You really never know how some religious nutjobs are going to react. That’s a life lesson Jerry Andrews is still pondering about, having recently been shot by his co-worker Dale O’Callaghan. Seems as though Dale may not have had much of a sense of humor about his faith. His sore spot happened to be a certain Harold Camping failed Rapture prediction that was greatly anticipated (and like with most believers, probably continually mentioned). No doubt the inevitable failure presented Jerry with the opportunity for a good laugh. Instead he got a bullet in the shoulder.

After being wounded, Andrews recalls being called “one of those Satanic people” by O’Callaghan. I’m inclined to believe that he may have in fact been referring to us, the non-believers. The concept is probably so shocking to his fragile, child-like understanding of the Universe that he thinks we’re all tools of the devil or something. If you think I might be exaggerating, take a look at this recent Pew poll. It found that the #1 fear of Evangelical Christians is the growing influence of secularism. Is it a stretch to imagine that perhaps some of them might characterize us as literal agents of Satan?

Scary to think that eventually, this bozo is going to be out on the street again. And you know, if he’s there for at least ten years, there’s going to be a whole lot more of those “Satanic people” around, that for sure. Him and his Evangelical ilk better start getting used to it.

Spread the outrage

When Richard confronts Steve about his young earth creationist views, watch him continually squirm to avoid providing a straight answer. He uses the “everyone will come to their own conclusion” argument, which is essentially saying nothing. Lots of people have “made up their minds” that the Universe was created around the time that we invented agriculture.

As for the creationist Prime Minister, he was talking about Kevin Rudd. He has since been replaced by an atheist. Awesome.

Spread the outrage

Guess who managed to weasel his way into the news? It’s everyone’s favorite “ex-atheist”, Kirk Cameron, criticizing Hawking for declaring that Heaven is a fairy-tale. He posted this on his facebook page:

to say anything negative about Stephen Hawking is like bullying a blind man. He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas.

That’s not passive aggressive in the slightest. He’s right: science must seem absurd to someone as ignorant as Cameron. Black Holes deteriorating over time? The Universe not needing a prime mover in order to exist? It’s enough to make anyone’s head explode, especially when that head happens to be jam packed with crazy bullshit.

What really irritates me is when clowns like Kirk are given a spotlight for regurgitating the same old tired non-arguments. Faith is not evidence. Belief is not evidence. Yet the likes of Cameron would dilute objective truth to fit their narrow world views, and the media gladly provides them a platform to accomplish this. How many gullible fools have been lured by their promises of eternal life and a paradise awaiting the obedient? Presumably a few more now.

This other passage really irritates me:

(Hawking) says he knows there is no Heaven. John Lennon wasn’t sure. He said to pretend there’s no Heaven. That’s easy if you try. Then he said he hoped that someday we would join him. Such wishful thinking reveals John and Stephen’s religious beliefs, not good science.”

What the fuck does he know about good science? This is the same brilliant mind behind the “crocoduck” anti-evolution argument for god’s sake. And if he thinks Lennon’s “I hope some day you’ll join us” message is religious in nature, he’s only proven how hollow his “ex-atheist” claim is.

Spread the outrage

A fan of the site sent me this Buddhist exchange that I had to say something about:

Curious Buddhist:

I have an odd question which was raised by a friend, who was asking me questions about Buddhism. They wanted to know how Buddhism deals with the concept of evolution? Are Buddhists creationists? Our teachings don’t seem to deal with such matters and I was rather at a loss as to how to answer them.

Lama Shenpen:

I suppose one would have to say Buddhists are evolutionists in the sense that they do not think God created everything in seven days.

That’s not really a good start. Creationists don’t all believe in that exact nonsense. Some are far more sophisticated in their stupidity.

The Buddhist view is that everything emanates from the Primordial expanse of Openness Clarity Sensitivity and is illusion-like, never really coming into existence but the illusion is created by infinite intricate connections that are not anywhere and not in time.

Wow, the bullshit train is riding hard right now. Am I to believe that the Universe is an expanse of Sensitivity? I would argue that stars exploding in massive gamma ray bursts might not be entirely too sensitive to the feelings of nearby planets.

Time and space are part of the illusion that is emanating from that Primordial expanse – so it’s all very mysterious. From the Buddhist perspective there is no problem with life on earth having evolved somehow – but evolution is not in itself a full story or full account of life on earth – it leaves quite basic questions left unanswered.

Yes, evolution leaves tons of unanswered questions for Buddhists, such as “how did the first human exist if we’re all reincarnated”, and “how can human beings be so fucking gullible”?

In a way one might want to argue Buddhism is closer to creationism because our world is created by awareness – the awareness of the beings that inhabit it – evolution only gives a kind of history of how that illusion unfolds.

They love their whole “illusion” angle, don’t they. It’s a great way to avoid having to explain anything concrete about your stupid belief system. Hey, how do protons and electrons work? It’s all an elaborate illusion, so don’t bother trying to find out!

Buddhist do indeed share much in common with creationists: for starters, they have no desire to discover the natural world, and rely on tradition and superstition to tell them about the Universe. While they smugly assert that all the Cosmos is Maya (or illusion),this impossible to disprove condition is just another example of the nonsense of religion. If they had their way, scientific progress would end as we know it, in favor of mumbling some shitty prayers and believing that justice is handed out by an invisible force.

Isn’t religion great?

Spread the outrage

I know, it’s not much of a headline. I mean, how surprising is it when a supposedly infallible guy in the ceremonial dress claims that his magical sky-man created humans, rather than our existence being the product of natural forces:

Benedict emphasized the Biblical account of creation in his Easter Vigil homily Saturday, saying it was wrong to think at some point “in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it.”

It’s wrong to think the truth? It is for Christians!

“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,” he said. “But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.”

Does something need to have been the product of a supernatural entity in order for life to “make sense”? This is what annoys me about religious people: they think it’s far more amazing to be the product of an anthropomorphic god rather than cosmic evolution. Your body is literally made out of dead stars, and meanwhile we’re all supposed to be impressed by the murder and crucifixion of a long dead Palestinian Jew? What the fuck are you talking about, moron?

Spread the outrage

Fantastic talk on how knowing about Big History is the only way we can ensure that the next generation will learn to appreciate the fragility of their own existence!

Spread the outrage

I recieved a number of emails about the Harris vs Craig debate, and I thought it would be fun if we all had a little forum to discuss a question that’s been on my mind since listening to the debate: does objective morality exists?

We’ll start with one of the letters I got from a fan of the show:

Hi there TGA,
I just thought I’d say that I really enjoyed the debate you posted between Sam Harris and Something Craig. However, as an atheist I was surprised to find that I was disappointed by Sams showing. It seemed to me that he spent most of his time rehashing arguments he’d made at previous talks rather than addressing the statements made by Professor Craig. Specifically, I felt that the Prof adopted an almost pantheist or deist framework, refusing to acknowledge the sectarian beliefs we all know he holds, while Sam spent the debate firing heavy artillery at those very sectarian contentions, thereby missing Craig’s assertions entirely.

There are a lot of flaws in Craig’s argument that weren’t discussed and it’d go along way in satisfying my urge to shake some sense into him, in a way sam didn’t, if you’d address them in your next podcast.

Before I actually talk about this on the podcast, i think it’s important for me to say that I’m not entirely convinced that there is such a thing as “objective morality” in the Universe. That’s not to say I don’t believe in right or wrong; I’m just not convinced that there’s any empirical evidence to suggest that human morality is somewhat built on the premise that certain actions are Universally wrong and Universally right outside our own species.

So I’m presented with a bit of a dilemma: while i think Craig’s arguments -that this objective morality is grounded in the concept of a morally perfect God- fails to address exactly a number of issues, Sam similarly fails in my view to demonstrate how an objective morality exists outside of our own framework.

Still, I haven’t yet read his book, and his argument may be simply incomplete. So while I try and spend the next few days securing and analyzing his tome, I want your opinions on whether you think objective morality in fact exists!

Spread the outrage

Today’s creationist idiot is different from his forebearers. For starters, he’s are far more congicant of science, and often appropriates very select information that confirms his crackpot theories. He desperately want the legitamicy of science without actually having to do any.

The latest loon is the author of a “book” entitled “The Evolution Handbook“,written by a young-earth creationist by the name of Vance Ferrell. The majority of it is availible online, and you can get an idea from the introduction what he intends to “prove”:

The scientific facts presented here will help insulate you from the desolating effects of evolutionary theory.

Yes, please insulate me from knowledge!

Life evolution is founded on the twin theories of spontaneous generation and Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics);—yet, although they remain the basis of biological evolution, both were debunked by scientists over a century ago.

Lamarkism? Is this guy stuck in the 19th century or something? For those of you unfamiliar with this long ago debunked evolutionary idea, it proposed that species would pass on traits that it had adapted to during its lifetime. In other words, if an animal lived somewhere cold, it would “evolve” a fur coat and pass on this trait to the following generation.*

As for spontaneous generation, I think this fool may have confused it with ambiogenesis. Regardless, despite some few hundred pages of absolute drivel, Vance can’t get over the fact that the origins of the Universe are still very mysterious. He seems entirely focused on the fact that the Cosmos may have originated from nothing, and then becomes incensed that this must somehow mean that the Big Bang is impossible. His solution is, of course, far more ludicrous: a bearded entity created everything the way it is less than 10,000 years ago. The proof? Science is wrong, that’s why!

He offers a brief overview of every creationist scientist who agrees with him, and as you might have guessed, most of them perished before your grandparents were even born! That’s when all the good science got done, right?

The most telling chapter of all is one entitled “Evolution, Morality, and Violence” which claims that evolutionary science is ruining modern civilization:

Evolution is nihilistic in regard to morals. First, the clear implication is that people are just animals, so there is no right or wrong. Second, it teaches that all evolutionary progress has been made by some at the expense of others.

Ah yes, I can still remember the good old days before people started to study evolution. Black people lived freely and without fear of lynching. Women were treated with respect and dignity. Minorities were celebrated for their diverity and unique contributions to society. Yes, in my deluded mind all of these wonderful things happened until the wickedness of science destroyed our peaceful utopia.

Enjoy yourself while this complete fuckwad tries to convince you that all the best science in the world points to a 10,000 year old earth!

Spread the outrage

Where do I start with this ass clown? I feel like he’s trying to sell me a used car or something. Let’s quickly examine his claims, shall we?

1. Does Truth Exist?
I think you’ll find that this is a loaded question when it comes to religion. For them, truth means only that their specific beliefs are true, rather than admit that an objective truth outside their schema is possible. This would involve the possibility of believers being wrong, and they just can’t accept that.

2. Does God exist?
Apparently they use 2 scientific arguments to “prove” that there’s an all powerful loving God that created the Universe. How many of you are willing to bet that it’s just more of that pointless “anthropic principle” shit they think they understand?

3. Are Miracles Possible?
This is where these clowns try and pretend that there’s scientific evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead, and is therefore your Lord and master. Yeah, can’t wait to be blown away by this fucking science..

4. Is the New Testament True?
That’s your final question? Christians are hilarious sometimes, don’t you think? They want so desperately to have proof that their provincial, entirely unimpressive God. You have to love his slippery slope line of thinking: if I can prove that truth exists, that God exists, and that miracles are possible, it must mean that the NT is true! Actually, no it doesn’t. Even if the first three propositions were true, it certainly doesn’t mean that a contradicting piece of mythology is. Sorry bro, but it turns out that you’re just not smart enough to be an atheist.

Spread the outrage

Are you an idiot who wants desperately to continue to believe in a supernatural entity despite no evidence to do so? Are you intimidated by the sciences, and how it conflicts with your supernatural understanding of the world? Are you concerned that evolution makes your Cosmogony seem infantile and basic by comparison? Then head on over to Creationtips.com, where you can learn a whole slew of idiotic talking points, such as.

1. How did the Universe come about?
There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.[Jake's Note: You'll read this whole "there is no scientific law" rhetoric all the time on the site. Evidently these clowns have no real understanding of what scientific laws are all about.]

Translation: Something can’t come from nothing, therefore my creator god who willed himself into existence did it.

In any case, this question is supposed to confuse non-believers who aren’t super familiar with astrophysics. How can a Universe come from nothing? Well, Laurence Krauss has some good answers to this question, but it’s still an argument I find quickly paints religionists into a corner. If it’s true that you can’t get something from nothing, then why does this rule not apply to their creator God?

2. How could living creatures come from Non-Life?
There are no provable mechanisms for how molecules could increase in complexity without cells to produce and utilize them. For example, you cannot assume proteins before you have the DNA that codes for them.

Translation: There are no provable mechanisms for life, therefore my improvable diety did it!

Creationists are always a little confused as to how non-living materials create living entities. While we cannot yet fully explain how the necessary proteins arranged themselves to create DNA, it’s important to remember that this molecule is not “alive” in the same sense that we are. It’s simply a biological mechanism for replication, and there are other non-organic examples of this as well.

Any creationists using the word “DNA” is a fool; if they believe that humans are seperate from animals, they should choose a different molecule: this one suggests that humans share a common ancestor with all animals. It’s a far cry from their Adam and Eve bullshit.

3. How could new genetic information arise?
The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

Translation: I’m confused about evolution, therefore god did it.

Creationists are always confused about how evolution works. They half to be, otherwise it kills their little delusion that Earth was spawned by an invisible deity. They always claim that you can’t see evolution in action, even though you can with something as mundane as using anti-bacterial soap. It’s even clearly spelled out for you on the label: if they kill 99.9% of all bacteria, the 0.1% that survived have developed a greater resiliency to this particular soap. Over time, these traits make their way into the population and your soap becomes increasingly ineffectual as we slowly train bacterium to resist us through our germaphobic habits. Tada!

More sophisticated creationists (Intelligent Design) admit that this kind of evolution exists, but that somehow these types of changes can’t possibly lead to different traits leading to separate species over long periods of time. Even if evolution were wrong, it would not make their magical-spontaneous-sky-man hypothesis any more correct.

…mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information.

There’s a wonderful video explaining how a kind of “loss of information” was responsible for humans branching off into a separate species, and you need to check it out.

4. Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don’t show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Translation: I don’t even understand the notion that human beings ARE apes!

This one makes me the saddest, because it reminds me that we’re still a long ways away as a species from admitting what we are. You’d think the fabric of society would collapse like a balloon as soon as we all realized that we are animals like any other. The fact that we are offended by the notion of being apes goes to show that we have little appreciation for the truth, and even less appreciation for how extraordinarily fortunate we are to be alive.

As for debunking this claim that the “fossil record keeps changing”, keep in mind that the chance of actually finding human fossils is already a rarity (land species always leave less evidence of their existence, and we haven’t been around for that long). Our entire collection of ancient hominid bones could fit in the back of a pickup truck, for god’s sake! But to say that there’ no evidence that we share a common ancestor with apes is simply a pious lie. The evidence is overwhelming (one of the proofs is in the video I mentioned before), and keep in mind that so far, the best alternative explanation these creationists offer is the equivalent of magic. How are they so endlessly impressed with themselves?

Spread the outrage