This post has been moved to True Freethinker at this link.
Continue reading VIDEO: Richard Dawkins Exhibiting Neo-Paganism-Atheism, Childhood Rejection of God, Self-Professed Erudition and Lots of Stuff He Knows Nothing About...
This post has been moved to True Freethinker at this link.
“This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.”
I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can't get away with it” and call the police. I realise this is very weak…”
…restlessly seeks human meaning in the blind happenings of nature. As with the Indonesian tsunami, which was blamed on loose sexual morals in tourist bars; as with Hurricane Katrina, which was attributed to divine revenge on the entire city of New Orleans for harboring a lesbian comedian, and as with other disasters going back to the famous Lisbon earthquake and beyond, so Haiti's tragedy must be payback for human sin.
Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads are falling over themselves to disown Pat Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.
Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christian, your entire religion is founded on an obsession with 'sin', with punishment and with atonement.
The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe.
Pat Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Bible. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?...your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering.
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13: 1-5).
This may not be of any comfort to adherents of the Dawkinsian School of Dogmatheistic Theology. Yet, the point is that Dawkins claimed to have drawn a logical conclusion via the Bible to hypocrisy in disagreeing with Pat Robertson due to the Bible’s affirmation of the fall into sin. Yet, the Bible does not draw this conclusion and so Dawkins is in error.
Moreover, Pat Robertson did not appeal to sin in general or the fall into sin. He reference an, un-evidenced, “pact with the Devil.” Thus, Richard Dawkins is further in error via another expandio ad absurdum.
To reiterate; the point is not whether it makes sense to you or not. The point is that Dawkins claimed to draw a logical conclusion from the Bible and yet, he contradicts the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.
 Richard Dawkins, “Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology,” The Washington Post January 25, 2010
 Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol. 18 no. 3])
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton reprint of the 1st edition), p. 2:403
 Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 35 quoting “The Trend of Evolution,” in The Evolution of Man, published by Yale University Press, 1922, pp. 152-84
 Lewin, p. 35 quoting Essays on the Evolution of Man, published by Oxford University Press, 1924, p. 79
 Misia Landau, “Human Evolution as Narrative,” American Scientist, 72:262-268, 1984
 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker—Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), p. 62
This essay is copyrighted by Mariano of the “Atheism is Dead” blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose—in agreement or in order to criticize it—only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) Give credit to “Mariano of the ‘Atheism is Dead’ blog at http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com”
2) Inform me as to which essay is being reproduced and where it is being reproduced via the comments section at this link
A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experience of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious thing about them.
If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spend on that Gospel…I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this…
The Bible Among the Myths is a sometimes controversial, always engaging corrective to a growing rejection in Western society of the revelation found within the Old Testament regarding a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.
From the Back Cover
Sixty years ago, most biblical scholars maintained that Israel’s religion was unique—that it stood in marked contrast to the faiths of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Nowadays, it is widely argued that Israel’s religion mirrors that of other West Semitic societies. What accounts for this radical change, and what are its implications for our understanding of the Old Testament?
Dr. John N. Oswalt says the root of this new attitude lies in Western society’s hostility to the idea of revelation, which presupposes a reality that transcends the world of the senses, asserting the existence of a realm humans cannot control. While not advocating a “the Bible says it, and I believe it, and that settles it” point of view, Oswalt asserts convincingly that while other ancient literatures all see reality in essentially the same terms, the Bible differs radically on all the main points.
The Bible Among the Myths supplies a necessary corrective to those who reject the Old Testament’s testimony about a transcendent God who breaks into time and space and reveals himself in and through human activity.
About the Author
Dr. John N. Oswalt (PhD, Brandeis University) is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of numerous articles and several books, including the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series and Called to be Holy: A Biblical Perspective.
Atheist ads target valley residents at Christmas
Las Vegas, NV - Atheism has launched a Christmas ad campaign and it’s raising eyebrows
Clear Channel owns the billboards and removed that Santa version after just a few days, citing too many complaints. But two other ads, ’Reason’s Greetings’ and ‘Heathen’s Greetings,’ have been allowed to stay.
‘Yes Virginia… there is no God’ billboard
How long will the FFRF go on positively affirming God’s non-existence without evidence?
Is this not what they condemn as “faith”?
They are doing it this year and they did it last year:
And.. we will continue to speak out, becoming more publicly and more vehemently opposed to this ridiculous delusion that serves only to erode rational thought, personal responsibility and the peace and security of all citizens. A more correct term is anti-theist. There is no theism involved. There is no faith involved. There was no historical figure named Jesus nor is there an invisible man living in the sky. This does not require faith to understand, only rational thought.
Let us pray that atheists will continue speaking out as loudly and often as possible as nothing discredits atheism like having atheists express themselves.
Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist because that would require proof. Now it is simply left to “I believe that God does not exist, so it must be true.”
Keep up the good work of self-refuting atheism.
You are right, but for the wrong reasons. As you say ” Gone are the days of shying away from claiming that God does not exist”. This is true. The tyranny of the irrational can no longer be tolerated. The burden of proof rests with those making the claim. There is no more proof for the existence of a god than there is that I am the reincarnation of Mahandas Gandhi. I cannot prove it and you cannot disprove it. It’s a silly assertion with an easy and hollow defense designed to confuse the gullible. The fact that something is so unrealistic that it defies proof, both positive and negative, serves only to prove that it is unrealistic.
Pardon my delay as the holy days kept me happily busy and this new year is doing likewise.Interesting to learn that the neo-atheist position is that atheism is excluded from the real of making an argument in its favor.I suppose that for evidence I would begin considering this parsed essay which considers the Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and God.http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible.html
The story of the coelacanth is fascinating for various reasons, for our purposes the fascination is in noting how the evidence implies one story and the Darwinist infers quite another.
Fossils of the fish coelacanth are said to date as far back as 400,000,000 years ago and they were thought to have gone extinct circa 60,000,000 years ago. This opened the door for the telling of tall tales about how the coelacanth decided to get out of the water and trot about on land. Oh, the stories that were told; we can tell from the fins that…and became legs because…anatomy this, evolution that, and bada bing—human being.
What a time they had; chin stockingly pontificating as they interpreted evidence based on bias schools of thought and adherence to theory (which I evidenced in the essay Scientific Cenobites). But then the show was over and reality swam past them as in 1938 AD South African fishermen made Marjorie Courtenay Latimer, the curator of a museum in East London (northeast of Cape Town, South Africa), aware of the living fish—the Gombessa, as they knew it.
But the party was not over. While many biologists express consternation at the upsetting of their theories, a good Darwinist never lets those troubling little facts get in the way of a good theory. For example, recall that the fact that human embryos have gill slits proved that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Yet, when it was proved that human embryos do not have gill slits this still proved that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny because human embryos used to have gill slits and have now evolved (as recently as a couple of year ago an atheist Darwinist who had actually studied anatomy told me that human embryos have gill slits—relying on a century and half old hoax anyone?).
Thus, when the living fish toppled the dead theory the fish was prepared with a twist of lemon and the theory was propped back up in the form of a red herring. What comes forth from this strange sort of weird science is that there are two stories of the coelacanth: the actual story told by the evidence itself and the story told regardless of evidence which is meant to function as smoke and mirrors which call attention away from the story told by the evidence—smoked coelacanth, yummy.
The evidence presents a fish which has not changed in 60,000,000 years (with the possible exception of size, etc.). The theory remains all but unchanged; this fish decided to go on walkabout. But how is the gap filled between the evidence of an unchanged and the human who examines the fish from which it supposedly evolved? By appealing to the mythical environmental pressures which caused part of the fish population to remain unchanged for 60,000,000 years and part to change into human beings who eat them (actually, I understand that they are too oily to be good eat′ns).
I encountered an interesting and vacuous statement which sought to take creationists to task at dinofish.com:
Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection, the coelacanth changed little (except in size and possibly in habitat) over the eons. Creationists have used this as evidence against the theory of Evolution, but most observers see the coelacanth as a startling, and loveable (Old Four Legs) messenger from the past.No joke, this was the entirety of their refutation. Note the way that they fill the gap in that it just so happens that the coelacanth was “Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection.” What do we learn about natural selection? It is the driving force behind evolution except when it is not because some creatures are immune.
Two back, or dorsal, fins and one protruding beneath the nape of the tail are complimented by paired lobed pectoral and pelvic fins. These contain in their trunks bones mimicking those of Eusthenopteron which later developed into arms and legs. While coelacanths have not been observed to "walk" on the bottom, their pectoral and pelvic fins can be seen as "pre-adaptations" to land locomotion. Used under water their action maintains stability and balance. But in their cousin Eusthenopteron, the same action became four-legged land walking.
While the living coelacanths retain many ancient features they have also, contrary to their public image, done some evolving along the way. Live bearing, for example, would seem to be a modern feature.
they may also be able to locate prey by detecting changes in the electric field around them…it is intriguing that this fish may hone in on prey by detecting changes in the weak electric field the prey produces…
Our films settled another question that has intrigued scientists: whether the coelacanth can walk on its lobed fins. Though we observed several individuals resting with their fins braced against the sea bottom, we never saw any of them walk, and it appears the fish is unable to do so…
I confess I'm sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins. Professor Smith himself nicknamed the coelacanth Old Fourlegs in the belief that the creature actually did walk upon the seafloor like a seal on its flippers. Alas, that does not seem to be the case.
When you see early taxidermic reconstructions of the coelacanth you can tell just how desperate the scientists were to, quite literally, bend the evidence in the favor of their theory as the coelacanth’s legs were bent downwards in order to make it seem as if the poor little guy was read to walk. This is quite evidence from the “Old Four Legs” book cover as well:
For all their excellent work in the past, the scientists who preceded us in the study of coelacanths were severely hampered by the lack of a submersible. They could only examine dead or dying specimens brought up by Comoran fishermen.
Fifty years ago this week [the week of Dec. 1988], Latimeria chalumnae was discovered, the only living representative of the otherwise extinct coelacanth fishes. Half a century of research shows it is not the hoped for missing link between fish and land vertebrates.
Your search for ""Jacques Millot"" resulted in 0 documents.
Did you mean "hotcakes Mildest"?
It is our mission at the Science Club of Long Island Inc. to bring the current scientific accomplishments and breakthroughs and make them available to the general community at no cost…Topics range from astronomy, evolution, biology, genetics, medicine and physics and other science disciplines.
I ran across your page asserting that slavery is approved in the Bible that was cut and pasted from evilbible.com
I wanted to make you aware that I conducted a study of the issue and wrote a point by point response that I know you will find interesting:
Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery?
I also wrote a companion piece:
Does God Command You to Beat Your Slaves?
In fact, I have done likewise with much of evilbible.com’s content:
Atheism Essays Particular to EvilBible.com
Yes, we know you spent a lot of time pasting your little articles together!
The study that you have conducted answers none of the points made, you merely injected your excuses in an effort to explain the atrocities in the Bible.
The Bible was written by ancient barbarians who were merely trying to justify violent times.
However in summary you failed to address the many other points made such as Biblical contradictions, rape, the evil God depicted in the Bible that kills at the drop of a hat.
God would not do that! You missed the illogic of religion, Christ failure to return as promised as well as countless of points made which are too numerous to mention!
You never bothered to study the science articles under the magazine section and conveniently assumed that this was just another atheistic website.
We don’t have to tell you what happens when you assume!
For reasons unknown you pasted a silly section on stupid atheistic T-shirts. How childish!
We agree that atheists contribute very little to the poor but you also fail to recognize that it is the religious nuts that start wars like Hitler and Bush, Christian Crusades, inquisitions on and on!
In addition you failed to recognize that the evolution of science is what being taught in schools as the explanation for man’s origins but merely pasted ridiculous articles of intelligent design that is dismissed by the scientific community as well as all the evidence.
Dinosaurs are no longer here, where they kidnapped by aliens or better question was your reasoning kidnapped by religion? Since the Dinosaurs are no longer here, evolution merely explains the change in the fauna of life!
Now just because people want God to exist, especially us does not mean that he does exist!
We are not atheists that say there is no God!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get your facts straight!
What we are saying based on scientific fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of
God or any other supernatural phenomenon. Include Ghosts, Bigfoot or little green men from Mars!
People start with the idea that they would like for God to exist and then twist all their thinking around this.
Does not work this way, you have to look were the evidence takes you no matter how uncomfortable
that may be. You don’t built a data base or selection of those facts that support your viewpoint and ignore
everything else! Again you look at all the evidence.
As of now, there is no evidence of a God. If you have some evidence come forward, we know several foundations that will pay a million dollars.
Unfortunately no one has yet claimed the prize!!!!!
Thank you so much for your consideration and getting back to me on this.
If I understand you correctly, I am somehow at fault for not attempting to discredit every single evilbible.com page. Yet, this is fallacious as I wrote to you about the issue of slavery in particular. And while you cut and pasted their assertions into a PDF file I did not paste my essay together but refuted theirs point by point.
Moreover, while you, for some reason, have chosen to un-contextually claim that I failed to address many other points made by evilbible.com such as rape, you would know, via the link that I provided: Atheism Essays Particular to EvilBible.com, that I have done just that—and much more.
What you must consider is that regardless of God’s existence and regardless of the origins of the Bible, the issue is the text of the Bible, whether evilbible.com and you by extension are representing the text correctly, and my refutation of their and your claims.
Your belittlement of myself, general put down of religion in general, references to dinosaurs, aliens, Ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. are irrelevant to our context.
Yet, you may be interested to learn that “The Encyclopedia of Wars” was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious war.
I discern that you are reacting emotionally to my evidence rather than rationally which is why your response is so very disjointed.
You may want to consider your thoughts as categories and then you will be able to stay on topic and deal with the issue at hand.
Thank you for your time and attention, aDios,
Here is some good articles for you ******* [expletive removed, let us just say that it started with a capital “A”]!Oleg Dei had attached various of the articles that they provide on the website. Here is my response:
You think Chris Thiefe from Evil Bible is Tough?
I eat stupid dumbass Christians for lunch!
Most excellent, thank you for the information.
I will have to look these over and if need be, post responses on my blog.
There is actually one that I was interested in—Bible says - women are inferior to men—which appeared to be peppered with photos of scantly clad women.
I wonder if you could send me the text and just exclude the photos.
Thank you so much and aDios,
PS: I do not think that Chris Thiefe is tough at all; that is a faulty inference.
At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.Now they placed ads that state, “Yes, Virginia ... There is no God.”
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
It’s easy to point out the flaws in a religion or a certain god, but there’s no need to remain skeptical on a god-to-god basis. Lots of reasons exist irrespective of any single religion that makes atheism palatable. So listed here are five good reasons to be an atheist:
1. We have not found any gods. Contrary to popular belief, lack of evidence is proof of lack of existence. Take, for example, my claim that there is a unicorn in my garage. If independent scientists came to my house and searched my garage without avail, they would conclude there is no unicorn. The same is true of gods. We have looked, but we haven’t found any, ever.
2. There are lots of tales of gods. If you need any proof that gods are made up beings, look no further than the amount of mythology surrounding thousands of different gods. Most Christians, Muslims, and Jewish people are atheists to 99% of all the gods ever thought up. Most every agrees that all these gods, like Apollo, are made up. Nothing makes the Judeo-Christian god any more special than Zeus.
3. Religion is silly. Take Christianity for example. They believe that they can turn crackers and wine into the symbolic (or real) flesh and blood of Jesus; then they eat it. Also, have you ever taken a look at what the pope wears? The Bible is full of absurdities such as condemning homosexuality but allowing servitude. Religion just doesn’t make any sense.
What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.
4. Religion justifies horrible behavior. Last year in California, a proposition was put before the citizens to ban gay marriage. This was proposition 8. Who were some of the biggest donors to prop 8? The Mormons in Utah! There is no doubt that many in the United States use religion to justify their homophobia. Abroad in the Middle East, violence and bombings are all evoked in the name of Islam. Being religious is not the way to bring peace to this world.
5. Prayers don’t work. I have a testable hypothesis for the existence of gods – pray for something and see if it came true. Prayer has been invoked since the dawn of humanity with no avail or proven results. Gods clearly don’t exist or don’t give a squat about human existence. Since the simplest answer is usually preferred, it’s reasonable to conclude that gods don’t exist.
Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global warming data hubs, providing much of the number crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And, boy, can they crunch numbers…
CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues…how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the "trick" of how to "hide…
Again and again, the researchers don't object to just inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing the same global warming hymnal…the CRU director, says a scientific journal must "rid (itself) of this troublesome editor," who happened to publish a problematic paper…we "will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"…
These documents reveal the trick behind how they hide the dissent. Climate change activists often dismiss critics by noting that the skeptics haven't offered their arguments in peer-reviewed literature. Hence why they work so hard to keep dissenters out of the literature!...
First, the climate change industry is shot through with groupthink…Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of "real" scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy "deniers" akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what's really at work is a very large clique of scientists is attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.
Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global warming "consensus." The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should…
in big newspapers and TV news, the story has gotten less attention [than on the Internet]. And that's a scandal, too. The New York Times' leading climate reporter, Andrew Revkin (whose name appears in some of the e-mails), won't publish the contents of the e-mail on the grounds it would violate the scientists' privacy. Can anyone imagine the Times being so prissy if such damning e-mails were from ExxonMobil, never mind Dick Cheney?...
The same journalistic tribalism that allowed Dan Rather to destroy his career over "Memogate" keeps reinforcing itself. Rather picked sources who said what he wanted to hear, then he reported what they said as if it were indisputable. The same thing is happening on climate change. Ideological bias is a major factor in the news media's work as a transmission belt for the climate industry. But part of the problem is also that the journalists do a bad job when the majority of "respected" experts agree on anything complicated…
most journalists aren't qualified or capable of working through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus…While there's often reason for governments to hide classified intelligence, there's no reason for climate data to be classified. If the science is a slam dunk, why are CRU researchers keen on hiding their research?
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?
A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all.
Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse.)…if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any stage suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage.
It cannot tell us why we should follow it, rather than some other set. Of course, it would be no help to add an Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Follow Commandments since the same question would arise about that commandment
We are the ones who must discern whether it is a voice to be trusted…[and] decide which of these voices made the most sense. Moral thinking is like that. No one else can do it for you.
Sometimes it is said that human life is valuable because we are made in the image of God. But we have no idea what the image of God looks like, except as reflected in the things we find valuable in human beings, like imagination or self-awareness. It is not that we find life to have worth because we believe we are made in the image of God, but rather that we believe we are made in the image of God because we find life to have worth.
No one can ignore the importance of Judeo-Christian values to the history of Western cultures, and no one can deny that faith is a source of virtue for many people. However, in the evolution of humanity, religion arose after the capacity for reason and empathy--the conscience. And in determining which values are best, we have no alternative but to rely on conscience.
This is the secular message: Ethics comes from below, not above. It is a message that reaches out to believers as well as atheists--and anyone else who might be riding the subway.
Atheism’s Public Relations Problems
Atheist Bus Ads and Billboards
Atheist Child Rearing
The BOBA Digest
The Wedgie Document
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism
Morality / Ethics
Meaning and Purpose
Da Vinci Code / Angels and Demons / Templars, etc.
Gospel of Judas
The Lost Tomb of Jesus
Pop Culture and Politics