Collected Afilliation with Sentient Entities

ProfMTH

2009-08-01T22:47:00.001-07:00

I strongly encourage people to look at ProfMTH's videos. He is very good at analysing and destroying scripture.

I know how you all love zeitgeist

2009-07-27T20:41:00.003-07:00

I don't agree with all of zeistgeist but they do make a few good points (in amongst the bollocks).

Religion is just child abuse

2009-07-26T05:43:00.000-07:00

Response to Josh

2009-07-18T07:22:00.001-07:00

No Josh, your blind idolatorous faith in a book overtakes your ability to act rationally.

"Jesus says that one of the things people will see is the destruction of the temple, which was fulfilled"

Yes, ONE of those things, but is it ALL as the context requires?

"and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

So, were the early christians hated by ALL nations, how about the chinese and japanese, or the mayans? Of whom there was no contact, nor any knowledge.

"this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations"

So, was the gospel preached in North America during the generation of Jesus's time? Perhaps you ought become a follower of Smith? Did the Inca ever receive this Gospel during that generation - no.

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

So, if this great Tribulation happened in the generation of Jesus, then does that mean the extermination of the Jews was less terrible? Or the wars of the 20th century?

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken"

Firstly, Jesus thinks the moon creates its own light - WRONG. Secondly, the stars are still up in the sky A LONG TIME AFTER THAT GENERATION IS ALL PASSED AWAY.

I could go one further, but what is the point, your zealotry retards your ability to reason or even understand that these things you believe are false. Should you have an ounce of humility, you would renounce your faith and accept the truth: THERE IS NO GOD.

Freedom of Speech

2009-07-12T06:50:00.000-07:00

The term freedom of speech is oft bandied about in our society, yet many do not appreciate what it really means. Freedom of speech means not only the freedom of each of us to make our opinion known, it is also the obligation to let others say as they will about us. Our laws protect only against statements of defamatory imputation and no more. To limit the ability of others to criticise us is, in reality, an open move against the freedom of speech.

Religion is known for limiting freedom of speech. Emperor Justinian burnt all opposing (non-christian) temples and schools of study and made the crime of heresy punishable by death. They moved against freedom of speech. Hitlers first command when he obtained Chancellory was to limit press freedoms and then silence the Courts. They moved against freedom of speech.

Why do people that hold themselves out to be true, right and correct, fear the criticisms of others? Could it be that they know they are not right at all.

We know only that limiting the Freedom of Speech is a step towards darkness and recklessness. A man who has courage and honour will brook any words made against him. A tyrant and coward, one and the same, will always seek to limit freedom of speech. Shame on that tyrant and coward alike.

Challenge to Christians

2009-07-11T03:51:00.000-07:00

Could any of Jesus's God bothering cronies please answer this for me:

John 7: 38 states

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

I've looked and looked, but I can't find a quote in the Bible that "He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water". Or any words to that effect. This can obliges any person that cannot find such words to conclude that:

1. The Bible is not complete, and thus not the perfect word of God; or,
2. John 7: 38 is incorrect, and thus the Bible is not the perfect word of God.

A Perfect Circle

2009-06-23T06:21:00.000-07:00

If anyone out there hasn't heard A Perfect Circle's - Judith then I thoroughly recommend it to you. Here are the lyrics and a link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23eZMdixAuk

You're such an inspiration for ways
That i will never ever choose to be.
Oh so many ways for me to show you
How your savior has abandoned you.

Thank(fuck) your god.
Your lord, your christ
He did this,
Took all you had
And left you this way.
Still you pray, never stray,
Never taste of the fruit.
Never thought to question why.

It's not like you killed someone.
It's not like you drove a hateful spear into his side.
Praise the one who left you
Broken down and paralyzed.
He did it all for you.
He did it all for you.

Oh so many ways for me to show you
How your dogma has abandoned you.
Pray to your christ, to your god.
Never taste of the fruit,
Never stray, never break,
Never choke on a lie,
Even though he's the one who did this to you
Never thought to question why.

It's not like you killed someone.
It's not like you drove a spiteful spear into his side.
Talk to jesus christ as if he knows the reasons why
He did this all to you.

He did it all for you.
He did it all for you.

Wonderful video

2009-05-19T01:01:00.001-07:00

Correspondence

2009-05-07T16:50:00.000-07:00

Mimi of California asks:

I am amazed that so many people take God and Hell so lightly. CASE, what is the reason for this?

I chose the psychological angle to explain why non-believers (and even believers) do not constantly cower in fear of the supposed afterlife BBQ:

The reason is psychological and the same reason that theists come to fear death, even though they assume they are "saved".

The human brain has two sources of information, logos (logic, reality) and mythos (fantasy, imagination). These sources appear to be identical to the conscious mind, however, the subconscious retains some understanding that:

1. Logos can be trusted, in this way, we know that if we jump off a building, we will fall. There is no fear that we will not fall.

2. Mythos is untrustworthy, in this way, we know that although we think we are good looking, we have doubts about our personal attributes when we ask a girl on a date.

Similarly, if we are bungee jumping for the first time, our expected experience is only imagined (mythos) and we have doubt or fear about not stopping the fall in the face of our knowledge (logos) of gravity.

Because the brain knows that religious activity is mythos (fantasy and imagination), it does not create the same fear effect as if we were standing on a precipice over a ravine. That is, essentially, the reason why people take God and Hell so lightly.

However, there are many situations where the fear created appears to be logos deceptively. For instance, a child that is beaten, berated, socially ostracised or suffers some other coercion if they disagree with the Bible will naturally form the rule that disbelief brings about greater fear than professing belief and thus, will not tend to treat the matter lightly. Of course, this is a strong reason behind the use of peer groups in churches, particularly, youth groups. The sad conclusion, however, is that these children live in a world where the only alternative on any religious issue is fear, which is damaging to the psyche and potentially destructive to the life of the child.

Need say no more

2009-05-07T16:26:00.000-07:00

We know there is no God in the same way that we know there are no square triangles.

Assume: the definition of God is an intelligent being who decides to begin the universe, including time.

A decision is a transition from indifference to will. Such transition may only take place within time. Thus, we ask the question when did God make the decision to begin time, before, after or during the actual commencement of time:

1. Since all decisions require time to already be in effect, God cannot make the decision until time has already commenced in operation and accordingly, he cannot make the decision before or during the actual commencement of time;

2. Since time was already in existence after time commenced, God cannot be said to create it.

Thus, the definition of God as presented CANNOT exist because, like the square triangle, the definition CANNOT be show to exist in reality and thus, there CANNOT be a God.

However, this proof only shows that an intelligent being could not create the universe. It does not prevent the universe being the result of natural causes, something without decision making ability or chosen will. Accordingly, as far as I see it and to the extent of the validity of the argument, which I cannot flaw myself, the argument about the existence of God is now over.

Calvinism, hating the poor and working hard

2009-04-05T05:37:00.000-07:00

Josh,

I remember where I heard about Calvinism! It was during my studies of criminology and the early modern philosopher, Max Weber, who penned a study of protestant churches in Europe, a note from the commentary:

Weber traced the origins of the Protestant ethic to the Reformation, though he acknowledged some respect for secular everyday labor as early as the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church assured salvation to individuals who accepted the church's sacraments and submitted to the clerical authority. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances. From a psychological viewpoint, the average person had difficulty adjusting to this new worldview, and only the most devout believers or "religious geniuses" within Protestanism, such as Martin Luther, were able to make this adjustment, according to Weber.

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.

Worldly success became one measure of that self-confidence. Luther made an early endorsement of Europe's emerging labor divisions. Weber identifies the applicability of Luther's conclusions, noting that a "vocation" from God was no longer limited to the clergy or church, but applied to any occupation or trade.

However, Weber saw the fulfillment of the Protestant ethic not in Lutheranism, which was too concerned with the reception of divine spirit in the soul, but in Calvinistic forms of Christianity. The trend was carried further still in Pietism. Baptism diluted the concept of the calling relative to Calvinists, but other aspects made its congregants fertile soil for the development of capitalism--namely, a lack of paralyzing ascetism, the refusal to accept state office and thereby develop unpolitically, and the doctrine of control by conscience which caused rigorous honesty.

The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:

* According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
* The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.

As per usual, it seems you know less about your own theology than the atheist.

Brisbane Atheist Meetup Group Agenda - Feb meeting

2009-02-09T00:03:00.000-08:00

Brisbane Atheist Meetup Group - February Meeting - 9 February 2009

Introductions
News from this month

- Catholic Church involved in Holocaust Denial Row
Bishop Williamson, who said the Nazis did not use gas chambers and killed "only" 300,000 Jews rather than six million, admitted last week his remarks had been "imprudent" and apologised to the Pope for the "anguish" he had caused. However, he did not withdraw his claim, nor did he apologise to the Jews.

- Papal Choice for Bishop describes Hurricane Katrina as "Act of God"
Father Gerhard Maria Wagner, 54, a parish priest at Windischgarsten in Austria since 1988, said in the parish newsletter four years ago that the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina was "divine retribution" for excessive sexual permissiveness, including tolerance of homosexuality, in the city.
He noted that Katrina destroyed not only nightclubs and brothels in New Orleans, but also abortion clinics, saying: "The conditions of immorality in this city are indescribable."

- London Bus "religion wars"
The latest to hit the streets with pro-God buses are The Christian Party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church. The Christian Party is paying for buses to carry the slogan: 'There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life.' The Trinitarian Bible Society has chosen a line from Psalm 53: 'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.'

Current Activities

We presently don't have any on-going projects

Martin Rady has suggested that we carry out some kind of charitable endeavour:

- Food collection for homeless people?

Also, is anyone interested in producing a promotional youtube video for the Group?

Religion in the Spotlight: Pentacostalism

- Predominantly infest Northern Queensland.
- Descended from the mid-west United States in about 1901

Pentecostals generally believe
- The Bible is the innerent word of God and thus the world is 6,000 years old;
- Salvation is only through being re-born with Jesus
- Good works won't get you to heaven
- some Pentecostals believe true christians can handle snakes without being bitten
- glossolalia or speaking in tongues:
Acts 2:4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance
- Currently they operate a witnessing program in the Queen St Mall on Friday nights.

General Discussion

William Lane Craig is a douche

2009-01-16T20:07:00.001-08:00

The God Challenge

2009-01-09T07:52:00.000-08:00

If you wish to enter into a written agreement to formalise this Offer then please email me on acstewart81@hotmail.com

Contradictions in the Bible

2009-01-06T06:10:00.000-08:00

Im still trying to get Movie Maker to work, tell me if this is too fast.

Movie

2009-01-03T00:32:00.000-08:00

This is my first movie, sorry about the poor quality.

Proof God cannot exist

2008-12-06T19:21:00.000-08:00

k1 --> k2
Where t = -1 --> 1

Nothing more required.

Last Video

2008-11-14T19:53:00.000-08:00

I have been really lazy recently and just been posting youtube videos. I will get back to writing soon.

Here is the last one, evidence of modern physicists views on the creation of the universe (3:05):-

Golden Crocoduck - must see

2008-11-11T00:12:00.000-08:00

This is what I think of expelled

2008-11-08T22:08:00.001-08:00

This is sooo gonna create problems

2008-11-08T18:24:00.001-08:00

If you are going to preach, then preach like this

2008-10-31T18:05:00.000-07:00

No need to talk of Hell or judgement here. That is not what was needed.

It is perhaps the most powerful and beautiful speech of the last century.

Fear and the darkside, why the religious must stay out of politics

2008-10-31T17:44:00.000-07:00

When one group in society can destroy the reputation of an individual based on superstition then it has gone too far.

2008-10-20T18:00:00.000-07:00

Einstein proved there is no God when he pointed out that all things which exist are relative to each other. Accordingly, an eternal God must, relative to this point in time (and whether or not the space time continuum commences from any set big bang event) therefore have existed at a point in time, an infinite amount of time ago. Therefore, God must traverse an infinite amount of time to reach this point in time and since an infinity cannot be traversed, God cannot exist.

"If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."
– Albert Einstein: The foundation of the general theory of relativity, Section A, §1

Thus, an eternal God that ever have had any effect on the universe at any point in time does not exist. There is only one thing that can be eternal as well as traverse an infinite amount of time because it is not relative to any other thing. Have a guess at what it is.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." A Einstein, 1954, letter to Eric Gutkind.

Why do you oppose religion?

2008-10-16T21:58:00.000-07:00

I often get asked why I would oppose religion and God. Christians usually couch the question in such a way as to imply it is purely for rebellion against the creator and thereby justify their assumption that I will spend eternity in Hell. Lol. The truth is more profound than that simple shell game and can be found in the problem of evil.

If you ask a theist, "why are some people rich and others desperately poor" or "why do some people go to good schools and others get neglected" then you will get the usual response, "God has morally sufficient reasons for creating these inequalities". In other words, the theists religion causes the theist to simply accept inequality in the world as the work of God. Alternatively, they will state that such inequality is the result of man's sin. Again, there is a carte blanche acceptance of inequalities in our society on the basis of reasoning underpinned by their beliefs. Of course, those inequalities in this world do not matter because of the promise of the afterlife.

If we follow this premise we see that the theist is unquestioning of power in the past, at present and into the future. The theist loses the capcity to question authority because it is "God's will". But we know that in order for society to change for the better there must be an element of questioning of authority and the present circumstances. Religion just removes the theists voice from the discussion. Thus, I oppose religion because it pacifies people from determining their own destiny.

Think though of the irony of the situation. The deal made by theists is to accept their fate and in exchange they are offered an eternity in the afterlife, a place where no-one has been and no-one can find without having never to return. It is the sale of real estate that doesn't exist in exchange for everything you have in the world. I feel sorry for theists, they have been duped and have become the unknowing projectors of their mind destroying poison onto other people. They do not realise their choice and accordingly, they are lost.

Where did Jesus come from?

2008-10-16T20:05:00.000-07:00

The separation between the myth of Jesus and the person (if any) is difficult to untangle. We know that so far as mythological figures goes, Jesus shares many stark similarities to other Gods in Eurasia before that time. Including, but not limited to Horus (well, one of his incarnations), Mythra, Krishna, Dionysis and even Joseph of the Bible. When considering whether Jesus is a myth or not, we should look at some of these fascinating myths from the ancient world and think about the potential influence they may have had on one another. After all, we know these people traded extensively with each other in both goods as well as ideas.

Horus - This is probably the oldest (3000BC) incarnation of the Jesus myth. There are about 15 different incarnations of Horus, as each priest over the 2500 years that he was worshipped added their own ideas.

Horus was the son of Isis-Meri and Osiris. Osiris was dead (not in this world) at the time of conception of Horus. Horus was adorned by three wise men or magi at his birth, who followed a shining star. Horus was a teacher at age 12, he was baptised at 30 and then betrayed after ministering to the people and performing miracles. He was known as "lamb of God" and "light of the world". He was crucified and was buried, only to arise three days later.

Horus is characteristically shown with the head of an eagle. He is also the deity that leads the judged when their hearts are weighed against a feather, as shown below in the Book of the Dead:-

Mithra - appears at least by 670BC with the first Persian empire. Zoroastrian texts state that Ahura Mazda (The Zoroastrian God) declares to Zoroaster that Mithra is "to be as worthy of sacrifice and as worthy of prayer as myself". Born to a virgin on 25 December, he was known as the "light", "redeemer", "enemy of darkness" and "judge of souls", the last being his official title within Zoroastrian custom. He was part of a trinity of protectors of the universe. He entered the mortal realm where he was betrayed, killed and then resurrected into light and air where he now guides souls to Paradise.

Dionysus - Ancient Greece. Dionysus is born of a virgin to Semale. His father is Zeus. Dionysus travels with companions throughout the Greek Isles performing miracles. He is the God of wine and revelry and asks others to "drink his blood and eat his flesh". He can make wine from nothing as shown in various ancient ceremonies

Joseph - son of Jacob, 2nd last of 12 sons (12 disciples). Was betrayed at the idea of his brother Judah (Jude, Judas) out of jealousy and sold into slavery. At the age of 30 he shows miraculous abilities, overcomes temptation and leads the jewish people into Egypt.

There are about 57 ressurection and 45 virgin birth myths catalogued in the ancient world. These similarities are not random chance. They all have an astrological meaning - something that was very important to the ancients. For instance, in the northern hemisphere the sun appears lower on the horizon as the winter solstace approaches. Presently that happens on the 21st or 22nd of December. The sun descends to its lowest point for three days then arises as the tilt of the earth changes. That is, the sun begins to rise on the 25th of december. In ancient lore, the sun was adored as "giver of life" the "light" as it would provide the light and warmth for people of the ancient world. Thus, its descent into darker days was viewed as the sun dying or losing the battle against the darkness. The return of the sun was considered a "rebirth" whereupon it would come to dominate the days at about late march (Spring Equinox) or easter.

Even more interestingly, the three stars that form Orion's belt which were known to some ancients as the three magi or three kings, align directly through the brightest star in the sky, Sirius A to line up with the point on the horizon where the sun rises on the 25th of december. The birth of Jesus is just an astrological event retold.

Astrology cults are not new. In a time when the entire world had only the stars to look at during night, these were fascinating things. They personified the stars and the sun because of their magnificence. They were untouchable by man and therefore, to a species that learns through touching, completely unknowable. These stories held the psyche of man, and long after their actual nature began, they became the foundation for new stories and myths.

But what about the crucifixtion? Why both Horus, Jesus, Dionysus and others suffering a crucifixtion? The answer is simple, you have probably known about it since you were very young and first saw the Australian flag. When the sun descends (from the northern hemisphere) into the winter solstice, the earth is tilted to its lowest point. In the mediteranean, the sun appears to rise through the constellation crux - or the cross - He is risen.

These stories have lived through the ages. They have changed over time, particularily before the advent of widespread writing. And now, people wish to spread these lies over the rest of us as truth. They don't realise the truth because they blind themselves with faith.

I am sorry, there is no God.

Look familiar

2008-10-15T02:13:00.000-07:00

Kiss Hanks

2008-10-08T22:05:00.000-07:00

This is exactly how I feel dealing with fundies sometimes:-

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's *** with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ***?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ***, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the **** out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ***."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ***?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's *** with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's *** often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the **** out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ***, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's *** for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's *** He'll kick the **** of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ***?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ***. Other times we kiss Karl's ***, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?" Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ***. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ***, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

** From the desk of Karl **

Kiss Hank's *** and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the **** out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's *** or He'll kick the **** out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the **** out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Dinosaurs, Behemoths and the Great Biblical swindle

2008-09-24T20:46:00.000-07:00

A few weekends ago, a friend of mine from Operation 513 (a dangerous terrorist organisation) made a statement that Job 40 proves that humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. For those of you who don't know, Job 40: states:-

40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field
play.
40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
40:22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Now, I had previously read about this and it already appeared that the passage and following passage regarding the leviathan were pretty clearly just imaginings, not unlike faeries or the loch ness monster. Nonetheless, when dealing with fundamentalists it takes significant evidence to persuade them of the silliness of their position. For this reason, I began investigating the matter in detail, and, to my suprise revealed another example of propoganda and coverup which exemplifies the sickening intellectual dishonesty engaged in by the christian agenda.

It was no suprise to me that ancient Jewish legend does tell of three mythical beasts, the Behemoth of the earth, the Leviathan of the Sea and a third entity not mentioned in Job, Ziz, a sky creature of incredible power. The ancient Jewish mystic tradition (Haggi) these three beings would battle against each other at the end of the world.

Some readers consider the behemoth could be put down to some of the massive african fauna such as elephants or hippopotamus, however, this is usually discounted by the description in Job 40:16 that the behemoth has a tail "like a cedar tree". The counter argument to this was that an elephants trunk could be confused for a tail, which makes some sense in that the behemoth is said to never allow humans to get close "it can only be destroyed by its creator". Alternatively, it is noted that the skin of an elephant (or hippo for that matter) has the same texture as a cedar tree and this may be the detail referred to in the passage. Another interpretation is that the "tail" is a miscontruction of the word in Jewish which is more often used to describe a large male genetalia - of which elephants are well blessed.

Creationists, of course, consider the passage, in particular the reference to the tail, describes a large sauropod like apatosaurus or brachiasaurus, of which there are numerous fossilised examples. This is where the scholarship of christians comes into question. The passage above is from the King James Translation of the Bible, whereas newer translations state at 40:16:-

Behold now, his strength in his loins and his power in the muscles of his belly

So why would christians replace "his power in the navel of his belly" with "his power in the muscles of his belly"? The reason is simple, dinosaurs were birthed in eggs - that is, they do not have umbilical cords like humans. Accordingly, the behemoth - if a dinosaur - would not have a navel. This proves that behemoth was not a dinosaur and more likely a figment of imagination or forgotten description of an existing species of animal.

But, that alone is not the final word, it mentions that the behemoth eats grass. Yet, fossil records of dinosaurs show they had spoon like teeth and not molar teeth which are required to eat grass or chew cud "like an ox".

Furthermore, in the earlier translations, there is reference to behemoth lying below a lotus tree in Job 40: 21:-

He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. The lotus
trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him

It is perhaps ironic that of the lotus species, none of the plants grow to more than two meters high. Were these pygmy dinosaurs?

This highlights two points, firstly, the Bible does not describe humans and dinosaurs side by side. Secondly, christians (who are no doubt aware of these facts) are prepared to change their "interpretation" of their own holy text in order to preserve their point of view.

Signs of the Times

2008-09-23T00:26:00.000-07:00

Honestly, Twatt Church.

Creationism, Intelligent Design - What do the academics really think?

2008-09-21T22:55:00.000-07:00

I often hear from creationists that there is substantial academic support behind intelligent design. This bizarre statement is at odds with reality - which is not unsuprising given its source. Nonetheless, I have done some basic research into the matter and found that several academic bodies in Australia and around the world have policies against the teaching of Intelligent Design and strongly rebuking creationism as a whole.

As you would expect, intelligent design policies are more heavily populated in areas which are subject to this vile academic schicanery, particularly geology and biology. Perhaps the best instance of this comes from the Geological Society of Australia who released its own Intelligent Design policy in March 2006 which was undersigned by the president and 18 former presidents of that society. The policy is strongly worded against the teaching of intelligent design:-

The Geological Society of Australia considers that notions such as Fundamental Creationism, including so called "Flood Geology", which disregard scientific evidence such as that based on repeatable observations in the natural world and the geological record, are not science and cannot be taught as science.
An essential element in the teaching of science is the encouragement of students and teachers to critically appraise the evidence for notions being taught as science. The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of future generations.
In some parts of Australia, the advocacy of notions like Creationism is confronting the integrity and effectiveness of our national education system and the hard-won evidencebased foundations of science. The Geological Society of Australia cannot remain silent. To do so would be a dereliction of our responsibility to intellectual
freedom and to the fundamental principles of scientific thought. As a consequence, the Society dissociates itself from Creationist statements made by any member.

So the next time someone says there is academic support for Intelligent Design or Creationism. Tell them they are full of it.

Sarah Palin

2008-09-11T22:28:00.000-07:00

Nuff Said

2008-09-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

Refutation of the First Cause argument from Hume (PS, Hume doesn't demand that you worship him - after all - he is not as proud as your God).

1. The first cause argument is dependent on causation
2. Causation is dependent on time
3. If there was ever no time then there would have been no causation
4. If time was infinite then it would never have gotten to today
5. Today exists
6. Therefore, time is finite.
7. Therefore, there was a point without time
8. Therefore, there was a point without causation

9a. The universe could be the result of a state of affairs without causation
9b. God/Allah could be the result of a state of affairs without causation who then created the universe
9c. Ockhams razor provides that the more simple explanation is most likely to be true.
9d. An uncaused universe is more simple than an uncaused god who then created the universe

10a. Therefore, it is more likely that the universe is uncaused; and,
10b. God does not exist.

Should Dahmer go to Heaven?

2008-09-03T03:48:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, I previously finished a degree in justice studies where I developed an interest in how serial killers operate. Serial killers are different to most criminals. Helen Morrison, a United States psychiatrist who has studied many serial killers has hypothesised that serial killers lack a developed personality and generally have the emotional development of an infant of about 100 days. It is for this reason that they are capable of acting with complete intelligence and having no hesitation in carrying out vicious acts of torture which they usually describe as experimentation. That is, the killing is only incidental to seeing what will happen when the experiment is performed.

Whenever I am told by theists that there is objective morality in the world, I sometime think back to what I know of serial killers and laugh. If there is objective reality then these guys missed that lesson.

I turn now to Jeffrey Dahmer, an electrical worker at a chocolate factory, Dahmer killed 17 people, had sex with their corpses and occasionally ate the remains. Some body parts were found in a sewer drain near his house as well as in his fridge.

Dahmer, like most serial killers, is a very good liar and can construct powerful realities, just as actors do. However, Helen Morrison found that while such killers are often charming in person, their charm wears off if one interrogates them for several hours without a break. This is caused by strain - because their charm and personality are artificial, they cannot keep it up forever.

Here is a video interview where Dahmer describes his coming to believe in Jesus Christ:-

And if you believe that, you would be a good victim too.

The flawed God

2008-09-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

I am always amazed at the bloodthirsty nature of religion, but not so much as a young man on the weekend that proclaimed to me that his salvation came through the blood of an innocent man, ie Jesus. I do not understand how a person can reconcile that their own sins are set assunder because another man, who is supposedly completely innocent, was brutally tortured and crucified. How is it that blood can atone for sin? If anything, wouldn't we expect good works or the giving of love to rectify the imbalance we often perceive in our own behaviour. How can it be that thinking you are personally responsible for the death of an innocent person will somehow overcome your own flaws? I would have thought that it would just be another sin to add to your tally?

Perhaps it is fitting that Christians believe their patron was actually god in flesh. Does it not seem odd that one would consider that taking blood of an innocent person, that of their god, as a path to salvation, would actually be the exact route taken by their god's enemy? For it is not in the ressurection that these christians find their salvation but in the price paid in blood. How horrendous it must be to think that you are guilty for everything, including the death of your saviour?

And yet, I find nothing in the New or Old testament that points these people towards becoming better human being. Not in the words of a god at least. The kindness and love supposed to be shown through the christian tradition is not more than the kindness and love that the godless Greeks or the Egyptians or the Norse also considered to be virtuous. How is it that if this man was god in human form that he could not provide us with any greater guidance than that which had already been discovered by man?

Here, we examine the supposed pinnacle of Christian teaching, "do unto others as thou would have done unto yourself", and here we see the fatal flaw of this relativistic approach - what if I wish to be despised? Is this god in human form incapable of seeing such a possibility? I only have to walk down my local street to see children dressed in black and bearing profane banners with pride for me to see ones that wish to be despised and outcast from our group. So how does the "golden rule" aide them? It does not, rather, it provides a preface towards an ever spiralling descent away from our fellow man. How foolish was christ to make his provision for our actions dependent on our own flawed nature. And yet, that is probably the best evidence that he himself was flawed as any man and no god could be.

The uncertain man

2008-08-21T15:55:00.000-07:00

Humans are designed to be uncertain. It is a fundamental aspect of our nature (Knight, F.H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston, MA: Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Company).

Without uncertainty a human being cannot identify a problem to be solved. Michael Ruse gives the example that a caveman sees two tigers walk into a cave and only one come out. He does not know(as he cannot see) if the second tiger is still in the cave, but the operation of his brain tells him that it would be best not to go into the cave (Ruse, (2006) Darwinism and its discontents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).

Uncertainty can take many forms in human decision making - but it is the essential ingredient to all decisions, for without uncertainty the decision would already have been made:-

A rational decision is where the uncertainty in a subject is responded to with justification.

So, I would like to pose an interesting question. Genesis 1:27 states, inter alia, "So, God created man in His own image". This is sometimes taken to mean in a likeness sense and sometimes in respect of the mind of man - the creative nature of our species. The implication of the latter interpretation does result in the problem of uncertainty, that is, are we uncertain beings because God is an uncertain being? If so, then God cannot be omniscient as such a state renders all uncertainty void. On the other hand, if God is omniscient then we are not created in his image. Although, this may prove little more than the fallability of biblical text.

In any event, the nature of uncertainty as a central and fundamental quality of human decision making leads us to a far greater problem than God's creation and this is, Gods justice. Biblical (Koranic, Egyptian, Nordic.....) religions have penalties for a failure to be absolutely certain about the existence of the proposed God(/s). How can we make a rational decision about something if our uncertainty in the proposed statement is removed? Clearly we cannot. In order to be a theist, a person must remove their initial uncertainty through an act of faith. Otherwise, the theist must admit that they could be wrong (ie, they have the initial state of uncertainty). Thus, by removing ones uncertainty about a subject - the decision that results is a fait accompli and certainly not rational.

So to any theists out there, think to yourself, could you be wrong?

Einstein - Genius

2008-08-17T01:01:00.000-07:00

Dawkins on the air

2008-08-17T00:58:00.000-07:00

Josh, this is for you

2008-08-12T23:14:00.000-07:00

Enjoy

Mr Deity

2008-08-12T21:22:00.001-07:00

This is funny.

2008-08-08T07:50:00.000-07:00

This is why we can't allow theism to gain control of society ever again

Systemic Logic

2008-08-01T22:21:00.000-07:00

Bob Spence said this - he is very smart ;)

Logic is a systematic description of the irreducible minimum relationships between propositions for a coherent, self-consistent reasoning process, discussion, discourse, whatever you want to call it, about the content of any set of propositions about reality.

It is the starting point for coherent discourse.

The rules of logic start from the 'assumption' that there exist sets of propositions, statements about reality that cannot all simultaneously be true, that describe distinguishable, different possible attributes, events, relationships between entities, ie that there is structure to reality, not just a blur of every everything posssible existing and happening at once and/or at pure

This is fundamental.

To insist that this somehow can only be the case if there is some grander entity within which such a structure can exist explains absolutely nothing, merely opening the way to the worst sort of infinite regress, requiring ever grander entities within which any given entity must exist, therefore such a proposal is essentially self-refuting.

Rather pursue the more fruitful chain of 'infinite' regress, where each complex proposition of logic, or the elaborations of logical reasoning, ie mathematics in all its forms, is shown to be derived from simpler, more fundamental theorems, till we arrive at the most elementary.

Analogous to following 'cause and effect' chains back, where any given 'effect' can be seen as being initiated by a set of one or more 'causes' whic may well be much more elementary and lesser that the effect triggered, so that the 'ultimate cause' need only be a set of infinitesimal 'twitches' in the fabric of reality.

As long as all the identifiable cause-effect links form, on average, a geometrically decreasing sequence in duration and energy, as we trace back, then even a theoretically infinite sequence will total to a finite duration and energy, a point that the Greek philosophers totally failed to get there minds around, as with Xeno's famous paradoxes, which are totally resolved by later mathematics, such as those dealing with infinite series and calculus.

So once you eliminate the assumption that 'cause' must always be greater than 'effect', most if not all traditional arguments for 'God' vanish in a puff of logic, as Douglas Adams once said. Just think of the final snowflake that triggers the avalanche...

'God' and all such ideas are part of a lesser, derivative reality, the world of speculative ideas which is totally dependent on our own minds, which in turn are parasitic on the world of nature.

Quote from Bob Spence on the BAMG message boards.

Is truth knowable - only if you assume it is ;).

Vile anti-abortion lobby

2008-07-31T22:29:00.000-07:00

I was sickened when I saw this article:-

Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes after Law Requires Patients be Informed of Possible Side Effects

SIOUX FALLS, SD,
July 24, 2008 - On Monday, July 21, eight women arrived at the Planned Parenthood office in Sioux Falls in South Dakota for abortions, but were instead met with locked doors and a hand-written note indicating the only abortion clinic in South Dakota was closed.

Planned Parenthood closed its doors after their abortionists, who are flown in from other states, refused to work under the new law that went into effect last Friday. The law orders abortionists to inform patients of the humanity of their babies and that the procedure could affect their mental health two hours before the abortion is set to be performed. The law also provides that abortionists can be sued if they do not comply.

This is typical of theists, they use laws to impose their own moral standing on other people. These laws are an affront to common sense. After all, legal abortions in the United States (pursuant to the decision in Roe v Wade) are permitted while the embryo is in very early development, ie before the 20th week of the pregnancy. A foetus (shown below) does not have potassium ions present in its brain - thus it cannot think.

There is no actual cruelty in the abortion of that foetus. Recent studies show that thalamcortical connections (ie the circuits that allow for neural reaction to physical pain) do not form in the feotus until the 26th week of gestation (Lee, Susan (August 24/31, 2005). "Fetal Pain A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence". The Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (8): 947. the American Medical Association. doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947).

Accordingly, the laws in South Dakota that require abortionists to state that the foetus has "humanity" rely on gross untruths. Clearly this law is designed to evade the decision in Roe v Wade which allows a female the right to terminate a pregnancy.

But what about the costs? Readers may not be aware that there is significant evidence that societies that do not allow for termination of unwanted pregnancy experience higher levels of crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect). The work of Donahue and Levitt in the study showed that there was a significant decrease in crime rates 18 years after the decriminalisation of abortion in the United States in 1973. They postulated that the only cause which could be identified for the decrease in crime rates was the earlier decriminalistion of abortion.

Why are theists so eager to see more unhappiness, poverty and pain in the world? Do they not realise the forseeable outcome of preventing abortion is going to be unwanted children living in poor conditions?

I would argue that theists impose this moral rule in order to make people avoid sex out of wedlock. Clearly pregnancy is a potential outcome from sexual relations and that, by restricting a methods of controlling that potential outcome, theists are actually attempting to control the sex lives of other people. Why theists can't just stay out of other people's business is unclear - but it is clear that they have not given up on their fairy tales and that we have much work to do before humans are truly free.

Why do people laugh at creationist?

2008-07-27T04:39:00.000-07:00

In the days of Moses (if he existed), Jesus and Mohammed, there was so little knowledge about the universe that it was believable that life was made by a personal God who looked over the affairs of men - and that the world was made for men. The tale neccesarily imported the belief that the universe, earth and man was new and which can be found in Genesis.

That was then and this is now. In the time since men first bowed down to illusory and vague deities we have learned much about the universe and life. We have incorporated our methods of discovering the nature of the world around us into science and through science we have found that the universe, our world and life itself is not consistent with the stories of old.

So, why is it that some people do not throw off the shackles of ancient stories in the light of modern science? The answer to this is not simple - but there are some rational explanations, the first and foremost of this is ignorance.

CASE has recently been engaged in battle against a group called operation 513. Their creationist creed stipulates that the earth is only 6,000 years old as presumed from the Bible. Thus, they do not believe there is any truth to the theory of evolution. Operation 513 recently wrote an article from a "scientist" in which they sought to show that the recent Lenski experiment regarding the mutation of E.Coli bacteria was false. The mutation was that the bacteria could digest citrate in an oxic (high oxygen) state. The article written by Operation 513 stated that CASE and Lenski's conclusions regarding mutation were wrong because E.Coli can digest citrate in an anaerobic state (low/no oxygen). This clearly missed the point of the Lenski experiment and the mutation observed in that experiment. So why did they write the article - clearly the writer had not undertaken the basic research into what Lenski had observed, probably not even reading the paper given by Lenski. Nothing less than sheer ignorance.

Science is about research - without political or religious motives. Scientists are not seeking to prove God does not exist, they are just trying to carry out research into the world around them. Yet, sceintists are constantly being derided by theists because their conclusions are that there is no God (or at least the God described in Holy Books). Those criticisms, like the one from Operation 513 are usually based on ignorance. But look at the acerbic tone of the conclusion:-

Are you possibly just clinging to another poor excuse of a support for a dying theory? Have you perhaps overstretched your assumption that the world is all chance and no design? Are you betraying just a little of your unrighteous and unjustified bias that there is no God by forcing science to be your unwilling ally? Are you not merely running from what you know? (That you are responsible to God who made you, the absolute law giver who determines absolute right and wrong).

Don't you a mortal man stand this very moment on a flimsy perch over the fiery judgement for your rebellious unbelief and sins? That said though, aren't you and all atheist offered freely the gift of eternal life and peace with God if you will abandon your sin and trust in Jesus; in His work of atoning death and glorious resurrection?

Well that's all my questions for now, I would love to know your thoughts. Please be honest and consider carefully your response, I would hate to see you make a monkey of yourself.

Im sorry my friend - all that you've done is make yourself look silly. There is no judgement day, no afterlife that we have observed. Although we will all die, I am confident that the presuppositions that you have relied upon to reach the conclusion of an afterlife are a sham, unreal and a lie. Nevertheless, we atheists and scientists everywhere encourage you to step into the enlightenment and throw away your dogmas and ignorance.

Why do people laugh at creationists.

Only creationists don't know why.

Asking Jesus a question or two.

2008-07-27T03:00:00.001-07:00

The logically inconsistent God

2008-07-24T20:41:00.000-07:00

The concept of a personal God is logically inconsistent in many ways. Perhaps the most inconsistent is the concept of afterlife punishment. Think about it from God's perspective, you create the universe and set these little beings on a planet with the whole point of judging them after they die - when you created these being, you already knew what the results would be because you are omnipotent. So, whats the point of the exercise? To show how powerful you are to the little beings? Surely God could have done that by simply appearing directly to the little beings.

The fact is that the punishment philosophy only appears to be logical from the perspective of the little beings - and not God. For God, the answers are already worked out - why bother with the process?

Furthermore, by engaging in the process, it means that God forces himself into letting people go to Hell? If God can forsee this, then doesn't that mean that God voluntarily chose to cause some beings to go to Hell? From his point of view, that seems a bit "ungodlike".

Theists will generally argue that its all about us "little beings" - but isnt that a bit anthropocentric? Furthermore, the concept that God may have morally sufficient reasons for sending people to Hell necessarily requires that he is prepared to expend some human life for other human life. Doesn't that negate the oft-held view that God loves everyone? He knows that he must sacrifice that life before he created the universe - surely an all-loving God could get it to work out without having to sacrifice anyone to Hell. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, this point of view doesn't enter the mind of a person that thinks that they are going to be saved - which is just selfishness really.

At the end of the day, the punishment point of view only makes sense only if God was the product of a human mind. Since most religions (Christianity, Islam etc) make the punishment concept a fundamental principle of their faith - doesn't this lead to the conclusion that those religions are the product of the human mind as well.

Religion should stay out of politics

2008-07-24T00:00:00.001-07:00

Faith is a poison

2008-07-20T06:13:00.000-07:00

Life is complex

2008-07-19T20:57:00.001-07:00

In recent weeks I have raised the issue of Cit+ E.Coli in the Lenski experiment that proves positive mutation. In rebuttal to this, theists have made the statement: "That doesn't prove anything, you started off with E.Coli and ended up with E.Coli". This is, of course, a result of the theists lack of biological training. Its the equivalent of saying that a housecat that gives birth to a lynx is not a mutation because they are both cats:-

-->

(Felis Catus) --> (Felis Lynx canadensis)

So, what is the difference between the common house cat Felis Catus and a lynx such as Felis Lynx canadensis? Well, its simply that one organism has genetic code that gives it smaller body mass, decreased aggression, no black tips on the ends of its ears etc. On the other hand, a significant amount of the housecats genome is the same or similar to that of a lynx (including for instance the colourings of its coat as seen above).

So, how do we determine these two species are different? In the past biologists have had to rely on the physical characteristics of the species. Their size, colourings, behaviour etc. But does that work out when we compare individuals within all species? What about man's best friend:-

Above: A St Bernard eyes of some lunch

Both the St Bernard and the Chihuahuas shown above are part of the same species Canis Lupis Familiaris and yet they have significantly different characteristics, or do they? The chemical structure of the St Bernard is the same as that of the Chihuahua, rather, the proportions of those chemical structures vary between the two individuals. They are effectively the same organism, but in the St Bernard certain genes are enhanced (Such as hair, body mass, slobbering etc). This, does however show that mutation alone does not cause significant changes in biology - those changes can also be a result of activity within an existing genome.

This is totally different to the Cit+ E.Coli which mutated in the Lenski experiment. Those E.Coli have a different chemical structure which allows them to digest Citrate. Thus, should Cit+ E.Coli be called E.Coli at all? Well, there is no problem with labelling them as E.Coli as that definition covers a variety of different microbes with different characteristics:-

A strain of E. coli is a sub-group within the species that has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other E. coli strains. These differences are often detectable only on the molecular level; however, they may result in changes to the physiology or lifecycle of the bacterium. For example, a strain may gain pathogenic capacity, the ability to use a unique carbon source, the ability to inhabit a particular ecological niche or the ability to resist antimicrobial agents. Different strains of E. coli are often host-specific, making it possible to determine the source of fecal contamination in environmental samples.

This is just a result of taxonomy, being the study of classifying living things. It is an interesting question, if the Lenski experiment is the first time we have observed a mutation from one species into a new species under controlled conditions - how will taxonomy react? Surely the old rules (which require species to be differentiated) will not apply when a new species comes from an existing one. Nevertheless, this is only a distraction from the main point.

Some theists argue that this is not evidence for evolution because the microbe did not evolve into a dog (or some other complex animal). I would respond by asking what the difference is between the microbe and a dog. Both have genetic codes which determine their chemical constructions - its just the construction that is different. E.Coli are asexual, bacteria (as opposed to eukaryotic), directly take food in through their cell walls, anaerobic replicators. Dogs are sexual, eukaryotic, with developed food processing tracts, aerobic replicators.

If we now know that mutations can result in additional characteristics then how many mutations would be required for a bacteria to become a dog. There could be thousands of mutations occuring at distant intervals of time - nonetheless, we are not dealing with a 20 year time period. In fact, fossils indicate that the first "big mutation" that would be necessary, being the transition from single cell (bacteria) to multi-cell (eukaryotic) organisms happened about 2.1 billion years ago. Over that time frame, the incredulity of theists does seem a little petty.

But, lets do the maths, the Lenski experiment showed a mutation happen in 25,000 generations - on average, E.Coli reproduce every 233 minutes. There have been about 1077300000000000 minutes since Bacteria first became Eukaryotic. Thus we could expect about 4623605150214 generations in that time, which, with a uniform mutation rate would be around 184944206 mutations. Do you think that 184944206 additions to the genes of a microbe could result in a dog? (Of course, this maths is flawed because the reproduction rate between microbes is shorter than later mutations, such as dogs - nonetheless, we should expect a significantly large number of mutations, or additions to genetic code, to be available to bring the genetic code from 500,000 base pairs in bacteria to 300,000,000 base pairs in humans).

But, perhaps the biggest problem for theists is not mutation and change in characteristics between bacteria and dogs. Their incredulity comes from the fact that they cannot accept this line of mutations and changes:-

--> --> -->
Apes --> Australopithecus --> Homo Antecessor --> Homo Sapien

But if you want some real evidence that life can take strange twists and turns, take a look at these squid (try to count the legs):-

Back on the CASE

2008-07-19T20:54:00.001-07:00

Sorry I havent been round.

I'm ill, overworked, underpaid and outsmarted by my girlfriend. It appears my usual statement "all absolute statements could be wrong (including this one)" is in fact wrong, there is one absolute truth: "My girlfriend is always right".

A day on YouTube

2008-07-12T23:38:00.000-07:00

Bad to spend a whole day watching YouTube - but at least George Carlin understands.

I don't believe

2008-07-12T20:59:00.000-07:00

Beware - God is doing online marketing now. PS, I cant wait for this movie to come out

Campaign for the Caveat

2008-07-12T11:49:00.000-07:00

CASE considers it is vital to public health and safety for any marketing tool to be subject to the usual safety information, for instance, we see "Smoking causes emphesyma" labels on packets of cigarettes. CASE believes this same level of public warning should come with all religion, thus CASE is starting the "campaign for the caveat". As part of this campaign, all religious figures should include in their prosetylizations a warning that "they could be wrong".

CASE had its first campaign for the caveat discussion with Ryan Hamelaar of Operation 513 over the weekend. Mr Hamelaar admitted to CASE that he could be wrong the "the Bible was inspired by God". Mr Hamelaar also stated that he did not believe it was wrong, but at least he has the humility to admit he is not infallible.

CASE asked Mr Hamelaar if he would state what he had stated privately to the whole crowd next time he preaches. Mr Hamelaar noted that he would not. Nonetheless, CASE will continue to prosecute public admission of uncertainty from Mr Hamelaar and other Operation 513 members. Why? Well, partly because its fun but mostly because it serves the public interest to allow people hearing the marketing message of Operation 513 to know that allegations about the existence of God are just as fallible as all other hypothesis made without factual evidence.

Mr Hamelaar again stated that CASE officer Alex Stewart was an agnostic and not an atheist, ironically, in light of Mr Hamelaars admission we could say that so is he.

Knock one down, another will get up

2008-07-09T19:32:00.000-07:00

It is ironic that theists consider knocking one atheist commentator down means that all of atheism is defeated. I have often knocked down the Pope on various issues but am told that does not defeat christianity. Why the hypocrisy?

(Above): Cult leader reflects on poor choice of career

The fact is that, in accordance with the holy statements of Brian, "You are all individuals". This is a statement that cannot be more true of atheism. The reason is that atheists are bound together by a single characteristic - lack of faith in a personal God. Thus, all the other characteristics of a person can manifest in complete variation to another atheist standing next to him. For instance, take Christopher Hitchens following statement regarding the war in Iraq:-

Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little.

(left) Chris Hitchens - fat and loving it!!!

Personally, I consider the war in Iraq to be an abhorent act based on personal prejudices from a regime in the United States that won power through deception and not democracy. I am not within the atheist community to differ from Hitchens, Richard Dawkins consider the following:-

Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right?And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet.

Wait a second, if they are both atheists - they why do they have different points of view? Simple, atheists are individuals. We are sufficiently capable of making our own decisions and accordingly, we can come to different conclusions on different issues, except by definition, on whether we believe in God.

The road that we take to atheism is also different (although this should be returning to atheism, after all, no-one is born a theist). Some arrive here because evolutionary biology is inconsistent with the Garden of Eden, some can see the traditional use (and misuse) of power, some dispute the historical origin while others dispute the results. Most of us, though, can see that it is just a scam.

Poll confirms Christians not persecuted enough

2008-07-06T21:40:00.000-07:00

A recent CASE poll on the persecution of Christians in modern Australia reveals that over 70% of the population consider that Christians should be persecuted more. These results are stunning in light of the fact that at least 40% of the Australian population classify themselves as Christians. CASE can only conclude that either:-

1. Some christians are actually atheists on the inside
2. Even christians think christians should be persecuted more

CASE is responding to the public demand for christian persecution and has promised that members of the CASE covert and overt warfare department will commence church bombings and public crucifictions of church leaders by the end of the month.

For our next poll, CASE is concerned about the level of education regarding the theory of evolution and is testing your knowledge about the theory of evolution and natural selection. This is in response to various theist demagogues that believe that evolution states a species will mutate into a whole new species in a single generation.

This, and other observations like the following from Fundies say the darndest things, are just examples of how difficult some people find the theory of evolution to understand:-

How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that

1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys

2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them

3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years

4.how come we cant speak monkey

Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread

coolstylinstud, Christian Forums

Growing Atheism

2008-07-05T22:22:00.000-07:00

Found this on Youtube today, nice video on positive correlation between atheism and healthy societies:-

Fundies are people too

2008-07-05T14:30:00.000-07:00

For those of you that do not know, "Fundie" is a (derogatory) term that atheists level at "fundamentalist" theists, usually christians. A fundamentalist is a person that holds their faith as the fundamental underpinning of their worldview. It does not matter what evidence or experience that you provide to Fundies - they will always hold to their faith.

CASE psychological warfare division has been busily preparing the manual on helping friends that are fundies on the road to recovery. Entitled "Fundies are people too", the book should be available for the low price of $19.95 (incl GST) by Christmas.

During our research we ran across a terrible culture of poking fun at fundamentalists. Just look at the disgusting use of fundamentalists own words to deride their worldview at the Fundies say the darndest things website.

Of course, we atheists can't help at enjoying this guilty pleasure - watching the depserately irrational responses of those with "absolute knowledge" and where that can lead them.

I think the best example would be either this one from Heartbrokenbrad:-

actually (evolution) was darwins mean of destroying God because at seminnary he was a loser who got made fun of so he just got mad at God and didn't want to believe in him.

or this from Kimby:-

There is a Gay Agenda to force GLBT sexuality on every Christian, anywhere they dare exist out in the open. That is not myth, paranoia or urban legend. It is a fact

or see if you can spot the logical problem in this analysis of twentieth century global politics:-

I mean, hell, every US president since we've had the bomb has been an avowed Christian of some denomination or other, and we never deployed nuclear weapons against the Soviets or the Chinese on the grounds that we'd be welcomed into Heaven by Jesus for opposing communism. Likewise, despite their atheistic disregard for life and human freedom, the Soviets never deployed their own nukes in their unstoppable quest for world domination

Here trolly (or, why absolute knowledge is doubtful)

2008-07-03T22:55:00.000-07:00

Fellow atheists will probably groan as we hear another theist arguing that there is such thing as absolute knowledge. Theists usually advance the notion because it is necesary to justify their faith in the face of doubt, that is, if we cannot know something to be absolutely certain then faith in that thing *may* be misplaced. Of course, this offers an 'out' to any atheist (or theist for that matter) in accepting the theists arguments that God exists.

Recently, the brisbane atheist meetup group was attacked by rather nasty troll who called himself Proofthatgodexists ('the troll') whose website is full of the usual theist word games.

The troll proceeded to make various statements such as

"God, as He has revealed to us, is universal, abstract, and invariant"

The atheists online made several points to the troll that he is actually assuming, in that statement and in others, that he has absolute certainty about logic. When we put this issue to him, he repeatedly noted that his worldview was correct because it was. Now, for someone that claimed to have absolute knowledge about logic, this arguments seemed a little light on the ground.

Not satisfied with our critique of the worldview that he advanced (which he asked for mind you), he then set about attacking the world view of other members of the group. For instance,

Problem is, science is dependent on the unifromity of nature, another concept
which does not comport with any atheistic worldview. The only reason science can
be done is because we proceed on the assumption that nature is uniform, or 'the
future is like the past.' Without that assumption, science would be impossible.
I account for the uniformity of nature in the promises of God. On what basis do
YOU believe that the sceintific method is valid?

We tried to explain to the troll that science had worked in the past and accordingly we considered it was reliable, but that we could not be absolutely certain the method would always work. Thus, the method - like everything, was imperfect knowledge such that it was very probable that it could be true but we did not discount the possibility of it being wrong.

Of course, it probably didnt help matters that we had made fun of the trolls website by quoting some of the statement there, like the following Q & A:

Why should I become a Christian?
You should become a Christian because Christianity is true.

Could God have used fallible people to write an infallible book?
Of course, He is God after all.

Why must the God proven on this site be the God of Christianity?
The God proven on this site must be the God of Christianity because He is the only God that HAS been proved here. No other version of God is logically defensible. The God of Christianity is the only God who makes sense out of human experience.

So you can probably empathise with what sort of nutjob we are talking about here, as well as why he seemed to become so upset that we did not accept what he said. I pointed out that the foundation of his belief in God was the Bible, so I asked him:-

Of course, seeing as you are merely a human brain it is necesary for us to recognise that it is your interpretation of those words [the Bible] that you have faith in - could you be wrong?
If yes, then you cannot be sure that you know God.
If no, then you are infallible and equal to God.
So, which one is it?

His response was not to answer, but rather to ask a nonsensical question (this would continue for a couple of days - at least):-

Again, this begs the question in that it assumes that God COULD not reveal some
things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.

We asked him repeatedly for some evidence that God HAD revealed something to him in such a way that we can know them for certain. Such evidence was not given. Furthermore, as we continued to show that all knowledge could be doubtful (even that statement) because it came from imperfect minds (ie humans and trolls) we found our friend getting further and further from his intial statement to:-

expectation that the future will even probably be like the past. THAT my friend
is proceeding on the expectation that nature is uniform, and is inconsistent
with any atheistic view of the universe.

Actually, it was an expections that nature will probably act in a certain way. Not certainty that it would act in a certain way - our troll, however, was beginning to fully depart from his position. Interestingly, it happened on another thread of the same website where we were discussing morality. The troll, who continued to complain about consistency and was getting increasingly agitated (posting 6 times in one day) made the generous statement that:-

Well, I never claimed to have absolute knowledge, but if I did, you really can't be certain that I haven't provided any evidence now can you?

Oh, we can be pretty sure Mr troll. We can be pretty sure.

So, where does this all get us?

The truth is a really difficult nut to crack. When you get a glimmer of something that seems true it usually only takes a second peak to realise there is something wrong with it. Why? Well, in order to know something absolutely you would have to have:-

1. Observed the same event; and,
2. That event must happen the same way
3. Everytime
4. Ever

Otherwise we cannot discount the possibility of the event happening a different way in some other place in the universe. Humans cant really do that, we are limited mortal creatures that have not, and cannot, observe the entire universe. Thus, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, can a human brain hold absolute truth?

This position requires us to acknowledge that we could be wrong about anything (including this statement). Conversely, a person that believes they have absolute truth must think a human brain is infallible, their own. Through all the rants and raves though - I think I have found a response that may settle our troll, both in relation to his continuing agression towards the Brisbane Atheist Meetup group members as well as in relation to his claims of absolute proof. I offer Proverbs 29:22-23
An angry man stirs up strife and a furious man abounds in transgression. A
man's pride will bring him low, but the humble in spirit will retain
honour.
I again quote the trolls statements:-

You accept the validity of your ability to reason on faith (blind faith at that), whereas I accept the validity of my reasoning as I know that it is a gift from God. Of the two of us, you are the one offering the faith-based argument.

You could be wrong about that too ;)

Pollster doesnt understand sarcasm

2008-07-02T22:47:00.000-07:00

This recent poll indicates more about pollsters than the poll:-

http://www.secular.org/news/pew_study.html

Just another example of how buggered up America is (To self: Does that blog title say church??).

CASE gagged

2008-07-02T19:40:00.000-07:00

CASE officers pursuing rival terrorist group operation 513 were gagged today after proving there is no such thing as objective morality.

The Operation 513 argument, advanced by mind slave Ryan Hemelaar ("msrh"), was that:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In support of this silly argument - msrh quotes from Michael Ruse as follows:-

The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory."

CASE made various points asking where this objective morality resides - to which there was no response. Accordingly, CASE returned to the initial silliness and noted that:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
This is inductive logic and can only be shown where you have knowledge of everything in the universe - thus the argument fails on point 1. I do not even have to put forward a second suggestion because it relies on a. evidence for God (of which there is none) and b. evidence of objective morality (of which there is none).
Of course, I will show below with respect to his commentary that what he has termed objective morals are actually a false description.
2. Objective moral values do exist
Not proven - definition insufficient for testing. Point 2 fails.
3. Therefore, God exists
Again, based on an unproven assumption.
So, why has ryan made a mistake
Firstly, he has made a massive leap into the inductive world. We know that such arguments are prone to failure and should not be relied upon.
Secondly, he has put in a definition of 'objective morality' which is not technically objective. Such that his evidence for objective morality given in part based on the statement of Michael Ruse does not fit in with his point 1.
Point 1. would only work if God is the one that created the "objective morality" and yet in the definition given by Michael Ruse, a completely different cause is given:-
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.
So did God give us this "objective morality" or was it a response to the environment?
Furthermore, Michael Ruse accepts that the morality sourced in this way is a response to the individual's needs for survival:-
Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory
Because each individual has a different survival pressure put upon them, they will neccesarily develop a morality that is "subject" to their own circumstances -accordingly, Michael Ruse is saying that morality is subjective based on identifiable causes.
Is this what Ryan meant in line 1:-
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
No, it isnt. Why? Because those survival pressures exist independent of God. Thus morality is independent of God, based on the very evidence that Ryan brings to this argument.

It was after outlining these arguments that msrh blocked further comments on the article and stated, inter alia:-

The Michael Ruse quote was not supporting that objective morality exists, but rather to show that if God does not exist then no objective morality should exist. But objective morals do exist, so thus God must exist.

This seems a little at odds with his initial introduction that:-

The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,

Michael Ruse's quote is just a description of how we (possibly) determine right and wrong for ourselves. It has nothing to do with objective morality, nor does it give any credence to the notion that objective morality requires God. Rather, it is evidence that morality is subjective. In which case, msrh is required to show where this 'objective morality' comes from? Could it be that a Christian did not understand his own argument?

Despite open requests and several opportunities - msrh has not provided a single shred of evidence for objective morality, rather he has stated:-

But objective morals do exist, so thus [sic] God must exist.

He wants it to be true so much that he puts in the equals sign twice. Perhaps CASE should, for the sake of msrh provide a short statement on what makes a logical argument.

1. A logical argument is based on several related points

2. The connection between each of the related points must be established

3. Each point or statement must be substantiated with evidence

4. Any terms that are used must be defined sufficiently

5. Statements that are not supported by evidence cannot be relied upon to connect otherwise unrelated points.

So, msrh has committed the grevious error of failing to define 'objective morality' (4), making statements that God is required for there to be 'objective morality' without any connection (2), failing to provide any evidence for 'objective morality (3), relying on unproven points to conclude that God exists (5). Thus, his argument is not logical (1).

Of course, gagging CASE while being torn to shreds is an example of morality in itself, after all:-

Morality is just an aid to survival

Now you decide, was that right or was it wrong? (or is that too obvious for you?)

Heaven does not exist

2008-07-01T21:42:00.000-07:00

Atheists will usually debate the problem of evil with theists because it is proof that God does not exist. On the flip side however, theists retain a notion of life after death and there being a reward for being good called Heaven. Of course, this is in spite of the fact that God created evil in the first place (Isaiah 45:7).

So, how will God judge our good deeds from our bad? Theists are forced to say there is some objective morality outside of humans - a standard of good and evil. This is clearly bupkis as I have repeatedly asked for theists to produce a copy of this objective morality and they have repeatedly failed. CASE considers the reason for this is simple - morality is determined by the individual and is not beamed into humans from some outside source.

But if there is no objective morality then how would God judge us? Wouldn't it be an arbitary decision from God to promote certain people into Heaven and turn others away? Of course, the clear unfai and arbitrary nature of such a decision is the reason why theists seek to establish 'objective moral' standards in the first place.

Furthermore, if Heaven were a real place within existence then surely is must border on something (in existence) that is not perfect. Thus, in order for heaven not to be contaminated by the surrounding imperfection it would have to be:-

Bordered by something that is impermeable
Bordered by something that causes all passing objects to become perfect.

Neither of those situations have ever been observed within our universe and furthermore, they both infringe upon the laws of thermodynamics. More importantly, in the first case - if nothing can get in - then neither can departed souls. Furthermore, in the second case by passing through the barrier, any soul would automatically be changed from what it was beforehand including sinners. So, even an evil person would be perfect in Heaven - why can't evil people go there then?

This brings us to the big problem with Heaven - free will. Free will immediately allows the person with free will to do evil acts. Thus a soul in heaven with free will could make that place imperfect by their presence. Would they then be kicked out of Heaven? or would their free will be stripped from them? Any other response would make heaven imperfect.

Another thing about Heaven that annoys me is that the Jewish faith is without any real doctrine of Heaven and yet the Christians who steal their religion do? WTF is that about? Most likely, its the evolution of the meme - a new mutation to coincide with Hell.

Finally, if Heaven did exist and there are souls there - why havent any of them returned to see us? Surely a mother's love is stronger than all the happiness in the world, why havent they come back for their kids?

There are lots of better reasons for Heaven not to exist - but there is no reason to say that it actually exist. That is, except for fear.

Behold, the true creators

2008-06-30T23:31:00.001-07:00

As some of you will be aware, CASE has repeatedly stated that Unicorns are just as likely to be the true creators of the universe as the Judeo/Chritian/Islamic God. At least we have a photograph of our creator.

Ironically, this is also evidence of genetic mutation - a component in evolution.

Causality does not exist - warning may involve science

2008-06-30T17:38:00.000-07:00

As some of you will have seen, CASE recently put up a video tape discussing the Argument for the existence of God from First Cause. This argument is used widely by theists to justify belief in a God. The argument is formulated in several ways and is not generally uniform. CASE sets out here the argument given by William Lane Craig [noted theist and complete tool] (Craig, William L. "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth Journal. Leadership University. 22 Jun. 2008) and if anyone thinks I am setting up a strawman then please point out a different definition and I will approach that as well:-

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

This argument seems reasonable at first approach. Everything that a human being has observed (before the 19th century as we are about to see) appears to fall within this argument. A baby deer is born because its mother mated with a male deer of the same species. Cause -> effect. Simple. Or is it?

The "law of causality" is a misleading title, we have never actually tested this law scientifically. In order to do so we would have to travel back in time and determine whether the same cause had the same effect. Of course, humans have never travelled back in time. Furthermore, it is arguable that the act of travelling backwards in time would alter the beginning state and accordingly contaminate the experiment. Thus causality is not a law at all. It is not even a theory. Causality only works on a hypothetical basis.

Above: David Hume considers causation:-

"Do you think those donuts caused me to gain weight?"

This idea that Causation is not universal was discussed extensively by the philosopher David Hume, who correctly pointed out that:-

1. If A is said to cause B then
2. It is necessary to state that whenever A happens B must result.

Of course, such a statement can only be made by way of induction and is only logically possible if either:-

1. The statement is made by someone that has absolute knowledge; and,
2. The statement is consistent with everything that is known.

Because human beings do not have all knowledge in the universe, inductive reasoning has been discounted by modern philosophers including Karl Popper and David Miller. Accordingly, the statement that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" as well as the argument as a whole is not logical except to a person that has absolute knowledge. Thus the argument from First Cause fails at the initial stage.

However, even if we were to ignore this fatal flaw, CASE notes that there is ground to defeat a statement based on inductive logic without having absolute knowledge, where the statement is not "consistent with everything that is known". Thus, we must ask whether there is anything in the universe that we know of that is not consistent with causation? Well, from the argument of first cause we must postulate at least one (being the uncaused cause), however, it is clearly premature to say that we know there was a first cause as that would be circular (IE we are disproving something from the position of accepting it to be true). On the other hand, perhaps we should turn to science and the world of the very, very, very small.

Below: If you can understand what this guy is saying

then you do not need a personal God

The 19th and 20th century saw the birth of quantum physics. This is the science of things that are really, really, very small. Quanta - is a referrence to singular particles as opposed to molecules and everything larger which consists of collections of several particles. Although atomists like Democritus (460-370 BC) could reason that things could continue to be divided until you reached the 'atoms', he did not have the technology or mathematics to discover their properties (NOTE: Atomist works were destroyed by the Church as being inconsistent with God's teachings).

Quantum physics throws causality out the door because, it appears that at the quantum scale, causality as we understand it does not exist.

"relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions (Causality) as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."

Processes and Causality by John F. Sowa, retrieved Dec. 5, 2006

It is a difficult concept to grasp - perhaps simplest to say that where individual particles are concerned there is a probability that a certain cause will result in a certain effect, but the probability of that happening is not certain. So why does causality happen on a human scale if it doesn't work on a quantum scale? Well, its an issue of probability. If your hand consists of 10,000,000,000,000 particles (actually it is more) that are most likely to move in a certain direction when force is applied then is it very, very, very, very likely that the majority of those particles will travel in the most probable direction. If one of those 10,000,000,000,000 particles ends up in the outer reaches of the solar system, would you notice?

The problem is a bit different for other quanta that move vast distances at high speeds such as light particles. The probability of a particle in your hand ending up in the outer reaches of the solar system when you shake it is greatly excacerbated for these particles because of the distance over which they travel. For instance "By quantum lore, when a particle of light travels from A to B, it does not take one path but explores every one simultaneously, with the more direct routes being used more heavily".

If light (and other quantum particles) do not take a certain route when affected by a certain cause then the inductive reasoning used to support the "law of causality" must necesarily fail. On this basis, the argument from first cause postulated by William Lane Craig also fails.

Now you may be saying, "William Lane Craig doesnt use that language, he says that everything that comes into existence must have a cause - therefore your statement is fallacious". This may be how it appears at first, but you may have to engage your brain for the next bit in order to see why the Craig argument does fail for the reasons given above. We are about the enter the world of Stephen Hawking.

Above: Hawking - Scientist, Genius and ladies man

Hawking is known for crossing ideas on things like black hole information paradoxes and closed big bangs through applying ideas of quantum mechanics to events in the general relativity universe. In other words, his process is to look at big effects based on what is happening the very small scale.

Think about it, if quantum particles act based on probability and not according to actual cause, what does that mean for the initial stages of a universe consisting of quantum particles?

Hawkings explosive new theory (together with Prof Thomas Hertog of the Astroparticle and Cosmology Laboratory in Paris) which allows:-"In this way, they argue the universe did not have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different ones and that it has experienced them all".

Of course, by destroying the unique point of origin that does not mean that God could not have been responsible for multiple points of origin. It only means that the argument put forward by William Lane Craig is wrong. Furthermore, if a theist were to make such a claim then we would be able to ask "where is your evidence for that?". The theist cannot rely on the old testament of the bible because it does not state "God created the universe at multiple independent points which were all expereinced by the universe" - not to mention the difficulty of the planet earth coming about prior to the stars in the heavens (Genesis 1: 7 and 14).

Finally, Hawkings new theory supports superstring theory or M theory which could give us further understanding of the multiverse outside our universe. A simpler introduction is available here.

For all these reasons, the argument from first cause does not actually work. It is inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. It is also self-contradictory. All this is interesting, but will it cause theists to lay down their holy texts and start reading some science? I don't think so. For a theist that has an ultimate, simple to understand first cause, it would take courage and intellectual vigour to look into these issues. Theists, in my opinion, are more satisfied to lazily remain in their perfect God.

Jesus the freeloader

2008-06-29T16:44:00.000-07:00

Holey arguments from Theists

2008-06-29T16:32:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, 28 June 2008, CASE operatives alleged to Operation 513 members that Operation 513 was merely seeking to enforce their moral code over society by using fear of Hell.

Operation 513 leader, Josh Williamson (referred to herein as "His holeyness"), stated that "you don't need to do anything to get into Heaven". Particularly, he noted that there is no price to getting into Heaven.

CASE operative Alex Stewart immediately stated that there is no need for his preaching as members of the public would be going to heaven for doing nothing.

His holeyness then departed from his previous statement saying that you needed to "repent".

Accordingly, Alex Stewart said "I repent" and asked if he was now going to heaven.

His holeyness departed from his previous position again and said that you had to believe in God.

Although not an actual believer in God, Alex Stewart said "Ok - I believe in God, now am I going to Heaven?" for the sake of argument.

His holeyness departed from his previous position again and said that you had to live by christian laws.

What was this - His holeyness had previously stated that you need do nothing to get into Heaven and now there was christian laws. Could it be that his holeyness had misrepresented himself, even lied???

His holeyness argued that God chose whether to "grant mercy on you" and let you into heaven.

CASE notes that this argument is a little odd given that Operation 513 is repeatedly saying that God caused the universe and everything that flows from there is a result of God's initial work. Accordingly, any individual's decision follow God in an individual is the result of God's initial work. But that means, God chooses who is going to heaven or hell without any act by any individual other than God.

Some would say that Free Will would intervene, but when asked - his holeyness stated that there is "no such thing as free will".

Does anyone else out there see how deluded this standpoint is? Through a simple logical progression CASE established that Operation 513 is fraudulently using God, Jesus and the fear of hell to establish their own moral code over society. They change their arguments and they lie solely to bring poor gullible individuals into their flock. It is a disgrace and immoral.

His holeyness deserves the title - his beliefs truly are holey.

But if you want to know why his holeyness is so opposed to evolution (for Op513 members that havent figured it out):-

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.

G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979. (/hattip Sydney Anglican Heretics)

CASE going holy for month of July

2008-06-29T16:21:00.000-07:00

Through our friends (and generous donations) in our home country of the Cayman Islands our organisation has now been registered as a church of no religion. This is an important legal step towards CASE being given equality with other tax evasion schemes.

Poll Results

2008-06-28T20:56:00.001-07:00

CASE readers will be aware our recent poll question was "Do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?".

The results are conclusive 8 to 5 that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. Yet again, democracy wins out. Of course, had it gone the other way we would have had a recount until we got the right result!!!

Our next poll is going to be on the terrible oppression of christians in modern Australian society.

CASE employee of the month

2008-06-28T19:30:00.000-07:00

This guy faces all the usual theist claims - and demolishes them while he is walking.

CASE is proud to announce he is our official Employee of the month for June.

Who is really behind the church???

2008-06-27T20:01:00.000-07:00

CASE operatives are constantly trying to determine who is really sending out the orders to the faithful. It is an important question in determining how best to expose the theists as delusional and dangerous to society in general.

For instance, CASE is aware of several links between homegrown terrorist group Operation 513 and Ray Comfort of the Way of the Master ministry. Ray Comfort is a New Zealander - so we all know what that means:-

If you aren't aware, the Way of the Master ministry is effectively an online shopping network devoted to selling all of the goods that you will need for evangelism. The Australian franchise is operated by John Legg and offers all the materials you would need from gospel tracts, presentation boards (which are meant to deceive passersby) and even a soap box, specially designed by a former aeronautical engineer. Yes the PSB2, preacher box can be yours for the low, low price of $199.00. Here is the testimonial:-

If you are an Open Air Preacher or you would like to be. You are going to love the PSB2 (custom designed, foldable preacher's soapbox, second edition) made especially for you. Designed by an ex-aeroplane engineer, you can be assured that it is structurally safe and built to last. And just to make sure, we've been testing them on the street for the last 12 months. Everyone who sees them says they are amazing, so we thought we'd better make them available so you can get your own.

CASE notes that the Gospel tracts handed out by Operation 513 appear to be the same as shown on the Way of the Master shop, including the infamous Aussie Million dollar note:-

The tract says:

The million-dollar question: Will you go to Heaven? Here's a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God's name in vain? Have you looked with lust? Which is adultery of the heart in God's eyes. Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer-at-heart. The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will. He sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for you. Jesus took your punishment upon Himself: “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. Please, repent (turn from your sin) today and trust in Jesus, and God will grant you everlasting life. Then read your Bible daily and obey it.

Query: Why would Christians need to use fear if they are right?

But who is really behind this marketing drive? Knowing that the church uses fear tactics and deception CASE began an indepth 6 month undercover operation. At the end of this massive operation CASE operatives finally discovered the source of the pox upon mankind and is prepared to reveal it. This damning photograph was taken at a congregation of Church elders, its the guy in the front of the procession in this photograph:-

Creationists pwned by Prof Richard Lenski

2008-06-26T16:40:00.001-07:00

As many of you would be aware, CASE has been following the story of Richard Lenski of Michigan State University and his ground breaking discovery of Citrate consuming mutant E.coli bacteria. CASE has also presented these finding to several creationist who (without any technical qualification in biology or science generally) have dismissed the results.

The Lenski experiment shows mutation in a laboratory. This is important because scientists have not previously seen such mutation under controlled conditions, although, we can see evidence of mutation between existing animals and fossilised remains. Of course, this isn't sufficient for creationists who make up fanciful stories about things like dinosaurs:-

Above: Jesus was a DinoRider

Richard Lenski has been dealing with his own set of kooks from Conservapedia. Conservapedia is essentially a right wing publication that seeks to replace wikipedia with what they consider to be the "correct information". CASE electronic warfare division is currently obtaining passwords as an editor of Conservapedia (BTW, We succeeded with CreationWiki and will be posting funny things soon) in order to set the record straight on issues such as the conservative christian view of facism.

Back to the topic, Conservapedia was indignant at the apparent (or imminent) defeat of creationism by evolutionary biologists. Accordingly, they wrote a letter which had very little to do with science and in which the chief kook of Conservapedia admitted that he had not read Prof Lenski's report or had any knowledge about genetics. Lenski's first response was civil. However, when badgered further Lenski loses it - with what is an excellent example of pwning theistic ignorance. If Conservapedia take down the response in shame, it has been saved here for posterity.

Lenski's experiment is confused by many creationists with the idea of saltation. Saltation is the concept that a species remains the same until it mutates into the next species. Not even Darwin considered such infrequent and drastic mutation is possible. The theory of natural selection states that within a given genome, certain genes will become more popular because the carriers of those genes are more successful. For instance, Homo Heidelbergensis mutates 800,000 years ago with a brain volume of 600 cubic centimeters ('cc'). Over time, individuals with bigger brains are more likely to succeed - accordingly, brain volume expands until 250,000 years ago when it reaches 1100 cc. Then a freak mutation occurs which allows for greater brain growth but the brain size of the first homo sapiens is also around 1100 cc. The reason for this is that the first homo sapien inherits almost all the same genes as the previous generation of Homo Heidelbergensis. From there the homo sapiens (with lighter skulls and more room for brain developments) continue to increase in brain size over many generations until it reaches the 1400 cc that we are at today.

Thus mutation (macroevolution for the creationists) is only a single part of the genetic puzzle of evolution. While many creationists accept the concept of natural selection (microevolution) they are incredulous to the concept of massive change - then again, so are biologists, its just that the theory of evolution doesnt say that massive change will happen either.

Southern Christian Organisation endorses Obama

2008-06-24T23:59:00.001-07:00

The race for the United States Presidency is one of the toughest electoral races in the world. After 18 months of campaigning it appears that Barrack Obama will now be the voice of the Democratic Party, but he didnt get there alone. Strong support from religious groups is necessary to win the Southern States, and there is no better Southern Christian Organisation to get on your side than the KKK which openly endorsed Barrack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

Unbeknownst to many, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK or Klan) has had three incarnations since the American Civil War. It was during the second incarnation between 1915 and 1942 that the group reached its peak membership of 6,000,000. The Klan were homogenously Protestants and the large membership between 1915 and 1942 was primarily a response to the increasing social mobility of ethnic catholic and african americans, who had previously been seen as an underclass. The Klan claimed to be the defender of the protestant faith against foreign races, Catholics and Jews.

Ministers in the United Church, and other churches, in Canada and the United States supported the Klan and its efforts to homogenise society. When some United Ministers sought to criticise the Klan in 1928 they received a strong rebuke from the churches hierarchy:-

"Although the writer is not a member of the Klan, he has done thatwhich Dr. Endicott and Rev. Donell would do well to follow. Namely studycarefully the principles of this organization. They are such that any man professing the name of Christian can have no hesitation in accepting."

CASE considers the Klan to be one of the lowest forms of scum on the planet and does not support or accept any of their principles in anyway. Furthermore, CASE rejects all KKK activities - except for cross burning. Cross burning is a favourite passtime of CASE employees, burning churches is also a fun passtime (particularly when the theists are still inside). Of course, while CASE considers this to be purely for the purpose of ridding the world of idiotic icons of a corrupt faith, the KKK believed "that it is not destroying the cross, but "lighting" it, as a symbol of the members' faith" - What a smart bunch they were.

Above: Christians demonstrating their faith

and cooking marshmellows

Christians told to STFU

2008-06-24T16:07:00.000-07:00

CASE has become aware of a christian website, http://www.silencingchristians.com/ based in the United States which is worried about the decline of Christian rights. The website feature video footage about the decline of Christian's ability to persecute minorities and enforce a particular moral code over the rest of society. It also highlights how annoyed Christians are that other groups in society are now able to celebrate publicly and how christians can go about stopping those celebrations, for instance, from the forum pages:-

Churches could be places for grassroots meetings. We could do more if we network through churches. We could announce town hall meetings, decisions being made on capital hill, local representatives and contact info, etc. Churches may differ subtley on how we worship, but we are all united in Christ, brothers and sisters. We could come together on decisions that may soon make us outlaws if we don't act. It has been Church oriented grassroots action that stopped a Philadelphia school disctrict from engaging a month-long gay celebration. If we were more organized, we could learn from Philadelphia and we can preserve our rights, and maybe gain some already lost rights.

It is strange that Christians in the US believe that a homosexual parade is an infringement of Christians rights? Also, CASE considers it is a bit hysterical to think that Christianity will be outlawed - we dont have the votes for that yet. Well, the US is a democracy (for now) so we guess that Christians as a group do have a right to use democratic process to carry out their ends, unfortunately, according to BlueCat from Arizona:-

Please tell me which presidential candidate you will vote for? None of the potential nominees have my Christian values in mind. All support abortion, homosexual marriage, gay rights and laws that will silence Christians. One of the candidates does not even salute the American flag. What choice?

CASE cannot find the commandment in Duteronomy - Thou shalt salute the American Flag. It must be right next to "Thou shalt have no other Gods but me".

CASE psych warfare division has identified a real undercurrent of fear throughout all of these posts, particularly in relation to End Times:-

I agree with what xxxx xxxxx (above) said but I don't believe Jesus will "rapture" the church before the Antichrist rises. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. Mat 24:29-31 is very clear that the rapture occurs after the great tribulation, after the opening of the 6th Seal of Revelation.

But, xxxxxx is correct about the coming of the end. Persecution of Christians in the United States is, at the moment, minimal compared to other countries but it has begun and will only get worse. The rise of Liberals, Homosexuals, and Islamic hatred will culminate in the destruction of Europe and the United States. TRUE BELIEVERS NEED TO WAKE UP!

This is not the first time we have heard this type of hysteria, its all too familiar:-

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit as the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time."

- Jackel, Hitler's Worldview, p. 52; from a speech at Nuremberg, January 13, 1923

<--- Both German, coincidence?

Why human beings cannot abide each other is not an easy question. Religion does sit at the center of a lot of these issues - why? The simple answer is that religion involves the faithful and dogmatic belief in certain immutable standards which conflict with the ideas and beliefs of other people. The only answer to them is to legislate the rights of other people away, and failing that to kill.

CASE considers that humans are clearly feeble and incapable of living together peaceably, accordingly, CASE has now set about to develop super-robots to replace all theists. If we do not develop these super robots within the next five years then there is the very real prospect that Theists could take over the planet and wipe out all atheists - noooooooo.

Sad day

2008-06-23T18:24:00.000-07:00

The entire CASE organisation is very sad today as on of the funniest men in the world, George Carlin, passed away aged 71.

Carlin was a well known atheist and critic of religion. Some of his comedy shows included Religion is Bullshit, The Ten Commandments and Touched by an Atheist. His videos are on youtube - check them out, he doesnt need the (c) cheques anymore.

CASE employees will be mourning today in the way that George Carlin would have wanted; by getting drunk at a strip bar near the airport.

RIP George Carlin

(12 May 1937 - 22 June 2008)

CASE officer prevented from heckling Muslims by evil woman

2008-06-22T23:21:00.000-07:00

As CASE readers would be aware, CASE Officer Alex Stewart was meant to attend the Islam Exposed event in order to expose Islam. Unfortunately, Officer Stewart was prevented by this woman who can clearly be seen as censoring free speech:-

Apparently, taunting Christians is ok, but going after Muslims may result in bodily injuries.

Someone should have told these guys:-

CASE officers have now been disciplined and their resolve renewed. Furthermore, CASE officers have been given a direct instruction not to tell their spouses/partners when engaging in future missions - or they could face having to do the dishes for a week.

Atheist Memes

2008-06-22T16:54:00.000-07:00

As many of you are aware, a "meme" is kind of like a gene for social constructs like religion. Memes work in the same way as genes in a living creature. Each meme may control a different part of the construct and yet, in collection with all the other memes, it gives us a picture of the resulting social construct. CASE does not agree with the study or use of memes generally, because it makes it too obvious what religion is, accordingly theists can become very upset at realising how simply their beliefs have been generated and evolved over time. Then again, CASE doesn't care.

CASE has been asked by Oz Atheist to take part in an Atheist Meme project (in which we are examining our own beliefs, potentially for problems or better solutions to certain problems) As well as being a general study of atheism. The meme project was started off by Nullfidian.

CASE has caused all of its 37,500 members to take the memes test and the average results are shown below:-

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

The natural state of human reason.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Theologically liberal, Presbyterian school. Religious Education classes for 12 years. A whole lot of nothing interesting - and some very annoyed teachers.

One member's Uncle was a priest - he quit to become an undertaker.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Lol

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Building computers and computer models that can carry out calculations that are as complex as nature (probably another 20-30 years away). Hopefully, one day a computer will be built that can understand CASE's yearly tax returns.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

CASE wishes the atheist community would donate more to CASE activitie$$.

Second preference would be to see atheists make a greater impact on moral decisions across society.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

"Do you want to be an undertaker too? Look at Uncle XXX's career."

If the child continues to argue - "that's it, you're off to military school."

If they are really keen to become a priest, "I hate you and so does your mother".

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Argument from First Cause when used by a Christian.

I usually take the following steps:-

1. But the argument was first used to prove the existence of Allah
2. So, I can insert anything as the [first cause] including Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Random Probability or this donut and it still works.
3. Ok, what proof do you have that your God is the one that is the first cause?

Thats where the Christians usually start Bible bashing (CASE refers to this behavious as the 'Big Foot Stamp'). Although completely illogical, theists are usually satisfied at winning the argument using a 'Big Foot Stamp'.

These disproofs are also good - Time is not constant, Time is not unidirectional, M Theory, Where did God come from? Have you got any evidence for that?

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

Would the enforced sterilization of people shown to have theistic proclivities be considered "controversial"?

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Hitchens because he suggested the enforced sterilization of people shown to have theistic proclivities.

Plus he is the only one that has a useful profession (Punditerati) as compared to Dawkins (Science? who cares), Dennett (Philosophy? Get a job) and Harris (What is it that Harris does again?).

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

No-one, CASE would prefer to destroy all theists than attempt to "persuade" them. It is easier, cheaper and less likely to result in false conversions.

CASE would seek to forward this onto other bloggers, but CASE considers the tallying of 37,500 members answers is enough work.

The Book of Hezekiah

2008-06-21T06:10:00.000-07:00

Welcome Operation 513ers.

It looks like we here at CASE are starting to get some feedback from the activities of CASE officer Alex Stewart. It appears that Mr Stewart's performance on 14 June 2008 has now caused 18 of 20 paragraphs of the most recent battlelog to be about him. Mr Stewart has told CASEHQ - "I am quite pleased with the result, not only has CASE succeeded in preventing any further damage by this group on the night in question, CASE also turned several spectators and possibly some of the Operation 513 members into atheists".

CASE is, however, concerned about the integrity of the most recent battlelog reported by Josh Williamson of the nights events. CASE notes most of that report is somewhat one-sided, and in accordance with CASE's policy of accurate reporting, the allegations therein will now be dealt with:-

1. The Lenski Experiment

The experiment that CASE officer Alex Stewart referred to was the 20 year ongoing experiment at Michigan State Univesity, Richard Lenski. Lenski has a double PhD and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States accordingly, rather than making apriori judgements about this experiment then perhaps Operation 513ers can give him some respect and read about his work. Lenski's experiment regarding evolving E.coli is not "micro-evolution" - rather it is a whole new species of E.coli. CASE has posted two links to articles about the Lenski experiments hereunder, please have a look for yourself:-

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary

I would like to quote a passage from the second article:-

'Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."'

2. New information in DNA

Mr Williamson notes in the battlelog queries about where "new information comes from?". Clearly, Mr Williamson would like a simple answer like "the stork brings it" or the equally likely "God does it". Alternatively, Mr Williamson could commence a degree in biology to understand the subject, rather than make the argument from personal incredulity.

Nonetheless, CASE will try and explain for the benefit of intelligent debate. The information is most likely the result of replication errors in DNA, resulting in a positive mutation. Of course, there are many replication errors in a line of ancestry, we see so-called negative mutations such as down-syndrome or turner syndrome quite often within our own species. The Lenski experiment refers to replication errors where the DNA resulting from the error does prove to contain a positive aspect, or even one that is not so negative as to destroy the capacity of the individual to survive to breed. CASE notes that DNA polymerase chain reaction is a complex chemical reaction which is observed in nature. Does Operation 513 believe that every replication (millions per second) will be perfect? Do they also believe that when there is an error - the result can only be negative? Who has a closed mind now, we wonder?

3. Second Vote? This ain't Florida

CASE does not recall a second vote - will review video tape of incident, if Operation 513 is prepared to make it public. Of course, the tape wasn't confiscated by police this week.

Nevertheless, CASE understands the substantial presence in the crowd were Christian and that this can be intimidating to some atheist/agnostic/unbelievers.

4. Mr Williamson offering advice

Mr Williamson is aware that CASE's position is that all scientific and logical inquiries into the universe reveals no evidence for God. CASE officer Alex Stewart has made that position clear to Mr Williamson on a number of occassions, to which Mr Williamson has claimed Mr Stewart was 'dancing like a lawyer'. CASE is quite suprised that Mr Williamson is now claiming credit for

'It would be far safer for Alex to say "In the knowledge that I currently have, I am yet to see evidence for God".'

Obviously, for Alex Stewart to state "there is no evidence for God" is the same thing. Unless Mr Williamson is claiming that Alex Stewart has the ability to know things that he does not have in his knowledge? Hey, why not, Theists claim to have knowledge of things like God which they have no knowledge about - Why can't Alex Stewart have the same mystical ability? Well, for one thing, Alex Stewart is a critical thinker - not a BS artist.

Thanks for the advice Mr Williamson, we would be lost without gems like that.

5. CASE sovereign over God - duh

CASE does not want to be sovereign over God, but is a telephone call every once in a while too much to ask? Why is God so secretive? Ever wonder about that?

6. Theist cannot grasp matter of simple theology - suprise

Agnostic and atheist are the same thing - how can you have knowledge of something you don't believe in? Similarly, how can you believe in something you have no knowledge of?

Mr Williamson has tried to demonize atheists by stating that they are people that deny the existence of God. That is a plain lie - one that given $18,000.00 worth of Bible college education Mr Williamson should know better than telling.

Athiests, by definition, do not believe in God. That does not mean that athiests deny the possibility of God, it is just they don't have any reason or evidence to support saying he/she exists. We aren't going to believe in something 'on speculation' - we want proof.

Atheists will often challenge theists for their evidence of the existence of God and usually be disappointed in the response. This would be silly if such evidence existed and was accepted by the community at large. The reason that atheists continue to ask the question is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

Perhaps, if Mr Williamson has some evidence then he could provide CASE with same for testing in the Penn & Teller Pre-memorial deity testing centre (Please read other posts for relevance of same).

It is interesting to note that Mr Williamson does not believe that Allah exists, or that Ra exists, or that Wotan exists or any other strange God that has been worshiped through time. What evidence does he have that those Gods don't exist? If he has none then, on his logic, he must surely accept that those Gods also exist too? No, Mr Williamson is an atheist with respect to all those Gods, we just ask that he add one more.

Neitzche tells us that when we are confronted with two bad options, we can choose not to choose. What is wrong with that position? Nothing, it is the only logical and rational position - the atheist position.

For further information in this regard, please note:-

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

7. The all-powerful contradiction

Can God do anything? CASE officer Alex Stewart made this statement and continued the argument from malevolence - which Mr Williamson failed to include in his log, the argument is rather simple:-

a. If God is all powerful then he can prevent all suffering
b. If God is good then he must prevent all suffering
c. Suffering exists
d. Therefore, God does not exist or
e. God is not good.

Perhaps it was best put by Epicurus:-

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

8. Atheistic Violence is good - all other violence is bad

As a completely fictional organization, CASE is suprised at being taken seriously in its call for Holy War. It would be hard to write satire (try reading any of the posts on this blog's archives) without taking a certain point of view. CASE is a radical, terrorist organization - just like Operation 513. Of course, CASE feels that atheists should be treated equally with theists - accordingly, atheists should be able to cause just as much damage as theists have. Funny that theists can't even detect a joke - Jesus played a pretty big one on them.

In relation to the "worst killers of the twentieth century" slander against atheism, CASE notes this quote from Adolf Hitler, killer of millions:-

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill
God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated."[original italics]

Which is stunningly similar to:-

Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.

I'll let you figure it out.

Nonetheless, CASE notes that it does not support facism or socialism in any way. Rather, it notes that Theism, like facism and socialism is dependent on a dogmatic approach which denies criticism (IE, If you were a critic in facist germany, socialist russia or 15th century theist Europe - you could generally expect a quick death or painful torture). CASE considers all reliance on dogma to be inherently dangerous. Nonetheless, Operation 513 and other theists rely on it all the time - just read one of their tracts for an example of dogma. CASE argues theists have more in common with socialist and facist dictators then CASE does. Except for the fact that CASE also wishes to rule the planet with an iron fist. Mwha ha ha ha.

9. Absolute Morality - don't make me laugh

Mr Williamson actually began his point by asking whether rape was ever moral. Alex Stewart noted the situation of arranged marriage between a man and an unconsenting woman (this is a barbaric practice that still takes place today). Sex within those marriages is not considered rape in many countries, in fact, it is arguable that rape of your wife is not a crime before the Ten Commandments. CASE, on the other hand, does condemn all forms of rape.

Mr Williamson said that rape was "absolutely immoral". Alex Stewart responded by asking whether the man in an arranged marriage considered it to be right. Mr Williamson agreed. Alex Stewart then made the point that rape could not be "absolutely immoral" if certain people did not find it immoral. Mr Williamson was clearly defeated on this point, nonetheless he continued to push harder now saying that "pedophilia" was absolutely immoral.

CASE is against all forms of pedophilia, although CASE notes that many arranged marriages occur between children and men, even today. Mr Williamson again had to concede that in those circumstances, those societies did not consider that pedophilia was immoral and accordingly, it was not "absolutely immoral".

How many more times does Operation 513 have to hear that there are PEOPLE WITH VALUES OTHER THAN OPERATION 513 IN THE WORLD and that JUST BECAUSE OPERATION 513 BELIEVES A CERTAIN DOGMA DOES NOT MAKE IT ABSOLUTE.

10. Faith? Now you need faith to be an atheist - Huh???

"His closing argument was "You Christians believe in God by faith!" To which I replied "I accept God's existence by faith, even though I can see evidence for Him, and the atheists accept God not existing "by faith", and I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!"

Actually, as noted above - CASE does not have faith in anything. So, if I don't have faith in God doesn't that mean I don't believe in him? Yep - no faith required for atheism. This is very hard to explain to a theist for some reason. They just want to demonise us atheists as trying to ruin their party. Perhaps the best way to put it is -

Person 1 says to Person 2: "Stop believing everything"
Person 2 says to Person 1: "Ok, I am now believing in nothing - I have no knowledge, just like any innocent or naieve person"
Person 1 says to Person 2: "Now, do you believe in God?"
Person 2 says to Person 1: "No, can you show me some evidence?"

Its a pretty simple position to understand, in fact, it is the only position that anyone can logically stand in without having to invoke faith - which is claiming knowledge of something without obtaining knowledge about that thing. It is a self-deception

11. Finally, The Book of Hezekiah

Something that was not mentioned in the battlelog - Mr Williamson asked Alex Stewart whether the "Book of Hezekiah" appears in the New or Old Testament. Alex Stewart responded that he was not aware of any "Book of Hezekiah", on which Mr Williamson had to admit there was no such thing.

Mr Williamson had attempted to deceive Mr Stewart by bearing false witness and seeking to bring Mr Stewart into error. A contravention of Exodus 20: 16 or Deuteronomy 5:20? Although Mr Stewart was not caught by this deceit, it does lead CASE to query what other deceptions Mr Williamson may have committed to trick people into his flock?

CASE note - Street Preachers instigate violence

2008-06-19T18:51:00.001-07:00

CASE has now analysed the battle log from Operation 513 on 7 June 2008. In particular this:-

Andre got up, and with Bible in hand began to expound on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not long into his message a rather vile man in a yellow shirt became very hostile and started to hurl abuse at the preacher. Andre tried to reason with the man, but he refused to listen. So Andre kept on preaching. The man then came in really close, and started to curse Andre and also God.

CASE officer Alex Stewart was on hand at the event and recalls a somewhat different turn of events. CASE officer Alex Stewart recalls the hate speech was begun by Operation 513 with statements to the crowd that unless they repented they would "be going to Hell". CASE notes the man in the yellow shirt was quite irratible, but that the events that followed would probably not have happened if Operation 513 members (otherwise referred to as the "mind slaves") had just gone out on the town and had a few recuperative ales.

By now the man in the yellow shirt was screaming at our camera man, so Andrew moved into position to guard the camera. The man soon lost interest in the camera, and started to threaten Andrew. Upon seeing this, I walked over to tell the man to calm down or we would be forced to call the police. The man just cursed, and me then bent down to get something out of his backpack. As the man bent down, another man emerged from the crowd and started to abuse the man in the yellow shirt. He was screaming that he should get some respect for the preachers, and also that he should shut up. Of course that is the sanitised version of what he said. Yellow shirt then started to challenge this other man to a fight, so I stepped in and told both of them to back off and walk away. As I worked on breaking those two up, and cry was heard from the crowd. I turned and saw that a fight had erupted in front of the preacher.

CASE dislikes violence of any kind (unless it is necessary to futher the One True Cause: Atheism). CASE officer, Alex Stewart, sought police officers prior to the fight errupting because he could see the matter was getting out of hand. CASE notes police officers were not present in the mall until a substantial time after the fight had broken out.

Then I noticed one of our regular hecklers come running in to join the fight. This was fast becoming a full on brawl. I sent two of the team members to run and get the police. The only problem was the police weren't in their usual location, so we had to wait some time before they arrived.

CASE officer Alex Stewart regularily attends Operation 513 street preaching events and he has never seen either of these "regular hecklers". CASE considers this is an unfair attempt to demonise hecklers by Operation 513.

Police did eventually arrive. CASE notes that Operation 513 did not show any photographs of the carnage that resulted from their actions, CASE can show these pictures:-

Above: Young men ruin lives because of Operation 513

The people involved in the brawl will probably be charged and face criminal prosecution. CASE wonders whether Operation 513 will bear any of the responsibility for the fight which was clearly the result of the agitating atmosphere they create on Saturday nights in the Queen Street Mall? Probably not. But CASE is upset at Operation 513's obvious tactics:-

By now there was a massive crowd watching the fight, security guards were present but they did nothing but watch on. The fighters must have realized that the police were coming, because they stopped fighting and ran.Since the crowd stood there in stunned silence, I decided to jump up and preach a quick two minute message to them. While I was preaching all I could see was a sea of blue police uniforms running up the mall. Quickly I gave the order to the team to tract everyone up, so the team set about tracting everyone in the crowd.

Overall the night was rather interesting! Praise God that His Gospel went forth!

Should we expect anything less than Machiavellian tactics from a group that will stop at nothing to convert others into their ill-begotten cause? Taking advantage of violence is not a moral thing to do, especially when you caused it!

CASE notes there are now several street preachers in Brisbane City that use disgusting tactics to further their corrupt marketing campaigns. For instance, this preacher stands at the corner of Albert and Elisabeth Street between 2 and 3 on Saturday Afternoons while showing obscene materials to passer-bys, including children:-

Above: Scaring the shit out kiddies for Jesus

Contrary to the Christian bloodiness of 7 June 2008, the worst crime an atheist carried out was a crime against fashion:-

Regular athiest attendee proving that despite being a largely mythological animal, there are such thing as fairies. (Please note, if this is offensive then please tell me and I will bring it down, albeit - you did it to yourself man).

How to be a good atheist

2008-06-18T19:54:00.000-07:00

With the rapid stampede of the Australian population to atheism, CASE, being the absolute authority on all things atheistic has put forward some tips on being a good atheist. CASE is concerned about these 'new atheists' going nuts with the new found freedom that atheism offers. Recent converts like Belinda Neal, Michelle Leslie and Wayne Carey show that becoming an atheist can lead to out of control behaviour:-

Above Left: Wayne Carey as a clean, church-going christian
Above Right Wayne Carey the day after converting to atheism, it was all downhill from there.

On the pretence of preventing this type of bad behaviour from atheists which may damage our cause, CASE has now published The Atheist Readers Guide to Morality (How to live your life) which is available from all good bookstores (RRP: $29.95). All new converts to atheism should purchase this book. If you don't you will be letting us all down.

CASE performed much research in preparing this resource, including checking other books prepared by theists such as How to stay Christian in college by J. Budziszewski, How to be Good in a world gone Bad by James S. Spiegel and How to get your Husband to go to church with you by Vivian D'Arezzo. Although CASE notes most theist material is just evil propoganda, these materials were helpful in understanding how to communicate your point of view to an audience. Plus it works bloody well for them.

^ One for the ladies

CASE also studied various online sites which were quite instructive including the "How to live a Good Christian life" on wikihow which is quite instructive. From these materials CASE formulated its 700 page manual on atheist morality in the 21st century. Some brief tips include:-

Your first task should be to join an atheist society or club, this will prevent you from slipping back into faith.

Acknowledge you've been a believer and then repent. Realize that conversion is not simply one act but the beginning of a life-long struggle. Don't be hard on yourself if and when you fail, pick yourself up and trust in Hitchens.

Next, surround yourself with atheists. There is no point wasting your life with "no-hoper" theists who will never change.

Encourage everyone in your family to talk about religious issues. Record their beliefs and inform your local atheist group about their beliefs. Someone there may be able to tell you how they can be converted to atheism: the one true belief.

Read your Darwin, Dawkins and Hitchens. You can really learn a lot from this.

Volunteer to help people. For example, you could take a shift at a soup kitchen near you, help with a Christmas effort to give gifts to the poor on Christmas, or visit a people staying in a nursing home.

Share your beliefs and spread the good news. Remember, living the atheist life through your actions will make others want to follow atheism. Always stick up for your beliefs.

Understand that atheists believe Dawkins said they would be persecuted for their beliefs, so do not allow others' attacks to weaken your faith.

Treat others kindly as you would like to be treated. Even simple acts of kindness like holding a door open for someone are good deeds

With these simple tips you can become a shining example of atheism in your community. Remember, we dont want anyone thinking bad things about atheism as that may damage CASE and atheism generally. So if you do get caught with a bloody champagne glass or a bag of illicit narcotics, make a quick conversion back to Christianity (or Islam if you are in Indonesia) - for the team.

What do you have faith in?

2008-06-17T21:50:00.000-07:00

All three of the Abrahamic faiths; Judaism, Christianity and Islam insist on conformity of its members to very select texts. Even the varying interpretation of those very texts can be disputed within a single religion, for instance, the split between the Shi'ite and Sunn'ite sects in Islam.

CASE does not understand why an omniscient God would leave his special teachings to us in a vague form, such as in the Torah, Bible and Koran. Surely, he would have been aware of the potential splits between his own followers resulting from his medium of choice: ignorant dung sweepers, goat herders and woodworkers.

Surely it would be easier for God to just announce his existence, without need for invitation, to an entire world audience or to every individual without needing to go through preachers. God, if he existed, could just turn up today and say "Hey dudes, I created you, whats happening?". Being an omniscient being God would have been able to forsee that his message which was handed to a holy goat herder, dung sweeper or carpenter would have only been transferred to Gods creation through preachers. Why preachers? After all, preachers are human (at least on a genetic level), wouldn't God realise through his omniscience that they could and would make mistakes?

Preachers base their entire philosophy and right to proclaim this and that from their personal faith. Recent CASE studies show that almost 5% of all preachers are actually being honest in this regard. The other 95% of course, are in it for the money. But let us put aside the Benny Hinn school of preaching tradition and focus on the issue of faith and the message of God. The 5% of preachers that honestly believe what they are saying are speaking from faith. When asked to produce evidence of their God they usually cannot provide any. This is too bad, CASE funds have been used to construct the new Penn & Teller Pre-memorial Centre for Forensic Examination of Deitic Materials located in Bogota, Columbia. The cost of the facility was approximately 2.5 million dollars.

However, as we have not been provided with any physical evidence of God's existence CASE shall now convert the building into the CASE Penn & Teller Pre-memorial Diety Reaching Under Ground Lab. DRUG Lab will be involved in manufacturing various materials to help us reach deities using the usual ancient means. We also expect DRUG Lab to make a tidy profit for our group this year.

Who knew all that equipment would be useful?

To return to the point, CASE notes that if God exists as described by theists then why does he want us to believe in him and yet give us no evidence for his existence other than ancient manuscripts from third and fourth hand accounts of events that happened to ignorant people two or three millenia ago? The argument is rather perverse, that this God character wants to test your faith, give you no opportunity to use your intellect and the penalty is eternal damnation if you get it wrong.

It seems to CASE that God is not testing your faith in him at all. God can only be testing your willingness to believe the words of past generations. There is no other available way to have knowledge of God and his 'absolute' code of morality unless you have faith in the past generations 'holy texts'. By necessity the faith in your ancestors link is essential in the chain.

Does anyone actually believe that God would test you solely on your belief in the words of your ancestors? What if your ancestors got the message wrong?

So, now we know what God is testing, let us examine for any alternative. Past generations may not have wanted their moral strictures to be assauged by their children - hey presto - faith appears and the self-repeating inculcation of descendents is possible. Of course, Exodus 20: 12 makes this explicit: "Honour your father and mother, that your days be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you".

Theists bind themselves to the 'holy texts' and as a result are restricted in thought to that of previous generations. Is that not what DNA does? Does not the selfish gene allow for exact replication between generations in 99.9 percent of reproduction in order to provide the next generation with the same prospects of survival? Mutations occur in DNA and in social development, but only on an infrequent basis. Does anyone deny that Christianity and Islam are more successful than its parent Judaism? Surely this is a result of the new characteristics, or mutations, from the parent. Would either Christianity or Islam have been born without the parent?

CASE understands that religion can only be passed onto future generations through the publication of Holy Texts. Accordingly, CASE has now released its policy document, BURNING BIBLES, FLAMING KORANS: Find out how to make Holy Books useful which outlines all of the possible methods of using Holy Books as fuel sources in your home, office and even your car.

The CASE 5000 deluxe has excellent fuel efficiency at 12kms per Bible. Koranic conversions available.

Giant, prehistoric lies

2008-06-16T22:39:00.002-07:00

CASE has recently become aware of the website CreationWiki. At first CreationWiki appears to be a well-presented, well-researched wiki into the origins of, among other things, life on this planet. In order to test the veracity of CreationWiki, CASE decided to compare its contents with Wikipedia entries regarding dinosaur.

Wikipedia states, in its introduction to the topic of dinosaurs that:-

Dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrate animals of terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) to the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when most of them became extinct in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.

Creationpedia on the other hand, gives this account:-

[M]ost creationists believe that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind on Earth and lived recently. Biblical support for this perspectives is drawn from the Genesis 1 where it states that all animals were created on the sixth day of creation along with humans.

Although this is the position of theists, CASE did note the following would have been obviously rejected by even a student of significantly low intellect:-

It is furthermore presumed they were still alive at the time of the global flood and taken on board Noah's ark. Evidence to support this perspective includes:

The Bible specifically states that a breeding pair of every kind of animal came to the ark.
The fossil record is filled with the corpses of dinosaurs that were buried during the deluge.
The abundant physical evidence of recent existence of dinosaurs.

CASE felt this was somewhat misleading and could fool a child into believing the wrong thing. Accordingly, CASE sought to make the following change:-

It is furthermore presumed they were still alive at the time of the global flood and taken on board Noah's ark. Evidence to support this perspective includes:

Because God says so

However, it appears that CreationWiki can only be amended by authorised CreationWiki writers, which is fair enough in a robust democracy where your views are correct. So, under completely false pretenses CASE electronic warfare division applied to be an author of CreationWiki. We shall keep you informed.

CASE's help cannot come fast enough, after all, CreationWiki will be in real trouble if quotes like this are not deleted:-

Tony asks him how Adam and Eve could have lived in the Garden of Eden with a carnivorous tyrannosaurus, and instead of explaining that tyrannosaurs would have been vegetarians back then, instead gives him a book and leaves.

What big teeth you have Mr Tyrannosaur?

All the better to eat grass with.

CASE study proves Dawkins is God

2008-06-16T18:33:00.000-07:00

The CASE psychological warfare unit has recently released its annual report on the psychology of religion entitiled "Bonkers: the theist grasp for reality" ($19.95 at our online shop).

The report includes multiple conclusions from the CASE psychological warfare unit's unbiased account of its 15 year study of a baby procured through generous donations to CASE (To make a donation, click here) and the help of the Sudanese Government.

The experiment focussed on whether the subject, whose has been labelled "Faw" (being a derivative of his serial number: #4) would have religious inklings without any access to the outside world, its parents or any human contact or other stimuli.

CASE psychological warfare unit made several interesting discoveries, including:-

1. Faw does not know the names Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha or understand their meaning. Furthermore, he attained only a score of 43 out of 100 on a multiple choice examination on religion which is a decent score for a child that has not spoken to another human being for 15 years. However, Faw completely bombed out with only 3 out of 100 in qualitative assessment. Some marks were given for making the point that religion was an empty issue but not making any markings on the page.

2. Faw was presented with pictures of various individuals and asked to assign names to each individual from a set list. Over the course of 250 tests conducted, Faw made only one correct answer:-

Faw identified this man as God in test #137 on 19 January 2004.

CASE psychological warfare unit considers this REAL evidence of the rightness of atheism.

3. Faw also seemed to always choose images of Angelina Jolie (a famous athiest) over the Pope when offered. Further proof the Faw strongly identified with the athiest cause:-

(Pictured) Angelina Jolie, Tomb Raider, and guy she found in tomb.

Faw did show some religious feelings, eventually coming to worship the small chute through which his meals would be provided on a daily basis. CASE officers observed Faw began various rituals to "bring forth food" from the chute which he has named in his own invented language"Pid*click*gin*click*click*naria".

Faw, of course, is unaware of the uncanny link between the name he has given his God and experiments performed by BF Skinner during the 1960's which explain the exact method of creating and following religion in humans. Of course, Skinner did not have the significant resources of CASE and was unable to procure a baby.

With the experiment over, Faw has been offered a job with the CASE child warfare department. Faw, who has no perceptible understand of any other languages declined the offer. Accordingly, CASE has given Faw a grant and some clothes so that he may continue his wonderful journey through life, we understand he has been offered a post teaching his own invented language at a Bachelor of Arts course, and we are certain he will be successful.

Everyone at CASE wish you all the best Faw.

The Atheists are coming!!!

2008-06-16T06:30:00.001-07:00

We know that World Youth Day is nearly upon us, but CASE through its contacts in the underground network of athiest resistance fighters has learned of a worse betrayal than that done by the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments. Through a raid on Richard Dawkins foundation in the United Kingdom, our secret plans for world domination have been discovered:-

CASE engages in battle

2008-06-15T18:07:00.000-07:00

As a CASE officer, It is often necesary that I engage in debate with theists to show how silly their beliefs are. These forums also give me an opportunity to spread the word of CASE and atheism in general.

On Saturday night, 14 June 2008, I once again engaged in debate with Josh Williamson of Operation 513, an opponent that I, on behalf of CASE, have battled numerous times. As per usualy, CASE was the winner of the nights proceedings with many people not understanding how Mr Williamson can make the connection between the Bible, an all powerful God and the necessity that evolution must be wrong. I point out yet again that abiogenisis is not something that could be denied in the modern climate of scientific endeavour. I even gave a brief description of abiogenisis to the crowd - albeit most of the audience were drunk or alternatively, from Operation 513.

It is interesting to note that Operation 513 feels the need to bring not less than 10 members to these marketing rallys, whereas CASE only needs 1. From hereon in, CASE has decided to take numbers of 513 operators and will keep you informed of their numbers over time.

CASE did get to have several in depth discussions with members of the crowd - however, CASE would never reveal such information as a breach of privacy, unlike some. A complaint was lodged on that night by a member of the crowd.

CASE has only just become aware of the Operation 513 battle log. Accordingly, our organisation is sure to develop further materials in response.

Hands off the children

2008-06-12T16:20:00.001-07:00

Why is it that Theists feel the need to infect Children with hatred and violence. I have just read this report regarding the teachings in an islamist school in the US which included textbooks from Saudi Arabia that:-

The authors of a 12th-grade text on Quranic interpretation state that apostates (those who convert from Islam), adulterers and people who murder Muslims can be permissibly killed.
The authors of a 12th-grade text on monotheism write that "(m)ajor polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible," meaning that a Muslim can take with impunity the life and property of someone believed guilty of polytheism. According to the panel, the strict Saudi interpretation of polytheism includes Shiite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists.
A social studies text offers the view that Jews were responsible for the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims: "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims)."

What ever happened to calculus and trigonometry?

This is another example of Theists fighting unfarily. They know that their prototheories and philosophies of hate do not stand up to logic and modern science, so they go after the innocent, naieve and uneducated - children.

Campaign against the horrors

2008-06-11T19:38:00.000-07:00

One of my most fundamental objections to religion is the psychological effect of bullying children "into damnation". It is natural for all children to, at some point, recognise their own mortality. It is certainly a scary realisation, even when repeated in adult life. Nonetheless, theist groups often tell children, specifically, that:-

1. There is an afterlife
2. It can be good (heaven) or bad (hell)
3. You will go to one of these depending on your behaviour
4. You will go to hell if you dont behave as (the theists) say
(the "afterlife proposition")

Firstly, we have no evidence for heaven or hell apart from the teachings of a wild man/preacher around 2000 years ago. Secondly, we have no evidence for an afterlife full stop. There is no transition from our biological state to any other state which can be identified. Accordingly, it is very likely that the "afterlife" proposition put by theist groups is fraudulent (and solely for the purpose of acheiving control per point 4).

We know that images of hell combined with a realisation of our own demise can be psychologically shattering for a child. Particularily for children without the ability to critique religion.

So why do we let theists terrorise young children with this hogwash given the harm that it causes to mental health? Well, the answer is because it is religion, hands off, dont touch - its holy and therefore out of bounds.

Fortunately, we are no longer constrained in this way, on the front lines of this battle, we can critique to our hearts content. That probably why this petition is going up - to stop the nightmares. I note the petition is for British Citizens, but you should check out the campaign anyway.

Personally, I think we should have a new campaign "Confront the inevitable - its coming anyway".

Is that Theory or Law of Evolution?

2008-06-10T19:34:00.000-07:00

As many of you are aware, a major difficulty for evolutionists has been proving positive mutations of genetic code. Until this there has been no actual observations of a species undergoing a change to their DNA which resulted in positive results.

The criticism of creationists that there were no observed events of positive mutation or "macro evolution" posed a big problem for evolutionist because it is a necesary step in the "theory of evolution". Effectively, the macro evolution involves the genetic code having new information added. Creationists have for a long time argued that new information cannot be added to the genetic code. Now we know better.

It appears the reason for not having observed positive genetic mutations in the past is due to their infrequent occurence. In the Linsk experiment, the mutation was observed forty (40) times. But we have to put that in the context that there were 40 trillion bacteria born. Accordingly, the prospects of genetic mutation between generations is a very infrequent event.

Nonetheless, we would expect that such mutations would not occur very often. A species success is more dependent on retaining the genetic traits that have made it successful for the current environment than in developing random new traits. Accordingly, multi chain prolymerase reactions which are used in DNA reproduction are far more effective at reproducing the same genetic structure than having "add-ons" or mutations randomly every generation.

There have already been calls for this work to be recognised with a Nobel Prize. I wouldnt go that far at this stage. I would however postulate that with the theists last argument against evolution annihilated by the evidence, we can start the push to change "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection" to "The Law of Evolution by natural selection"

Welcome to the Front

2008-06-10T18:42:00.000-07:00

My fellow atheists, secularists, humanists and freethinkers, welcome to the front of what may be the most difficult battle in the age-old war between science and religion.

We have lost many heroes and suffered many defeats in this war. From Socrates who was forced to commit suicide because of his teachings to Copernicus and Galileo who had their works on the most basic of planetary systems annihilated because it did not coincide with Genesis. Even now, scientists and educators around the world face a daily battle with the forces of faith about what they can publish and teach.

In the face of overwhelming facts about the origins of religion, human psychology and evolution there remains a powerful lobby of faith based demagogues that influence politics and social issues. Our species cannot continue to shut our eyes to knowledge because it is inconsistent with our ancestors beliefs. That would be foolish.

So let us now prepare for battle. With the internet at our side we can now take the battle to those with faith and bring about a new era for mankind.