Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts

Friday, September 17, 2010

Response to the Response to my Response by a Christian Apologist

This is a response to THIS POST by the user Rhology (who I accidentally refer to as Rhoblogy in this...sorry man). That post of his is a response to my Initial Post which was a response to an older post of his (linked to in my original response post).

Here goes.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Response to a Christian on the topic of Atheist Morality

I have been engaged in a discussion with a christian apologist, who seems to have been at it for a long time. After some back and forth (during which he was refreshingly honest about his opinions, specifically those relating to the issue of morality in the Old Testament) this was the message directed at me, regarding atheist morality, atheistic inconsistency, and the accuracy of atheistic claims in the comment section of this person's blog (THIS is the post in question).

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Ray Comfort Week Continues!! Comfort PWND?

I am not sure if pointing out simple logical deductions to a retard (sorry) is considered pwning as much as it is beating up on a hapless retard (sorry again), but this hapless retard (sorry, really) is manipulating people into believing lies, making them feel guilty for being human, and making big money off of doing so, so fuck it, it's a pwning.

So, on to what I will, perhaps tentatively (you decide!) call Ray Comfort being PWND.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

My Encounter With a Religious Wackjob (I Am Apparently 'The Chosen One')

Note: This is a story from last year that I am reposting here.

According to this wacko patient I had at work (polysmonographic technologist for those who are unaware) this week, not only am I "special", but, I am actually......The Chosen One.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes Part Deux

It's sequel time, baby! This is a sequel to This Blog which was entitled Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes. So, let's gear up, and take on some more Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason. *Whew!!* Try saying that 5 times fast.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Cancer Cure Conspiracy Debunked: Cancer Cure Found and Suppressed My Ass!

Extra, extra, read all about it! Cancer cure found! But you can't have it! It's being suppressed!

.....Oh, really? Let's see about this, shall we?

Friday, July 2, 2010

Myth Busted: William Lane Craig Is Rational

William Lane Craig, the poster boy for post hoc rationalizations and bald assertions based on outdated cosmologi- er, sorry, rather, the poster boy for Evidence Based Christianity, had this to say:

"And my view here is that the way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and this gives me a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don't think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit."

''a self authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. ''

Wow, talk about circular.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Re: Atheist Billboard in North Carolina Defaced - by Syko Shadow

Magx, in your Last Blog you made a very good point about how divisive the "Under God" graffiti on the secular billboard is, but you didn't bring up another issue in the story of the stupid motherfuckers defacing a billboard to get their jollies off insulting free speech:

Whenever someone like me from the ghetto does any form of graffiti, it's considered vandalism, labeling all graffiti artists as delinquents and thugs. Even if it's really good-looking art, like a mural or some real gangsta shit, it's looked down upon by mainstream America. However, when some dipshits with a box of Crayola scribble "Under God" on a secular billboard (NOTE: not atheist, simply secular. There is nothing atheistic in that billboard), the same people who previously got up-in-arms about ghetto graffiti are suddenly rallying behind this theistic outpouring of stupidity, despite the fact that the billboard incident is in fact an act of vandalism. I guess it's more than acceptable to be a fucking "delinquent" when you're trying to disparage minority groups, such as atheists. Or maybe it's just people in the ghetto who aren't allowed to pull shit like this. It wouldn't surprise me if such a double standard existed, especially if it is done so "under God."

Atheist Billboard in North Carolina Defaced. NEWSFLASH, PEOPLE: "One Nation Under God" is DIVISIVE!!!!

I was sent a news story by a friend over MSN tonight. The story is entitled 'Atheist billboard defaced on N.C.'s Billy Graham Parkway' and it can be found at the following link:

An excerpt from the story:

Unknown vandals unhappy about atheists' billboard in Charlotte, N.C., spray-painted "Under God" on the ad, the city's atheist association discovered Monday. The defaced message will remain in place until after July 4, the group reports, which is the soonest that workers can furnish a fresh billboard image. Here's how the vandalized billboard now looks:

The billboard reads, "One Nation Indivisible," which is the phrase preceding the 1954 insertion of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, reports the Charlotte Observer's Tim Funk. The billboard was erected on Billy Graham Parkway last week. (Graham is, of course, the state's famous evangelical preacher.)

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The Answers Lie Just Out of Reach (post 2 for the Day!)

The answers lie just out of reach....

He turned to her, and in a rare moment of immodesty and uninhibited vulnerability, he laid his weary head on her bare shoulder, and, taking in the smell of her perfume (he couldn't place the scent, but he knew it was cheap, and this only served to widen his despair) he spoke.

''The truth lies just across the pond, and the water is shallow; however, I have not the energy to wade that chasm, for its depth is deceptive. The answers will take that pond and render it an ocean, one I have not the means, nor the will, to cross. And so, at the risk of remaining ignorant, I must stay on land, and watch as both my feet and my resolve dry up and whither away to a fine dust, which, with the first cool breeze, will be picked up and strewn across that very pond, in the ultimate act of irony. For you see, there is irony in death, and the ironic thig is, I welcome that loathsome state, for with its barreness and melancholoy, it brings the thing I crave least, and most: rest. Rest for the weary head I know rest upon your overburndened and sun kissed shoulder.

I love you, Melinda, but I also despise you, and you me.

Come with me, if you will.''
And, rasing his weary head, he held out his hand. Without waiting to see if she would grasp it, he waded out into the body of water, and, as she watched, sheltering her eyes from the sun which glistened brightly, almost obscenely, off of its serene surface, the body of water opened up and swalloed him whole. The cavernous maw of irony had taken him, and she knew that it was for the best. Sighing, she waded in after him.

Don't ask. This was just a random, impromptu thing I typed up in the middle of a conversation about finding answers and wading in the dark, stumbling around blind until your way is illuminated by knowledge, and how sometimes the journey is so difficult we don't embark upon it.....or we do, but we do it reluctantly, and sometimes wish we didn't have this passion residing within us. How easy it would be! To just forsake the truth for whatever explanation pampered us.

How easy, indeed.

Oh, speaking of easy.....

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes Pt. 1

It's sequel time, baby! This is a sequel to This Blog which was entitled Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes.  So, let's gear up, and take on some more Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason. *Whew!!* Try saying that 5 times fast.

God probably got rid of the fossils of those evil giants & the rest of the people that didn't listen to Noah's warning.

But nothing is impossible to God, he can do anything he wants with all his power & wisdom even on specific situations.

Everything needs a start & process in order to appear & continue operating (with the exception of Jehovah cause he always existed and is the Almighty

It wasn't magic it was power. God doesn't use magic.

things that exist in the whole universe. That's all the evidence we need as Christians.

But when was the last time that you read about mankind's extinction caused by volcanoes?

God shrunk all the animals

In response to "So every single human being on the planet sinned enough to deserve eradication? Even infants, small children who haven't done anything whatsoever? Wow, that's one benevolent god!":

Yes. The small children were too busy being sacrificed, raped, or traumatized to do much sinning, though. They would have grown up to be horrible.

(man, the lengths these guys will go. The cognitive dissonance must give them migraines at times)

And now, amidst all of this rampant idiocy and hilarity, I close this particular edition (oh ya, more are coming. PLENTY more, actually. I have so much material just from the same topic.....yes, all of these in this edition were from 1 single forum thread) with this absolute doozy. Is it the worst of the worst? You decide. Like Faux News says, We report, YOU decide. Although, I must draw a line of differentiation between myself and Faux News, as the following statement is not misquoted or misrepresented in any way. Here goes nothing:

Someone made this statement (still talking about the Noah's Ark story): You are also aware, that 2 animals are not enough to start a race, right? It would led to horrific genetic deformities over the generations- no one species can start from just 2 animals. And the response from some moron:

How do you know that those species needed either salty or fresh water?

Since "evolution is a fact", if the salinity of water back then was less than it is now, the fish in the water back then were able to survive in it, otherwise we wouldn't have any fish today.

There's a reason the story is called NOAH'S ark. It's because it's about Noah and his ark. It's not even about plants or aquatic creatures. If God took care of 8 people and some animals, what makes you think he didn't take care of the aquatic life and plants?

Well, I'm sure God found a way to do it. Nothing is impossible for him.

Water produces oxygen & hydrogen. Enough to breath and help them to survive as well.

That's where faith comes into play. It does stand to reason that the deformities wouldn't have been all that bad, considering the planet was only...two thousand years old or something.

WOW. Just fucking WOW.

Oh, and here's a pic to sum up this awesome forum topic (which is going to provide comedy gold for a few more blogs, amazongly):

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Arguments Against The Legalization of Drugs (Updated With Videos)

There are a few main arguments employed by individuals who are against the legalization (or for the continued ban) of recreational drugs (most popularly, marijuana) that I would like to address. The arguments I am going to tackle are as follows:

  • Drugs are bad, m'kay.
  • There is potential for negative societal effects, in terms of the economy and health care.
  • If we legalize them, kids will use them!
  • Drugs=crime

 I will tackle these one at a time.

Drugs are bad, m'kay.

This claim is a vague, and generalized umbrella claim that basically blankets an entire group of substances under one moniker without actually qualifying and quantifying the claim. Qualifying in the sense that you must take such a blanket statement and break it down. For one thing, you must specify the drug, as surely not all drugs are equally, right? Then, you have the task of explaining just what you mean by 'bad' in the first place. In the interest of being fair, and avoiding being facetious, I will say that we basically understand that the claim is that recreational drug use has health consequences for the user. And I accept that. You'd be silly not to. But there are several problems with this, when it's used as an argument for continued bans on these substances.

  • Not all drugs are equal in terms of potential negative health consequences. The claims MUST be separated and applied to the specific drugs. You cannot advance this argument as a blanket statement. It's not fair and it's certainly not accurate to do so, and we want our laws put into effect based on accurate information rather than propaganda, don't we?

  • The study of these drugs is limited, mostly due to the fact that they are illegal. I am not saying we have no empirical analysis of the health effects of specific drugs available to us; we do. But we certainly have an incomplete, and quite often biased, picture of the potential effects. This can also be applied to the positive effects. One thing that many anti-drug (in terms of legality) advocates fail to mention, or realize, is that some of these drugs have health benefits. And the extent of these is also not fully known, due to the impediments encountered when trying to study these substances.

  • Have we ever considered the fact that we could always try to re-engineer (is that the proper term?) these drugs to change their profile and decrease their harmful effects? Just because drug X can bring consequence Y doesn't mean that, given the chance to do so, the intelligent and industrious chemists and other experts could not work to improve the drug so that drug X no longer has the potential (or certainty) to saddle one with consequence Y.

  •  A lot of the claims of ill effects are skewed. Much of them are based upon anecdotal evidence, subjective assessments, poor usage of statistics, etc. Take for example, the following statistic:
    On the subject of Marijuana the DEA has said that marijuana is far more powerful than it used to be. In 2000, there were six times as many emergency room mentions of marijuana use as there were in 1990.
    So they are purporting that, based on this, marijuana is more powerful than it used to be, and consequently, is causing more emergency room visits. Problem is, that's NOT what that statistic says, at all. That's an erroneous and disingenuous conclusion. If not, at the very least, it's fair to say that they are drawing a causal link where there is not one, at least not one made clear by the data provided. See, the statistic was that “in 2000, there were six times as many emergency room mentions of marijuana use as there were in 1990.” Mentions. It does NOT say that there were 6 times as many marijuana related emergency room visits. All they are saying that 6 times the amount of people disclosed that they had used/use marijuana.

  • There are many possible explanations for this. It's quite possible that people are more willing to disclose their usage than they used to be. Changing political and social climates, and all that. Or maybe it's just a statistical anomaly. Notice that they did NOT say something to the effect of “Hospital visits due to marijuana use have been steadily increasing, year after year, since 1990. So for all we know, the number was at 1990 levels in 1999 or 2001. Or this year. And believe me, this is probably accurate, because if it was a major trend as opposed to an anomaly, they'd have mentioned that. However, even if I am wrong, and someone can provide data that shows this increase is noticed year after year, they are still only saying that disclosures are up. In plain English, how many people are admitted to hospital solely for marijuana usage, and not for any number of comorbidities or extraneous factors? Where's that statistic?

  • Let's ignore all of the above. I mean, clearly there ARE real negative effects associated with recreational drugs. You'd be an idiot to claim otherwise. Even the relatively benign marijuana has negative health effects associated with its use. So fine, the various drugs have differing health consequences associated with their use, either in the short or long term. Okay, but is the issue that these people want to legislate out things that are unhealthy? If so, um......we have amazing hypocrisy at work here. If ANYONE is going to look me in the face and tell me that recreational drugs should be illegal because they're bad for you, but doesn't levy that exact same charge against other harmful things, like, oh I don't know.......alcohol and fast food, for two examples, then that person is clearly not holding a logically tenable position. If the route to prohibition is drugs=negative health effects=ban because we don't want negative health effects, then this person must also be pushing for these other things to be made illegal. If they aren't, then clearly there's something else at play here.

  • “Drugs are bad.” So what? Why must an adult be told what he can and cannot put in his or her own body? Is that up to the government? Should it not be up to the individual to decide for themselves? It's amazing to me that for a country that prides itself on “freedom,” America sure as hell likes to ban things that consenting adults want to engage/partake in (gay marriage anyone?). I don't, at all, see how you can square the idea of freedom with the word banning. Of course, I recognize that freedom must have limits. Clearly you want to ban murder. But that's where you get into impinging on the rights of others. If Gary wants to smoke a joint, eat some KFC and watch a movie in his basement, he's not interfering with, or harming, anybody else. Who the fuck gets to take it upon themselves to tell Gary he cannot do this in his own home?

Of course, this is where the other arguments come into play. Advocates of prohibition will make the argument that Gary IS (or at least could end up) harming others.

Potential negative societal effects.

My understanding of this one is that the basic idea basically says that the health effects and dependency seen with some drug users adds extra strain to a nation's healthcare system (and also on the economy, but we'll focus on health). I wouldn't necessarily argue against this. I don't know to what extent this is true, but I am sure it is. But, as with the last argument, I see a few problems here:

  • People already do drugs. The only way this argument would work is if legalization itself would lead to more drug use. That one I am not so sure of, but what could conceivably happen is that more people would come forward seeking help, as the illegality is no longer an issue. This strikes me as a positive thing though. More help for more people who need it. However, I don't want to get sidetracked. This argument only makes sense if the person making it is presupposing that legalization would lead to increasing rates of use. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I am just pointing out the fact that his claim actually makes a secondary, implicit claim, that's necessary for it to even work.

  • Again, consistency, the lack of which makes me wonder if the arguments put forth are really the extent of the reasons why people push for these substances to be illegal. If the issue is strain on the tax payer (essentially what it boils down to), or, to put it another way, the consumption of resources, then again, things like fast food and alcohol should be illegal as well. The number of people who have health conditions associated with poor diets, lack of exercise, and alcohol consumption is astronomical. The morbidity associated with these things is a humongous burden. In fact, more people now die of obesity than starvation worldwide. If you ask me, shitty food is the worst drug problem facing us today.

If we legalize them, kids will use them!

Gotta love those slippery slope arguments! “Cause you know, it's not like we can't set age restrictions. And also, it's not like they don't, you know, use them now. And already drink. If they want to do it, they will. If there is demand, there will be supply. If you build it, the- er, uh.....nevermind.


Drugs cause crime. This argument interests me, because I think it's quite the opposite. Prohibition equals crime. Look at the situation in the United States with alcohol prohibition. We all know how that fared, don't we? And what was the trend when it came to crime? Did crime decrease with prohibition and increase with the passing of the legalization laws? Or was it the inverse? Hint: Option 2. You keep drugs illegal when there is demand for them, and you will have the situation you had then, and have now: gangs controlling and selling the substances, and a whole litany of crimes associated with this black market.

And so you have crime that's directly resultant from the laws (make it legal, there won't be much of a need for a black market) and a so called “War on Drugs” that has been waged for decades now with absolutely no end in sight, and billions of dollars spent along with thousands of lives lost and lives shattered. People being prosecuted and sitting in jail for possessing a drug for personal use, people arrested for growing their own plants for personal consumption, and people arrested for being high, when all the while we have people out every single night of every single week, consuming alcohol, getting into fights, ruining relationships, driving, causing accidents, and putting themselves and others in the hospital.....or even into a casket.

So then, why do some claim that drugs cause crime? Well, the idea is that people commit crimes to support their addictions, or they get high and commit violent crime (or even more benign crimes like vandalism). And, as I said above, when it came to the societal effects argument, I wouldn't necessarily argue this. However, yet again, people already do drugs. This argument only makes sense if the person making it is presupposing that legalization would lead to increasing rates of use.


It seems to me that the arguments for keeping drugs legal either ignore the fact that people are doing them anyways, can be applied to many things that are legal (alcohol, fast food, driving, skydiving, gambling, etc) are (at least partly) based on faulty or flawed information, misuse of statistics, both by accident, and, more insidiously, for the purpose of propaganda, which implies that there is clearly an ulterior motive here. I just don't know what that motive may be.

People give drugs such a bad rap, but so much of the information out there is skewed, exaggerated, or outright lies. Yes, there are definite negatives to recreational drug use. But there are downsides to recreational alcohol use, consumption of deep fried chocolate bars covered in icing sugar, bungee jumping, and driving. Seriously, how many people actually sit back and consider just how dangerous driving actually is? Yet they have no qualms about strapping their four year old into the backseat of a car. They have no qualms about putting their teenager in control of one of these machines. They have no qualms about letting their teenage play football, a sport which consists of constant and hard physical contact, which can and does result in serious injuries to those involved. But if that teenager was to smoke a joint or pop a pill.....OH BOY, FREAK OUT TIME!!

And please, someone, explain to me how this makes sense: It's perfectly okay for someone to pop a percocet for pain relief, but not okay for them to ingest some marijuana for pain relief. The percs will get them high. The percs will relieve the pain. The weed will get them high. The weed will relieve pain. The percs are highly addictive. The weed is not. The percs can harm them over the long term. The weed can harm them over the long term. So, let's see, two substances that basically do the same thing. One is prescribed by a doctor and sold by a drug company. The other could be prescribed by a doctor and grown by the patient themselves, at home, for much cheaper than they would get access to the percocet.


All I am asking for here is a little consistency, a little more truth, and a lot less hysteria.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Ray Comfort: Comfortably Inept and Vacuous

Note: This blog post is full of swearing and ad hominem attacks. It's a rant as much as it is a serious post, so be warned.

Let's take some recent Ray Comfort quotes and see how much fail is contained within, shall we?

Quote One:
Evolution has no explanation for man's beginning. Some of its believers think that perhaps there was a big bang, but they don't know where the materials came from for it to take place. They don't know what was in the beginning, but they are certain that there was no God. They believe the scientific absurdity that life rose out of non-life. It was simply a case of evolution-did-it.
Wow, literally every sentence can be deconstructed, and the results of it won't be favourable for Mr. Comfort. Let's begin:

Evolution has no explanation for man's beginning.

Congratulations, retard. You have managed to point out the fact that a theory that deals with a particular subject matter has no explanatory power when it comes to a completely different subject. Jesus fucking Christ, your stupidity knows no bounds. I mean, really, you might as well have just stated that the Germ Theory of Disease says nothing about the concept of Love. Throw away those vaccines and medicines, people!! They cannot teach you how to love!

Some of its believers think that perhaps there was a big bang, but they don't know where the materials came from for it to take place.

Some people who like cars also like motorcycles, but they don't know how to build one.

(Btw, no one thinks that perhaps there was a big bang. We KNOW there was.) As for not knowing "where the materials came from for it to take place," you're getting dangerously close to doing the classic argument from ignorance bit, but you wouldn't stoop that low, would you?

They don't know what was in the beginning, but they are certain that there was no God.  

You are so fucking stupid it hurts. You keep conflating acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism. They're NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING, and NEITHER IS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE OTHER, you insipid, insidious, stupid, cretinous liitle man.

And, btw, atheists aren't generally claiming certainty. I know someone who is, though: YOU.

They believe the scientific absurdity that life rose out of non-life.

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES HAS YOUR STUPID ASS BEEN CORRECTED ON THIS SHIT? You continually mix up evolutionary theory, big bang cosmology, and abiogenesis. Seriously, what the fuck? Life arising from non life, which, by the way, can and does happen (aka, it's a FACT) is the discipline of abiogenesis. It has NOTHING to do with evolution. You need to stop conflating the three things, because it results in you setting up constant strawmen, although you still fail in taking even them down. Everything you say revelas more ignorance. Jesus Christ man, I'm half your age. Aren't you fucking embarassed?

It was simply a case of evolution-did-it.

The depth of the irony present in this statement is truly mindbending. Forget the conflation of the theories (again), forget the strawman statement, the ignorance, and the attempts to poison the well. Do you not see that, besides the fact of all that, and the fact that you're wrong (and evolution is a FACT) YOU are the one with the position that can be surmised in such a manner. YOU'RE the one with a position that provides a total non-answer, despite its illusions to the contrary. Check it, asshole:

It was simply a case of god-did-it.

Quote 2:
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with science. It's simply a pseudo-science of an unproven theory, that gives man temporary license to act like an animal.
What in the blue FUCK does "a pseudo-science of an unproven theory" mean? Jesus Motherfucking Christ on a Golden Unicycle!!!!!! That is literally painful to read. How fucking embarassing. What you meant to say, nitwit, is "Evolutionary theory is not science. It is psuedoscience." Of course, you'd still be sadly, laughably, painfully fucking wrong, but at least you'd have made sense, at least grammatically. A "pseudo-science of an unproven theory" wow. Fucking moron.

As for the last bit, I don't even know from where that nonsense is derived, but a) we ARE animals, you stupid tit, and b) if someone accepted the theory of evoultion and it gave them license to "act like an animal," why would it be temporary? Do they stop accepting the theory after a while? Does the license turn into a pumpkin at the end of the night? You can't even get your strawmen and red herrings right.

Quote 3:
In truth, Albert Einstein was no different than most of us when it comes to a belief in God. He was what the Bible calls, an "idolater." He had his own conception of God. He made a god in his own image and was in transgression of the First and the Second of the Ten Commandments. "You shall have no other gods before Me," and "You shall not make yourself a graven image," are not confined to physically shaping a stone or wooden god. The Commandments include a god shaped in the mind.

Hey, turdboy, come here. Ya, you, Comfort. Come hither, let me whisper into your hairy ear:


When Einstein used the word god, he was describing the majesty of the natural world, the universe. He was a pantheist, meaning he was someone who DID NOT BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL, ANTHROPOMORPHIC, CREATOR GOD. He believed that the universe was all that existed, and it was to be regarded with the deepest of reverences.

Do you pride yourself on being factually incorrect in every fucking thing you say? Fucking hell I hate you. You're a lying, scheming, scamming, disngenuous spreader of ignorance and smug stupidity. You're doing a great disservice to humanity, and if I was in charge, you wouldn't be respected. You'd be on fucking trial for fraud. Then you'd be convicted and forced to return every penny you scammed from gullible people before I sent your ass to the slammer, where you'd find out the real meaning behind the word hell.


Sunday, May 30, 2010

On the Impossibility of the Noah's Ark Tale

Noah's Ark. The fable of a 600 or so year old man taking two of every species of non human animal, placing them on a giant wooden boat which he built, and surviving a global flood perpetuated by an angry, omniscient (wait, but if he's omnisc- I know, I know.....just forget it) aboard this giant ship. A silly tale that the majority of Christians have had to admit could never have happened. Yet, and maybe you have to admire their tenacity, there are still those who cling tight to this tale like Noah clinging tight to the sides of his ship as it rocked violently in the ravaging waters that covered the entire (flat, according to the Bible, the greatest science book of all time) Earth.

Guess what people?

It could never have happened.

There are a multitiude of reasons why this is so, and we've all heard several of them. I'm sure most, if not all of those who believe that this tale is literally true or at least profess to) have heard several of them. They probably have a fair amount of practice defending the story against these claims. Hell, Noah's Ark apologist could probably qualify as being resume worthy for some of these people.

Well, get ready to sharpen your apologist skills, because I've got more for ya'!

Now, before I get to the meat of this, let me quickly run through some of the most common, classic arguments as to why this story could not possibly have happened.

  • No one could live to be almost a thousand years old. It's not possible.
  • There's no way a wooden boat of that size would have been built (by one guy!!), let alone functional.
  • How, exactly, did he acquire two of every species, from all across the Earth?
  • How did these species survive? What did they eat? What did the carnivores eat? The anteaters?
  • What about the climactic requirements these animals had (have)? There are some species that require 100% (or near 100%) humidity to survive (cave dwellers).
  • Not a single one of these animals, insects, etc died aboard this ship?
And so on, and so forth.

That alone should suffice, really. I mean, come on, my 18 month old daughter wouldn't buy this shit. But no, I must press onwards.....dare I say, atheist soldier? (oh take a joke).

Fine, let's kick this into overdrive.

  1. Everything alive would have suffocated. How could they breathe with all of the plants on earth dead?
  2. There's not enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth up to the highest mountain peaks.
  3. The ice caps would not exist in their current form, as there would not have been enough time for them to form in this climate. They would have to form, as the buoyancy of the water would have floated the polar caps off their beds and caused them to break apart. The climate in the last 5000 years has been too warm for the ice caps to have reformed to their current size and density.
  4. If the entire Earth flooded, that would mean that salt and freshwater mixed together. This would have resulted in the salination of ALL the water on Earth. There are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED fresh water to survive, and there are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED salt water to survive. This would have resulted in catastrophe for plants, coral reef and fish. These are mutually exclusive inhabitants. They wouldn't survive in a planet with consisted of nothing but salinated water.
  5. Absolutely no evidence of a flood in tree ring data.
  6. Unequal mountain erosion? How?
  7. Ice cores from Greenland contain no layer of sediments, which you would have seen if the entire planet had been flooded. The salinity levels never changed.
  8. Egyptian civilization was in full swing during this time, building pyramids, living life. No great extinction, and not one mention of a global flood. Huh.
  9. So, since all of the plants would have died due to being flooded with salinated water (not that the salinity actually matters, being flooded with water alone would do it), aside from the suffocation issue, how exactly did the herbivores survive once the flood was over? What did they eat?
Don't trust science? Okay........How about Genesis itself?

Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood. How, in 110-150 years, did the human population grow large enough to build this tower.....and an entire city around it?

And of course, in addition to this, there needed to be enough people to build the aforementioned Pyramids,  and populate the rest of the world, which we know had people spread out far and wide, due to historical records.

You can be a Christian all you want, but at least have the courage to admit that the Noah's Ark tale is just that. A tale, and a laughable one at that. Hearing grown adults actually trying to posit that it actually transpired, and even coming up with such insipid apologist arguments such as the water canopy defense, as I call it, is frankly fucking sad and pathetic. They sound like 4 year olds.

Your Christianity doesn't make you sound ridiculous (at least not overly so). Your literal belief in every facet of the bible does. Stop denying reality and step just a tad bit forward into the light. It was called the Enlightenment for a reason.

Dare I say, Amen?

Tuesday, May 25, 2010



From wiki (link above):
Anthropocentrism is either the belief that humans are the central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[1] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.

I think of anthropocentrism when I have discussions with theists regarding evolution. There are a number of traits that exist (like intellect, speed, strength, climbing ability, climate adaptability, etc), and we are the best, for all intents and purposes, at some of them, but lacking in others. These traits allow different species to adapt and excell in different ways. There's no right or wrong. There's no superior or inferior. It's all about adaptation, propagation, and survival.

Yet people hold our specific attributes to such a high regard, and really, I find that to be nothing but anthropocentrism. I don't see the justification for the view that we are superior. Our intellect is as useful to us as is the ability to play dead, pose as a log, camoflouge oneself like chameleons do, etc to other species. Yet people state that we're so superior, and they use intellect, the thing that we happen to possess (convenient, much?), as the indicator of this.

To me, this is just a self serving viwepoint, borne of a pre-existing idea, and supported by taking one attribute from a field of many equally useful (in the right circumstances) ones and arbitrarily proclaiming that particular attribute to be of the utmost importance or usefulness. And why is this determination made? How is it supported? Why? Because we possess that trait!!! Isn't that just wonderfully circular?

It's circular, it's self serving. It's anthropocentric.

At least in my view. Feel free to disagree (or heap praise upon me!).

Monday, May 10, 2010

Pissed off Dude's Letter to the Canadian Government Re: Passport

Disclaimer: Somebody emailed this to me, and I thought I would post it, as it's pretty funny. I cannot speak to the veracity of this, however, and consequently, make no such claims to that end. As always, when it comes to shit like this, salt, grain, you get the idea.

That aside, enjoy!

Dear Mr. Minister,

I’m in the process of renewing my passport, and still cannot believe this.

How is it that Radio Shack has my address and telephone number and knows that I bought a t.v. cable from them back in 1997, and yet, the Federal Government is still asking me where I was born and on what date.

For Christ sakes, do you guys do this by hand?

My birth date you have on my social insurance card, and it is on all the income tax forms I’ve filed for the past 30 years. It is on my health insurance card, my driver’s license, on the last eight goddamn passports I’ve had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I’ve had to fill out before being allowed off the planes over the last 30 years, and all those insufferable census forms that are done at election times.

Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother’s name is Maryanne, my father’s name is Robert and I’d be absolutely astounded if that ever changed between now and when I die!


I apologize, Mr. Minister. I’m really pissed off this morning. Between you an’ me, I’ve had enough of this bullshit! You send the application to my house, then you ask me for my fuckin’ address. What is going on? You have a gang of Neanderthals assholes workin’ there?

Look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I don’t want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for shit sakes. I just want to go and park my ass on a sandy beach.

And would someone please tell me, why would you give a shit whether I plan on visiting a farm in the next 15 days? If I ever got the urge to do something weird to a chicken or a goat, believe you me, I’d sure as hell not want to tell anyone!

Well, I have to go now, ’cause I have to go to the other end of the city and get another fuckin’ copy of my birth certificate, to the tune of $60 !!!

Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot to assist in the issuance of a new passport the same day??

Nooooo, that’d be too damn easy and maybe make sense. You’d rather have us running all over the fuckin’ place like chickens with our heads cut off, then find some asshole to confirm that it’s really me on the goddamn picture – you know, the one where we’re not allowed to smile?!

(fuckin’ morons)

Hey, you know why we can’t smile? We’re totally pissed off!

Signed – An Irate fucking Canadian Citizen.

P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture and getting someone to confirm that it’s me? Well, my family has been in this country since 1776 when one of my forefathers took up arms against the Americans. I have served in the military for something over 30 years and have had security clearances up the yingyang.

I was aide de camp to the lieutenant governor of our province for ten years and I have been doing volunteer work for the RCMP for about five years.

However, I have to get someone ‘important’ to verify who I am – you know, someone like my doctor WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN COMMUNIST fucking CHINA!!!

Hamilton, Ontario Canada

End of Letter
Well, that's it. I hover between real and fake as I read that, but the bit at the end does lend it a bit of an air of truth. Either way, it's pretty damn funny, and you can't help but feel that tinge of YA! as you read it. Striking back at 'The Man' in any small way, and really saying exactly what's on your mind for once.....that's all satisfying stuff, and I experience some vicarious joy thanks to this, especially now, as I am actually currently in the middle of the bullshit passport application stuff. I could be missing something here, but I don't see hwo a passport ensures any extra marginal safety. The requirements boil down to having:
1) A birth certificate.
2) A piece of I.D.
3) A photo.
4) A couple of aquaintances.
5) A friend.
Guess what? I have that shit with me when I'm travelling anyways. Instead of spending $87 plus $15 for photos (oh, and $9 for scanning my license at fucking Staples) and wasting a bunch of time, I could just show them my photo I.D., birth certificate, and have my friend vouch for me right at the border. And if you think that a terrorist couldn't produce such things, you're living in a dream world.
Unless I am missing something, and I might be (someone let me know), all that the passport business does is inconvenience Joe Average and bring in some extra revenue for the Federal Government. I don't think this provides much of a barrier for the 'bad guys' to get through. Yet another false sense of security, nonsensical overreactionand a money grab. At least, from my admittedly layman's pov.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes

PREFACE: For anyone who came here expecting to find The Lost Commandment? on this page, I apologize, but I was inspired to write another blog post. You can easily find that blog by looking to the right and slightly down. It's right under blog archive. Or, you can just click this Link and get to it that way.

Okay, so the blog. Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason.

you are a beginner and I dont expect you to understand more complex intricacys that you'll miss

now...who is the dumby?

Also, those video clips you have are blasphemous and you should really take them down and repent before it's too late.

P.S. Your a fucking hippie. Wanna be friends?

i am an extra terrestrial, i come to earth to save mankind, i am appalled at the state of mankind and i am asking, no i am DEMANDING that you denounce your ways, and watch my video (it is my featured channel video, broadcasted from my craft) and you devote your lives to God

Creationism is a widely believed theory along with evolution. Not allowing it in discussions is wrong especially since many kids at that point would already believe it to be true.

Sarah Palin? She's not too bad. Probably not President material but she could be a Senator. She too is a victim of rabid attacks by the left as well.

so you don't like Palin I take it.

That's called God of the Gaps: "We don't know what happened, so God must have done it."

But what I'm doing is this: "Scientists don't know what happened from a naturalistic point of view, so here's an explanation that completely works and makes sense
atheists are more irrational than devout religious believers

He asked God what he could do better to serve him, and God literally said "You can preach," out loud

The God of the Bible wasn't invented to explain any natural phenomenon.
In response to: What happens when cosmology has an excellent, viable model for the origins of the universe(s). Then what?: Outside of the Big Bang, I don't anticipate this occurring.
  positing a creator is not only the only reasonable option available, it is better than merely positing a non answer, or a wild conjecture about multiverses. Not taking a stand on an issue as important as this is sheer folly.
And the absolute best thus far:
Jesus Christ, was that last one an exercise in doublethink, or what?
Islam is a religion of peace. It is something of beauty and Truth, not ugliness like apostasy and your dirty Atheism. I don't appreciate the content of your video, and if you were in front of me in person, I would do as I am commanded and strike you down for Allah. No one gets to spit in the face of Allah and Muhammad (s.a.w.) without retribution. You are taking advantage of the fact that we cannot get to you in person. At least, not yet. Keep insulting my beautiful and peaceful religion, and you might face judgement sooner than you smugly think, you disgusting atheist.
Peace be upon you.

EDIT: Part Two now available

Answering Creationist Q?s (answersingenesis + middletownbiblechurch)

These questions were derived from:


Questions in bold black, answers in bold red.

1) Lets say we did evolve from ape...why did we need to evolve? We have no fur, cant climb trees, aren't as fast and cant really survive in the jungle areas too long...It seems like we devolved in a bunch of ways?

First of all: COMMON ANCESTRY!!!!

All animals evolve, not just humans. As for needing to evolve, we don't need to. Evolution is a natural occurrence that must naturally occur in a system of genetic life that involves mutation and variance. Devolved? We're the most dominant species on the planet. Why do you assume things like speed, fur and climbing trees to be the endpoint(s) of evolution? Here's a hint, there is no goal of evolution. The traits that best enable the propagation of a species live on (natural selection). That's it.

2) why is it that humans can basically eat ANYTHING, including apes....and apes are strictly plant life?

Apes are omnivores.

3) Since a species is commonly defined as a group that can interbreed, it seems like fossils could never be identified to the species level because we can't observe how they interbreed. How do scientists determine what species a fossil is if it looks similar to another fossil but is a different size or slightly different shape? When scientists disagree with the classification of a fossil, who decides where it belongs?

What you described is called morphology. The answer to the question, at least in part, is DNA.

4) The human nose has a prominent bridge and an elongated tip which is lacking in the apes, and man's arms are very short in comparison to the arms of monkeys and apes. The arms of apes hang down to the ground and like its legs, are used for transportation...quick movement & climbing...another de-evolution?

See answer 1. Stop thinking of evolution as though it has an endpoint.

5) Human babies are far more helpless and dependent on their parents than any of the infants of apes and monkeys...What's up with that? Baby apes can move and climb very well only after a few weeks.

The fetal stage in humans is not complete at birth, that's why. Our brains/skulls get too large, so we are born earlier to compensate. Otherwise, we couldn't make it out of the birth canal.

6) If it is inaccurate to say that humans evolved from apes, but instead we should say all apes and humans have a common ancestor, what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape?

Okay, so if you know this, why did you phrase it differently in the beginning? Anyways, why do you equate looking like something with being that something, yet earlier you stated that fossil's can look similar to others fossils? Your question makes no sense. You say we descended from an ancestor that we have in common with apes, yet what did the ancestor look like if not like an ape? That's inconsistent. You're not actually saying what was it, but rather, what did it look like. You are making the vague implication that if it looked like an ape, it must have been an ape? Huh? Do you even know what you are asking here?

Anyways, isn't it quite obvious? You'd assume that they looked like a cross between humans and the other great apes to whom they gave rise.

7) Why is it that only apes evolved like we have? Why is it that we are the only ones that can split the atom, create gorgeous symphonies and 'I Have a Dream' Speeches, map & conquer the galaxy? It seems like only man is free to make real choices, and it's not like we are the only smart ones...Animals are free to do what they are instinctively programmed to do or what they have been trained to do. Men can make plans and decisions and choose a course of action....but how did we evolve to be THIS smart and THIS free?

Why is it that only cheetah evolved like they have? Why is it that they are the only ones that can run so fast? It seems like only cheetahs can run so fast. Cheetahs can run SOOO fast....but how did they evolve to be THIS fast?

Do you get my point? I hope so. Anyways, the answer is simple: prefrontal/frontal cortex.

8) Why is it that only men are able to train and tame other animals?

We're not. Ants can herd aphids, although, even if this were true, and I actually thought it was until I read this online, I don't see how that would be difficult to understand, or contrary to evolution. Presumably, it would boil down to intelligence, would it not? That's how I was going to answer it, until I read the ant thing. We have evolved to possess great (relatively) intelligence.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Presuppositions, Frameworks, and Argumentation.

Video on this topic:

And yes, I was having a horrible hair day that day, sue me ;)

Okay, so I have been intermittently been thinking about this topic for some time. The thing of which I am speaking is debate on the subject of relgion. Now, while this could actually pertain to any subject, I would like to frame this within the context of religious discussion. Namely, that which takes place beteen believers and non believers.
So, believers and non believers have two completely different worldviews, or frameworks, from which their arguments on this subject are deployed. Each of these viewpoints, or frameworks, contain beliefs that are fundamentally subscribed to. They are presupposed. For example, the believer will pressupose the existence of god(s). Any discussion regarding religion always takes place with this presupposition in effect.

An atheist will pressupose things as well. For example, if I am to discuss evolution with someone, I absolutely enter the debate with the presupposition that evolution is a fact. Or, to tie in with the example I gave for the theist, an atheist will pressupose that certain arguments for the existence of a deity are false. Speaking for myself, I outright reject the TAG, cosmological, and teleological arguments for the existence of god, and thusly enter into any discussion about them with the idea in mind that they are insufficent/flawed/unacceptable.

So just what the fuck am I driving at here?

Well, presuppositions can change, although it is (notoriously) difficult. So my question is as follows:
Which do you think is the more effective method of argumentation? Working within people's given frameworks, and trying to change their mind on enough non pressuposed issues until one day the presuppositions themselves naturally come under scrutiny (or they are willing to actually consider them)

aka The Top Down Approach (as it was named by my friend and excellent Youtuber


Going right for the presuppositions, knowing that if you strike right at the heart of the matter and are successful, everything else will presumably fall in line?

aka The Bottom Up Approach (also named by my friend and excellent Youtuber

To elucidate this, as an atheist, would you think I'd have more success refuting a theists' notions on several different particulars until their very belief in god comes into question, or going right for the presupposition, knowing that if I can remove the certainty, the rest will crumble the second the belief in god does?

This of course, as I stated, can be applied to anything. Politics is another big one. This does not have to be about religion.

One thing to add was something I stated in the video: Does the fact of whether or not the ideas that follow from the presuppositions are logically consistent/follow from the belief (aka not non sequitors) change the ideal approach? I would think that it does, in that, if Y follows from X, it might be more prudent to go right for X, since you will have a harder time attacking a position which is seemingly steeped in solid logic. And of course, the opposite would be true (in my view, of course). If Y does NOT follow from X, then it is easier to tackle Y. So, if Y and Z both do not logically follow from X, and you strip them away, X is more susceptible to scrutiny (aka the top down approach).

I would love to get some feedback on this, both from theists and atheists. I think this is an interesting topic than could benefit from anyone, on both sides of this debate. Actually, forget that context, anyone, period, in terms of ANY debate. Sometimes I get too steeped in the theist/atheist thing, but what can I say? It's the area of discussion with which I am most fascinated, opinionated, and well, according to a few people.....obsessed.

Thursday, March 25, 2010


I've been thinking a lot about language lately. Specifically, the application of language as a descriptive entity, and how overdoing it (aka hyperbole) can cause the language to lose its meaning. Language is our primary means of communication. It has served us well over the course of our history, although its (improper or callous) usage can also lead to problems of understanding. It can be problematic when you have a problem of interpretation, either due to a language barrier, or a failure on the speakers' part to speak with clarity or accuracy and consistency.

One such failure on the part of a speaker is the use of hyperbole. Hyperbole is basically exaggeration. Take for example, the word ''starving.'' What does it mean to be ''starving?'' Well, according to Wikipedia, starvation is a severe reduction in vitamin, nutrient and energy intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition. In humans, prolonged starvation can cause permanent organ damage[citation needed] and eventually, death.

Here is a picture of a poor little girl suffering the effects of starvation:

Tell me, how many of you look like that?

Nor do I.

Yet, I, and probably most of you, have, at some point or another, said the words ''I'm starving.'' Most of us probably say this at least once during the course of a normal week. I usually phrase it as such: ''Man, I'm fuckin starving!'' Tell me, does being hungry due to a lack of food intake for the last few hours actually qualify as starving?

Tell me, are we actually starving, or just hungry?

How about when it comes to pain? How often you you say that your such and such is ''killing you?'' ''Oh man, my back is killing me!'' Tell me, does back soreness due to odd sleeping position actually qualify as killing you?

What's my point? Well, if mild-moderate back pain and mild-moderate hunger qualify as ''killing'' you and starvation, respectively, then what the fuck do you call severe pain and type of hunger represented by that above picture? Do we invent new words for those? Are we actually equating these scenarios? Can we stretch the words that thin?

Other examples of this that seem to be happening more and more frequently these days are the words socialism, socialist, communism, communist, fascism, fascist and Nazi being thrown around by both the American media and the American people, almost always being applied to their president, Barack Obama, and his policies. I think these are quite clearly examples of words being tossed around to such a hyperbolas (is that a word? I dunno, if not, it is now!) degree that they are losing their meaning. I mean, really, if Obama is a fascist, then what the fuck do you call Benito Mussolini? I mean really, are you going to equate the two men? Any sane, rational person would hopefully be exorbitantly reluctant to do so. Yet people do.

The previous examples also exemplify how language can be used to elicit emotions in people, and, specifically in those examples, emotions that are misaligned. Obama is a not a fascist, and when you convince someone that he is, you end up causing someone to be afraid of something that warrants or merits no such fear. This is why I believe people need to be a little more careful with their usage of rhetorical devices like hyperbole, and just language in general. So, next time you have a mild headache, say that your head hurts. Not that it's killing you. Otherwise, what will the people dying of brain cancer say? I have a super duper killer headache?

Okay, so that last bit was me being facetious, but I hope you get my drift (so to speak).