Freedom of Speech

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.

William Lane Craig is a douche

The God Challenge

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

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

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.

Dinosaurs, Behemoths and the Great Biblical swindle

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.

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

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.

The flawed God

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

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?

Dawkins on the air

Systemic Logic

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 ;).

Why do people laugh at creationist?

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.

Campaign for the Caveat

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.

Here trolly (or, why absolute knowledge is doubtful)

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 ;)

CASE gagged

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?)

Holey arguments from Theists

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)

Who is really behind the church???

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:-

The Book of Hezekiah

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

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).

CASE engages in battle

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.