I love Facts!

This Blog is Dead.

2008-06-27T20:17:00.002Z

Sorry But I haven't even looked at this blog in over 4 months.
I think it's time to declare it legally dead.

Farewell!

Sherri Shepherd thinks Earth is flat!?!?!?!?

2008-01-03T22:19:00.000Z

Why the f**k, was this person allowed to to have children?
She is also far to stupid to be on a talk-show.

This lot are a REAL Flat Earth society. Seriously.... No really. I'm not Joking. Just take a look if you don't believe me.
The Flat Earth society
The Flat Earth society's message forum

Nothing existed before Christ:

Dylan Moran on Religion

2007-11-11T01:55:00.001Z

The Republicans use religious mind control

2007-11-04T00:52:00.000Z

I have often heard the phrase "religion is used to keep the poor in their place" used by atheists. As an atheist I liked the sentiment but had never come across this in the modern world (I'm from Scotland), just historicle cases.
That has changed.
I am currently reading a book called What's the Matter With America? by Thomas Frank. It is brilliant.
It clearly shows how the Republican party is manipulating the poorest people in America to vote for them, using religion:

"Vote for us and we will stop gay marriages!" then they cut taxes to the big businesses.

"Vote for us and we will stop abortions!" then they kill the labour unions.

"Vote for us and we will stop stem cell research!" then they lower the minimum wage.

Kansas is one of the poorest states in America but it is also one of the most Republican. Remember the Creationist classes in schools thing?

Here is a quote from the book where they have confused people so much that they think democrats are pro-big-business:

"rural America is pissed," a small town Pennsylvania man told a reporter from Newsweek in 2001. Explaining why he and his neighbours voted for George Bush, he said: "These people are tired of moral decay. They're tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street."
Let me repeat that: they're voting republican in order to get even with Wall Street"

How messed up is that?!
That is the power religion has over the minds of the people.

Posts

2007-10-25T23:56:00.000Z

Sorry I haven't been posting or a couple of days. I have been very busy with work, uni and Life. Hopefully on Sunday I will take a little time to do some writing.

C u.

VenomFangX owned by TheAmazingAtheist

2007-10-19T00:51:00.000Z

TheAmazingAtheist completely destroyed all of VenomFangX's argument.

Satan Invented Evolution Part 1 Disproving the Big Bang:

Satan Invented Evolution Part 2 God created the World:

Satan Invented Evolution Part 3 Impossiblity of Abiogenesis:

Satan Invented Evolution Part 4 Dinosaurs & Age of Earth:

Satan Invented Evolution Part 5 Living Fossils:

Satan Invented Evolution Part 6 The death blow:

VenomFangX Is A Stupid Creationist (1 of 6):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kde1aOEKN6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHlpC09RIIU
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

VenomFangX Is A Stupid Creationist (2 of 6):

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=416
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm

VenomFangX Is A Stupid Creationist (3 of 6) - Abiogenesis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Shredder pic

VenomFangX Is A Stupid Creationist (4 of 6) - Dinosaurs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10533418/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones
http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
http://home.arcor.de/ktdykes/geodating.htm
http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/01_Contents.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

VenomFangX Is A Stupid Creationist (5 of 6):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html

VenomFangX Is A Stupid Creationist (6 of 6):

Mr. Deity Thanks You

2007-10-19T00:29:00.000Z

Creationist debate on Michael Coren Show

2007-10-18T00:02:00.000Z

Rational Response Squad takes on Christians on ABC

2007-10-17T23:46:00.000Z

Discussions with a believer.

2007-10-12T02:02:00.000Z

This is a debate between a Christian and I about the video “Four atheistic fallacies that flood youtube” by philos71
I have already discussed this video, and he was responding to what I said.

Here is the Video by philos71 entitled “Four atheistic fallacies that flood youtube”:

*Note: All of my first responses are replied to the “fallacies” which philos think atheists make. I reposted them here for ease of reading.*

Fallacy 1:

My 1st response:

I covered this in a previous post: one-less-god

Divinecovenant0012’s response:

I believe I answered this on the youtube comment boxes but none the less one will be given here (this is also my answer to the third link with the video about Poseidon). The main problem is that Poseidon/Horace/Zeus or any Greek, Roman, or Norse god never existed in history. Jesus did and the majority of historians agree to this fact as well as to the fact that Thor/Poseidon/Zeus or any mythological god never existed in history. Now about the idea of comparing God to mythology, conceptually, the gods of myth and the Judeo-Christian God are on different spectrums because they are vastly different. The following is a paraphrase from a college Western Civilization textbook describing the difference:

"The gods of mythology were never described as "omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient" like the Judeo-Christian God. The gods of mythologies were always ascribed to an act of nature or some unexplainable phenomena. The Judeo-Christian God on the other hand is described as being "transcendent" meaning he is above and separate from nature, not identified with any natural phenomena. In other words, the Judeo-Christian God was demythicized from nature. Nature is not divine according to the Jude-Christian idea of God, but the gods of myths are. Furthermore, the gods of myth were subject to biological conditions, requiring food, drink, sleep, and sexual gratification. They sometimes grew old or died and when they misbehaved they had to answer to fate. The Judeo-Christian God was regarded as "fully sovereign". He ruled all and was subject to nothing. His existence and power did not derive from a preexisting realm, as was the case with mythological gods."

Basically the Judeo-Christian God and the gods of mythologies are so vastly different that they cannot be compared to one another. It's the same argument as phileos presented but from a different dimension.

My 2nd response:

“…Norse god never existed in history. Jesus did…” The person Jesus existed. There is no historical evidence that he was the son of God. Or indeed that he had any form of magical ability whatsoever.

Phelos’s argument was that; as they were not creators, they were not comparable to the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God. This of course was false as all the ancient religions had creation stories.

“…derive from a preexisting realm, as was the case with mythological gods.” The Gods did not derive their power form a pre-existing realm. They had innate power. And in the case of Gaia she was the realm. Also look at the Babylonian stories. Also , correct me if I am wrong, I get the feeling you don't quite understand the mythologies. In the Greek religion lightning only happened when Zeus wanted it to. He didn't control the lightning, he caused the lightning. It was the same with Thor. All nature was made by the Gods. There is a subtle difference. One merely implies power the other implies causation.

“…the gods of myth were subject to biological conditions, requiring food, drink, sleep, and sexual gratification.” This was not in fact necessary; it was merely enjoyable to the Gods.

“The gods of mythologies were always ascribed to an act of nature or some unexplainable phenomena.” Your God is one being. Yes? Well as the old religions were all multi-theistic religions to compare the two, one must imagine all of their Gods as one being. Once you do this then it is very easy to compare them. The old Gods were a way of personifying nature. The God of the bible is an explanation for the creation of the planet and a reason to exist. He sets up the Jews as his “chosen people”.

Fallacy 2:

My 1st response:

This is the best one I think..... or at least the funniest.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
"The universe began to exist"
"Therefore we conclude that the universe must have a cause."
"God does not need, or have a cause for his existence."
Oh yes! I can see the logic very clearly:
Everything must have a cause + God does not need a cause = logical fallacy.

oh and for anyone who says something along the lines of "God did not begin to exist, he always existed." F*$% off. OK? The only reason you say that is because you want to think that. Nowhere in the bible is that said.

Divinecovenant0012’s response:

Alright first of all, the bible was not even mentioned at all anywhere in the video. Therefore I ask why the Bible is being brought into the discussion. Moving on, phelios ore anyone who says "God never began to exist" actually states, in a very cheap way, a valid claim. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a Creator does exist. If he does exist and he/she/it created this world and everything in it, than logically he/she/it has to be "greater", "higher" or "superior" than that which he/she/it created. Therefore we conclude that God is not subject to the thing(s) he/she/it created, in this instance the rules of logic. The situation is quite the opposite; it is God who decides what logic is and how it works. In other words God doesn't follow the rules of logic because he is beyond logic.

My 2nd response:

“…the bible was not even mentioned at all anywhere in the video. Therefore I ask why the Bible is being brought into the discussion.” The root of Christianity is the bible. Without the bible there is no Christianity. All Christian knowledge of God is derived from the bible.

“God is not subject to the thing(s) he/she/it created, in this instance the rules of logic”
This sounds like the biggest “get-out-of-jail-free” card I have ever heard of. If God is not subject to logic then there is no point in talking about logic at all. There is no such thing as a logical argument where the party is not subject to logic.

Oh! And one last little thought. If “logically he/she/it has to be "greater", "higher" or "superior"…” than logic; then he is not subject to logic. So therefore he cannot be logically greater than logic. And therefore he is subject to logic. Which means he is greater than logic. Which means he is not subject to logic, etc, etc..... on into infinity.

Fallacy 3:

My 1st response:

i) Bad things happen which are not due to the freewill of man. e.g. natural disasters.
ii) "saved by a fireman who was used by God". This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. This is a blatant contradiction. If God can use people to do good then he is interfering with their free will. Thus the freewill argument dies.
iii) Why can’t God just be a dick, if you really want to believe? That is the only way to explain natural disasters using God. He was pissed off.

Divinecovenant0012’s response:

i) I believe what he was trying to say is that one of the reasons bad things happen is because mankind makes terrible choices due to their "free will". However, this is only one part of the argument. The atheists claims that because bad things happen, then there is no God, not realizing that it's the bad choices made by individuals with a will of their own that can cause bad things to happen. In other words, why should you point to God when it's clearly humanity's fault. Furthermore, natural disasters occur because this world operates by its own laws and physics. Natural disasters occurring have no bearing on whether or not there is God. Rather, going back to my point about the idea of God in fallacy #2, God is beyond the rules of the world. He/she/it can interact with it if he so chooses and mold/shape it how he/she/it sees fit. Concluding, that if God created this world, he can cause bad things to happen if indeed that was what he wanted to do.
ii) The point that he seemed to making is that the atheist ignores that there is much good in the world as well as evil. This pessimistic view of the world causes the assumption that since there is much evil in the world, than there is no God. However, if you look at the world now, there is much good in it as well as good caused by people who say they were doing it in the name of a God (i.e. Mother Teresa). Furthermore, if God exists, than he has the right to be mean and nasty if he so chooses to be.
iii) I believe I answered this one unintentionally in point i.

My 2nd response:

i) “The atheists claims that because bad things happen, then there is no God” Most atheists do not in fact believe this. The “Bad-things argument is generally with respect to natural disasters which human’s don’t control. And things which are described as “Acts of God” in Britain e.g. an unfortunate event which was not the fault of any human.

“Natural disasters occurring have no bearing on whether or not there is God.” If God is all powerful he could prevent the disaster. So for God to exist he can either be impotent or not care about peoples suffering. This does not disprove God, It merely disproves one aspect of his character which most Christians believe.

“if God created this world, he can cause bad things to happen if indeed that was what he wanted to do.” I agree that God could be as cruel as he wanted to be. The only problem with this is that the currently held Christian belief is that he is omni-caring. I also note that the omni-caring idea is heavily contradicted in the bible.

ii) “…there is much good in it as well as good caused by people who say they were doing it in the name of a God (i.e. Mother Teresa).” I agree that there is a lot of good in the world, but we are talking about logical fallacies. To say that someone was “used by God” is stating that God controlled that person. This blatantly contradicts the free will argument. Thus one must be wrong. I will leave you to choose which.

Fallacy 4:

My 1st response:

i) The good evil thing is crap. I have never seen a completely good person and I have never seen a completely evil person. I have seen Good people with evil bits and visa versa. Therefore I have witnessed evil (e.g. when I got mugged twice) and I have seen good (e.g. when a complete stranger cared for me after I was mugged).
ii) YES! I want God to take the evil from the world. Stop humans harming each other. Show humans the true path and stop being a dick! Why, if God is real, does he provide SOOO much evidence to prove his non-existence? Does he get his entertainment from sending people to hell?

Divinecovenant0012’s response:

i) I'm not sure where you were going so I don't know exactly how to respond. Perhaps you are attempting to compare God to a human which is fallacy in and of itself if you follow the logical pattern I set up in fallacy #2. If you are not then disregard the last sentence. By the way the "no absolute evil or good" philosophy has its roots in the Buddhist/Hinduism tradition. I'm not quite sure how this relates to the video since that tradition was not mentioned.
ii) I think at this point you are rambling/ranting so its pointless to try and respond.

My 2nd response:

i) Ok. What I was trying to argue against was the idea that “to know the existence of Evil one must compare it to something good.” I wanted to point out that a human can determine the difference between Good and Bad without witnessing Pure-Goodness and Pure-Badness.
I must admit that I know very little about the Hindu belief system. That piece of logic came from my own head. It is possible that two people discover the same logical truth. Interestingly I have heard a lot of Creationists comparing evolution to Hinduism. I actually saw a video by an Irish creationist who thought that evolution was a Hindu conspiracy to convert the Christians. Hehe what an idiot! It was discovered by the British who were a Christian nation.
ii) Sorry if I came across as ranting. I was making a valid response to Philos. He asks if Atheists want God to take away our free will and prevent humans from doing evil. I was answering YES! That is exactly what I would want from a God. I would want him to make the world a nice place, instead of the daily horror I must endure.
P.s. Sorry if I got a bit melodramatic at the end, I’m just not a very happy chappy. Hehe! ;-)

*At this point Divinecovenant0012 decides to change the format of his reply*

“I took a different approach this time and instead of responding to each point individually I condensed some of the points and argued with the "spirit" of what was said. I hope you don't mind.” - Divinecovenant0012

Divinecovenant0012‘s 2nd response:

I'll repost the text as to demonstrate something:

"The gods of mythology were never described as "omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient" like the Judeo-Christian God. The gods of mythologies were always ascribed to an act of nature or some unexplainable phenomena. The Judeo-Christian God on the other hand is described as being "transcendent" meaning he is above and separate from nature, not identified with any natural phenomena. In other words, the Judeo-Christian God was demythicized from nature. Nature is not divine according to the Jude-Christian idea of God, but the gods of myths are. Furthermore, the gods of myth were subject to biological conditions, requiring food, drink, sleep, and sexual gratification. They sometimes grew old or died and when they misbehaved they had to answer to fate. The Judeo-Christian God was regarded as "fully sovereign". He ruled all and was subject to nothing. His existence and power did not derive from a preexisting realm, as was the case with mythological gods." (Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics and Society, Perry, Chase, Jacob, Jacob, Von Laue, page 38)

This was not my argument but was actually taken from a college textbook of mine. The reason I quoted this was to demonstrate that it is agreed upon by HISTORIANS that there is a HUGE difference between the Hebrew/Christian God and Ancient Near East and Greek mythology. If you want to argue with that, than you would be arguing with historical fact.

"The Bible is the root of Christianity".

Actually, the church had no complete Bible until about mid 2nd century AD and even then there was still some debate as to which books should be in the bible. Despite popular belief the Bible is not the root of Christianity but Christ's death and resurrection was (I'm not saying that it happened but the early church believed it did). The teachings of Christ and the spread of Christianity happened by word of mouth in the early days even amid persecution.

God is beyond logic:

I believe I'll let Francis Collins (Leading scientist and the head of the Human Genome Project) say it, because he says it better than I could:

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the "natural" world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. "If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is NOT a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion," he says. (Last paragraph) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece

About God being a "god of love":

I'm going to presuppose here that the Christian God is real. Actually the reason you hear mostly about a God of love is because that is the aspect of God that is the most appealing. Think about it, Christians talk about a God who loves them (which he does, immensely) so as to appeal to the person. Would you want to be Christian if I told you about a God who punishes sin and those who mistreat others? No one would want to serve that kind of God because we all know we have mistreated people sometime in our lives. However, love is only one aspect of his total character. A survey of the Hebrew Bible will show you that God has many other aspects to his character. The one you will notice is his vengeful/justice aspect. I won't go into too much detail about it but basically God is love, but he is also vengeful and punishes people for their wrongdoings and their mistreatment for their allow human beings. Every instance you see of God using violence in the Old Testament is due that person's own wrongdoings towards others. Finally, although God does use violence to punish those who deserve it, if you look at the Hebrew bible, God would usually "send a prophet" or try to get them to stop their wrongdoings by talking with them and use violence as a last resort. Then after he has punished them with violence he would always promise to redeem and restore them. God is indeed vengeful/just but he is more love than those two.

God has indeed showed people (many people, myself included) the true path to love. God wants us humans to love each other and let him take care of the punishment. Simply put we should just focus on loving each other and let God take care of those that deserve punishment.

*At this point I tried to reply to all Divinecovenant0012’s points but, it seemed to me, that he had forgotten quite a few of the points I made before.*

My 3rd response

As you seem to have dropped a lot of the points I have made, I am assuming that you concede them. If this is incorrect and you do have a response, please feel free to correct me.

…“there is a HUGE difference between the Hebrew/Christian God…”
Firstly; I am not arguing that the Gods of the ancient world are “identical”. What I am arguing is that they are Gods. Pure and simple. They are Gods who where once worshiped as the creators of the world and mankind. They are Gods who had believers and their own religions. Therefore it is perfectly true for an atheist to say “one less God” as that is exactly what they mean. The fact that they are dissimilar is completely besides the point, and bares no relevance to the argument.
Secondly; this also applies to other modern religions. I am assuming you do not, for instance, believe in Shiva, Kali or Krishna. They are Gods which we are atheist towards. I just go one step further and am an atheist to all Gods.
Thirdly; your entire argument is based around the assumption that your God is a fact. If you look at it from someone else’s point of view, you will see that the concept of one invented belief system varies little from another invented belief system.
Fourthly; Philos’ argument was as simple as it was wrong. He argued that belief in the Abrahamic God was different from the belief in the Ancient Gods, because they didn’t have a story which says they created the world. This is, blatantly, a load of rubbish.

“…the church had no complete Bible until about mid 2nd century AD…”
I would like to point out a flaw in this. Jesus himself was Jewish. Therefore Christianity is an offshoot of the Jewish faith. The Old Testament is the Jewish bible. The Old Testament was written before Jesus was born. Therefore the Bible is the root of Christianity just as it is the root of Judaism.

“…I'll let Francis Collins … say it…” This is all very interesting, and I have great respect for Francis Collins, but I fail to see the relevance of this quote. We are talking about logic, not the laws of physics. Logic is a human construct. It occurs only in our minds. You can not touch logic. It is a way of thinking. I assume you believe that God has a mind. Therefore, in God’s mind there must be the capacity for logical thought.

“…God is indeed vengeful/just but he is more love than those two…” I think we just agreed on a point! Wow! You pretty much echoed what I was saying. So we agree? The Bad things happen fallacy was a straw man that philos set up to knock down. The atheist argument is that; God either doesn’t care that natural disasters kill and injure many, or that he doesn’t exist. He can’t be both. Atheists use it to point out that the phrase “God loves and cares for everyone” is a lie. I’m glad we can agree on that point.

*Here is Divinecovenant0012’s 3rd reply.*

No sir I didnt drop your points, I simply condensed them in order to respond to the basic ideas that you presented. I believe I said this at the beginning of the message. However, for fair arguement's sake I will go back and see which points I may have missed and offer counter positions assuming that counter-positions are needed. This will be at a later time because I am going to have to cross reference my work with your responses.

YOU may not be arguing that mythology isnt identical to the Judeo-Christian idea of God, however that was the main point that was made in the video. They are not on the same level, and Western Civilization's history agrees. Therefore to say that you believe in "one less god" is to put the Judeo-Chrisian God on the same level as myths and fables, which belittles the idea. Phielos is basically saying that putting the Judeo-Christian God on the same level as those gods is unfair to the depection of the idea. I will not quote my original quote from the textbook, because I feel that stressing this point is getting rather redundant.

I dont want to come off as insulting but how can you safely say you are an atheist to "all gods" when you havent devoted the time to study and research them. Perhaps you mean you are an atheists to all gods "at this time" and that is fine I suppose but dont be quick to disprove the idea of a god without fair and unbiased research.

Of course I'm presupposing that the Judeo-Christian God is fact, just like atheists presuppose that the Judeo-Christian God isnt fact. This is the 2nd step in the scientific method I believe its called "hypothesis" and it stems from "observation". When drawing a conclusion to an arguement you have to presuppose something (ex. I think that the earth is round because when looking at ships coming in the horizon on the ocean I can see that they "rise up".) I do the same thing as atheists do. Its a fair claim.

Ah, ah, ah. Phileos never said that they didnt have thier own creation stories (I just watched the video). Phileos' main point was that atheists put the Judeo-Christian idea of God in the same realm as the myths and therein lies the flaw. See my 1st point.

And one last thing I would like to point out is the fact that this arguement of "the Christian God being on the same level as fairy tales and myths" is an argument used by Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion". Ever since the publication of this book (which did hit the New York times bestseller but had a very poor print in England) I have heard this argument used over and over again. However, let me ask you something. You agree that people in modern society quit believing in fairy tales (Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, etc.) and myths eventually by a certain age (6-8 yrs old at the latest) correct? If the Judeo-Christian God is on the same level as these myths than how do you account for people beginning to believe in God at age 12-18 (average ages for new converts) or 25, or 30, or 40 or even as late as 70-90 years old? "One less god..." I dont think so.

My friend, you are talking to someone who MAJORS in Religion with his emphasis in church history. The "canonization" of Scripture wasnt complete in the days of the early church. Jesus never wrote anything down and all we have are accounts of his life from secondary sources (those who were either eyewitnesses or knew those who were eye witnesses). The root of Christianity was not Scripture but rather it was Jesus' crucifixion and ressurection. None of the early apostles teaching indicated that the people were saved by believing in the Hebrew Bible, but by believing in Jesus' death and resurrection (see 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 4:2 and 17: 18, . I will say that Hebrew Scripture was used by the early church but for teaching and doctrinal purposes and not in order to "prove" thier Testamony (1 Tim 3:16).

You pointed out in your response before last that saying God is "beyond logic" is a "get-out-of-jail free card", and I quoted Francis Collins to demonstrate that even one of todays leading scientists disagrees with that notion. To reiterate the point: if God created logic than he isnt subject to it and he can do with it what he sees fit.

The "strawman argument" is actually the athiest argument that if God is real than why do bad things happen? First of all, lets talk about God being love. Is love only compassion? Isnt it tough sometimes (i.e a father disciplining his child to do right and treat others with respect)? (DONT TAKE THIS ANAOLOGY THE WRONG WAY!!! I'm NOT saying that bad things happening is God "disciplining us") Love is tough sometimes, and in order to understand what "God is love" means we have to look at how the Scriptures define "love", etc. This is getting into a whole different discussion on a field of theology called "The Doctrine of God" where you study God's character as put forth in Scripture and it is too much to discuss here. I'm not saying that God doesnt love people (we matter profoundly to God according to Scripture) but what I am saying is that the idea of God being "omnibenevolent" (all loving and nothing but love)is found no where in the Bible and I dont see phileos making that claim either. The point is that just because bad things happen, that is by no means a reason to say that there is no God because good things happen too. As phileos says its a pessimistic view of the world and once again an unfair and ungrounded belief.

My 4th response

Yet again you have completely ignored my argument! I have to say this is getting tiresome. The way you talk of the old fashioned Gods is very telling. You (and philos) don’t seem to realise that these “myths and fables” were being worshiped long before Christianity was even conceived. I can’t stress this enough. These were real religions, With real believers. Just because you don’t want your religion associating with the unpopular ones, does not mean that they are not religions at all. Please respond to this argument instead of ignoring it. Please. Oh, and thank you for not quoting Western Civilisation again. I have seen it so many times I now know it by heart. One last point on Western Civilisation: Some of the most important parts of western civilisation, science, mathematics, philosophy, ethics, and politics originated in Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greeks worshiped their pantheon of Gods and believed in them as strongly as you believe in yours.

“YOU may not be arguing...”
The video was saying that the Atheist is wrong to say that Thor isn’t like the Abrahamic God as he didn’t create the world. (“What has this being created” – Philos) My argument is tat in every religion I have ever heard about there is a creation story. Thus philos is WRONG. He even likens Thor to the Spaghetti monster seriously! Every atheist who uses the FSM is making fun of religion, not being serious. There were sacrifices to the ancient Gods, for goodness sake! Do you think the Ancient Aztecs brutally sacrificed that many people to Gods they didn’t think was real?

“… how can you safely say you are an atheist to…”
Agreed. I will amend myself here. I am an atheist to every religion which contradicts the knowledge I have. This knowledge can be updated and changed as I gain more experience, and as I travel through life. At this moment in time I do not believe the Old Testament. This is because if a book which claims to be perfectly correct is false then the whole book must be false. As I know that Judaism is false I can also see that Christianity, Islam and Bahá'í are incorrect.

“Ah, ah, ah. Phileos never said…”
Yes he did. I will now quote directly from the buffoon:
“If we assume, for the sake of the argument, there is a creator. We must logically ask our self : What has this being created? It’s obvious we are talking about the universe and everything in it. So the first step here is to refer to this notion of God as the Creator. The designer of the universe. And not to refer to the notion, to what people have invented as myths and fables. These are two completely different arguments in reality. So what we are doing her is matching what has been created to a creator. And not the myths people have created, that is Thor, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, etc, to the idea or notion of a God.”

The fact that the Christian God is lumped in with everything else an atheist disbelieves is hardly surprising. But for the sake of this argument I will concede that the idea of an Abrahamic God is not the same as Santa, but ONLY when we are using the phrase “one less God”. I would like to make one critical point though. Thor is a GOD and to be atheist towards him is equal to being atheist to the Abrahamic God. They are both Gods.

Majoring in Religion does not seem to of helped you read or think with clear thoughts. The only reason Christianity exists is because Judaism exists (existed at the time of Jesus). The Old testament was used as fact by priests up until only a couple of hundred years ago, Which is a very, very short time when we consider the history of the human race. Or even the history of Christianity. The only reason people stopped was because scientists proved them wrong.

“…I quoted Francis Collins to demonstrate that…”
Perhaps if you had responded to my most recent response instead of an older one, you would have realised that I have proved your argument wrong. But because you seemed to of missed it I will re post it for you.
“We are talking about logic, not the laws of physics. Logic is a human construct. It occurs only in our minds. You can not touch logic. It is a way of thinking. I assume you believe that God has a mind. Therefore, in God’s mind there must be the capacity for logical thought.”
What I am saying is that Logic isn’t a law or constant, it is a way of thinking. Thus he cannot be above it as it is everywhere there is thought. Unless you are assuming that God can’t think?
Oh and Philos uses, what he thinks is logic, as a way of proving God doesn’t need a creator. He even uses the phrase “this is logic” to back up his arguments.

“The "strawman argument" is actually…”
I can see this argument going round in circles and us arguing over very inconsequential trivialities. We both see that each side has a flawed argument. I see that; the idea of a God who is all loving, all forgiving and good, is blatantly stupid if you take into account natural disasters and the existence of hell. You see that; bad things happening, does not disprove God at all. It just proved that God wanted to create a world where nature kills thousands indiscriminately.
I have already said that the “Bad things happen so God does not exist” doesn’t work. But I also said that it disproves the personality which most Christians have tacked onto their God.
So can we just give it a rest and say we both agree?

Anyway. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me.

Here are the points I think you missed:

1 – You stated that because Jesus existed in history this makes the entire Abrahamic concept of God different from the concept of the Ancient Greek Gods. I said that although Jesus probably did exist there is no historical evidence that he was the son of God or that he was God or that God even exists.
2 - Philos contradicts himself and says that human’s have free will, then says that they are used by God.
3 – All of fallacy 4 (including the Good/bad argument and the make-the-world-nice argument)

I have conceded points in order for us to come to an agreement. It would be nice (and more truthful) if you conceded when you were blatantly wrong.

I hope you have a great day!

E

Funny Logic

2007-10-11T23:06:00.000Z

I was sitting in my Advanced Law Lecture thinking about logic. I admit I should of been paying attention to the lecturer, but it was all about accounting practices, which I had learned about last year.
It started off like this:

(1)
I am learning.
Learning instils knowledge in the student.
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Therefore, we can say:
"Learning corrupts and learning everything corrupts the student completely."
"Knowledge corrupts and absolute knowledge corrupts absolutely."

I wrote this down and passed it my Christian friend. I also added a not saying; "Does this logic work?"
He thought about it for a second and replied with this.

(2)
Ignorance leads to fear;
fear leads to anger;
anger leads to violence;
violence leads to war.
Violence and war are evil.
Therefore we can see that not learning is evil.

He then wrote: "Are we screwed?"

Well I would be inclined to agree with him. Either We learn too much or to little. And both will cause us trouble. Hehe. Something to think about, no doubt about that.

Well this was on my mind all day, and when I got home, I wrote it down again, and included his reply. I brooded on it for a while then a thought struck me.

Using (1) we can say;
"Any being which has free will, and knows everything, must be inherently evil."

And using (2) we can say;
"Any being which has free will, and knows nothing, must be inherently evil."

Therefore we can say... Yup you guessed what I was thinking...

"If God knows everything then he is evil."

Mr. Deity Season 2 Promos

2007-10-11T22:58:00.000Z

I love the Mr. Deity sketches! The are just so funny!

Promo 1.0

Promo 1.1

Haha! So. Damn. Good!

Click HERE to see the other videos.

Muhammad was a paedophile

2007-10-02T23:36:00.000Z

Video buy CapnOAwesome

An article on puberty.

Video by aim786

I never knew this. Its really strange that someone would look to a paedophile for moral guidance. Paedophiles are disgusting, vile creatures.

Ken Ham is a chimp

2007-10-01T02:31:00.000Z

A strangely chimp-like Ken Ham vs evolution.
Ken Ham explains why Christians should take the bible completely or reject it completely.

Objective Morality vs Subjective Morality

2007-09-30T23:45:00.000Z

g0at and Veritas48 disguss objective morality and subjective morality.

Refuting Atheism Series - The Argument From Morality

Refuting Atheism Series - The Argument From Morality reply

Why Moral Relativism Fails - A Response to g0at part1

Why Moral Relativism Fails - A Response to g0at part2

Objective Vs Subjective Morals

Re: Objective Vs Subjective Morals

Well I hope that was a interesting to you as it was to me!
Both g0at and Veritas48 are very well spoken. I still agree with g0at though. I also noted that there were a few points that g0at ignored as well as there being a few key points that Veritas48 seemed to specifically ignore.

A Very Strong Argument for Atheism

2007-09-29T01:37:00.001Z

Dastardly VenomFangX

2007-09-29T00:18:00.000Z

This video is awesome!
Sooooo damn cool!

chadagg
g0at
healthyaddict
ridi0t
VenomFangX

Funny Picture

The Privileged Planet

2007-09-27T15:34:00.000Z

This video is split into 6 parts

I found the videos very interesting until about half way through the 5th video. That was the point that they started hinting about Intelligent Design.

Also I found Jay Richards... I don't quite know how to describe it... I suppose unsettling would be the best word. The hollow eyes, the blank unchanging expression and the puppet like way he moved...*Shudder*
Also he is a philosopher from the "Discovery Institute", which is barely scientific. It strongly advocated ID and the "teach the controversy" campaign.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Cool! Velociraptor Feathers!

2007-09-20T23:27:00.000Z

[This post is copy-pasted from New Scientist]

Bumpy bones suggest Velociraptor had feathers

19:00 20 September 2007
Roxanne Khamsi

Tiny knobs identified on the forelimb fossils of the Velociraptor suggest that the dinosaur species had feathers, according to researchers.

The scientists spotted the telltale bumps, to which feather quills attach, while re-examining Velociraptor bones unearthed in Mongolia in 1998. They say that the findings add to a body of evidence that feathers evolved for some purpose besides flight as Velociraptors were too big to lift off the ground.

The Velociraptor, made famous by the movie Jurassic Park, lived about 80 million years ago and belongs to a group of dinosaurs known as dromeosaurs.

Archaeologists have previously identified the outline of feathers in its smaller dromeosaur relatives such as the chicken-sized Microraptor – some of which have been preserved exceptionally well in fine lake sediments.

Over the past decade, scientists have increasingly suspected that Velociraptors also had feathers. But Velociraptor fossils, such as the one found in Mongolia, appear in sandstone, which does not preserve tissues such as feathers.
Bumpy bones

In the absence of Velociraptor feathers in the archaeological record, Alan Turner at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US, decided to take a closer look at Velociraptor bones for signs of quill knobs. Such knobs evolved as a place for the ligaments of feathers to attach, Turner explains.

While examining the Mongolian Velociraptor fossils he found the telltale bumps on the ulna – a bone that extends along the creature's front limb. The knobs, which appear in a row spaced about 4 millimetres apart, are raised less than 1 mm above the bone surface.

"These are really quite subtle features. I felt them before I saw them. They are easy to overlook," he says.

The discovery strongly supports the idea that Velociraptors were covered in feathers, Turner adds. "A lack of quill knobs does not necessarily mean that a dinosaur did not have feathers," he says. "Finding quill knobs on Velociraptor, though, means that it definitely had feathers."
T. Rex feathers?

This confirmation of Velociraptor’s feathers is "exciting" but also raises new questions, says Gerald Mayr at the Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt, Germany. "I wonder why the knobs are not visible on the other specimens" of Velociraptor, he says.

Turner acknowledges that he could not find quill knobs on all the Velociraptor ulnas he examined. He believes that these bumps sometimes simply failed to fossilise because they are such fine surface features.

A bigger question, says Turner, is what purpose the feathers might have served. Velociraptor is likely to have stood at about a metre tall and weighed about 13 kilograms. The creature's relatively large body size and the fact that it had short forelimbs mean that it lacked the ability to fly.

Turner suggests that feathers might have evolved to insulate body heat instead of to enable the dinosaurs to fly. It is also possible that Velociraptor used its feathers to manoeuvre while running or for mating display, he adds.

The team is now re-examining the bones of larger dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus rex for quill knobs to see whether they also boasted feathers. "I'm basically finding any ulna I can get," Turner says.

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1145076)

Homo floresiensis - the Hobbit

2007-09-20T23:23:00.000Z

[This post is basically just a Copy-paste job from the New Scientist website.]

'Hobbit' wrist bones suggests a distinct species

19:00 20 September 2007
Bob Holmes

The tiny, human-like creature living and using tools in Indonesia just 18,000 years ago really was a distinct species, not just a malformed modern human.

That is the clear implication of a new study of the so-called "hobbit". It states that the creature had wrist bones almost identical to those found in early hominids and modern chimpanzees, and so must have diverged from the human lineage well before the origin of modern humans and Neanderthals.

Palaeontologists have battled bitterly over the diminutive skeleton ever since its discoverers described it as a new species, Homo floresiensis, three years ago.

Its exceptionally tiny brain simply did not fit with the current understanding of human evolution, particularly since no other hominid fossils in the last 3 million years, and none outside of Africa, had such a small brain.

This dissonance led sceptics to argue that the hobbit must be merely a modern human with some form of microcephaly – a disorder which causes an abnormally small head and brain.

Most of the argument has centered on the skull, even though much of the rest of the skeleton was excavated at the same time. When Matthew Tocheri, a palaeoanthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, happened by chance to see casts of the specimen's wrist bones, he knew they told an important story.
Ancient structure

Tocheri, an expert in the evolution of the human wrist, could see immediately that the hobbit's wrist bones looked just like those of a chimpanzee, or an early hominid such as Australopithecus, and had none of the specialisations for grasping that are seen in the wrist bones of modern humans. A careful statistical comparison gave the same conclusion.

"The modern human wrist hasn't looked like this for at least 800,000 years, and maybe much longer," says Tocheri. "It was immediately apparent to me that the hobbit is the real deal."

Developmental abnormalities such as microcephaly are unlikely to change the shape of the wrist bones, he adds, because the shape of these bones is laid down very early in development, long before the genes controlling growth rates become active.

Other soon-to-be-published studies of the hobbit's foot bones, upper arm and shoulder also suggest that its anatomy differed from that of modern humans. "As you add these up, you do certainly get a picture of something distinct and not human," says Chris Stringer, an authority on human evolution at the Natural History Museum in London, UK.

However, Robert Martin, a primatologist at the Field Museum in Chicago, US, who is the leading advocate of the microcephaly explanation, remains unconvinced. No one has studied the wrist bones of microcephalic humans, he notes, so it is pure conjecture to say they would not look like the hobbit's bones.

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1147143)

Inside Kirk Cameron's Brain

2007-09-20T18:25:00.000Z

Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan

2007-09-17T03:02:00.000Z

I am in the process of reading an e-Mail debate between these two gentlemen.

It is extremely interesting, and I will try to finish reading it soon, but for the moment I must sleep. University is starting tomorrow, back from summer break ANd this year is my degree year.

Anyway...Just click the link below.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html

Have a good day!

x

Tatsuya Ishida

2007-09-16T18:36:00.000Z

Tatsuya Ishida is a great artist who has a great webcomic. It's really funny.

Click here to go to his website.

Soo Good!

Religion trying to save the world

2007-09-16T18:27:00.000Z

"On the face of it, trying to get Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to agree on something might seem about as hopeless as herding cats. But that's what was achieved last week on a ship in the Arctic, as religious leaders gathered to make a silent "prayer for the planet".

They stopped short of openly asking a deity to reverse global warming, but their vigil symbolises a growing consensus between religions on the seriousness of global warming. "Whatever denomination we are, we will try to proclaim loud and clear that we should, we must, pay attention to the water resources and climate change," said Cardinal Thomas McCarrick, who represented the Roman Catholic church.

The vigil in the Ilulissat Icefjord, the largest glacier in Greenland, was organised by Religion, Science and the Environment, a non-governmental organisation based in Greece."

Quote from issue 2621 of New Scientist magazine, 16 September 2007, page 4

Quotes 2

2007-09-16T18:07:00.000Z

I have found a really interesting website with some really good atheist quotes.

Click here to go to it.

These are some of my favourites.

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips

I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence.
- Doug McLeod

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
- Gene Roddenberry

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein

We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected.
- Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, 1988

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.
- unknown

Carl Sagan on Family Guy

2007-09-16T01:27:00.000Z

So Good!

Red state

2007-09-16T01:16:00.000Z

Creationist museum on British news

2007-09-16T01:07:00.000Z

A Channel 4 report on the Creationism Museum.

America, take heed! The world is watching you ... and laughing a lot!

Isn't satire fun?

2007-09-14T19:39:00.000Z

A mother defends her son.

2007-09-14T16:53:00.000Z

This editorial is from Sunday's Concord Monitor. Sunday, April 30, 2000

By SHARON UNDERWOOD

As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be. Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic I don't know. I can only tell you that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "Whatever happened to the idea of striving… to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

Sharon Underwood lives in White River Junction, Vt.

Poll shows religion concerns American voters.

2007-09-12T19:15:00.000Z

"One in four people in the U.S. said in a recent poll that they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who is Mormon....according to the poll by two nonpartisan research groups, the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life."
No surprise there then. Who would want a another stupid president? You have to be very gullible to be a Mormon.

"Yet the survey found two groups, atheists and Muslims, were even less likely to win votes."

"Sixty-one percent of those questioned said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who did not believe in God."
Atheists: people who think that God doesn't exist.

"Forty-five percent said the same for a Muslim contender."
Muslims: responsible for the destruction of the twin towers. The single biggest attack on American soil I recent years. It kills thousands directly, and tens of thousands indirectly, through war.

Oh yes! I can see that they are both so evil. Yes all those lives lost! The religion who attacked America is less hated that a bunch of deep thinkers who don't harm anyone.

"Only 5 percent or fewer said they would be likelier to support candidates who were atheists, Muslims or Mormons,"

"16 percent said they would be less likely to support an evangelical Christian candidate, though 19 percent said they would be likelier to support one."

"11 percent said they would be less likely to support a Jewish contender, while 9 percent said they would be likelier;"

"7 percent would be less likely to support a Catholic and 13 percent would be likelier;"

"Republicans were likelier than Democrats to express concerns about voting for an atheist, Muslim or a woman, while more Democrats than Republicans said they would be less likely to support an evangelical Christian."

Full article at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20692635/.

String Theory

2007-09-08T15:19:00.000Z

I have one thing to say. String Theory.

The above link will take you to a video hosted by Google Video. It details the creation of string theory.

I really really want everyone to watch the above video! String theory is so beautiful and elegant.

Other useful links:

tenthdimension.com/medialinks
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program

I love string theory. The idea that the universe is built with music is just so beautiful. Like a universal orchestra playing a wonderful symphony of everthing. It fills me with such joy every time I think about it. I get goosebumps just watching the video.

VenomFangX

2007-09-08T14:54:00.000Z

VenomFangX

Logical fallacies that theists use

2007-09-08T14:37:00.000Z

theskepticsguide.org/

Out with the old...

2007-09-08T00:40:00.000Z

another great video by Chadagg.

Evil Blog

2007-09-06T16:22:00.000Z

My blog is EVIL!

I just looked at the page load stats for my blog and it was exactly 666!
For an atheist blog I think that is quite cool. Hehe!

Not that I believe any of that superstitious nonsense.

See you

x

One less God

2007-09-05T20:19:00.000Z

I have been told by theists that the phrase "I just believe in one less God" is wrong as Thor and Zeus were just myths.

WRONG!

Thor and Jesus were worshipped at the same time. To believers in Thor he was the God of thunder. he was absolute fact to those people.
In fact from 100ad to 600ad many people in Britain worshipped;
the British Gods (e.g. Cernunnos)
the Roman Gods (imported by the Romans),
the Egyptian Gods (imported by the Romans),
The Norse Gods (imported by the Saxons and the Danes),
and the Christian God (imported by the Romans) at the same time! They were the ultimate fence sitters.
We still find amulets with a Christian cross on one side and Thor's hammer on the other.
In fact many people at that time believed that the Gods were at war with each other. They didn't want to offend the winner so they worshipped all of them.

The Greek Pantheon had all its own stories, rules and creation story;

"The most widely accepted account of beginning of things as reported by Hesiod's Theogony, starts with Chaos, a yawning nothingness.
Out of the void emerged Ge or Gaia (the Earth) and some other primary divine beings: Eros (Love), the Abyss (the Tartarus), and the Erebus.
Without male assistance Gaia gave birth to Uranus (the Sky) who then fertilised her.
From that union were born, first, the Titans: six males and six females (Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis and Mnemosyne, Phoebe and Tethys, and Cronus); then the one-eyed Cyclopes and the Hecatonchires or Hundred-Handers.
Cronus ("the wily, youngest and most terrible of Gaia's children")castrated his father and became the ruler of the gods with his sister-wife Rhea as his consort and the other Titans became his court.
This motif of father/son conflict was repeated when Cronus was confronted by his son, Zeus. Zeus, persuaded by his mother, challenged him to war for the kingship of the gods. At last, with the help of the Cyclopes, (whom Zeus freed from Tarturus), Zeus and his siblings were victorious, while Cronus and the Titans were hurled down to imprisonment in Tartarus." Extract from Wikipedia

They even have an explanation as to why the Gods don't turn up any more. Which is one better than Christians.

"Bridging the age when gods lived alone and the age when divine interference in human affairs was limited was a transitional age in which gods and men moved together. These were the early days of the world when the groups mingled more freely than they did later. Most of these tales were later told by Ovid's Metamorphoses and they are often divided in two thematic groups: tales of love, and tales of punishment."

"Mythology was at the heart of everyday life in ancient Greece. Greeks regarded mythology as a part of their history. They used myth to explain natural phenomena, cultural variations, traditional enmities and friendships. It was a source of pride to be able to trace one's leaders' descent from a mythological hero or a god. Few ever doubted that there was truth behind the account of the Trojan War in the Iliad and Odyssey. According to Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, columnist, political essayist and former Classics professor, and John Heath, associate professor of Classics at Santa Clara University, the profound knowledge of the Homeric epos was deemed by the Greeks the basis of their acculturation. Homer was the "education of Greece" (Ἑλλάδος παίδευσις), and his poetry "the Book"."

In other words. People worshipped these Gods. Ok? To the people at the time they were Gods not myths. They believed in them as much as the most strict Christian believes in his/her God.

As for the Norse Pantheon;

Just click here to find out about the Gods.

Click here to find out about their creation story. This one really is very strange.

Why does God not talk to us any more?

2007-09-05T19:50:00.000Z

This is a comment I left on a video by Kent Hovind.

You see, I don't agree with believing a book because the book tells me to.
What I wonder is why Jesus or God never turn up any more. It says in the bible that they used to do it all the time. It would be really easy, for an all powerful god to prove himself once and for all, by just turning up on camera. e.g hold a press conference.
EVERYONE would believe then.
And don't say "he's testing us" because you know as well as I do; that you just made that up.

Evolution videos

2007-09-05T00:48:00.000Z

In one of my previous posts Chadagg recomended watching these videos:

Why Creationists are WRONG about MacroEvolution

cdk007 comments on his video:
Here I show how creationists are wron... Here I show how creationists are wrong when it comes to MacroEvolution (MaE). MaE is defined as evolution at or above the species level. This means MaE includes speciation. Despite what creationists say there are examples of new species occurring in nature, and scientists have produced new species in the lab. Many creationists claim that MaE means there must be a huge change in appearance. This is false. Many sister species, existing in the same genus and the cases we have of new species occurring in nature, share many characteristics. A new species of mosquito will still resemble a mosquito, and a new species of worm will still resemble a worm. Only after many speciation events will large changes begin to accumulate. This may take tens to hundreds of millions of years.
Many ID/creationists do accept MicroEvolution (MiE), but claim MiE is different from MaE. Here I show how a MiE step can lead to a MaE event through the evolution of the sperm egg receptor ligand complex. A species is best defined as a group of organism that can successfully produce fertile offspring. Once the sperm of one population can no longer fertilize the eggs of another population and vice versa, we have two species.
Finally, many creationists claim that there is not enough variation within a species to allow for the large changes in phenotype (appearance). Anyone who claims this has obviously never seen the myriad of dog breeds, all of which were derived from the same species, wolf.
My point here is, MacroEvolution includes speciation, and speciation has been observed in nature and in the lab. Also, MicroEvolutionary steps can result in speciation. Scientists do not doubt MacroEvolution, but they do debate how and under what circumstances it occurs.
For a good read on MacroEvolution go to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution

Oh and if you don't think cdk007 is qualified then this should change your mind:

cdk007 comments on his channel:
As it is a common theme to attack the person and not the argument I thought I would post a list of my degrees in order to dissuade such an attack.
High School Diploma
Associates Degree Chemistry
Associates Degree Physics (Astro-physics)
Bachelors Degree Botany
Masters Degree Biology
Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience

Video 2
genetic evidence planted by SATAN!

RabidApe comments on his video:
Edit: It's ADENINE, not ADENOSINE! Sorry, I'm not actually a geneticist...
jezuzfreek777:
"When science starts refuting God's teachings, then I am suspect of it."
"I believe some things fly in the face of conventional science... because I believe the devil uses science to deceive us and to trick us."
You are clearly beyond reason, so this video isn't directed towards you, as much as the people who watch your videos.
...
I'm baaaaaaaack! I still don't know when I'll have internet at home, so I might be kinda stuck doing longer (hopefully better) videos, but less often...
The script for this video is largely based on a post from 'Leonard' at exchristianDOTnet:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/01/dont-believe-in-evolution.html

I found him to be quite concise. I just wish he hadn't made those remarks about religion in his video, because it could of been great to show creationists. Now if you show them it they will just be confirmed in their beliefs that evolution is a huge grand conspiracy to destroy religion and any morality in the world.

Phone interview with Mr Kent Hovind

2007-09-05T00:43:00.000Z

I laughed so hard when i watched this video! Kent Hovind believes in more evolution than I do!

What one atheist believes.

2007-09-05T00:04:00.000Z

Do you believe in God? That is the God Poseidon

2007-09-04T23:53:00.000Z

The Earth is 6000 years old?

2007-09-04T23:40:00.000Z

Creationist Argument by VenomFangX also known as Sean

VS

Reality's argument by Albert10110 - CoffeeGhost

Oh well... there goes another creationist argument. It was total crap.

The Evolution Revolution

2007-09-04T23:19:00.000Z

The NewsWeek Article

The National Geographic Article

Neanderthals and mtDNA kills Creationist thaught

2007-09-04T22:35:00.000Z

Chadagg does it again! He is always very good at getting his point across.

If anyone can argue with this then I want to see them try.
This video combined with my favourite piece of evidence (the Ken Miller video) really cant be argued against. Creationism is just plain wrong. It must be really terrifying for a creationist to find out that your God didn't create you.

Here is a conversation between Chadagg and a creationist who goes by the name of VenomFangX. It is hilarious. I laughed so hard when I read the final comment by VenomFangX.

Chadagg's response to this video.

Irish Creationist

2007-09-04T16:48:00.000Z

This Irish person believes that Evolution is a Hindu conspiracy to make everyone believe their religion.

I on the other hand think that this is a load of crap.

"Evolution teaches man is god" - NO IT DOESN'T!!!!

It says that man is man. That he used to be a different version and now he is a better version. He is not the final version.

I, personally, think that humans stopped evolving for the better when we created farming. Once food was in plentiful supply the only influences were predators, disease and other humans. Predators are no problem now, fighting disease is getting a lot better, and that just leaves us.
Humans will be the only cause of human evolution in future years.

Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

2007-09-04T14:15:00.001Z

The Bishop seems to be a very decent person. Surprisingly I have almost no problems with The Bishop. He seems to be a very intelligent person. He makes some good points.

Click here to watch the video.

However, having said all that, I do agree with Richard that the Bishop has moved away from his faith. His religion is set in the words of the bible, and to say that the rules of Christianity can be updated is like saying the bible can be updated.

The blog

2007-09-04T05:21:00.000Z

I was just looking at the FEEDJIT widget I have for my blog and I must say I'm very proud of the many places people have visited my blog from.
America, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lebanon Malaysia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, and Uruguay! I find it so cool!
I only started the blog so that I would stop annoying my friends with my religious talk. Talking about religion is just something that is bad manners in Britain. We have a "don't ask don't tell" unwritten rule. Well, that was until people started importing American ideologies into Britain (e.g. Evangelism, Creationism). Scotland always was far more religious than the rest of our Kingdom. But It has been a long held belief of the Anglican Church that Genesis was a metaphor for the power of God.
They liked the idea; "How much more powerful and wonderful God must be, that he could not only create a universe, but a universe that made it's self."
Anyway I just thought it was cool!

c u!

x

Rowan Atkinson Live

2007-09-03T14:48:00.000Z

I love Rowan Atkinson so much! His best work was Black Adder Goes Fourth or Black Adder II but this sketch show with Angus Deayton is just so good!

Please click this link and watch this video!

He is just so funny!

Don't be an arse.

2007-09-03T13:43:00.000Z

I have been thinking about some of the very nasty things that have been said over the internet. I don't agree with the sentiment behind them. Just because someone has very different beliefs from me, does not mean that I don't like them.
I have always judged people on their actions not on their words.
I have a very good friend who is a creationist. He is also a computer whiz, so he is in no way stupid.
We disagree on this matter and sometimes we debate the point. We never raise our voices (or at leas try to) and we have never fallen out over it. It is only one small part of our lives. We also disagree on whether the PlayStation3 is any good but its hardly worth falling out over.

So in the future try not to call creationists deluded, stupid, ignorant, hill billies, or anything like that because sometimes its not true. But mainly because its not nice. It lowers the standard of the debate and turns it into a name calling match. Also If they call you names (e.g. science nerd) just ignore them and continue to prove them wrong.

Have a good day!

Conversations with creationists (3)

2007-09-03T13:28:00.000Z

Here is another open conversation between creationists and atheists.

Atheist:
How could the entire world be populated in such a short time? I can’t even begin to imagine the sheer volume of sex required for that to happen.
And if anyone died before they could have all their children the whole thing wouldn't work.

Theist (1):
The only thing that would not work, is kissing a frog and having it turn into a prince. Billions of years later.

Theist(2):
150 people die every minute. Our sex lives must be keeping up.

Atheist:
That seems a very round number, but for the sake of argument I will agree with you. Now think how difficult it would be to repopulate a planet from 8 people. Then think how difficult it would be without any of our medicine, living in mud huts and not having any way of defending yourself.

Atheist:
That also doesn't go anywhere near explaining how we have such massive variation in human physiology; when you consider the difference between the Japanese and Nigerians, or even the difference between Mexicans and the Swedish it just seems stupid.
And all this is supposed to of happened in the 2000 years between the flood and Jesus?

Atheist:
Continuing the above thought. If the changes, needed to create every ethnic race on the face of the planet, happened in the 2000 years between the flood and Jesus; why did the ethnicity of humanity not change again in the subsequent 2000 years? If all the humans on earth came from 8 Jewish people, how come we all look different?

Creationist does not reply.

Conversations with Creationists (2)

2007-09-03T13:18:00.000Z

Here is another open conversation between creationists and atheists.

Atheist:
Unfortunately for All creationists evolution as been proven. There is no doubt any more. There is no maybe. There is only the cold hard fact of the matter. There are thousands of transition fossils. There is no such thing as Irreducible complexity. And Humans share, without a shadow of a doubt, a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

Atheist(guess who):
Just search for:

"I love facts"

In Google. Remember to use the speech marks.

Creationist:
Great SCOTTS! YOU PROVEN TO ME EVOLUTION OCCURED! All this time I believed in God. When all I needed was for you to say those things. prais you, oh mighty science nerd.

Atheist:
Ahhh! I understand now! This "science" thing is too "nerdy" for you. It involves using far too much of your meagre brain cells. I mean, why try to understand the world when there are other "nerdy" people who can do it for you?

Creationist:
Great. Now please stop bothering me.

Atheist:
Ha! You were the one who replied to my comment! You started the dialogue between us! You really shouldn't leave comments on You Tube if you don't want people to reply to you.

This just goes to show that the average atheist thinks, just a bit, more than the average creationist. I love understating.

Conversations with creationists (1)

2007-09-03T12:56:00.000Z

Here is an open conversation between creationists and atheists.

Atheist (1):
Came from a rock >_<, life formed from amino acids that formed in the oceans as they condensed out around 4 billion years ago. These amino acids are made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, 4 of the most common things in the universe. The amino acids can combine to form DNA and RNA; scientists have been able to recreate this process in lab experiments.

Atheist (2):
Yeah! I know! How dumb is Kent! He over simplifies EVERYTHING he says. Because his audience is a bit simple, to say the least! "Everything came from a rock!" isn't that what "God" supposedly made man from?

Creationist:
Yes, but this does not prove anything. disease did not come before sin, which did not come before man. It's a theory that this is what we come from. A false one at that.

Atheist (2):
I am sorry but I don't really see what you are trying to say.
You are quoting a book, written several thousand years ago by humans, as if it was an undeniable source of absolute truth.
Creationists often use the argument: "how do you know evolution happened? You weren't there to witness it" well the same argument could be used for the writing of your book.

Creationist:
Historical records says supports the truth.

Atheist (2):
You are still not getting this. The bible is NOT a historical RECORD. It is a story. Even if it was to be considered "historical" it is still biased by the author’s views and wishes.

Creationist:
See you don't know anything about The Bible. "It is a a story" by saying this you proved one thing. you know nothing of it. It would be "Stories". and was supported by true history. Now maybe you should stfu cuz you just got owned

Atheist (2):
Wow! I used bad grammar and that makes my argument false. I see your reasoning.

Oh and by the way. There is ZERO historical evidence that a person called Moses ever existed. There is ZERO historical evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians. So... in other words: IT’S NOT HISTORICAL!

Creationist does not reply.

100th post!

2007-08-31T03:03:00.000Z

I cant believe I got beyond twenty, but here I am writing my one hundredth post.

I have decided to make it short and sweet.

Just two pictures.

Simple is usually best.

Islam intelligent evolution?

2007-08-29T06:00:00.000Z

To my great shame I know very little of the Qur'an. I am not living up to my motto; "Know your enemy".

800 years ago, all the great scientific advancements of the day were coming out of the middle east.
E.g. astronomy (the earth goes around the sun instead of other way round], algebra, etc...

Apparently, at this time, Muslims came up with the idea of intelligent design. Which, if you think about it, was before evolution was discovered!

Now, if this is true, thats awesome!

These guys were really steam rolling ahead with the scientific advancement. That was, until the Fundamentalists got in charge. The Fundies decided that the only area of study should be the Qur'an. SEE! I keep saying it! Fundamentalism is very, very, very BAD!

If you want to read the article here is the link.

Evolution of God

2007-08-29T02:36:00.000Z

Just a light hearted video about how God evolved Pokemon-style.

Evidence That God = Spaghetti Monster! - Funny video clips are a click away

Omid Djalili

2007-08-29T02:30:00.000Z

This guy is a comic genius! He is a British comedian who was originally from Iran.

Awesome.

Christian Pop

2007-08-29T02:25:00.001Z

On my list of reasons not to be a fundamentalist Christian, Christian pop is number 4. It's just behind "homophobia" at number 3, "hypocrisy" at number 2, and "The bible is a load of crap" at number one.

*Shudder*

The best lines in the song are:

Read the bible
you'll be sure
to enter Heaven
There's no back door!
Richous man
get on your knees
There lies no virtue in sodomy!

Now if that isn't double-entendre, I don't know what is!

I have always thought that the type of person who gets obsessed with homosexuality is more than likely gay. I personally think that Fred Phelps is gay and hates himself so much that he turned his hate on the world.

A scene from Inherit the Wind

2007-08-27T06:52:00.000Z

A very powerful scene from the film "Inherit the Wind".

A Creationism Museum Documentary

2007-08-27T06:48:00.000Z

I often wondered what the inside of the creation museum looked like.

Here are some pictures. from a different source.

Is Hearing Both Sides Fair?

2007-08-27T06:45:00.000Z

Question: Evolution vs. Creationism: Is Hearing Both Sides Fair?

Answer: No.

How would you like to ask permission?

2007-08-27T06:21:00.000Z

I think this video speaks for it's self.

10 reasons Homosexual marriage is Un-American

2007-08-27T06:12:00.000Z

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

If you want to know more, click here.

Homosexuality, homophobia and "The Choice"

2007-08-27T05:24:00.000Z

I decided to tackle another big subject: Homosexuality and religious based homophobia. I will concentrate mostly on men as they are the greater target of religious based prejudice. Plus I am far more knowledgeable about male homosexuals.

The main argument I can see is the Leviticus 18:22 quote.

Well as the West Wing points out that is rather silly.
The other I have heard is that homosexuality is a choice, taken consciously. Lets think about that for a second. The users of this argument believe that some people have decided to be gay. That they woke up one morning and thaught to them self; "what shall I do today? Hmm. I think I will be gay."

If that is too silly an argument, lets look at the pros and cons of being homosexual.

Pros:
i. If you are amazingly attractive and a guy, it is slightly easier to have sex.

ii. Your sexual partner knows how to stimulate your body, as they have a similar one, and thus your sexual experiences could be better.

Cons:
i. Lets face it guys. We all know that the first thing on our minds is sex. When a relationship is between a man and a woman; the man will try to engage in sexual activities and the woman will resist his advances. Women concentrate on the relationship side of a partnership, men concentrate on the sexual side. So imagine two men. It would be damn near impossible to get into any type of meaningful relationship.

ii. Only 5% of the population of the planet is homosexual. So that seriously cuts down the number of possible partners.

iii. I admit that most men are shallow. Gay men are AT LEAST twice as bad. Therefore if you don’t look like a CK model you are going to be alone.

iv. It is still illegal in many countries.

v. Even in countries that it is legal it is still dangerous to be Homosexual.

vi. Even in countries where it relatively is safe to be homosexual the laws still don’t treat homosexuals equally.

vii. It is extremely difficult for a homosexual to have children. Especially if the child is to be a blood relative and not just adopted.

viii. Parents often disown homosexual children or appear estranged from them.

ix. There is still a hell of a lot of social stigma involved with being gay.

x. Crack pot religious people think you are evil or try to “save” you.

xi. When you "come out" you stand the very real chance of losing all your friends.

So, from the male perspective, the best possible outcome would be; slightly better sex, and possibly more of it.
The worst case scenario would be losing all your friends, never seeing your family again, and being chucked out of your house. Then growing old alone. Then dying childless. If he is in a unfriendly country, he will probably die by being brutally murdered.

To me, the very idea that someone would choose this existence is ridiculous. The disadvantages overshadow the possible advantages so hugely that the advantages might as well not exist.

The Northern lights new trailer

2007-08-23T02:22:00.000Z

I CANT WAIT ANY LONGER! I need to see this film. It just looks soooo damn cool!

logical fallacies

2007-08-23T01:55:00.000Z

This guy is really quite good at explaining his point.

Ricky Gervais

2007-08-22T06:38:00.000Z

Ricky Gervais was the comedian who created and stared in the television series "The Office". The office was copied in America with Steve Carell replacing Ricky.

He then went on to do a series called "Extras". Brilliant.

A magic man dun it.

2007-08-21T02:14:00.000Z

hehe
I thought it was a bit French, with the accordion and the mime act.

p.s.
ITV is a British television company. A low brow version of the BBC.

How to beat a creationist at their own game

2007-08-20T12:36:00.000Z

I have lost count of the number of times that a creationist has said to me; "how can you know that evolution is true? you weren't there to witness it". An I have usually replied with "Don't be a moron! We have proof!"
From now on I will use a different tact thanks to a comment by "adamice9" on youtube. Here he comments on a Kent Hovind video.

"Hey Kent, did you talk to everyone who ever lived before you wrote your sermon that we all descend from Adam and Eve? You might believe that, but it's not part of science. Oh, and did you ever talk to a talking snake in a tree or talk with everyone who ever lived to see if THEY had ever seen a talking snake in a tree? You might believe a talking snake once existed, but it's not part of science."

If they can believe a book because it tells them to, then they should at least be able to accept when a human tells them something!

The best apples in the world

2007-08-18T09:57:00.000Z

Mmmm ... I like green apples

Great point as usual.

An interview with Dawkins

2007-08-18T09:01:00.001Z

This is a very interesting interview with Richard Dawkins. The host then goes on to interview his critics. Both sides make a very good argument. Athough I did get the feeling that the critics commented more on him than on his arguments. Altogether a very strong argument from his critics.

Here is the link.

Aliens?

2007-08-18T06:16:00.000Z

I don't like this idea. I am not a fan. It has been around for a long time. It is possible that aliens are the origins of religion but just as much as God is possible.
Here are a couple of videos that describe interpretations of events to include aliens.
American Gods - (If this is true, this is very cool)

Pyramids - (I think this guy has a screw lose)

Personally I think aliens have never visited earth.

The man without a memory

2007-08-18T05:33:00.000Z

I just watched this video and was amazed.

Why the world needed religion.

2007-08-18T04:40:00.000Z

Before you get confused wait a second and think about it. For a very long tome Religion was the only source of money for the great artists, architects and visionarys. In fact most of the very early science was done with religious funding.
I say this because I am interested solely with the truth. If I allow myself to be corrupted and lower myself to the level of a liar I would be no better than Kent Hovind. I whole heartedly believe that the world no longer requires religion but it was indeed very important to the creation of the modern world.

Everything I say from this point on is my personal unsubstantiated thoughts. Not fact but reason.

I imagine that in the early days of man's sentience, they learned how to talk. It could easily of been the other way around, but it works better in my head this way. One man would discover something which could benefit the tribe and would pass the knowledge on. "Don't eat the red berry from the tree with the big leaves or things like that." Eventually the society would need to create rules by which they lived, to prevent anarchy and help the group survive. These rules and guidances would help make the raising of children easier, and thus the tribe more successful. The only problem is that they must be learned by every member so that they could interact properly with the group.
How would they do this?

Well I have an idea. but first I would like you to watch this video.
It is a clip from a telivision program called "BBC - Get Smart".

So if people remember things better if told as a story...
By putting two and two together, we can work out that any society which remembered its rules and warnings as a story, would survive better than a society which didn't.
Thus a story which tells of a vision telling someone to not eat a certain food will be better remembered that just being told not to eat it.

Thus, I put to you, that in humanity's formative years religion was the one thing which protected the hard won wisdom of our ancestors.

But then again I might be wrong. We may never know.

Our little universe

2007-08-18T04:37:00.000Z

Awesome in the true meaning of the word!

American ignorance of Arabs

2007-08-18T03:41:00.001Z

I really cant stress this enough. Know your Enemy. that is the best piece of advice that I can ever give you. Knowledge is power! If you are ever going to beat someone you MUST know everything about them.

This video just proves to me that America will never win in the middle east.

Knowledge is the only power which can defeat all enemys. Do you think that the terrorist factions of the middle east know nothing of America? Of course not! they do their research.

And don't forget: Any argument made without knowledge is easily defeated.

Thaught provoking

2007-08-18T03:27:00.000Z

I dont know much about Sleeper Cell but I thought it was very good.

Monotheism? Umm... it didn't start that way!

2007-08-17T05:15:00.000Z

Enough said really.

Isn't hare annoying?

2007-08-17T04:31:00.000Z

Chadagg left the following in the comments for this video:
"*UPDATE* I said humans had the exact same number of hair follicles, but I left out the qualifier "PER UNIT AREA". We actually have MORE hair follicles than chimps, but if the chimps (or ANY of the great apes) were to grow to our size we'd have the exact same total number of hair follicles.
The Creationist explanation for our body hair makes absolutely no sense. Even if a god really did design humans and chimps based on the same blueprint, THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE BODY HAIR!!! All that suggests (in a god-world) is a god that deliberately wanted to make it look AS IF we share a common ancestor with apes. You'd be believing in a god that was deliberately trying to fool people...what kind of god is that?"

I always think that Chadagg puts his point across perfectly.

All shall be forgiven....almost.

2007-08-12T09:33:00.000Z

Is every rapist in hell? - no rape is forgiveable!
Is every paedophile in hell? - no child molesting is forgiveable!
Is every murderer in hell? - no murder is forgiveable!
Is every genocidal maniac in hell? - no slaughter is forgiveable!

The only unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against the holy spirit.

Christianity allows you to do horrible things and just say sorry.... except being an atheist!

"Luke 12: 10
Everyone who speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

"Mark 3: 29
Whomsoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

They say this TWICE in the new testament!

I pointed this out to a Christian friend of mine and he didn't believe me. But then again I think he didn't want to know as he used to be atheist. So it would mean that he was going to hell. hehe

Quotes

2007-08-08T17:29:00.000Z

"The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."
Robert Jackson

"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes."
James Feibleman

"A cult is a religion with no political power."
Tom Wolfe

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg

"When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion."
Abraham Lincoln

"Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science."
Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"

"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
Bill Gates

"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."
Thomas Paine

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."

Carl Sagan

Things that are not in the U.S. Constitution

2007-08-07T22:56:00.000Z

I love the web tool "Stumble!". It takes me all over the internet and takes me to many interesting web pages.

Here is a particularly interesting one, called "Things that are not in the U.S. Constitution".

Well as you can guess I looked for mention of religion. Guess what I found!
Here is a quote:

God

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.

Here is the link.

I found it illuminating.

How do Religious Fundimentalists see Atheists?

2007-07-31T15:14:00.000Z

This has often been a problem when dealing with the religious. They have this image of what Atheists are. They immediately go on the offensive because they think we are evil.

The best way to deal with it is to be as normal as possible. Also be as good and decent as possible and shame them out of their belief that you are PURE EVIL. hehe

Atheist eve

2007-07-30T19:07:00.000Z

This is quite a funny little web comic, but more importantly it highlights some good arguments.

Mr. Deity why do bad things happen?

2007-07-30T18:38:00.000Z

These are hilarious shorts by Brian Keith Dalton.

" The 42-year-old from Temecula said his musings about why God would permit natural disasters, such as the devastating tsunami of 2004, led to the creation of the character Mr. Deity." extract from a LA times article

Mr. Deity Episode 1: Mr. Deity and the evil

Mr. Deity Episode 2: Mr. Deity and the Really Big Favor

Mr. Deity Episode 3: Mr. Deity and The Light

Mr. Deity Episode 4: Mr. Deity and the Messages

Mr. Deity Episode 5: Mr. Deity and Lucifer

Mr. Deity Superbowl Extra: The Press Conference

Mr. Deity Episode 7: Mr. Deity and the Tour de Hell

Mr. Deity Episode 8: Mr. Deity and the Top Ten

Mr. Deity Episode 9: Mr. Deity and the Book

Mr. Deity Episode 10: Mr. Deity and the Seed

I just love this guy. The next 10 videos will be shown on Crackle instead of youtube. Here is the link.

The Baghdad Flag Shop

2007-07-27T14:46:00.001Z

Every so often when you switch on the news you see some Middle Eastern community burning a Flag of the latest country to offend them.
This has bothered me for some time.

Where are all the flags coming from?!!!

There are five possibilities as far as I can see.

1 - (Possibly the least likely.) There is a small flag shop which sells foreign flags in every Middle Eastern village, town and city for just this occasion.

2 - They steal the flags from American and British forces stationed in the Middle East. Although this is more likely it still doesn't explain where they got the Danish flags from.

3 - Every Middle Eastern household has a computer connected to the internet and they buy them from e-bay.

4 - There is a secret section of Al Qaeda which specializes in flag distribution. Some how I think it would be a bit less hidden.

5 - The flags come from the reporters who want to get a good story. This, I think, Is most likely.

Calvin Harris "the Girls"

2007-07-27T00:20:00.000Z

This is completly off topic but I just love this song! I cant stop humming it.
Calvin Harris is a Scottish musician who made his first songs in his bedroom. They were so good that he was rocketed to stardom. He is helping Kylie Minogue with her next singles.

So great!

Funny Pictures 3

2007-07-26T23:02:00.000Z

I love these pictures by Tatsuya Ishida.

Slut! hehe

Tribute to Kent Hovind

2007-07-26T22:56:00.000Z

This video is one of the best songs/videos I have seen in a long time!

So great!

Funny Pictures 2

2007-07-26T22:37:00.001Z

These pics are great! I got them from the Stumbleupon atheist forums. I think they are buy a guy named Simpson.

Funny Pictures 1

2007-07-26T22:26:00.000Z

I just found these pictures which make fun of the Catholic church's "don't ask don't tell" policy with pedophiles.

I really like the last one. hehe

but seriously its an important issue.

Creationism has = merit to Evolution...Somehow I dont think so.

2007-07-26T01:34:00.001Z

Remember that the only thing that can prove that these guys are scientists is that they claim to be. Kent Hovind claims to be a scientist.

The idea that just because two theories start at the same place means they are equal is ridiculous.

Imagine this:
Take two people.
One is a Olympic marathon runner with a huge budget to spend on his training, a team of coaches and access to world class equipment.
The other is a 100 year old man who uses outdated equipment and methods.
If you ask them to run the same race and start at the same time and place, is it right to believe that they will both cross the finish line at the same time?
NO! The Athlete would win. Its the same with Science vs religion.

Yet again I would like to point you to my previous post which proves evolution.

Should Faith be given respect?

2007-07-26T01:26:00.001Z

Richard Dawkins gives his view.

Childhood indoctrination is very wrong.

Faith - I know ... Deep.

2007-07-26T01:01:00.000Z

I was thinking about how ridiculous believing in God was. I mean really they read one contradictory book and suddenly they believe in this God. Some how my mind wandered onto Santa and the tooth fairy, and remembering what it was like as a child. I laughed to myself then continued on with my day.

When I decided to go to bed i saw the cuddly toy I was given the day I was born. He is a monkey, and a bit tattered. I picked him up carefully, but this was not because he is old, it was because i didn't want to "hurt him". Looking back on it, its stupid, ever since I watched the film Toy Story I have been unable to shake the feeling that my toys are alive. I know rationally that this is insane but the human mind has a way of personifying things, especially if they have a name and a face.

Thinking on it, I think I can see how someone could look at the world around them and make it a person. It would be very easy. Chance, luck, fate, and nature are all too easily given human attributes. my mother likes to say "don't tempt Fate" as if by saying "I hope i don't fall over" Fate will suddenly turn on you and make you trip.

Anyway, just a thought. We cant all be perfect. I have the insane idea that my toys are alive, someone else has the idea that fairies live at the bottom of their garden, and lots of people believe that there is a friendly guy who looks after them from heaven. Are they so different from me?

There is one small difference. I know I'm wrong and mad. Do they?

Religion Attacks! (like sharks, but different)

2007-07-25T23:37:00.001Z

I was surfing through Youtube and i came across a video entitled "Four Atheistic Fallacies That Flood Youtube". So I dutifully clicked on the link to see if I have been making a mistake all along. It turns out I wasn't. The guy who made the video was clearly high or something because his arguments didn't work.

Here is the video for you to watch.

1- Click here to see my thoughts on this one.

2- This is the best one I think..... or at least the funniest.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
"The universe began to exist"
"Therefore we conclude that the universe must have a cause."
"God does not need, or have a cause for his existence."
Oh yes! I can see the logic very clearly:
Everything must have a cause + God does not need a cause = logical fallacy.

oh and for anyone who says something along the lines of "God did not begin to exist, he always existed." F*$% off. OK? The only reason you say that is because you want to think that. Nowhere in the bible is that said.

3-

i) Bad things happen which are not due to the freewill of man. e.g. natural disasters.
ii) "saved by a fireman who was used by God". This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. This is a blatant contradiction. If God can use people to do good then he is interfering with their free will. Thus the freewill argument dies.
iii) Why cant God just be a dick, if you really want to believe? That is the only way to explain natural disasters using God. He was pissed off.

4-

i) The good evil thing is crap. I have never seen a completely good person and I have never seen a completely evil person. I have seen Good people with evil bits and visa versa. Therefore I have witnessed evil (e.g. when I got mugged twice) and I have seen good (e.g. when a complete stranger cared for me after I was mugged).
ii) YES! I want God to take the evil from the world. Stop humans harming each other. Show humans the true path and stop being a dick! Why, if God is real, does he provide SOOO much evidence to prove his non-existence? Does he get his entertainment from sending people to hell?

Anyway...

Here are the rebuttals that have been posted:
They are not all that well done.

This is possibly the best one.

This one is quite good.

This one is as lively as a dead donkey. *Yawn*

Anyway they all make valid points. Which can be easily summed up with one sentence. "Philos71 is talking out of his arse instead of his mouth."

Crucification?

2007-07-25T00:26:00.000Z

I love Monty Python. they were so hilarious!

Crucification? Good. down the hall first line on the left.

hehe

The Jesus Question [cont]

2007-07-24T23:18:00.000Z

I have found some more of the video.

the school

the sun

c u later.

The Jesus question

2007-07-24T22:36:00.000Z

Ok. I think I will tackle a big one today. Get right down to some real fact finding.

I am going to show you a video, then show all the facts and false hoods within it. The Video is titled The God Who Wasn't There. Unbiased, I know (not).

Ok, ok so that was a a tad biased but it did highlight a few important facts. It does not however prove that Jesus didn't exist it just proves that the Bible is a load of bulls**t.

This is a very important issue. Do any Christians you know believe in a time traveling Devil? Do they even know anything about this stuff?

At the first chance I get I am going to get a video camera and find my nearest church and interview a priest/minister.

Anyway, hope you have a great day!
E
x

The image of Christian tolerance

2007-07-24T22:16:00.000Z

Don' you just love that Christians are so tolerant and loving?
They always turn the other cheek...don't they?

If this is what happens when a Christian sees a pagan in America, I Wonder what its like for you Atheists out there. I wish you the beast of luck in your lives and hope you aren't killed.

x

Scotland

2007-07-22T00:19:00.001Z

This post is in response to some idiot who shall not be named.
The reason he is an idiot is because he thought Scotland was still like the film brave heart. This is very very wrong.

The offending person was American. I would of expected an American with access to the internet would have the ability to find any information they desired. But I must of been wrong. I would also like to say that I like most Americans but you sensible intelligent ones need to gang together and get your education system fixed.

Anyway I have decided to write a bit about Scotland

Science in Scotland:

He thaught that Scotland is a backward country with little or no technology. Well that is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. Without Scottish inventions the world would not be anywhere near as advanced as it is.

Here are some ground breaking Scottish inventions:

tarmac - John Loudon McAdam
telephone - Alexander Graham Bell
television - John Logie Baird
penicillin - Sir Alexander Fleming
transistor
motion picture
electromagnetics
radar
insulin
pedal bycicle
pneumatic tyre
speedometer
made the steam engine work
wire rope
hypodermic syringe
Golf
Oh and don't forget the American Navy!

Here is some facts:

Population: 4,928,000

Capital: Edinburgh

Largest city: Glasgow

Languages: English, Scots Gaelic

Religions: Church of Scotland (established church—Presbyterian), Roman Catholic, Scottish Episcopal Church, Baptist, Methodist

Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain.

Scotland is divided into three physical regions—the Highlands; the Central Lowlands (containing two-thirds of the population), and the Southern Uplands.

It is bounded by England in the south and on the other three sides by water: by the Atlantic Ocean on the west and north and by the North Sea on the east.

Outer and Inner Hebrides and other islands off the west coast and the Orkney and Shetland Islands off the north coast.

Government
England and Scotland have shared a monarch since 1603 and a parliament since 1707, but in May 1999, Scotland elected its own parliament for the first time in three centuries. Queen Elizabeth opened the new parliament on July 2, 1999 which controls most domestic affairs, including health, education, and transportation, and has powers to legislate and raise taxes..

Here is some history:

The first inhabitants of Scotland were the Picts, a Celtic tribe. Between A.D. 82 and A.D. 208.

The Romans invaded lower Scotland, naming it Caledonia. They gave up and just built a big wall instead. Roman influence over the land, was tiny.

The Scots, a Celtic tribe from Ireland, migrated to the west coast of Scotland in about 500.
Kenneth McAlpin, king of the Scots, ascended the throne of the Pictish kingdom in about 843, thereby uniting the various Scots and Pictish tribes under one kingdom called Dal Riada.
By the 11th century, the monarchy had extended its borders to include much of what is Scotland today.

English influence in the region expanded when Malcolm III, king of Scotland from 1057–1093, married an English princess. England's appetite for Scottish land began to grow over the 12th and 13th centuries, and in 1296 King Edward I of England successfully invaded Scotland.
The following year Robert the Bruce led a revolt for independence, was crowned king of Scotland (Robert I) in 1306, and after years of war defeated the English in 1314 at the Battle of Bannockburn.
In 1328 the English finally recognized Scottish independence.

In the 16th century John Knox introduced the Scottish reformation, and the Presbyterian Church replaced Catholicism as the official religion. In 1567, Mary, queen of Scots, a Catholic, was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne and was later executed by Elizabeth I of England.
Mary's son, James VI, was raised as a Protestant, and in 1603 he succeeded Elizabeth on the English throne as King James I of England. James thus became ruler of both Scotland and England, though the countries remained separate.
In 1707, after a century of turmoil, Scotland and England passed the Act of Union, which united Scotland, England, and Wales under one rule as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Stupid FAQs:

No Brave Heart was not accurate. There were over 2000 historical inaccuracies in that film. E.g. William Wallace was a wealthy educated land owner. In the film he is portrayed as a barbarian. The Princess who falls in love with him in the film was 4 years old when he died in real life. well you get the idea.

No the Haggis is not an animal. It is made. It is a bit like sausage.
Normally it is made with minced sheep's heart, minced sheep's liver and minced sheep's lungs, onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, salt, and stock.
It is then put into a sheep's stomach and boiled for an hour.
Usually eaten with mashed turnip (called "neeps") and potatoes (called "tatties").
It is not eaten very often, usually only on Burns Night (a celebration of one of our most important Poets: Robert Burns) I personally don't like the taste of Haggis but my family love it.

No! Kilts are NOT worn at all times. 99.99% of Scots only ever wear kilts at weddings or at a ceilidh (Scottish Party where you dance traditional dances and have a meal).

No not all Scots have red hair. Although a larger than average number of us do. I have brown hair but my sister has dark red hair.

No. Not all Scots hate the English. I have English cousins. Its only the stupid ones who know nothing of economics or politics that hate the English. Oh! The Mother of the current Queen was 100% Scottish.

Anyway I hope that cleared up any misunderstandings.

x