Religious Fundamentalists (those who believe the earth is young and evolution is crap) beware. The internet is your enemy. You may not have realized this before, or maybe you still haven't, but facts are not your friend either.
Do yourself a favor Fundies, and throw your computer away. Get your kids away from the computer too, or they may turn into Godless infidels. And guess who is most responsible for turning religious fence sitters into devout Agnostics? Who is responsible for those who went from not asking questions, to those who are all of a sudden curious about Fundamental beliefs they used to believe were gospel? It isn't Richard Dawkins and it isn't Sam Harris either. Fence sitters don't usually get to their wonderful material.
No, it is the Fundies who have the audacity to confront Atheists, scientists, Agnostics, etc. who are to blame.
Fundies have to understand that your religious spew and groundless faith only works when you have an audience of faithful listeners. When they go out of their realm, they are like a chicken walking into the mouth of a hungry crocodile. They don't have a chance.
The big problem is they want to debate things like evolution and the age of the earth with no facts behind you. Their answers may be impressive to fellow Fundies when there are nothing but Fundies around, but they get squashed by a bug when you deal with anyone who doesn't deny reality.
They are tiresome with the same old arguments. "Evolution is only a theory." As soon as I see this, I realize that the person stating it, has no real idea about evolution or science, and doesn't want to understand it either.
So why do Atheists like me bother with confrontational Fundies? The answer is simple: I do it for the lurkers.
I realize I will most likely not change the uneducated opinion of a Fundy by supporting my arguments with up to date links from real science sites (they don't bother clicking the links usually). I am going to change the opinion of the odd lurker, though.
When a Fundy says there is no proof for evolution, and I respond with 10 links, I know that in many cases, I will make a difference with some lurkers. Facts are facts. Fundies arguing that the earth is young for example, might as well state the earth is made of chocolate. They inevitably make themselves look like baseless fools.
It is apparent, they have nothing but faith. Yet they want to pretend that they have science behind them. They constantly move the goal posts during "debates" too by avoiding questions, and changing their assertions. I remember one "debate" recently where the Fundy went from stating that God is easily provable, to God is easily provable on a spiritual level (WTF?), when I asked for the easy proof.
Youtube is also making a difference too. There is a phenomenal amount of creative people out there who, in an intelligent manner, mock the ridiculous claims made by Fundamentalists.
Todays children have too many facts in front of them. And even if they had no intention of asking questions, they are seeing the real replies to the silly denials and ludicrous assertions that Fundies are spewing.
I can see Fundamental Christians looking for a way to ban a tremendous amount of the internet from their households....Saudi Arabia does this.
I find that Fundies don't like it when I state the following in a "debate":
1. There is no contemporary historical evidence Jesus ever existed. (Josephus was not contemporary) Can I have your best piece of evidence?
2. There is no historical evidence the Exodus happened. Forget the Hyksos, I'm talking about what the OT states.
3. Find me one scientific study that refutes or contradicts evolution. If evolution were false, there would be many, but you can't find one piece for me.
4. There is no evidence that there was a worldwide Great Flood. Local floods, yes, but not a worldwide one. Oh yeah, the idea of the Ark story is embarrassing to believe.
5. If the earth was young, why can't a Fundy scientist come up with a way to prove it?
The best a Fundy can do is try to poke holes in evolution theory. And that is when it gets good, because that is when the links come out and the lurkers get a free education:)
And when overwhelmed by evidence the young earth creationist will finally concede that any contradiction between science and the literal word of the bible can easily be explained. From a recent discussion on a Fundy blog:
“Kerwin, if you believe in a trickster God, I can’t argue with you. “ The Atheist Jew
If this below passage describes a trickster God then I do believe in a trickster God.
Deuteronomy 13(NIV)
“1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.”
Comment by Kerwin — thep31e12beFri, 29 Dec 2006 03:07:15
Yep, the word of God clearly states that he throws curve balls, like dinosaur bones and an earth that appears, to every reputable geologist on this planet, to be 4.5 billion years old, just to test ones faith in HIM.
If you believe scientists, you don't love God as much as you should.
So basically all the evidence in the world means nothing to a devout Fundy.
Fundies will believe that woman came from Adam's rib (with zero evidence such a thing could happen outside the bible), but can't buy into evolution (with the mounds and mounds of evidence that evolution happens).
Fundies so far have avoided major debates with large audiences. I think the big Fundy guns realize they have nothing. I'd love to see Ann Coulter in an honest debate about evolution with Richard Dawkins.
Unfortunately, it will never happen. Dawkins would make her look like a monkey.
Oh, I found another very funny site, especially if you want first hand Advice From God.
December 31, 2006
Americans Are Great Except Too Many Deny Reality
I really like Americans, I always have. I love NFL football, the TV shows, the music (well up to around the mid 80's), their patriotism, and a lot more. But for the life of me, I don't understand how such a well educated country can be so out to lunch when it comes to accepting evolution and an ancient earth.
The USA ranks 33 out of 34 Western countries when it comes to acceptance of evolution.
Turkey (the only majority Muslim country in the survey), ranked 34th. Canada was not included in the survey. Iceland was ranked first followed by Denmark, Sweden, France, Japan and the UK, as far as acceptance of evolution is concerned. I have to think Canada ranks around where the UK ranks.
Now for some good news. Well sort of. This shouldn't have been an issue in the first place:
December 20, 2006
Cobb County, Georgia gets unstuck
Cobb County, the affluent suburb of Atlanta that made news by plastering "warning stickers" on textbooks telling students that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" has abandoned its legal battle to keep the stickers. It's a small victory for common sense and rational thinking.
In a settlement announced Tuesday in federal court, the Cobb County Board of Education agreed never to use any similar "stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions or other warnings," or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.
MORE here and some MORE here.
It is mind numbing that this sticker was even placed in science texts:
The Cobb county debate was a highlight of Penn and Teller's Creationism is Nonsense show. At the time it was filmed, the creationists had won the right to put those retarded sticker on the science books. This is fun to watch again. It shows how little creationists know about science and how much they'll evade or chastize science that doesn't agree with the written "word of God"(the biggest scam perpetuated on mankind):
"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." - Superintendent Chalmers
Now for some absolute MIND NUMBING NEWS (H/T Louie from Everything Is Pointless):
How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Published: Dec 28, 2006 at 08:34
Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is �no comment.'"
MORE and some MORE about the background here.
This has to be embarrassing for the majority of Americans. At least I hope so.
What is next? Will NASA not be allowed to publicly state how old the universe is? Will they have to state light years in ranges between 6,000 and hundreds of millions(for example), every time they refer to a measurement?
Here is some satire on the Grand Canyon story.
And watch how Dr. Dino (Ken Hovind) deals with the issue in front of the mindless sheep in his audience:
Finally, real science, for those interested in the "debate" about the age of the Grand Canyon.
The USA ranks 33 out of 34 Western countries when it comes to acceptance of evolution.
Turkey (the only majority Muslim country in the survey), ranked 34th. Canada was not included in the survey. Iceland was ranked first followed by Denmark, Sweden, France, Japan and the UK, as far as acceptance of evolution is concerned. I have to think Canada ranks around where the UK ranks.
Now for some good news. Well sort of. This shouldn't have been an issue in the first place:
December 20, 2006
Cobb County, Georgia gets unstuck
Cobb County, the affluent suburb of Atlanta that made news by plastering "warning stickers" on textbooks telling students that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" has abandoned its legal battle to keep the stickers. It's a small victory for common sense and rational thinking.
In a settlement announced Tuesday in federal court, the Cobb County Board of Education agreed never to use any similar "stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions or other warnings," or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.
MORE here and some MORE here.
It is mind numbing that this sticker was even placed in science texts:
The Cobb county debate was a highlight of Penn and Teller's Creationism is Nonsense show. At the time it was filmed, the creationists had won the right to put those retarded sticker on the science books. This is fun to watch again. It shows how little creationists know about science and how much they'll evade or chastize science that doesn't agree with the written "word of God"(the biggest scam perpetuated on mankind):
"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." - Superintendent Chalmers
Now for some absolute MIND NUMBING NEWS (H/T Louie from Everything Is Pointless):
How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
Published: Dec 28, 2006 at 08:34
Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is �no comment.'"
MORE and some MORE about the background here.
This has to be embarrassing for the majority of Americans. At least I hope so.
What is next? Will NASA not be allowed to publicly state how old the universe is? Will they have to state light years in ranges between 6,000 and hundreds of millions(for example), every time they refer to a measurement?
Here is some satire on the Grand Canyon story.
And watch how Dr. Dino (Ken Hovind) deals with the issue in front of the mindless sheep in his audience:
Finally, real science, for those interested in the "debate" about the age of the Grand Canyon.
December 28, 2006
Back To Morality
A couple of posts ago I did a piece on morality that got pretty good response.
I gave readers a rating system and a series of 11 questions that pretty much popped into my head over a 20 minute period. I'm not trying to pretend I'm a philosopher or an expert on morality.
Two things. It was not an empirical study; it was a casual quiz. I was not collecting data, merely openly comparing results. Secondly, the purpose of the quiz was to prove that everyone has a different concept of what the DEFINITION of morality is. I wanted to illustrate that the DEFINITION of morality is SUBJECTIVE, not that morality is subjective....this is a different idea. My point is that unless we can make the DEFINITION of morality OBJECTIVE we cannot even attempt to answer whether morality in itself is objective or subjective.
I hope that isn't confusing.
Speaking about confusing, I think I sort of confused a few people like The Ethicist Atheist (he is really the Atheist Ethicist, but he calls me the Jewish Atheist, so this is my revenge). He wrote a blog entry ripping me to shreds I think, and I think he was implying I'm stupid or something like that, but I can't really tell because I can tell by his writing that he is smarter than me, and by the fact that I find a lot of what he writes hard to comprehend and follow. I believe he was confused about what I was trying to prove (once more, that the definition of morality is subjective). He wrote a further piece that gives me the impression that he finally got what I was trying to say. I did leave a few comments on his blog. And even though I was tempted, I didn't whip out the thesaurus to sound smarter.
I started a thread about the definition of morality being subjective over at Raving Atheists. Feel free to read it. It does get off topic and bizarre at one point.
If you are still here, now for the fun part. I would like to see your definition of morality. Try to make it as broad or concise as you feel you need to make it, and post it in my comments.
To help everyone along, I'll give you my refined definition:
The parameters in my definition are that any act that anyone on this planet deems to be a moral or immoral act is one that I have to address as either moral or immoral to at least some degree.
That being said, to me, a moral act is an act that is not immoral. And an immoral act is an act as an act that causes the individual committing the act any degree of guilt and/or an act that was done maliciously or selfishly or unlawfully that causes any degree of hurt or grief onto another living being.
Oh and the guilt can't be caused by failure of motor skills (a dropped ball in a football game) or the guilt caused by failing to do a job properly when the intent was to be successful and not to screw up.
Now, your idea of of what morality might be what you think God or Jesus or Allah thinks you should do in any given situation, or it could be simply not breaking the laws of the state, or it might be a combination. It could also have to do with what is evolutionary beneficial.
Besides giving an exact definition of morality, you can also mention where you think morality comes from. To me, I think it is mostly innate and evolutionary in origin, and partially based on societal laws (that are really offshoots of what is innate).
Oh and the point of this. Unless someone defines morality, they have no business making statements like "Atheists have no morals," or "Atheists have no real basis or guidelines for morality."
I gave readers a rating system and a series of 11 questions that pretty much popped into my head over a 20 minute period. I'm not trying to pretend I'm a philosopher or an expert on morality.
Two things. It was not an empirical study; it was a casual quiz. I was not collecting data, merely openly comparing results. Secondly, the purpose of the quiz was to prove that everyone has a different concept of what the DEFINITION of morality is. I wanted to illustrate that the DEFINITION of morality is SUBJECTIVE, not that morality is subjective....this is a different idea. My point is that unless we can make the DEFINITION of morality OBJECTIVE we cannot even attempt to answer whether morality in itself is objective or subjective.
I hope that isn't confusing.
Speaking about confusing, I think I sort of confused a few people like The Ethicist Atheist (he is really the Atheist Ethicist, but he calls me the Jewish Atheist, so this is my revenge). He wrote a blog entry ripping me to shreds I think, and I think he was implying I'm stupid or something like that, but I can't really tell because I can tell by his writing that he is smarter than me, and by the fact that I find a lot of what he writes hard to comprehend and follow. I believe he was confused about what I was trying to prove (once more, that the definition of morality is subjective). He wrote a further piece that gives me the impression that he finally got what I was trying to say. I did leave a few comments on his blog. And even though I was tempted, I didn't whip out the thesaurus to sound smarter.
I started a thread about the definition of morality being subjective over at Raving Atheists. Feel free to read it. It does get off topic and bizarre at one point.
If you are still here, now for the fun part. I would like to see your definition of morality. Try to make it as broad or concise as you feel you need to make it, and post it in my comments.
To help everyone along, I'll give you my refined definition:
The parameters in my definition are that any act that anyone on this planet deems to be a moral or immoral act is one that I have to address as either moral or immoral to at least some degree.
That being said, to me, a moral act is an act that is not immoral. And an immoral act is an act as an act that causes the individual committing the act any degree of guilt and/or an act that was done maliciously or selfishly or unlawfully that causes any degree of hurt or grief onto another living being.
Oh and the guilt can't be caused by failure of motor skills (a dropped ball in a football game) or the guilt caused by failing to do a job properly when the intent was to be successful and not to screw up.
Now, your idea of of what morality might be what you think God or Jesus or Allah thinks you should do in any given situation, or it could be simply not breaking the laws of the state, or it might be a combination. It could also have to do with what is evolutionary beneficial.
Besides giving an exact definition of morality, you can also mention where you think morality comes from. To me, I think it is mostly innate and evolutionary in origin, and partially based on societal laws (that are really offshoots of what is innate).
Oh and the point of this. Unless someone defines morality, they have no business making statements like "Atheists have no morals," or "Atheists have no real basis or guidelines for morality."
Reached The 100,000 Visitor Mark
Click cartoon to enlarge it:
The first year of blogging was slow. I made a post a week, and got very few visitors. Here is my 50,000 visitor post from June 30th this year.
Things changed early this year as some of the bigger bloggers out there discovered me, and now I get between 200 and 300 visitors a day on average. I probably get a good 20-30% of visitors from Google searches. Number 100,000 was doing a "Steve Irwin atheist" search. There is no indication Stevo was an atheist, but obviously I am, and I wrote a tribute to him when he died.
Some of the word searches that have got me visitors are hysterical, but I haven't written them down, so you'll have to take my word for it.
Thanks to everyone, especially my regular visitors. You two know who you are:)
The first year of blogging was slow. I made a post a week, and got very few visitors. Here is my 50,000 visitor post from June 30th this year.
Things changed early this year as some of the bigger bloggers out there discovered me, and now I get between 200 and 300 visitors a day on average. I probably get a good 20-30% of visitors from Google searches. Number 100,000 was doing a "Steve Irwin atheist" search. There is no indication Stevo was an atheist, but obviously I am, and I wrote a tribute to him when he died.
Some of the word searches that have got me visitors are hysterical, but I haven't written them down, so you'll have to take my word for it.
Thanks to everyone, especially my regular visitors. You two know who you are:)
December 26, 2006
Casual Morality Test
It is tiresome when I read that Atheists are not moral, or cannot be moral, or have no moral code. The biggest problem with the idea of morality is that, like snowflakes, no two people agree on what exactly morality is, and what exactly is an immoral act. The definition of morality is totally subjective.
I define an immoral act as an act that causes the individual committing the act any degree of guilt and/or an act that was done maliciously or selfishly that causes any degree of hurt or grief onto another living being.
I'm 100% certain that everyone who reads this has a different idea about what is moral and immoral. But that is my premise.
Now, to prove it. Here is a casual quiz. You can put your answers into the comments here, or just walk away knowing I'm right:)...............as usual.
Rate every statement from 1-10 where 10 is a moral act and 1 is as immoral as you can get. Also, a 0 would mean the question doesn't have enough info. And NA would mean you don't find the question to be a moral issue. An 8 or 9 would be slightly immoral.
1. An unmarried woman had sex with a man who she is no longer seeing and became pregnant and has an early abortion. How immoral or moral was the act of the abortion?
2. An unmarried woman gets violently raped by an escaped convict and becomes pregnant and has an early abortion. How immoral or moral was the act of the abortion?
3. Premarital sex?
4. You are 18 and you take a few tokes from an illegal marijuana joint?
5. You are married with young children and walking the dog, and see a really sexy person. On your way back home you start fantasizing about having sex with this person, and when having sex with your partner, you pretend your partner is that person?
6. Killing a a career criminal who is caught on tape robbing and killing a clerk in a convenience store, by lethal injection?
7. Killing a harmless daddy long legs spider that was in your bedroom?
8. Living together before marriage?
9. Telling a loved one he or she looks great when you don't think that is the case, just so that person won't spend money at a spa because you don't think the spa will help?
10. Finding $5000 in the attic, 3 years after you moved into a new home and not trying to contact the former owner?
11. Not feeding a dying relative who has terminal cancer and is in endless pain when it is their wish not to be fed.
I had to do this post after losing a few braincells "debating" with a couple of theistic "scholars" over at Christ Matters: Politics That Matter To Him.
I define an immoral act as an act that causes the individual committing the act any degree of guilt and/or an act that was done maliciously or selfishly that causes any degree of hurt or grief onto another living being.
I'm 100% certain that everyone who reads this has a different idea about what is moral and immoral. But that is my premise.
Now, to prove it. Here is a casual quiz. You can put your answers into the comments here, or just walk away knowing I'm right:)...............as usual.
Rate every statement from 1-10 where 10 is a moral act and 1 is as immoral as you can get. Also, a 0 would mean the question doesn't have enough info. And NA would mean you don't find the question to be a moral issue. An 8 or 9 would be slightly immoral.
1. An unmarried woman had sex with a man who she is no longer seeing and became pregnant and has an early abortion. How immoral or moral was the act of the abortion?
2. An unmarried woman gets violently raped by an escaped convict and becomes pregnant and has an early abortion. How immoral or moral was the act of the abortion?
3. Premarital sex?
4. You are 18 and you take a few tokes from an illegal marijuana joint?
5. You are married with young children and walking the dog, and see a really sexy person. On your way back home you start fantasizing about having sex with this person, and when having sex with your partner, you pretend your partner is that person?
6. Killing a a career criminal who is caught on tape robbing and killing a clerk in a convenience store, by lethal injection?
7. Killing a harmless daddy long legs spider that was in your bedroom?
8. Living together before marriage?
9. Telling a loved one he or she looks great when you don't think that is the case, just so that person won't spend money at a spa because you don't think the spa will help?
10. Finding $5000 in the attic, 3 years after you moved into a new home and not trying to contact the former owner?
11. Not feeding a dying relative who has terminal cancer and is in endless pain when it is their wish not to be fed.
I had to do this post after losing a few braincells "debating" with a couple of theistic "scholars" over at Christ Matters: Politics That Matter To Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)