More Responses to the Theist on Fundamentally Flawed 2013-10-17

Creationists assert that god "created" the universe and everything in it. When asked the question, "Who created god?", these theists almost invariably states that "God is outside of nature." That response is a blatant assertion. What evidence do they have that god is outside of nature? How can that possibly be "known" by anyone? It simply cannot. It is just an assertion.

But let's, for a moment, imagine that god is outside of nature. In other words god is supernatural. OK, so when did god begin to exist? Most often a theist will state that god didn't have a beginning or an end. They suggest that god is eternal. This, in and of itself, is another assertion. There is no actual evidence to support this claim. This is merely a presupposition. They state it as if it is indisputable with absolutely NOTHING to support this claim.

When asked the age of the universe, I've heard answers ranging from 6000 years to a trillion years (large range). The age of the Earth they generally claim is 6000 to 10,000 years old. Radioisotopes, coral core measurements and other methods have been used to estimate the age of the Earth to 4.55 billion years. These are not "faulty" dating methods. That is simply another assertion made by theists. When the different methods are used, the resulting data matches. This testing is repeated time and time again. Astrophysicists have estimated the universe (and updated recently) to be 13.8 billion years old.

OK so regardless of whether the universe is 13.8 billion years old, or 6000 years old, or a trillion years old, and god is eternal, what did this god do for an ETERNITY before he decided to create the universe? An eternity of doing absolutely nothing is the only option. Is boredom why god cracked and became the evil douche portrayed in the Old Testament? Again, none of this "information" has any supporting evidence. It is simply a claim. They state "god is eternal" and expect nobody to ask, "How do YOU know that?"

Now let's address the alleged historical information that supposedly coincides with events written in the bible (by human men) or Koran or any other "holy" texts. Stephen King puts actual geographical places in his books. He even puts Corn Flakes and Campbell's soup in his books. In 2000 years people could discover his books, find historical correlation that Bangor actually exists and that there actually were Corn Flakes and Campbell's soup and claim that ghosts and monsters in his books are actually real. This does not change the fact that the supernatural elements of Stephen King's books are pure fiction created only in the mind of the author. So, even if there are historical correlations between the bible and actual history (which is flimsy at best), how do you make the leap that this proves that a god exists? You can't. It is simply another assertion. The fiction writers of the bible could have easily inserted real places and real events into their fictional tales. It is an unfathomable leap to suggest that because there is historical correlation in a book, that the entire book is non-fiction.

Finally, what makes anyone think that the authors of the books in the bible KNEW that there was a god who created everything and made rules for humans to live by? How did these writers come by this information? Did god show them signs? Did god speak to them? How can you be certain that these weren't people with mental illnesses who hallucinated these "visions" and voices? Today we are well aware of serious mental illnesses where the patients hallucinate. Isn't it more logical that this KNOWN explanation is more plausible than an unprovable supernatural explanation?

Natural explanations for the universe, stars, planets and life on our pale blue dot are the only testable explanations we have for why there is something rather than nothing. It's pure conjecture to assume there is a supernatural entity tossed into the mix.

Location:Earth

My Comment on Fundamentally Flawed 2013-10-17

My brain hurts after listening to a creationist make assertion after assertion and I've written a piece which I will publish on my blog once I edit it to address his assertions.

For this comment, I want to speak to only two points. The first is that it infuriates me when a creationist monopolizes the conversation and cries "rude" when one of the other five people in the conversation addresses his fallacies (aka. tries to speak). Review the recording. Note the number of minutes Brian was talking and compare them to the number of minutes EVERYONE else spoke. Who was the rude one that didn't want anyone else to speak and refute his irrational assertions? That would be the creationist.

The second is that atheism is a solitary position on one question and one question ONLY. That question is whether or not a person believes in a god. Atheism is a LACK of belief in any deity. It does not make claims about evolution, abiogenesis, origins of the universe, any philosophical argument that has ever been made, morality or anything relating to science or history. Atheism speaks ONLY to BELIEF. I am an atheist because I DO NOT BELIEVE in a god. I do not believe in a god because I have not EVER seen any evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity. None.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF CREATIONISTS WOULD STOP USING THE PHRASE "atheistic belief" or "atheistic world view" because THERE IS NO SUCH THING as either of those.

Location:Earth

James Billingham - Bully At Large

If he wasn’t being such a dick, James Billingham (@ool0n), would be hysterically funny with his attacks of some genuinely nice people.

James is a member of what has become the Atheism Plus “cult” and yes, I’ve used the word cult because their behaviour is very cult-like (see definition 2 below).

cult/kʌlt/ [kuhlt]

noun

1.      a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.      an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 

3.      the object of such devotion.

4.      a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5.      Sociology: a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

This cult, apparently, started because some drunk fellow asked a woman back to his room to have a coffee with him at an atheism conference. Wow! I mean, holy fuck! What a total ass... telling a woman he finds her attractive and asking her back to his room. Oh... my... Darwin... call the cops.

Not only was her response to that a complete overreaction but the fallout that occurred afterwards just snowballed beyond any reasonable conversation. She made a big deal about the “event” and was, undeniably, badgered and ridiculed for making a big deal. She was, indeed, bullied with threats of violence. There is no excuse for that, however, there was also no need for her overreaction in the first place. Now James (mentioned above) would have you believe that me saying this makes me a rape apologist, and here folks is why I’m not – the woman in question was NOT raped on the elevator. Threats of rape by anonymous assholes on the internet are not, in fact, an actual rape. This I know from, myself, being a rape survivor. I wasn’t just threatened. I was actually raped.

I also was a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace when I was 19 years old. It was a summer job at a real estate company. This 60 year old man, smelling of whiskey, cornered me in the lunch room. There was nobody else in the office at the time. He claimed he wanted a “hug”. What saved me was my quit wit and the lunch table that was between us. I told him that if he didn’t “back off” I would scream at the top of my lungs and that I could scream very loudly. Where this office was in a complex, I’m sure he weighed the odds and figured he had best back the fuck off.

So, for James there, to accuse me of being a rape apologist, is not only untrue and insulting, it’s very much a re-victimization of me as a survivor. How dare he!

The blog post mentioned (that was written by MP) was regarding his attempt to raise funds to help send more women to atheist conferences for more balance in the gender of attendees. He was then cruelly insulted for “subjecting women to the misogynist behaviour at these conferences”. What the actual fuck?!?! His motives were genuinely kind and feminist in nature, not the opposite. And the person who attacked him claimed to be an Atheism Plus member. Now, where I had seen a number of negative comments made towards men (who I knew to be good men), coming from members of this group (at least they claimed to be), is it any wonder that this group gave me a bad taste in my mouth? MP is an active member of the white ribbon campaign. He is as far from a misogynist as one can get. I suspect that what is actually occurring in this A+ “cult” is a, not so subtle, form of misandry. So, having been upset by the comments I saw on his blog post, I made a critical remark about Atheism Plus on twitter. Then the buzzards attacked (one calling me a fucking bitch). I blocked them all and proceeded to forget they existed until an entire year later where I made one more tiny little reference to them being a “cult” and some girl out of nowhere HARRASSED me to the point where I was wondering why they let her out of the mental institution without her meds. After she called me a “liar” several times, I decided to return the favour afforded to me the previous year... called her a “fucking bitch” and blocked her ass. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I thought. But these odd individuals who appear to be obsessive compulsive by nature weren’t able to move on.

Now, if you will notice, in none of my tweets that James so childishly storyfied, did I say “they are definitely this” or “they are absolutely that”. In every instance, I said, “they appear to be” or “it’s quite likely” because ‘THIS IS MY FUCKING OPINION, JAMES THE MORON’. He and his cohorts have a particular skill at twisting everything that anyone, who criticizes them, says. My thoughts are this... if you can’t handle somebody who fights back (me), STOP BULLYING!

I’m on his list under “Asshole”. Nice! This is the name calling that results when one criticizes their cult. He relishes in calling an actual victim of sex crimes, even more names. What a guy! They seem to have this idea that they are infallible... now is that rational? I think not!

And just a little side note, based on James’ ridiculous rants towards me on twitter, I assumed he was a teenager... I raised three children and recognize adolescent whining. I was actually a bit shocked when I discovered, just yesterday, that he’s an adult. Seriously, I was surprised!

Now poor little James is whining because I called him ugly and greasy. Well, besides the fact that it’s true (there are these things called showers and soap is rather inexpensive), I called him that after his relentless attacks and bullying of me. Pay back is a bitch isn’t it James? How’s it feel dickhead when someone stands up to your bullying? You can dish it out quite well but can’t seem to be able to take it. Perhaps you should consider that some of us fight back after being attacked. This is known as self-defense. Attend some anti-bullying classes and see if you can recognize yourself. Until then, BACK THE FUCK OFF loser!

Words Have Definitions

I've recently had some run-ins with some fairly vile characters. They've attacked me at the drop of a hat and their claims are frequently completely fallacious. It appears as though their major mistakes are simply in the English language itself, so perhaps I've been a bit too hard on them, when, in fact, their biggest problem is not knowing how to speak or comprehend English.

What it boils down to is definitions of English words. For example, "perhaps" does not have the same definition as "absolutely" or "definitely". "Maybe" can be a synonym for "perhaps" but DEFINITELY not those other words. And "It seems" does not mean "I know for certain".

Also, "accused" is not synonymous with "guilt".

I've had an affection with the English language for nearly my entire life so I do find myself getting very annoyed when someone purposefully or even unintentionally strives to disembowel it.

My most recent annoyance has been with the word "harassment". The Oxford English dictionary defines the word "harass" as follows:

1. trouble and annoy continually or repeatedly
2. make repeated attacks on (an enemy or opponent)

So, I definitely was correct when I stated that "asking someone a question, regardless of how inappropriate, does not constitute harassment" unless the questioner will not take "no" for an answer and continually or repeatedly pressures the person being asked. For some reason, this terminology has been thrown around willie-nilly when people are simply asked questions that make them uncomfortable.

So kindly STOP IT. Look up the definition of a word if you don't know what it means.

Atheist Plus et al

I like Sam Harris... don’t agree with everything he has to say.

I like Richard Dawkins... don’t agree with everything he has to say.

I like Daniel Dennett... don’t agree with everything he has to say.

I absolutely loved Christopher Hitchens... still... didn’t agree with everything he had to say. For example, Ellen DeGeneres and Wanda Sykes are hysterically funny (Hitch said women aren’t funny).

My point is, not everyone in global atheism has the exact same ideas/opinions on every single topic that is brought up, in and around the movement. Disagreement is healthy. We’re not all robots programmed with the exact same values. I’m many things besides being an atheist. I’m a wife, mother and grandmother. I’m a feminist. I’m a humanist. I’m an environmentalist. I’m a dog and cat lover. I’m a science enthusiast. I’m a singer and guitar player. I’m an amateur artist. I’m a computer geek and I’m a math nerd. I’m sure I’m many other things but those are a few of the things I identify with most.

The Civil Rights Movement did not result in change for just African Americans. The Civil Rights Movement changed society as a whole (for the better). Gloria Steinem’s feminist movement didn’t improve things for just women. Things improved (not quite enough) for society as a whole. What I’m saying is, society did not improve because these groups splintered off into their own little clubs/groups/cults. Society improved in a global sense because people spoke up/protested/marched to get the message out that they just weren’t going to take abuse anymore.

In the atheist movement in recent years, several splinter groups have formed and in my opinion, this has harmed the movement. The attitude of these groups is, “If you’re not for us, you’re against us.” Well, “la dee da.” It feels like grade school when kids broke off into their own little cliques and excluded everyone else. Personally, I was never in a clique... not because they didn’t want me to be but because, frankly, I thought these groups were childish, ridiculous and just plain stupid. I’d rather be alone with my own opinions... thank you very much. My friends were a varied group with amazing diversity. They were individuals. They were the outcasts and they were some of the kindest people I have ever known. Not all children are cruel.

The misogynist groups that have popped up are simply vile. I ignore their rants because they're... well... morons... and quite likely sociopaths. They have an obvious "hate on" for women and we're not going to change their minds on that subject. They think their penises make them special and... well... just not so.  There are, however, other groups, who, on the surface, seem benign enough but when you look a little further, you see that they too are very exclusionary in practice. They may not be quite so despicable in their approach to others but they definitely have this air of, “My views are beyond contestation.” If and when you criticize them, they pounce like a pack of wolves. I see these splinter groups and all I can envision is the dudes with the orange robes at the airport. And you’d think you’d beat their dog if you criticize their “group think” mentality. They are very “cult-like”. To hear chanting coming from them wouldn’t surprise me. And for the record, I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I really truly don’t. I’ve had extremely negative encounters repeatedly with members of the atheist plus group (for an example) and, frankly, it’s nauseating. If you’re an exclusive group, you’re not inclusive and I want absolutely nothing to do with you. Some people in the global atheist movement do need an attitude adjustment but forming a cult is not, in my opinion, the way to accomplish that. It looks like certain individuals were bothered that they were not getting the attention of a Harris or Hitchens and so wanted to grab a moment in the limelight for themselves. Well, sorry, but I’m just not interested in giving cult leaders the attention they crave.

And, for the record, I’m not on a stage in a debate and I’m not interested in “the official rules of debate”. This blog is my opinion. I don’t need empirical evidence to conclude that you’re an asshole if I think you’re an asshole. I don’t require x-rays of your skull to show a sphincter where your brain should be in order for me to conclude that you’re an asshole. If you act like an asshole towards me or my friends/family, then you’re indeed an asshole.

In conclusion, I’m tired of being pounced on by these “lunatics” (my opinion... not a clinical diagnosis). If you attack me on Twitter or any other forum from this point forward, please be advised that you will be blocked for being an asshole. Cheers! And have a nice life.

The Historical Accuracy of the Bible

The title is just a bit fallacious isn’t it?


We repeatedly hear theists claiming that the bible is historically accurate. This is simply not true and I will explain why. First and foremost, the books of the New Testament were written in the first century AD. Allegorical literature was very common at that time. An allegory is a work in which the characters and events are to be understood as representing other things and symbolically expressing a deeper, often spiritual, moral, or political meaning. The books that were written at the time were not intended to represent actual facts. The stories simply morphed into a seemingly “historical record” after time. Urban legends are similar in that, stories are made up and after they are told and retold over a period of time, people begin to believe they actually occurred but there is actually no evidence to suggest that they ever really happened.


The first book, “Mark”, that suggested that Jesus was, in fact, a person who had lived on Earth in the Middle East, around the first 30 or so years AD, were actually written at least 40 years after his alleged death. This is a fact that is agreed upon by historians and biblical scholars alike. Any stories that might have been “told” prior to 70 AD, were not written down and herein lies the second problem. Countless studies have shown that “word of mouth” stories change, almost immediately, upon being told. We did a single experiment to substantiate this point in first year Psychology at university. Twenty people were asked to leave the lecture hall. A story was told that lasted for 3 minutes. The first student was asked to come back into the room. The story was told to him/her and they were not allowed to write down any details. The second student came into the room and the first student imparted the story to the second student and so on. By the time the story was conveyed to the 20th student, it, in no way, resembled the original story of which we all had a written copy. And yet, we’re asked to believe that a story written down for the first time, 40 years after it apparently occurred, is supposed to be “believed”. I live in a society where most people are literate but I’m unable to tell any stories that happened to my grandfather (at least not with any amount of accuracy) during his lifetime, especially since he died six months before I was even born.


Paul, evidently, wrote about Jesus 10 to 20 years after his alleged death but Paul did not tell any of the stories that supposedly took place in Jesus’ lifetime. In fact, Paul never placed a physical human being named Jesus on Earth. Paul only spoke of Jesus in a mythical realm. There was no “walking on water”, “healing the sick”, “virgin birth”, “the ministry of Jesus” or any other superstitious tale in Paul’s narrative (letters).


There are also several incidents depicted in the gospels that would not have happened in that geographical area, with Jews, at the time, such as, the Jewish supreme council meeting on Passover eve or Pontius Pilot setting free a known killer of Romans (Barabbas) in favour of letting Jesus be thrown to the mob after he tried to justify letting Jesus off the hook. There were also groups of early Christians and Jews who believed Jesus had been killed a hundred years earlier during the time of King Alexander Jannaeus and others who thought Herod had Jesus killed. Seems like the Jesus character was tossed around through different historical time periods to try to make him fit into the actual historical record. Now why do you suppose that would happen?


In any event, there is NO historical "accuracy" in the Bible, just as there is no historical accuracy for the Harry Potter series of books. In most of Stephen King's books, there are references to real places, real products and real people, but we know for a fact that his books were products of his imagination. The Bible is simply a compilation of somewhat imaginative “stories” that reflected cultural norms at the time; nothing more.

What An Atheist Is

I'm teetering on the edge of giving up on trying to reason with people. I've grown very tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.

The theocrats attack and it's always the same. They have preconceived ideas of what atheism is and they ask questions with lies built in. Their grammar is generally atrocious and their spelling isn't much better, if at all. It seems to be a common trend among the rationally-challenged folk. But they inevitably get it wrong. They always confuse the definition of an atheist with why each individual non-believer is so.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. And no I didn't accidentally hit copy and paste. It was very deliberate. That's what atheism is. That's it! That word has no other implications no matter how much theists attempt to make it mean more. It doesn't.

Now, you might ask why I'm an atheist, and I can tell you why I am an atheist but I certainly can't explain why others are. Only they can tell you that. And there are atheists who have ONLY their lack of belief in a deity in common with me. I am, and can be described as many other things but those things aren't tied in any way to the fact that I'm an atheist.

I'm a woman, I'm educated (university and college), I'm a wife, I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, I'm an animal lover, I'm a liberal, I'm a skeptic, I'm compassionate, I'm tolerant, I'm charitable, I'm a feminist (in the proper definition of the word), I'm a humanist and I am a human being. There are many other words that can describe me. I'm musical, I'm artistic and yet I excel in math and science. I have an addiction to reading and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. I have a heathy respect for evidence and a disdain for superstition, magical thinking and nonsense. I don't hate the people who are religious. I hate that they support their own personal bigotry, prejudices and biases by clinging to ancient myths. There is no reasonable excuse for hating other human beings based on their gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. I was born a heterosexual, female, with very dark brown hair and green eyes. These are things I did not choose and I'm only able to change the last 3, but only with money, difficulty and the wish to. I want to remain female, I like my hair dark (occasionally with other colors added) and I really like my green eyes (no color contacts please). I cannot change my sexual orientation. And I cannot change who I love.

The fact that I rely on evidence rather than a "feeling" for what I believe, probably explains WHY I'm an atheist but even that doesn't DEFINE atheism. Others might have different reasons for being an atheist because an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in god. Some atheists even believe in other supernatural phenomena. I do not, but again, that has nothing to do with atheism.

So basically I'm writing this blog for one reason and one reason only and that's to give everyone a "heads up" and that's to let you know that if you try to tell me what an atheist is, be aware that I always have my Oxford English Dictionary nearby to prove you wrong!