February 26, 2008
It has drawn me to the conclusion that no argument for the existence of god can ever be logically sound, And as such any argument for the existence of god can be dismissed.
The most popular fallacy used is the argument from ignorance. The theist will assume that your inability to answer a question they pose or give an explanation of something is in fact evidence for their explanation. They will ask how the big bang came about, As if our current lack of an explanation gives credibility to their "magic man done it" theory. This is some times referred to as the "god of gaps". They wait for a gap and shove their god in to fill it.
The second most popular fallacy is the argument from design. The theist assumes that because the laws of physics appear to be fine tuned that they must have been fine tuned, And because no explanation can be given as to how this may occur naturally they invoke the god of gaps and say "magic man done it".
The third most popular has got to be their good old straw man argument where the theist will say "Scientists believe we evolved from rocks.. So how long does it take a rock to evolve in to a cat?". They completely misrepresent the claim made by science and turn it in to something they feel equipped to counter and ask you a question based on their misrepresentation.
Last but not least, A fallacy that all religious people are guilty of, And a fallacy which name escapes me at the moment, Is when a conclusion is reached and then evidence is gathered to support that conclusion. The theist will already be of the opinion that a god exists and after the conclusion is reached they go off looking for evidence to support than conclusion. They have the scientific process back to front.
So are there any arguments for the existence of god that are at least logically sound? are there any arguments that can't be dismissed straight away as being abominations in logic?
February 22, 2008
Thanks to Jasal for emailing this in.
Religion is said to be the driving influence behind Americans’ low moral opinion of nanotechnology, according to a researcher who surveyed public opinion on science and technology.
Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences, and a colleague found in their study that only 29.5 percent of respondents from a sample of 1,015 adult Americans agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.
When the survey was conducted in European countries, who are reportedly also key players in nanotechnology, the results were strikingly different.
In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent accepted nanotechnology on moral grounds. That percentage climbed higher in France where 72.1 percent of survey respondents expressed no moral qualms about the technology.
Scheufele presented results from the 2007 summer survey on Friday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.
The professor said religion accounts for distinct differences between the moral opinion of Americans and Europeans in regard to nanotechnology.
"The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives," said Scheufele .First Stem-cell research, Now nanotechnology. Do they oppose every technology that has the capacity to help sick people? It would have been interesting if they asked the people questioned what nanotechnology is, My bet would be that most don't have a clue.
February 21, 2008
Both sides are excited about this decision. On one side we have the lesser moronic creationists pointing out that this isn't any different to calling it "evolution" and the evolutionists are happy because now students will be educated on the difference between a scientific theory and a common theory.
One of the tactics used by creationists over the years has been to call evolution "just a theory", Even though we have explained to them what a scientific theory is many times. So now the definition of "scientific theory" will be explained to students and they will see what a powerful too the "theory of evolution" is.
Well done idiots! LOL
February 19, 2008
Now correlation doesn't demonstrate causation, But there is a link there somewhere. Perhaps lower educated people are more likely to be religious (my personal theory as previous studies have shown the religious to have on average a lower IQ) or perhaps poverty makes people more likely to turn to faith.
Whatever conclusions you want to draw from this graph, There is a link between earnings and religiosity.
* Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day.
February 16, 2008
15 Danish newspapers decided to reprint the cartoons as a protest after police arrested three muslims, Two Tunisians and a Moroccan, On Tuesday for planning to kill the aged cartoonist.
Press around the world should stand united with Denmark and also reprint the cartoons in protest. Even to this day not a single cartoon has appeared in American press without muhammad's face either being blacked out or pixelated. The willing subserviance of the west is both cowardly and dangerous. We shouldn't be afraid to print something on the basis that a minority doesn't like it. If we have learned one thing from islam it's that if you give them an inch, They take a mile.
No doubt the moderate muslims will come out to say how the cartoons are wrong and that we should "respect" their religion while at the same time completely ignoring the barbaric animals threatening to kill cartoonists in the name of their god.
I have a question for these moderate muslims. If Islam is a religion of peace what do you find more offensive? A few cartoons, or murder in the name of islam? If it is the latter, Let's start hearing you make some noise condemning these barbaric animals and less noise criticising those who have the courage to take a stand against them.
February 12, 2008
There have been tons of suicide blogs over the years and this just another in a long line. They are created by people who either need attention or are trying to find some kind of self worth in the way of strangers pleading with them to not do it.
If you have no idea what i am talking about there is a blog called 90dayjane in which a woman claims she is documenting the 90 days prior to her planned suicide. Her blog consists of day to day commentary of her life peppered with assurances that she isn't doing it for attention and full of comments by strangers pretending that they give a shit.
So how do i know it is a hoax? If you look on her blog she says;
I am going to kill myself in 90 days. What else should i say? This blog is not a cry for help or even to get attention. It's simply a public record of my last 90 days in existence. I'm not depressed and nothing extremely horrible has lead me to this decision. But, does it really have to? I mean, as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose.To me this stinks of a religious person trying to paint atheists as immoral, materialistic machines with no self-worth. surely an Atheists greatest purpose is to stay alive. When Atheists die that is it, There is no reunion, There is no handshake with god and there is no eternal happiness. the Atheist believes we get one life and when it's over it's over.
So logically speaking, An Atheist is far less likely to kill themselves for no reason than someone who believes death is nothing more than a transition to a better place.
Charles Darwin was born in born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England on 12 February 1809 at his family home, the Mount. He was the fifth of six children of wealthy society doctor and financier Robert Darwin, and Susannah Darwin. After a varied academic career studying everything from Medicine to taxidermy Darwin started seeing the world aboard the Beagle.
While voyaging on the Beagle Darwin become obsessed with the exotic species and fossils he was finding on his travels and this lead him to start wondering where it all came from. Unlike most people of the time Darwin wasn't satisfied with the infantile notion that a magic-sky-man clicked his fingers and made it all and was sure that there was a science that could explain how such a varied array of biology could come about.
After noticing that different animals were suited to their environment Darwin formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory that says through the survival of the fittest and small gradual changes an organism can evolve into a completely different species, A species that was perfectly suited to it's environment.
Though evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwin first conceived it, Due to the discovery of genetics and the study of cells, Natural selection still remains the foundation of all evolutionary theory.
Without this great man medicine and the study of viruses would be pretty much nonexistent. We have a lot to thank him for.
February 11, 2008
February 10, 2008
A government minister has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects - comments likely to spark a new row over the place of Muslims in British society.
Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the “elephant in the room”. Woolas, a former race relations minister, said: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.”
The minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said: “The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children].”
Woolas emphasised the practice did not extend to all Muslim communities but was confined mainly to families originating from rural Pakistan. However, up to half of all marriages within these communities are estimated to involve first cousins.
Christians in particular have a long history of trying to deny people knowledge because they believe an educated mind is less likely to buy in to their primitive bronze age myths and, More importantly, Less likely to hand over money to such a scam.
In quite recent history, When Charles Darwin wrote his book detailing the process that caused the species to arise, The christians went absolutely nuts. They aren't concerned with the validity of evolution, They are simply concerned with preventing anyone learning about anything that contradicts their unfounded beliefs.
In 1982 a book was written called "of pandas and people" which was intended to be used as a text book in a science class teaching children that
Intelligent design, Unlike biblical creation, States that humans and animals couldn't have arose via natural selection and that a "designer" has to be responsible for at least some aspects of some organisms. Obviously this is just a re-branding of biblical creation, As was pointed out by Judge John Jones in the Dova trial.
So since there is now a president where
"Teach the controversy" is born. The newest tactic the disgusting creationists are using to get filthy lies taught as science is to pretend that there is an academic "controversy" regarding evolution and that a lot of respectable scientists, Scientists who were found to be complete morons at the Dova trial, Doubt evolution.
The solution to this, According to them, It to at least teach the controversy to children and "let them decide". Now, I have two problems with this;
Firstly; There isn't a controversy. it's all in their head. Compared to the vast body of scientists who fully support evolution the ones questioning it are comparable to the amount of astronomers who believe in astrology. ie, Not many at all.
Secondly; If there is a "controversy" regarding the theory of evolution it has to be settled in the academic arena using peer reviewed research and evidence. it's not to be settled in a classroom full of children who don't even have a basic grasp of the subject. This presents a problem for creationists i s they don't actually produce any data, Any experiments or any academic papers.
When this issue goes to court, And it will, The case is easily won by evolutionists simply by saying that "teaching the controversy" is tantamount to teaching the controversy between alchemy in chemistry and Astrology in astrophysics.
February 09, 2008
To most Atheists it wont come as much of a surprise that the story of jesus isn't unique in mythology, But it will hopefully put a bit of dent in some christians belief that jesus existed and the bible is a true account of his life when they realise that the story is a metaphorical one to explain events in the night sky at different times of the year.
After the Sunday service in Westminster Chapel, where worshippers were exhorted to wage "the culture war" in the World War II spirit of Sir Winston Churchill, cabbie James McLean delivered his verdict on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
"Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," said McLean, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."
Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.
Luckily for Europeans we have far less fundamentalist evangelicals than America willing to make utter fools out of themselves, So i don't expect this lie based movement to make much ground over here. It is something Europeans need to keep an eye on though, Especially since the UK creation theme park was announced.
February 08, 2008
What Evolution IsEvolution is the theory that explains the fact that animals change and speciate due to natural selection.
What Evolution IS NOTEvolution is not proof that god doesn't exist.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the universe.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how the planet formed.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how the first organism arose.
Evolution is not in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
February 04, 2008
You still here? Go sign up and start posting!
February 02, 2008
We could sit down and explain to the religious how "morality" can come about via an evolutionary process, But going on the luck we have had trying to explain evolution to them it would be a futile waste of time.
Instead what i want to do is explain how "morality" can only, By definition, Exist in someone who doesn't believe in a god.
In most, If not all religions, There is a reward/punishment system at it's very core. Religion comes along, lays down some rules and convinces you that should you break any of these rules you will be subject to torturous punishment, pain and suffering for eternity. For eternity!.
In light of that, How can any action performed by a religious person be considered moral? How can it even be a result of free will? If you are told to do something and threatened with eternal suffering should you not comply or promised a reward should you abide how can your action be considered good? In reality we would call this type of thing at best coercion or bribery, At worst we call it threatening with violence.
The Atheist on the other hand has no fear of a punishment from god and no expectations of a reward. Every action performed by an Atheist is done entirely in the absence of a belief in god and in the absence of the belief that a posthumous reward/punishment system is in place. The Atheist does good entirely because [s]he wants to. Because it's the "right" thing to do.
So next time you hear a religious person claim we need a god to know what is moral tell them that if they need a god to be moral they are in fact the exact opposite of moral and are simply afraid of a punishment and looking for personal gain as a reward for their behaviour. Then ask them if in the case where the nonexistence of god was proven would they instantly start killing, stealing and raping.
February 01, 2008
Richard Dawkins memorial service will be held on Friday Febuary 1, 2008. Pilgrim Baptist Church will be officating the funeral service.
Richard Dawkins has proven to be one of the most wicked human beings to ever walk the earth.
Preachingyourfuneral.com plans to have a mock funeral service for Mr. Dawkins On Friday.
Any requests for an interview should be sent to email@example.com
Wow, One of the most wicked human beings to ever walk the earth? I take it that is based entirely on the fact that he doesn't believe your lies.