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!

Worth Reiterating

This article is so good, I had to post it on my blog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-romney-is-president.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Romney Is President

by MAUREEN DOWD | NOV. 10, 2012



IT makes sense that Mitt Romney and his advisers are still gobsmacked by the fact that they’re not commandeering the West Wing.

(Though, as “The Daily Show” correspondent John Oliver jested, the White House might have been one of the smaller houses Romney ever lived in.)

Team Romney has every reason to be shellshocked. Its candidate, after all, resoundingly won the election of the country he was wooing.

Mitt Romney is the president of white male America.

Maybe the group can retreat to a man cave in a Whiter House, with mahogany paneling, brown leather Chesterfields, a moose head over the fireplace, an elevator for the presidential limo, and one of those men’s club signs on the phone that reads: “Telephone Tips: ‘Just Left,’ 25 cents; ‘On His Way,’ 50 cents; ‘Not here,’ $1; ‘Who?’ $5.”

In its delusional death spiral, the white male patriarchy was so hard core, so redolent of country clubs and Cadillacs, it made little effort not to alienate women. The election had the largest gender gap in the history of the Gallup poll, with Obama winning the vote of single women by 36 percentage point

As W.’s former aide Karen Hughes put it in Politico on Friday, “If another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue.”

Some Republicans conceded they were “a ‘Mad Men’ party in a ‘Modern Family’ world” (although “Mad Men” seems too louche for a candidate who doesn’t drink or smoke and who apparently dated only one woman). They also acknowledged that Romney’s strategists ran a 20th-century campaign against David Plouffe’s 21st-century one.

But the truth is, Romney was an unpalatable candidate. And shocking as it may seem, his strategists weren’t blowing smoke when they said they were going to win; they were just clueless.

Until now, Republicans and Fox News have excelled at conjuring alternate realities. But this time, they made the mistake of believing their fake world actually existed. As Fox’s Megyn Kelly said to Karl Rove on election night, when he argued against calling Ohio for Obama: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”

Romney and Tea Party loonies dismissed half the country as chattel and moochers who did not belong in their “traditional” America. But the more they insulted the president with birther cracks, the more they tried to force chastity belts on women, and the more they made Hispanics, blacks and gays feel like the help, the more these groups burned to prove that, knitted together, they could give the dead-enders of white male domination the boot.

The election about the economy also sounded the death knell for the Republican culture wars.

Romney was still running in an illusory country where husbands told wives how to vote, and the wives who worked had better get home in time to cook dinner. But in the real country, many wives were urging husbands not to vote for a Brylcreemed boss out of a ’50s boardroom whose party was helping to revive a 50-year-old debate over contraception.

Just like the Bushes before him, Romney tried to portray himself as more American than his Democratic opponent. But America’s gallimaufry wasn’t knuckling under to the gentry this time.

If 2008 was about exalting the One, 2012 was about the disenchanted Democratic base deciding: “We are the Ones we’ve been waiting for.”

Last time, Obama lifted up the base with his message of hope and change; this time the base lifted up Obama, with the hope he will change. He has not led the Obama army to leverage power, so now the army is leading Obama.

When the first African-American president was elected, his supporters expected dramatic changes. But Obama feared that he was such a huge change for the country to digest, it was better if other things remained status quo. Michelle played Laura Petrie, and the president was dawdling on promises. Having Joe Biden blurt out his support for gay marriage forced Obama’s hand.

The president’s record-high rate of deporting illegal immigrants infuriated Latinos. Now, on issues from loosening immigration laws to taxing the rich to gay rights to climate change to legalizing pot, the country has leapt ahead, pulling the sometimes listless and ruminating president by the hand, urging him to hurry up.

More women voted than men. Five women were newly elected to the Senate, and the number of women in the House will increase by at least three. New Hampshire will be the first state to send an all-female delegation to Congress. Live Pink or Dye.

Meanwhile, as Bill Maher said, “all the Republican men who talked about lady parts during the campaign, they all lost.”

The voters anointed a lesbian senator, and three new gay congressmen will make a total of five in January. Plus, three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, told The Washington Post’s Ned Martel that gays, whose donations helped offset the Republican “super PACs,” wanted to see an openly gay cabinet secretary and an openly gay ambassador to a G-20 nation.

Bill O’Reilly said Obama’s voters wanted “stuff.” He was right. They want Barry to stop bogarting the change.

Objective Moral Values Exist

There is one key problem with Christian apologists' arguments that there can be no objective moral values without a deity. The problem with their argument is that human genetic (if you will, evolved) predispositions to moral behaviour are not subjective as they claim but purely objective as they are a result of natural (or instinctive) development of the human social animal. Altruistic behaviour towards others in our "tribe" or family unit is not cultural; it's natural. Culture arose from the social nature of our species, not the other way around. Only immoral behaviour can be attributed to cultural (and/or religious) subjectivity. Moral behaviour can not.

Now, just because other rationalists and skeptics and many theists do not agree with my premise, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

As one, unconvincing, apologist put it, the fact that there is a chair in my kitchen is an objective physical reality. He then proceeded to twist this logic to merely assert that a deity was necessary for objective moral values to exist. Saying it doesn't make it so. I contend that because there is zero evidence that a deity exists and because a large number of non-believing homo sapiens behave morally towards each other based on objective natural instinctive moral values, then objective moral values can and do exist in the absence of a deity.

Scientific experiments conducted with chimpanzees showed very clear altruistic behaviour towards other chimpanzees in the group even when there was no benefit to the individual. Chimpanzees do not believe in an Abrahamic deity. They do not have "opinions" regarding morality. Chimpanzee objective moral values exist in the absence of a god. So do the moral values of other less intelligent species.

Human infants as young as 12 weeks of age respond to compassion and react to suffering. We're hardwired to experience joy and reject pain and this biological fact can certainly be the foundation of objective moral values. In every culture in the world, there is a universal symbol of happiness. That symbol is a smile and young infants who have been exposed to virtually no culture will mirror a smile and experience the happiness associated with that smile.

Human instinct to seek happiness for themselves and others and reduce suffering for themselves and others is a naturally evolved component of our brains for survival and prosperity of the species. Evolution and specifically natural selection are a far more reasonable explanation for objective moral values than a supernatural entity. No wizard or deity is required.

Saying that a deity is required for objective moral values to exist when the evidence or rather lack thereof clearly suggests that such a being doesn't exist, is circular logic at best.

Choice - A Woman's Right

Let's have this little talk about abortion. It is a woman's right and only the woman's say if she chooses to have an abortion.

If a female child is raped through incest or by a stranger and becomes pregnant, she has the right to an abortion. It's not bad enough that she has already been violated in the most heinous way imaginable, now a bunch of old white men in the government are going to force her to endure another 9 months of torture because of some phony sense of morality! Her body is not yours to control you addle minded bullies.

If an adult woman is raped, the same applies.

If a woman will die without an abortion, the same rules apply.

If a woman gets pregnant unintentionally and is not prepared financially, physically or emotionally to go through a pregnancy and have a child or if she simply does not want to be pregnant and have a child, the same rules apply.

It's her body, her womb and her life. IT'S NOT YOURS. And it is NOT a baby she's getting rid of. It's genetic material. There is more genetic material involved when you skin your knee and that's a fact.




Pro-lifers are nothing more than a bunch of control freaks and misogynists who want to have a say over another female human being's body. I say, "Mind your own damn business. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one."

Pro-lifers have big mouths when it comes to a woman's right to an abortion but they're usually the first ones to want to eliminate social programs for the poor and take away access to birth control which would prevent most pregnancies in the first place.

The current Republican party - well let me just say that keeping women barefoot and pregnant is a great way to have total dominance over them. These Republicans are misogynist pigs and that's indefensible.

And my last but not least point is that most pro-lifers are religious freaks. They use a "belief" in a non-existent deity to back their anti-abortion rhetoric even though their holy books don't mention abortion. And even if their god wasn't mythical, miscarriage of 40% of all pregnancies would be proof that their deity is not opposed to abortion.

So, pro-lifers, take your misogynistic bullshit and walk away. We, the supporters of real freedom and equality, don't care to hear your nonsense any more.

The US and Nazi Germany Have More in Common than You Think

James Smith brought this quote to my attention on Martin Pribble's blog:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine policy. It is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.

This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg trials after WW II

I'd heard this quote before but had forgotten the wording. It is, sadly, a reflection of the thugs I call the republicans in the US.

It's really rather simple. The GOP repeats lies frequently until people believe that the lies are true.

They say BO is a foreigner; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO will take your guns away; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is a socialist; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is angry and divisive; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it. They say BO is ruining the economy; it's a lie but the less than bright Americans believe it.

The current republican party are a group a racist fascists who are truly the ones who want to take away your rights and freedoms. They are the Nazi party and women and minorities are their Jews. What did they do to the Jews again?

Theists Will Stop At Nothing!

The following is my response to a ridiculous blog I read. It was written by a theist, who, like they all seem to like to do, insults atheists with ludicrous lies.

This is the crazy talk -> http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.ca/2012/07/ban-ignorant-atheists.html

The following is my response that the coward refuses to post:
I have never seen a blog post more fallacious in my entire life. First and foremost, it is the theists who are the bullies, the name callers and haters. They consistently take great pleasure in stating that we, and many others, will spend an eternity in a nonexistent "hell" - burning while they look on laughing at the suffering of others. What kind of person takes pleasure in the suffering of others? Even though hell is hogwash, they believe it's real and relish in such despicable fantasies. Theists hate atheists, anyone in the LGBT community, women, people of colour and, basically, anyone who is not a white, misogynistic, bigoted male. They think they have a right to shove their nonsensical archaic superstitious beliefs down the throats of rational "thinking" human beings. Theist DEMAND we respect their beliefs that are no more plausible than the belief in leprechauns. Their beliefs are based on 2000+ year old myths. These tales came from people who thought epilepsy was the manifestation of demons. Respect? Really? The catholic church has spent centuries covering-up crimes and protecting pedophiles while hundreds of innocent children were tortured, raped and repeatedly victimized by the TRULY deviant in our society. YOU, sir, ought to be ashamed! I'll start respecting magical foolishness when pigs can fly!

And, FYI, Matthew Chatterton has more kindness, compassion, empathy and intelligence in his pinky than you appear to have in your entire being.

What Atheism Means For Me

Atheism is not a "belief system" in the accepted sense of that phrase. There is no "faith" involved in atheism. Faith is defined as:

faith [feyth] noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that he would be healed.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

When atheists speak of "beliefs" or the "faith" of theists, we are referring to definitions 2, 3 and 5. Atheists do not "believe" or have "faith" based on any of those definitions, therefore, atheism is not a religion.

It is NOT "a belief that no god exists". It is a lack of belief in a god or gods. I am an atheist. I would never use the phrase, "I believe no god exists." at least not in the sense that theists believe. That would be a misleading and inaccurate statement. What I would say is that there is no evidence to suggest that a deity exists, therefore I do not believe in god. This means that I, personally, have no "faith" that a deity exists. I do not say, nor can anyone say, that I am absolutely certain that no god exists. What I am saying, is that based on the FACT that no evidence has ever been presented indicating the existence of a deity, it is astronomically unlikely that such a super being exists. I could be wrong, but I truly doubt it.

I have no faith in a magic space daddy or any other mythical being, I do not live my life based on some ancient doctrine, therefore I have no religion.

Atheism is NOT a religion... it's a lack of religion... it is the lack of the belief in a supernatural entity. Atheists don't meet every Sunday and chant, sing and pray to a mythical entity because, frankly, that's just plain idiotic and I have better things to do with my brief life.

Death Toll

I think I am finally fed up with the idiotic notion that more deaths can be attributed to atheists than to theists. Really? Do you really want to go there? Because in all seriousness, you've already lost.

In the beginning... remember that little book called Genesis in your Bible. In that fairy tale, god got pissed off because Adam and Eve gained knowledge and apparently, he wanted to keep his pets stupid. So god blocked the path to the "tree of life" (Genesis 3:23-24) so that Adam and Eve could not eat from it and live forever. This punishment was bestowed upon, not just Adam and Eve, but, all humans forever and ever. Besides punishing everyone for all future generations for something of which they couldn't possibly be held accountable, god also became 100% responsible for the deaths of every human that ever lived and subsequently died.

So according to your own ridiculous archaic beliefs, you, theists win the death toll race by several billion to zero. Just like your answer to every other question... "God did it!" Now STFU!

Ménière's Disease

The Facts on Ménière's Disease

Ménière's disease is a condition that affects the inner ear. It causes attacks of dizziness (vertigo), nausea and vomiting, a feeling of fullness in the ear and/or pressure in the skull, hissing and roaring in the ears, and some hearing loss.

The disease comes on without warning. It may come and go over a person's lifetime. It often leaves no lasting symptoms in between bouts, and people with it can live perfectly normal lives.

Between 2 to 6 out of every 1,000 people will be affected with the disease. The condition affects men and women, and usually begins between the ages of 20 and 50. Usually only one ear is affected, although 10% to 15% of people with Ménière's disease develop it in both ears.

Causes of Ménière's Disease

The cause of Ménière's disease is unknown. The symptoms are believed to be related to having too much fluid in the inner ear. Occasionally, this potassium-rich fluid breaks the inner ear membrane and leaks into the potassium-poor outer fluid. This mixing causes a chemical reaction that paralyses the balance system in the inner ear until the fluid balance becomes normal again.

Symptoms and Complications of Ménière's Disease

Dizziness, nausea, vomiting, ear fullness, ringing in the ears, and some hearing loss are all symptoms of an attack of Ménière's disease. A person with this condition usually has one or more attacks a year, which may come alone or in groups. The individual attacks last from approximately 20 minutes to 24 hours and generally recur over a period of 2 to 3 weeks and go away gradually. During a dizzy spell, the person feels like the world is whirling around them. They stagger from side to side and sometimes even fall down. These falling spells are called drop attacks or Tumarkin spells.

If you have Ménière's disease, you may also experience tinnitus, which is a hissing, ringing, or roaring in the affected ear that may continue, change, or disappear. Tinnitus may worsen during, just before, or just after a dizzy spell. People with Ménière's disease also have trouble hearing voices and music properly. Their hearing often comes back between attacks, but they do lose some hearing permanently over time.

Another symptom of Ménière's disease are frequent migraines. Migraines occur both during an attack and between attacks. The reason for the frequent migraines is unknown. The only known treatment is migraine medication.

While having an attack of Ménière's disease, you may also get a non-migraine headache, grow pale, sweat, develop a slow pulse, and feel nauseous and vomit.

A person with the condition can go for years without having another attack and sometimes they never experience another attack. Between attacks, the person feels fine. However, the hearing in the affected ear (or ears) often declines gradually over time. Since the dizziness is unpredictable, people with Ménière's disease may be constantly concerned about having a dizzy spell and therefore often avoid driving or operating machinery. If attacks have occurred without warning, your doctor is obliged to advise you against driving.

Diagnosing Ménière's Disease

Your doctor will review your symptoms and medical history, and do a physical exam. Hearing tests and other lab tests of ear function will also take place, and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan may be done to check if there is a brain tumour.

Treating and Preventing Ménière's Disease

Currently, there is no way to cure Ménière's disease. Treatments include acupuncture, herbal remedies, and various medications. Diuretics, vasodilator medications, and a low-salt diet help relieve symptoms by taking fluid away from the head and ear and maintaining the fluid balance in the body.

Anti-nausea medications such as dimenhydrinate or meclizine can be taken in the form of tablets or suppositories.

Listening to music can "mask" the tinnitus or noises in a person's ears. Some people wear a tinnitus masker, which is a little device that makes noise behind their ear to block the awareness of the tinnitus.

If these treatments don't work, surgery may be an option. However, it doesn't always work and can cause ear damage. A type of surgery called labyrinthectomy usually relieves the dizziness but it results in total hearing and balance loss in the affected ear.

Another surgical procedure involves cutting the nerve leading to the organ of balance in the middle ear. Like a labyrinthectomy, this procedure relieves the dizziness. However, unlike a labyinthectomy, it often preserves the hearing in the ear that was operated on. It is a more complex operation and requires a longer hospital stay, and there is a risk of damage to other parts of the ear.

Endolymphatic sac surgery is another type of surgery that is often used for people who have dizziness but good hearing, as it can relieve the dizziness and usually preserves hearing in the ear that is operated on. However, in about 4% of cases, hearing gets worse. It does not usually relieve tinnitus. A "shunt" or plastic tube to drain fluid from the ear isn't usually successful.

Chemicals can also be used to destroy either all or part of the balancing functions of the ear. The medication gentamicin is placed into the middle ear using a tube through the eardrum. It destroys some hearing cells, but it helps make the vertigo attacks less severe and may leave people with enough hearing so that they can function. However, hearing loss is a possibility.

Horse Feathers

Are you a religious person? Do you believe in god? If your answer to either of these questions is "yes", my question to you is, "Why do you believe that?"
There can be only one answer to my question. You believe that because someone told you it was true. It could have been a parent, a friend or a mere acquaintance but somebody at some point in your life told you there was a deity and you believed it. You might not have believed it right away but the stories were spun in such a way that you, at least, grew to believe it.

Have you ever seen god? Have you ever heard god? No, you have not. If you hear voices in your head, that's just you. There are neurons firing in your brain that translate into thoughts... but that's just you.

You might say, "But I have these religious texts that tell of 'miracles' and god speaking to prophets so that proves there is a god." No... it... doesn't. The only real "proof" that you have is that someone (a human someone) or a few 'someones' wrote stories a few thousand years ago. The simple fact that these stories exist does not mean the stories are based on real events. Is "Harry Potter" a true story because it's written in a book and tells of supernatural events? No. It is fiction.

Do you even know who wrote these books or what their motives were for writing the books? Perhaps they were just creative writers attempting to launch a literary career. The books that were written 2000 years ago, were most likely allegories, as this was a common writing style of the time.

There is now a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Jesus might not have ever existed but let's just assume that he did exist for argument's sake and that he lived where the stories claim he lived 2000 years ago. We know, and all theologians agree that the first book to write about Jesus' life was Mark and Mark was written 40 years after Jesus' alleged death. Most people in that region were illiterate. How likely is it that if Mark actually did write down 'word-of-mouth' stories, that these stories were accurate?

Have you ever played the 20 person "tell the story right" game? In one hour long class at university, we played the game (to demonstrate this process). The twenty students leave the classroom. The 2 minute story was told to the rest of us and we were to write it down. The first of the 20 was brought into the room and told the story by the professor. None of the 20 were allowed to take notes. The second student was brought in and was told the story by the first student. The 3rd student was brought in and told the story by the 2nd student and so on. The only story that was quite accurately retold was from student 1 to student 2. After that it went downhill. By the time student 20 was told the story, it didn't even resemble the original story. And that was in the span of one hour. How accurate would the story be after 40 years?

Why do you believe these stories are true? It is because you were told over and over again by some very convincing orators that they are true. You were told you are not permitted to question the validity of these stories because god almighty will punish you with hellfire!

I have one response to that. If there was any conceivable reason for me to believe any of these fantastical stories, you would not have to threaten me to "believe them or else." They would be easy to believe.

Any book that tells someone that "YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ALL OF THIS STUFF IS TRUE OR YOU WILL BE PUNISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY" is obvioysly FULL OF SHIT. And, for that matter, any book that tells me I'm doomed for wearing a cotton/poly blend, is, in my opinion, bat shit crazy, and deserves no more consideration than horse feathers!

In The Beginning

Let's start from the beginning. In the hate-filled misogynistic book of fairy tales, commonly referred to as ‘the bible’, the beginning would be the book of Genesis. Now in the story, there was nothing. Now there wasn't just ‘nothing’ for a small fraction of time; there was ‘nothing’ forever and ever. The tale tells us that "god" had no beginning so he (I’ll call it a “he” to save typing “he/she”) just hung around an eternity of nothingness as far back as we can't imagine. Then suddenly, perhaps because of an eternity of shear boredom, this god character decided to create a planet in a remote section of a remote galaxy in a vast universe and make living creatures on it to use as play things for his amusement. And so I don't forget, this god also made light a day or two before he made the sun (which is actually a star). That was one of the first physically impossible tricks he did. He then made plants and animals and saved making the people for the end.

So he makes Adam out of dirt (another good trick). There was no cell division like we know for a fact exists now at conception. You've got this fertilized egg (single cell deal) which splits in two, then four and so on. I'm sure you catch my drift. Nope... god just "poof", out of dirt made a full grown man. Then he made a woman (not out of dirt like the guy) out of Adam's rib. Wonder if god used anesthesia. If not, that must have hurt like hell. Anyway, she was the same species, just the double X chromosomes instead of an X and a Y (and made out of two completely different materials – dirt and bone). Speaking of “Y”, why did god bother with chromosomes and DNA? Wouldn't it have been easier just to make fully formed parts instead of breaking every living thing down to a cellular level? But I digress.

So now you have a man and a woman running around a garden in the Middle East doing whatever new creatures do and they're told that they can eat whatever they want in the garden except for fruit from the tree of knowledge. Now here is where it gets interesting. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient super-being not want the creatures he created to have knowledge? What is knowledge? Knowledge is general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths or principles (although, definition #6 does say, “sexual intercourse” and with the obsession of all religions with sex, that could be what they meant). We’ll use the #1 definition as it is the most common definition of the word. One becomes aware of one’s surroundings, how things work, etc. Why would a god not want creatures he made to know anything or be aware of how things work (I’ve offered a hint here)? What kind of sick game is this god playing anyway? That's like me making my children and telling them they can have whatever they want but they can't have a cookie that I baked and put in the cookie jar. Now what is the kid going to do? It's the most ridiculous premise for an incredibly absurd fairy tale but I'll continue.

So then god, who made everything, also made this talking snake (snakes have no vocal cords). But the snake is actually Satan, who god made too. Now why would god make another very powerful creature (angel, so the story goes) who is very bad? One would think that an all knowing, all powerful god would have seen the next part coming. So the talking snake tempts Eve, the woman (yes the woman because men wrote the book and they couldn't blame the bad stuff on the man, Adam), and she eats the fruit. God must have been napping and missed the entire scene. It’s weird though, because the Xtians will tell you that god knows everything. How’d he miss that? If he was watching, why wouldn’t he stop it? And if he chose not to stop it, what kind of twisted fuck is this guy? He’s playing some pretty brutal head games with everyone involved.

OK, so now, Eve gets Adam to eat the fruit too and they suddenly realize they have no clothes on because, I don’t know, they were blind or something before that. God gets royally pissed off and decides to punish them by making them not live forever (thank “god” because that would be boring as hell) and to make Eve have pain during child birth (misogynistic bastard – Adam ate the damn fruit too).

So, yada yada yada, they end up with two boys, Cain and Abel and Cain kills his brother over jealousy (now the bible tells us later on that “god is a jealous god” and if god is completely good then this means jealousy is good… so why was Cain bad again? Anyway…). Cain is punished and sent out of the Garden of Eden where he meets a woman and they get married. NOW… hold the fuck on! Where did this other woman come from if Adam and Eve started the human race on planet Earth? If the woman was the daughter of Adam and Eve: 1. How did she manage to be outside of the garden of Eden? and 2. That would mean Cain and mystery lady number 1 are brother and sister and… well… incest… and eewwww!

Now, what we’ve all been waiting for… my point! This “creation” story is completely irreconcilable even if we had zero scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. There is (and can be) only one explanation for why a “god” would not want us to have “knowledge”. Because if we acquire knowledge we will realize that this entire “creation” story and every other theological story is pure and utter bullshit. Secondly, if a “god” were omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent he would, first of all make a perfect universe (not a hostile one), make perfect beings, never make an evil being, know everything that was ever going to happen (no need for head games or trickery) and not create a tiny little planet (in the middle of nowhere) where every living thing on it eventually dies. It does not matter at what angle you come at these tales. They defy every pattern of logic conceivable. Why is that? How can that be? I’ll tell you why/how. Men – superstitious, bronze age, racist, misogynistic, bigoted men – wrote these tales to explain their world and create a moral code which would satisfy their individual biases (bigotry, misogyny, etc.). In an ancient world where celestial events and natural disasters occurred they craved some measure of control over their environment. These tales would validate their fear and loathing of other tribes and give them control over their women (by demonizing them). Men never really knew for sure if the children were actually theirs. By inventing a god who said that women must “obey” and be completely subservient to their husbands, they were able to establish almost unmitigated control over their wives and ensure their own “immortality” through their offspring.

DNA can now verify paternity. The big bang theory is a solid explanation for why the universe is here. Evolution is a theory (with oodles of evidence) of why we humans are here. It is no longer necessary to invent fairy tales to explain our world. Every human being regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, deserves to be treated well based on a system of altruism, not on an ancient system of superstition.

With our current scientific, testable, provable knowledge of our world, all religions in this third millennium are rendered moot.

The Misogyny of Religion

The Superstition

Revelation 14:1- And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

The Logic

It never ceases to amaze me that so many fundamentalists think that several groups of people are going to hell yet they never fail to assume that they are among the very limited group of men going to heaven. It clearly states in their mythology that of the 7 billion people currently inhabiting the Earth, only 144,000 virgin males are going to heaven where they will sing all the time and follow a lamb around (sounds like fun?... not to me but whatever floats your boat). And any man who has ever touched a woman is not eligible for "eternal bliss". The 144,000 dudes entering the "kingdom" are all virgins. I suspect the guys who wrote the "fabulous work of fiction" were rather homely boys who never got a date in high school.

I also encounter female fundies frequently who go on and on about gender roles and how they are so devoted to god/Jesus. But not a single one of them seems to acknowledge that they don't have a "hope in hell" (pardon the expression) of entering the pearly gates. First and foremost, they are of the wrong gender (according to the pagan book of misogynistic fables commonly referred to as “the bible”). It is so very clear in "Revelation" that heaven is an exclusive male club. And we hear in the letters of Paul (who I am convinced was, himself, a closeted homosexual) so often that he really did not care for women at all. They were to be barely seen and not heard at all (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) and be forever obedient to their husbands who were free to abuse their wives and daughters at will. I find myself particularly thrilled (not) that the idea of selling one's "daughters" into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) is a very acceptable practice in the, what I like to call, book of hatred (the bible). How any woman can actually bring herself to "believe" in this obviously sexist nonsense is beyond me. Several people in her life must have had a great deal of success in brainwashing her into believing these ridiculous “morales”.

There is a great deal of anthropological evidence to suggest that early civilizations were matriarchal. Women were revered in primitive cultures as they were "the givers of life". Women carried and bore children and men felt quite useless "back in the day". Unfortunately, human males are larger and physically stronger than females. This is likely because males needed to be the hunters/providers of food and lodging while females cared for the young and so evolution (natural selection to be specific) took care of the larger, stronger and faster physical aspects of male humans. As time went on, it is quite likely that men became jealous of the important roles of women and so developed "religions" where males were superior and females were to be owned (property) and obedient. This is how males elevated their status in societies. Because these ancient societies were superstitious and knew nothing of physics, chemistry and biology, they were quick to believe that a "god" had communicated with a particularly charismatic male member of the tribe. Religions were born and as different tribes wanted superior status to other tribes, new religions were born which were “the only true religion and only true god”. What a load of crap.

It is very likely there is no god – no prime mover, no force of the heavens and earth, no divine daddy in the sky. It is phenomenally unlikely that there is a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. In fact, I can say with confidence that such a being does not exist. I could be wrong, but I truly doubt it. I believe our existence is a natural one. We are here simply because of physical, chemical and biological events that occurred over billions of years. I believe we evolved to be loving and caring simply as an insurance that our species would continue on our tiny planet in the universe for as long as it is able to. Nothing in nature is perfect – NOTHING. Humans are capable of great altruism and incredible evil. It is the altruism that ensures the survival of our species and this is the reason I think we should be good to each other.

Religious beliefs that promote hatred of large groups of people are detrimental to the progress of humanity and life on Earth. It’s time we all started caring for each other and the environment before superstitious nonsense succeeds in destroying the only planet in this vast universe where we KNOW life exists.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Standing Tall for Atheism

I was struck by something this evening that I haven't thought a great deal about. I was struck by another sneaky lie by the theists (I like Hitchens' term for them). Picture the school child who has done something wrong and knows they've done something wrong. Quite often the guilty party will point a finger at another child and say, "But he did this awful thing..." it takes focus away from the guilty party and focuses it on a child that, perhaps, has done nothing. This is what the theists have been doing for quite some time and have done particularly well this week. This notion hit me as I was watching a video of Christopher Hitchens. He had been on a TV program with a particularly snotty host (Joe Scarborough - MSNBC of all places but he is Republican) who refused to let him answer the questions he'd been asked because Joe is clearly a Deluded-American. This in itself makes him a bad journalist (because journalism is never supposed to be about what the interviewer believes) but I digress. Hitchens was invited and Joe was rude to him. In any event, watching Christopher Hitchens throughout the years gave me a particular respect for him. He never backed down from a fight. He didn't allow anybody to get away with anything. His idea was that just because someone had "faith" didn't automatically entitle them to respect. He also wouldn't allow these people to disrespect him because he was rational (an atheist). He eventually made Joe look like an idiot and rightly so.

My "lightbulb" moment happened. All week (and for years actually) American theists have been falsely claiming a war on Christianity, when, in fact, there is no such war. It's like the school kid above. The war is on atheism! But they are pointing their fingers at us and whoosh... the attention is suddenly on atheists. We are supposedly the bad ones attacking religion when they are the ones attacking our constitutional right to NOT be bombarded with irrational nonsense 24/7.

Richard Dawkins is brilliant but he is soft spoken and is a target for religious bullies for this reason. He reads more before breakfast than the religious idiots, he argued with this week, read in a year. The study that was done by Dawkins was a questionnaire that clearly pointed out that most people who call themselves Christian on the census, know virtually nothing about Christianity. I'm an atheist and I know more about what is in the bible than most Christians. So the archbishop (or whoever the hell the bully was) asked him, totally off guard what the entire (lengthy) title was of Darwin's book. He stumbled with his words because it caught him off guard and after the 13 year old school girl giggles passed from the obviously biased room, some moron claimed Dawkins didn't know the title of his "bible".

Well, first of all, bullies at large, atheists don't have a bible. Educated people read lots of books (not just one that they base EVERYTHING on) and so it's very likely that one might momentarily forget a lengthy book title. One thing I am certain of, is that Dawkins has read the content of 'The Origin of Species' (and I can't remember the full title either) and knows what's in it and has studied plenty of other books on biology and has authored a few himself. I quite often have to look up the title of a book I've read or sometimes even an author's name because I read a lot! And NOTHING I read is my "bible" because I have no bible. The books in the bible have longer titles too but we all call them by their short names.

Then the moronic Janet Daley, author of the Telegraph article claimed Dawkins couldn't answer her about why it's wrong to hurt people. She's lying. Even I know the "evidence" for that "belief" is in ours brains, where there is a "survival of the species" mechanism which causes us to feel empathy for others. We have human emotions that come from the brain which evolved in us to protect our young and protect our tribe members from predators. Dawkins is much smarter than I am and would have given that answer had that actually been the question asked.

Furthermore, as Dailey said in her lame defense of her position, asking "why" is human nature. We're intelligent, curious animals. But just because we are curious and want to know "why" doesn't mean we should believe nonsense made up by other humans. It also doesn't mean there is actually an answer to that question. Why are lilies so beautiful? Because they are a happy accident of nature. I don't know why flowers are so pretty and neither does anyone else. It's been argued repeatedly that the universe is so magnificent and everything functions as if by design. There must be a designer. It can't all be accidental. My answer is "yes it can". There is no reason why it can't. It all just happened. Why is that so hard for humans to accept. It makes more sense than a magic space daddy that was made up by flat Earth desert dwellers.

So back off theists! The war is on those of us who use our brains for thinking and not for "blind faith". There is no war on Christianity. There is a war on atheism - rational thinkers!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Oh, Religion!

Fist of all, let's deal with the religious person's (let's call them RP's for typing efficiency from here on out) first "argument" in their defense of religion. It's one word - "faith". The dictionary defines it as a "strong belief in god or the doctrines of religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". I agree with that definition and that is why "faith" is also my number one argument against religion. Why would a species who have evolved so far in science and engineering, ever believe ancient myths that were taught thousands of years ago before there even was science? Why would we believe stories that were told by people to explain their environment (that which could not be explained at the time)? Why would we believe that a supernatural omnipotent being "spoke" to the men who wrote those texts rather than the fact that it was their own, personal moral values being pushed on others? The moral compass of these men was based on bigotry - bigotry of homosexuals, bigotry of women, bigotry or other races, etc. so these men decided that they would tell everyone that God spoke to them or they had a dream (which very well could have been the case) that God spoke to them, when, in fact, it was their own thoughts or a mental condition such as schizophrenia, that actually came to them. And so the tales were eventually written down. Neighbours, with the same fears of the unknown, were told the tales and so began religion. And may I point out that every religion started in this manner. The point is, we now have science. We now know that magic is illusion, we now know that chemical problems in the brain cause some poor people to see things that are not there and hear voices. So why is faith, that pesky word that absolves us from thinking about the things we know to be true, an argument? How can not taking responsibility for our own lives be considered a good thing?

Secondly, why would this http://t.co/COEk6nWM insanely stupid argument in support of misogyny, be thought by its writter to be a convincing argument in favour of religion (belief in "God"). If God was real, if god was good, if god was all knowing and all seeing and if god, did, indeed create all things, one would assume that god, who knows everything, would have realized that the "culture" of the time was wrong. That women are sentient beings with absolutely equal RIGHTS as their male counterparts and therefore teach "His" people that the way they treated the women at that time period was brutally wrong, and therefore shell out a whole different set of punishments for those who raped women, didn't allow women to be community leaders, didn't allow women to own their own property and didn't allow women to control their own sexuality. Just because lameassed jealous men didn't trust their wives and so didn't want to feed another man's child is no excuse. Perhaps if those men didn't cheat on their wives they wouldn't have assumed their wives were doing the same thing. And perhaps if the women were allowed to choose their own husband, they would never have dreamed of cheating on the man they loved. You see, if God was real, he would have taught people these things 2000 - 6000 years ago.

He could have said to Abraham instead of "if you love me kill your own kid to prove it" something like "I created men and women to be sentient beings and therefore if a man does not treat his wife as he would like to be treated, it's an assault on me and same thing goes for a woman to a man". Thus ending the misogyny of the times.

You see if God was real, he would not threaten his "children" to believe in him or you'll burn in hell because if he was that great, he'd never have to threaten anyone. And if every human is a "child" of God, why would he pick favourites and tell the Jews in the first five books of the bible to go to non-Jew lands and butcher the men, women and children (yes even babies who couldn't possibly have done anything wrong - unless crying is a crime). Weren't those "non-Jews" God's children too? He even made them kill the damned livestock. What the hell did the animals do to piss off God? And why wouldn't they keep the livestock to feed their own families. Which reminds me, in the one case I recall where the conquering army did keep the livestock to feed themselves, God got completely pissed off and made them suffer big time. WHAT AN ASS!

So, as you can see, these arguments we atheists use are not the "insanely stupid" arguments douchebag above makes... the arguments he makes are insanely stupid for all of the reasons I just mentioned.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad