I guess Ron Paul is doing with the constitution what most christians do with the bible. He is is selectively reading it and taking out the bits he likes and ignores the rest.

UK Blasphemy Law To Be Abolished

A law which see it's last imprisonment 80 years ago is set to be removed from the statute books in a move surprisingly backed by the archbishop of Canterbury.

MP's have been debating the abolition of the blasphemy law and yesterday Downing Street suggest they were on the verge of abolishing it.

For a long time the legal community has looked upon the blasphemy law as a "dead letter", Meaning that although the law does exist it is about as likely to be used as is the law prohibiting MPs wearing armour in parliament or the law allowing farmers to walk sheep over tower bridge on the way to market.

That of course was before Christian Voice, A UK Evangelical organisation, Tried to take the BBC to court for their screening of Jerry Springer - The opera, A play in which Jesus is depicted as a nappy wearing lover of poo, under the blasphemy law.

So thanks Christian Voice. Thanks for highlight how important it is to remove any legal protection you have against parody and ridicule.

My only worry is that similar laws, More likely to be used, Will be brought in to protect all persons of all faiths from being criticised.

Did You Mean Rapist Or Priests?

While trying to find a secondary source for a story i was writing i searched for "child molesting rapists" and came upon this google search results page which says more than i ever could.
Try it yourself

Pope Says: Pray For Child Molesters & Rapists

The Catholic church has a long history of being the safe house for men of god who like to molest and rape small children, And is often even accused of actively covering up allegations and cases of abuse involving young children at the hands of a priest.

So what is the pope going to do about it? Nothing. Unless you count praying as doing something, Which i don't.

The pope has urged all catholics to pray for Catholicism, The church and for the filthy paedophiles guilty of raping children in an attempt to "cleanse the church". He says nothing about helping the victims, Nothing about bringing charges against the rapists in his ranks, Nothing about disciplinary action against anyone acting inappropriately with children. The popes only concern is himself, the church and their reputation, And to solve this problem he prescribes a bit of prayer.

"man of god", My Arse.

Ron Paul Loses 60% Of Atheist Vote

In what may go down as the biggest mistake in US presidential campaign history Ron Paul lost a spectacular 60% of the Atheist Vote as a result of his making public his views on evolution and creationism, According to a poll conducted on this blog.

Atheists knew for some time that Ron Paul was a christian, But because Atheists generally have their heads screwed on they looked past his invisible-sky-daddy fantasies and focused on his logical approach to government, The constitution and the economy.

But if there is anything Atheists have learned it's that if you find a christian, It's not long before you also find someone who denies reality, Reason, Evidence and logic. Anyone who claims to posses reason and faith posses neither.

Ron Paul could have easily answered the question in a way that kept Atheists on his side and made sure the christians wouldn't reject him as a heathen. he could have said; "well there is a lot of evidence for evolution, I believe that if it is true then god created it". This would have still lost him a few votes and I'm sure a few bloggers would have come down on him just as hard, But for him, A doctor, To say "I don't believe in evolution as a theory" exposes him as someone who is willing to deny evidence because of his religion.

It was good while it lasted Ron, But you blew it. As much as i liked Ron Paul he wasn't in the position to be throwing votes away and i suspect losing 60% of the Atheist vote is going to be quite damaging. I believed that out of all the candidates he was the Atheists candidate simply because of him being a defended of the constitution.

Muslims Want Muhammad Pictures Removed From Wikipedia

In another demonstration of how they want everybody to do as they say and follow their rules, offended muslims have started a petition to have Wikipedia remove images depicting their prophet Muhammad. The petition currently has 32,000 signatures

In Islam pictures or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed by SHITAT fact of Islam.
i request all my brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can tell wikipedia to remove them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
specially this image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg

See, The tolerant religion of islam wants only one thing. They want everybody to do as they say all of the time. If us infidels could just agree to that one small request, Everything would be fine.

What they don't realise is that the only people obliged to follow the rules of islam are muslims. They can invent whatever wacky rule they like, But what they can't do is demand everybody else abides by it.

Are they offended? probably not, Not really. But even if they are, So what? They are entitled to be offended. Just like i am entitled to be offended every time they demand that others change their behaviour to suite them.

Of course if we were to have a competition over who is offended more they would no doubt feel entitled to win because they are offended over disrespect to their religion, Which apparently trumps every other kind of offended.

James Randi To End The Million Dollar Challenge

After ten years of offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that they have paranormal powers the JREF is planning to put an end to their challenge.

Over the years James Randi and his colleagues have had to endure emails, Phone calls and meetings with all sorts of delusional people wanting that million dollar prize money claiming to be able to do things ranging from making someone urinate with the power of thier mind to common or garden mind reading.

Every single one of the hundreds of applicants failed to prove their abilities under scientific testing.

It’s always been a simple, direct, matter: do what you claim you can do of a paranormal nature, and walk away with the prize. Our expectations at first were that we’d attract major personalities by this means, but they’ve avoided having to take the test by simply not applying; those who have actually applied are generally honestly self-deluded persons who have difficulty stating what they can do, which can be understood if they really don’t know what they’re experiencing

Oddly enough we didn't see an appearance from any of the more famous morons such as Uri Geller, John Edward or Sylvia Browne. So the discontinuation of the challenge will come as a relief to frauds who are happy to lie to grieving parents but too cowardly to get tested. These people got out of testing by simply not applying. I can't blame them though, What person in their right mind would volunteer to take a test that will prove them to be a fraud and liar?

No doubt this will be seen by some as concern that the prize money was about to be won. But they had ten years to apply, And they have another two years before the challenge actually ends. So it's not like they weren't given a fair opportunity. All they had to do is prove that they can do what they claim to be able to do and the JREF would give them a million dollars.

I guess the challenge partly done what it attempted to do. It tested people and proved their claims to be false while at the same time exposing those not willing to take the test as cowards who lack confidence in their own claims.

Christian Kicked Off Bus For Reading Bible

Christine Lutz, A christian woman, was asked to leave a bus because she refused to stop reading her bible loudly to her children.

Of course, This woman is claiming persecution and religious discrimination even though her activities show an utter lack of consideration for the other passengers and driver and even though the bus company makes it clear that they have a policy forbidding loud behaviour. It has nothing to do with the bible, Nothing to do with her religion. It's simply that she was being loud and obnoxious on public transport.

The religious assume that they are entitled to be inconsiderate, Hateful, Disrespectful and annoying because they happen to have a religion and any attempt to prevent them being antisocial or inconsiderate is said to be an attack on their religion.

It's Time To Drop The Rational Response Squad

For some time now the rational response squad have been fairly big players in the Atheist Movement and have received a lot of attention. They have "debated" (for want of a better word) Ray Comfort and kirk Cameron ^[1], The crocoduck and gods banana guys. And were the instigators of the now famous "blasphemy challenge".

But does the Atheist movement need people like them? In this Atheists opinion, No, It doesn't. Not only do we not need them but i feel they are damaging to the Atheist movement.

Their goals don't seem to be the eradication of religion, Or even the separation of church and state. Their goal seems to be nothing more than getting kicks out of abusing the religious and being attention whores.

Their target audience doesn't seem to be intelligent people capable of making or understanding lucid logical arguments, Instead they cater for teenage boys who like looking at Kelly's large breasts ^[2].

Now, In their latest attempt to fan the flames of their own ego and create even more attention and drama for themselves they have reportedly made the claim that Richard Dawkins is having extra-marital-activities while in a drunken conference call with Reed over at unorthodox Atheism (great blog, check it out). The claim that Professor Dawkins is having an affair is patently untrue and not supported by any evidence, But even if it were true, What has it got to do with the RRS?

It's time to drop these clowns. The atheist movement isn't a Yahoo chat room, It doesn't need drama fabricated by attention hungry children at the expense of the very person responsible for their fame in the first place.

Way to show your gratitude and respect, Assholes.

Catholic Teachers: An Atheist Bloggers Best Friend

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Catholic teachers and the splendid work they do ensuring us Atheist bloggers always have something different, Interesting and absurd to write about.

This week the award goes to Dr Paul Schum, The 50 year old principle of Bethlehem Catholic High School. Dr Paul Schum went above and beyond the call of duty as fodder for Atheist bloggers by getting himself arrested on prostitution charges while dressed in a black leather skirt, fishnet stockings, fake breasts, a blonde wig and lipstick a long way from home, In an ally way in a part of town known for prostitution and drugs.

We really need some kind of medal to give these people.

Of course Dr Schum's supporters don't believe a man of such high regard could be a crosdressing hooker, So they came up with the perfectly plausible excuse that he was practicing for Halloween. Practicing for Halloween a long way from home, in a dark ally way, In area known for prostitution and drugs in the early hours of the morning... of course, That sounds like exactly what happened.

Dr Paul Schum has subsequently resigned from his position as Principle of Bethlehem high school

God Lied, Again.

In 1986 God told Shelby Corbitt (Google cache as shelby took the site down), Via a prophetic dream, That in 2007 the rapture would begin, Saved souls would ascend into heaven and the rest of us would remain to face Armageddon. Shelby Then waited for the signal from god to tell everyone.

So what happened? 2007 came and went, And we are all still here.

Here are the possibilities;

1. God lied.
2. God got it wrong.
3. Shelby Corbitt is delusional.
4. Shelby Corbitt is a con [wo]man who see a good way of fleecing thousands of dollars from frighted idiots.

Why do people who claim to have messages from god generally get it so wrong?
I know the obvious answer is that they are idiots and god isn't talking to them, But even guessing should produce a higher hit rate than what these people get.

Don't worry though, Let's have another go in 2008. Another message, Another website, Another book and another con man fleecing idiots out of their money.

Hindu Gods Summoned To Court To Settle Property Dispute

A judge in India has summoned two Hindu gods, Ram and Hanuman, to help resolve a property dispute.

Judge Sunil Kumar Singh in the eastern state of Jharkhand has issued adverts in newspapers asking the gods to "appear before the court personally".

The gods have been asked to appear before the court on Tuesday, after the judge said that letters addressed to them had gone unanswered.

Ram and Hanuman are among the most popular Indian Hindu gods.

Judge Singh presides in a "fast track" court - designed to resolve disputes quickly - in the city of Dhanbad.

The dispute is now 20 years old and revolves around the ownership of a 1.4 acre plot of land housing two temples.

Do the religious go out of thier way to prove how moronic they are? And this isn't some smack head ranting on a street corner, This is a court of law!
source

Has Ron Paul Lost The Atheist Vote?

In a move that has brought ridicule and doubt from a lot of bloggers Ron Paul admitted that he doesn't believe in evolution - A scientific fact - And instead believes in a "creator" - The invisible sky daddy theory.

I have seen very few atheists say they will continue to support Ron Paul after he made public his views on evolution.

But are Atheists right to abandon Ron Paul based solely on his views on evolution? Yes, They are. Simply because someone who claims to be a champion of reason, Evidence and rationality can't help but question the intelligence of someone who believes in biblical creation in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It would be hypocritical to demand evidence and rationality from everybody except the leader of your country.

The argument has been made by a few atheists that while his views are wacky, It won't effect the decisions he will make as president. While i partially agree, That is irrelevant. A belief in Santa, Elves or pixies wouldn't directly effect the decisions a leader makes either, But it would cast doubt over that individuals ability to think rationally.

If you want to call your self an Atheist and a champion of reason, You can't continue to support Ron Paul. If you want a rational leader, You can't put a creationist in to office.