Pope Pretty Much Admits He Is An Agnostic

All you have to do is read between the lines in the new German book, Schoepfung und Evolution (Creation and Evolution), and it is pretty evident that Pope Benedict is an agnostic who is trying to keep his sham religion alive (all religions are shams, but some are shammier than others).

First off, the Pope stayed clear of the ID "argument" altogether, which is a pretty clear admission that knows Behe and Dumbski are full of garbage, and he also stayed clear of creationist crapola too.

Lets look at the quotes shall we:

"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights.....science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question."

*******************************
What you really are saying that science has disproved the idea of a young earth and creationism, and the only way to keep the Catholic church alive in light of scientific fact is to come up with new bullshit reasons for why God would have done things the way he did it.

"the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory....We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory."

********************************
Notice the word "completely"? Yes, scientists know that it is impossible to do millions of years of evolution in a lab. And yes, many people will say that unless they see something for themselves it can't be "completely" provable. But what you the Pope, does admit, is that the earth is much older than 10,000 years. And that your only defense against evolution is that fact it takes too damn long for species changes to occur. Popey, you are admitting that evolution is fact, in other words.

"But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."
******************************
Well duh. There is no such thing as a scientifically proven theory. You are trying to pull a fast one here, in order to keep the Catholics, who would think about changing religions, if you admitted to being an agnostic evolutionist.

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

*******************************
Yep, the old theistic evolution argument. I like it much better than the YEC argument. Actually, I like it a lot better. But see, here is the thing. You realize that scientific theory is based on observable facts. But you have to come up a reason to keep the flock together by trying to invent a big picture, that you have no proof of, or no evidence of. This makes you agnostic. An agnostic is someone who deep down hopes there is a God, knowing full well there is no evidence of one. They hope that there is a bigger picture and a guiding hand, but really know that there isn't. As gaps become less and less, more agnostics have the courage to state they are atheist. I doubt you will admit you are an Atheist, Benedict. You are too old to change your agnostic ways.

"I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science."

**************************************
Well actually the theory of evolution doesn't have to imply philosophical questions, unless you are hoping for something that almost for sure isn't there. Without philosophical questions about evolution, you have no reason to keep up the charade of Catholicism, right Popey?

"The process (evolution) itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability.....This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?..... it came from the creative reason of God."

***********************************
So evolution is confusing because scientist don't ask why it is happening philosophically? I got you Popey, nudge nudge wink wink. It is about time you threw in the word "God." I was starting to worry about you forgetting about what your job is. Like I said, without making evolution (which you seem to embrace as 100% fact) philosophical, you got zero, and you might as well turn the Vatican into a Mosque, because Muslims aren't as enlightened as you are.

"Just who is this nature or evolution as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!....evolution has a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain."

********************************
Are you now saying evolution and nature are God? Isn't that just renaming evolution and nature? You are starting to sound like a Buddhist now.
C'mon Popey, don't start pretending you don't know what evolution and that it is a lot more than purely random selection. I can see right through you. You are worried, as you should be that Catholics start leaving your church and become Muslims or Evangelist Christians, science forbid. Actually, I have respect for that, you are trying to help out mankind by not admitting your true beliefs, and creating more ass backward Fundies.

Hey Popey, how come no mention of Jesus? You must be reading my blog, and have concluded that the dude never existed.

I might as well add this video that AngloAmerican posted in my comments since it fits with the Catholic theme. Most atheists probably have seen this already. I saw it yesterday for the first time:

Thoughts on Passover and Easter

First off, I stayed clear of both celebrations this year. I didn't even accompany my wife to my neighbour's house for Easter turkey, or whatever it is people eat on Easter.

I admit, I watched a few National Geographic's and Discovery Civilization "documentaries" about Jesus and the Exodus. Now, you have to understand, it has only been three years since I made the discovery that a historical Jesus and a historical Exodus have zero contemporary evidence attached to either. I always assumed that lots of Jews left Egypt around 3200 years ago, and that Jesus was a Jewish rebel rabbi.

For me, it started innocently enough. I was just looking for descriptions of what Jesus looked like from historical sources, because at the time there was lots of news about Mel Gibson's The Passion, which was just announced as going into production.

I started doing internet searches, and wound up finding out that there is no historical evidence that Jesus even existed. In fact, there were lots of similar stories to what the Christ story evolved into over time. There is historical evidence that the similar stories were part of the cultural myths, and they were there way before Jesus supposedly lived.

The Exodus revelation happened for me in a similar way. Actually a Jew hater asked for evidence that Jews left Egypt around 3200 years ago. Again, I did my internet searches, and now I'm convinced that Judaism most likely combined the Zoroastrian beliefs and the monotheistic views of Akhenaten. There is very little out there to make me believe that Judaism even existed prior around 700 BC and perhaps, it is even younger than that, when Ezra wrote the myths down. That could have easily been the birth of Judaism. For sure, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jews were slaves in Egypt, and the numbers who supposedly left were improbable regardless of evidence (but so are the plagues).

Watching from the perspective of knowing that no evidence exists, when tons of evidence should exist (please apologists, just shut up on this one), I just shook my head a lot and watched theologians and pseudo historians explain what happened.


To me, when it comes to these dolts trying to figure out/make excuses as to whether Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married or had sex, for example, is like watching someone trying to figure out if The Cat In The Hat was gay or not.

If you take a step back, and listen to all the speculation and excuses, like why it took 40 years for Jews to cross the Sinai, when it takes 10 days to walk it going into a gale force wind, you just have to laugh...........if you are a rational human being, that is.

Both the Jesus story, and the Exodus story, sound like children's stories to me now. I just can't get over how easy it is for so many adults to fall for these obvious make believe tales.

I guess if the stories were based on real people and events, the stories would never have made past the 200's.

The Internet Atheist Movement

I made this video to make atheists aware of all the great resources and sites that are available on the internet. Atheists are becoming more fearless...OK, less intimidated, to speak up about ourselves and our non beliefs:



Live Science has a funny piece called The Coulter Hoax. Even Live Science is taking pot shots at the reality denying Fundies. I love it.

The internet will be the death of the Young Earth Creationist movement. It is just a matter of time.

The Thinking Blogger Award

Beep! Beep! It's Me has tagged me. Here are the original rules from The Thinking Blog:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote
4. Only choose blogs that haven't been picked before (this one wasn't one of the original rules)

OK, this is a tough one. All of the blogs on my blogroll make me think. And even blogs by retards make me think. In fact, I'm thinking right now and I'm not even reading a blog. I really don't like this tagging stuff. I apologize in advance for those who I am tagging, especially if they feel compelled like I did, to continue with this insanity:

1. Everything Is Pointless: I sometimes hesitate going to his blog because I know it will force me to think more than I want to.

2. Babble, Bullshit, Blasphemy, & Being (AKA Choose Doubt): The closest thing to a Vulcan Atheist in the blogosphere.

3. Scientia Natura: Evolution and Rationality: Really good spins on current stories from a science chick.

4. The Sudanese Thinker: He reminds me that there might be a light at the end of the tunnel for humanity, and that the third world has thinkers too.

5. Gripes Of Wrath: Must make me think, because I often comment on his blog. The thing is, he is like me, an Atheist who understands the threat of Islam.

More Fun Using Peanut Butter To Disprove Evolution

I decided to expand on the scientific "logic" used in the now famous creationist Peanut Butter video (I even go out of character for it):


Damn laryngitis is impeding on my full creative genius.

Here is the original version of Peanut Butter: The Atheist's Nightmare in case you are one of the very few who hasn't seen it:


Maybe a few of my readers can do a video or just a post disproving evolution too. It is kind of fun.


What else? Oh, I made a minor edit in the Atheism page of the Uncyclopedia.

I just made an edit to the Atheism entry:
==The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics==

There is only one distinct difference between an atheist and an agnostic. An atheist will not turn down eating a fetus if it is offered to them, while an agnostic will always say no if offered.

A strong atheist is someone who goes out of his or her way to eat fetuses, while a weak atheist will not be the one to buy or cook a fetus. A weak atheist is sort of like the guy at the party who never buys pot, but will never turn down a toke when it is offered to him.
***********************************

Note: This is the second time within a week I placed the above on the Atheism page. Someone trashed it the first time. I don't get it. I think it is pretty funny.