There have been claims that the bible is filled with scientific facts, and creationists have the tendency to USE this as some sort of evidence that the bible is true. I will list off a few commonly used "scientific and biblical" claims and then explain how they are wrong.
The first fun one is the claim that Leviticus 17:11 says "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" and of course this is used to say that the bible knew of this scientific tidbit way before science discovered it. Now this isn't a big revelation. Where would one get the idea that life is in the blood? All it takes is for someone to cut someone else open, watch all the blood come out, and then he dies. Do these creationists honestly think that no one saw anyone bleed to death 2000 years ago? Additionally, that statement is essentially false. Life isn't in the blood. Life is in the brian. Once the brain dies, the life is gone. And it can die for any number of reasons, many of them not relating to blood loss.
Another claim is from Job 26:7 "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," meaning that the earth is floating in space. However.. that's not what "suspended" means. Suspended implies that there is something holding it UP, of course over "nothing." This also implies that UP is an objective direction. The earth is not suspended, it is in orbit around the sun. In order to be in orbit, the Earth has to essentially be falling towards the sun but with enough orbital velocity in one direction so that it never really gets any closer. This is the definition of being in orbit. Again, it is not suspended at all, much less over "nothing."
A very humorous one, in my opinion, is when creationists try to defend the idea that the bible talks about radio waves too. In Job 38:35, it says "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?" So here is their logic- lightning is light. Light travels, well, at the speed of light. Radiowaves also travel at the speed of light because radiowaves are also parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Because of this, the radiowaves can send signals to speakers which make them produce sounds and voices. I'm not making this up, I got this from, inplainsite.org . This is actually the conclusion they draw from a passage like this. So what do you think is more likely? That 2500 years ago, the writers of Job decided to talk about radio waves? Or that they were just talking about a mythical event, similar to the global flood, noahs ark etc, that just happened to involve talking lightning?
Another interesting one is Genesis 1 verses 1 and 3. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters." Now I know what you're thinking. I would love to hear them defend this one too. So here is their attempt: They attribute TIME to "in the beginning," they attribute ENERGY and POWER to "god" and "created," they attribute SPACE to "heaven" and MATTER to "earth." They also attribute MOTION to "the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters." So they say that in the beginning, a bunch of energy and power gave arise to matter and space and it moved,.. probably implying an expansion. This isn't scientific. This isn't even accurate. This is a missunderstanding based off of a vague bible verse with a limited scientific vocabulary. Because time is a constant, the term "beginning" isn't really used as a literal term in the scientific community while discussing the big bang. The scientific community knows close to jack rabbit squat about the singularity, and when the "spirit of god MOVED upon the face of the WATERS"... this is really the farthest thing FROM anything relating to the cosmological "beginning" of the universe.. because of course, there was no water then, and Earth formed billions of years after the big bang, while genesis clearly implies that earth was created first, strangely enough BEFORE the sun.. So if genesis is so scientific and accurate.. how come it doesn't answer ANY questions that we have about the origin of the universe?
That is just four basic points that creationists love to use when it comes to science in the bible. Vague bible verses that can be applied to a wide variety of concepts and ideas. The bible isn't preaching science, nor does did it EVER have a head start on scientific progress. It's a book of stories whose truthfullness is left solely to the interpreter.
16 July, 2010
22 June, 2010
Full Description of Christian Challenge
The other condition, that I thought needed to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway- you can't say "God did it." Or say “They’re metaphorical” when each case clearly indicates a physical creature/object of supernatural being.
These passages are all from the KJV, other versions of the Bible have translated certain beasts into more reasonable animals- AGAINST their original wording, context and translation.
Satyr - Isaiah 13.21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
Original Word - śâ‛ı̂yr – Which can mean; shaggy; as noun, a he goat; by analogy a faun: - devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr
According to the commentaries of Wesley, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, Jameson, Fausset an Brown agree that this word is referring to the Demi-God/Devil of which is half man, half goat.
Firey Serpents - Numbers 21.6 "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much of Israel died."
Original Words - śârâph nâchâsh – śârâph coming from the word śâraph which means to burn, which is also applied to the highest class of angels- seraphim, the burning ones. However, śârâph could also mean poisonous. Which could either imply a creature of mystical origin, or a mistranslation. Your choice.
Cockatrice - Jeremiah 8.17 "For, behold, I will sent serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."
Original Word - tsepha‛ tsiph‛ônı̂y – From an unused root meaning to extrude; a viper (as thrusting out the tongue, that is, hissing): - adder, cockatrice – It’s interesting to note that out of occurrences of this word being used in the bible, only once has it been used to refer to an Adder, the other 4 times, “Cockatrice”. The commentary of Jameson, Fausset and Brown refer to this creature as both a cockatrice and a basilisk.
Unicorns - Isaiah 34.7 "And the Unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
Original Word - rêm – This word has been used a total of 9 times in the entirety of the Bible, all times being translated as unicorn. However, all of the commentaries I have actually debate this translation, saying it might’ve been confused with local rams- or even rhinoceros.
Dragons - Mentioned 16 different times, just a one example. Nehemia 2.13 “And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.”
Original Word - drakōn- Probably from an alternate form of derkomai (to look); a fabulous kind of serpent (perhaps as supposed to fascinate): - dragon. Interesting to note that this isn’t the only word used for “Dragon”- another one is “Tanniyn”, which refers to dragons-of-people (not people-dragons, but dragon-like in personality/royalty), so there is definitely a distinction between the two, that this is a physical dragon creature.
Leviathan - Job 41.1 "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?"
Original Word - livyâthân - a wreathed animal, that is, a serpent (especially the crocodile or some other large sea monster); figuratively the constellation of the dragon; also as a symbol of Babylon: - leviathan, mourning.
All of the commentaries I have debate on what the Leviathan actually is, some try and reason that it is a crocodile from the Nile, or perhaps a whale- but no-one is really sure. An interesting commentary on this creature is from Barnes.
The rest don’t need etymology lessons;
Talking Snakes - Genesis 3.1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
Talking Donkeys - Numbers 22.28 "And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
Talking Trees - Judges 9:9 "But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?"
Half-Human, Half Angels (Nephilim, or Giants) Genesis 6.4 - "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Animated Objects (In this case, an animated, flaming sword) - Genesis 3.24 - "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
And who says I don’t know The Bible?
These passages are all from the KJV, other versions of the Bible have translated certain beasts into more reasonable animals- AGAINST their original wording, context and translation.
Satyr - Isaiah 13.21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
Original Word - śâ‛ı̂yr – Which can mean; shaggy; as noun, a he goat; by analogy a faun: - devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr
According to the commentaries of Wesley, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, Jameson, Fausset an Brown agree that this word is referring to the Demi-God/Devil of which is half man, half goat.
Firey Serpents - Numbers 21.6 "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much of Israel died."
Original Words - śârâph nâchâsh – śârâph coming from the word śâraph which means to burn, which is also applied to the highest class of angels- seraphim, the burning ones. However, śârâph could also mean poisonous. Which could either imply a creature of mystical origin, or a mistranslation. Your choice.
Cockatrice - Jeremiah 8.17 "For, behold, I will sent serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."
Original Word - tsepha‛ tsiph‛ônı̂y – From an unused root meaning to extrude; a viper (as thrusting out the tongue, that is, hissing): - adder, cockatrice – It’s interesting to note that out of occurrences of this word being used in the bible, only once has it been used to refer to an Adder, the other 4 times, “Cockatrice”. The commentary of Jameson, Fausset and Brown refer to this creature as both a cockatrice and a basilisk.
Unicorns - Isaiah 34.7 "And the Unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
Original Word - rêm – This word has been used a total of 9 times in the entirety of the Bible, all times being translated as unicorn. However, all of the commentaries I have actually debate this translation, saying it might’ve been confused with local rams- or even rhinoceros.
Dragons - Mentioned 16 different times, just a one example. Nehemia 2.13 “And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.”
Original Word - drakōn- Probably from an alternate form of derkomai (to look); a fabulous kind of serpent (perhaps as supposed to fascinate): - dragon. Interesting to note that this isn’t the only word used for “Dragon”- another one is “Tanniyn”, which refers to dragons-of-people (not people-dragons, but dragon-like in personality/royalty), so there is definitely a distinction between the two, that this is a physical dragon creature.
Leviathan - Job 41.1 "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?"
Original Word - livyâthân - a wreathed animal, that is, a serpent (especially the crocodile or some other large sea monster); figuratively the constellation of the dragon; also as a symbol of Babylon: - leviathan, mourning.
All of the commentaries I have debate on what the Leviathan actually is, some try and reason that it is a crocodile from the Nile, or perhaps a whale- but no-one is really sure. An interesting commentary on this creature is from Barnes.
The rest don’t need etymology lessons;
Talking Snakes - Genesis 3.1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"
Talking Donkeys - Numbers 22.28 "And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"
Talking Trees - Judges 9:9 "But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?"
Half-Human, Half Angels (Nephilim, or Giants) Genesis 6.4 - "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Animated Objects (In this case, an animated, flaming sword) - Genesis 3.24 - "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
And who says I don’t know The Bible?
26 April, 2010
Religion, The Religious and Movies
Now I know there're a lot of movies out there about the religious zeolot warning everyone of the impending doom- then turning out to be right and fighting off the demonic forces. They usually make for good action/fantasy films (but not always).
But in regards to those that seek to be more realistic, from what I've seen is that all those who turn to their faith for salvation are usually the first to go.
I think for example 2012 makes a good example of this;
There's a part where one of the characters asks where the president is and his secretary says "He's praying, and considering the circumstances- it's not a bad idea"- well obviously it was because he and all those in St. Peter's Square ended up killed at the end of it while the ones who tried to help him survived.
Now christians could say- yes they died, but they're in heaven now, so it's better than surviving. To that- I say "Fuck off" because you don't know, no-one knows, so quit trying to claim land that has no ground.
And even in some films which are obviously in the genre of sci-fi- the religious end up as dead as anyone else.
The point being is that anyone who is realistic knows that the religious are living in a fantasy world. If a film came out about
talking animals- it'd be a kid's film.
A great flood- it'd be a disaster film
Wars- an epic. An epic as defined as of "heroic, majestic and/or unusually great proportions"
People travelling by firery whirlwind to castles in the sky- a fantasy
Fights between warriors over a girl - a romance
Trying to win her by presenting her father with foreskins- a rom-com.
The list goes on, but the general point is that the core of the Bible is pure fucking Fantasy and if it were even POSSIBLE to portray it as any other way, the movie-makers in the world would've jumped on that like horny priests to a blind choir boy.
Sooo, when you next what a film which involved angels and demons- look at the genre, I'm willing to be "Fantasy" will be there.
Btw, I love the film The Prince of Egypt *thumbs up*
Trolling with Logic, RyuOni1989.
But in regards to those that seek to be more realistic, from what I've seen is that all those who turn to their faith for salvation are usually the first to go.
I think for example 2012 makes a good example of this;
There's a part where one of the characters asks where the president is and his secretary says "He's praying, and considering the circumstances- it's not a bad idea"- well obviously it was because he and all those in St. Peter's Square ended up killed at the end of it while the ones who tried to help him survived.
Now christians could say- yes they died, but they're in heaven now, so it's better than surviving. To that- I say "Fuck off" because you don't know, no-one knows, so quit trying to claim land that has no ground.
And even in some films which are obviously in the genre of sci-fi- the religious end up as dead as anyone else.
The point being is that anyone who is realistic knows that the religious are living in a fantasy world. If a film came out about
talking animals- it'd be a kid's film.
A great flood- it'd be a disaster film
Wars- an epic. An epic as defined as of "heroic, majestic and/or unusually great proportions"
People travelling by firery whirlwind to castles in the sky- a fantasy
Fights between warriors over a girl - a romance
Trying to win her by presenting her father with foreskins- a rom-com.
The list goes on, but the general point is that the core of the Bible is pure fucking Fantasy and if it were even POSSIBLE to portray it as any other way, the movie-makers in the world would've jumped on that like horny priests to a blind choir boy.
Sooo, when you next what a film which involved angels and demons- look at the genre, I'm willing to be "Fantasy" will be there.
Btw, I love the film The Prince of Egypt *thumbs up*
Trolling with Logic, RyuOni1989.
20 April, 2010
Creation Scientists vs Real Scientists
Now, I know most people already know this, but this one goes out to the ones out there who are complete creationists and think there is actually such a thing as "creation science."
So what is science? Science is the system of acquiring knowledge through testing, repeating, and observing the natural world. This is done through the scientific method. Now, the scientific method is this- you find something odd in nature and you gather some evidence for figuring out what it is and what's causing it. After going into the field and gathering evidence and doing some research, you come to a conclusion. You then submit your conclusion to peer review. This is the part of the scientific method where other scientists ruthlessly try to rip apart your discovery. They try to prove it wrong, falsify it, find something wrong with it, and destroy it. If just one point fails in your discovery, you are sent out and you have to spend more time perfecting it. After a long process, the discovery is finally bulletproof and gets published, at least, until it is falsified later if at all.
That is how science works. That is real science and any scientist who goes through that process would be considered a real scientist. Additionally, real scientists will humbly admit that they don't know very much- which is what drives them to figure things out. They start with nothing. No presuppositions. You can't have a presupposition and be a real scientist- because if start out with a presupposition, that is called bias, and it is highly frowned upon in the scientific community.
So what is the difference between real scientists and creation scientists? Creation scientists base all of their ideas on the assumption that the bible is true by default. That is the main difference. That is what makes them bad scientists. A good scientist draws a conclusion from the evidence, and a bad scientist starts with a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it.
If creation science were a valid field of study, it would just be called science just like every other scientific field of study. But the distinction is clear and I cannot stress the distinction enough: Creation scientists base everything on the PRESUPPOSITION that the bible is true. How would one expect to make any progress in knowledge if they already claim to know the truth from the beginning?
Which brings me to my second point- creation science does not, and can not make any progress in knowledge like real science can. All creation science is, is an amature lawyer trying to defend a serial killer who still has his victims blood stains on his hands. Creation scientists don't try to find anything new- they try to fish up evidence to support their presupposed claim. You don't see creation scientists making discoveries, do you? How about a creation scientist who finds the cure for a sickness?
Of course you can say that Francis Collins may be religious and yet he was one of the people apart of the human genome process. But does he deny evolution and say that the earth is 6000 years old like creation scientists? No. He is a religious scientist, not a creation scientist. Perhaps you may say that Carl Linnaeus was a creationist and he is known as the "father of taxonomy" in which taxonomy is still widely used today by every biologist in the field. But of course he was a creationist- we lived over a century before Darwin and no other theory of the diversity of life was even proposed. Do you really think he would still be a full blown creationist had he heard about evolution during his lifetime? Again, he was not a creation scientist because he was not looking for ways to try to prove a presupposition.
So for all you creationists who get upset whenever refers to REAL scientists in comparison to CREATION scientist, it's not because we don't like you, it's not because we are sinners, it's not because we are homosexually active animals raping Satan worshippers- it's because there is a real difference between creation scientists and real scientists just like there is a real difference between evolution and the origin of life.
However I'm sure that analogy just confused you more because the CREATION scientists that you listen to actually tell you that evolution and the origin of life are the same thing, which of course they're not. Evolution explains the diversity of life, period. Origin of life is just that, the origin of life. Evolution STARTS after the origin of life.
But I digress. Now you know the difference between real scientists and creation scientists. Keep this in mind whenever you hear the phrase "creation scientist" thrown around too loosely.
So what is science? Science is the system of acquiring knowledge through testing, repeating, and observing the natural world. This is done through the scientific method. Now, the scientific method is this- you find something odd in nature and you gather some evidence for figuring out what it is and what's causing it. After going into the field and gathering evidence and doing some research, you come to a conclusion. You then submit your conclusion to peer review. This is the part of the scientific method where other scientists ruthlessly try to rip apart your discovery. They try to prove it wrong, falsify it, find something wrong with it, and destroy it. If just one point fails in your discovery, you are sent out and you have to spend more time perfecting it. After a long process, the discovery is finally bulletproof and gets published, at least, until it is falsified later if at all.
That is how science works. That is real science and any scientist who goes through that process would be considered a real scientist. Additionally, real scientists will humbly admit that they don't know very much- which is what drives them to figure things out. They start with nothing. No presuppositions. You can't have a presupposition and be a real scientist- because if start out with a presupposition, that is called bias, and it is highly frowned upon in the scientific community.
So what is the difference between real scientists and creation scientists? Creation scientists base all of their ideas on the assumption that the bible is true by default. That is the main difference. That is what makes them bad scientists. A good scientist draws a conclusion from the evidence, and a bad scientist starts with a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it.
If creation science were a valid field of study, it would just be called science just like every other scientific field of study. But the distinction is clear and I cannot stress the distinction enough: Creation scientists base everything on the PRESUPPOSITION that the bible is true. How would one expect to make any progress in knowledge if they already claim to know the truth from the beginning?
Which brings me to my second point- creation science does not, and can not make any progress in knowledge like real science can. All creation science is, is an amature lawyer trying to defend a serial killer who still has his victims blood stains on his hands. Creation scientists don't try to find anything new- they try to fish up evidence to support their presupposed claim. You don't see creation scientists making discoveries, do you? How about a creation scientist who finds the cure for a sickness?
Of course you can say that Francis Collins may be religious and yet he was one of the people apart of the human genome process. But does he deny evolution and say that the earth is 6000 years old like creation scientists? No. He is a religious scientist, not a creation scientist. Perhaps you may say that Carl Linnaeus was a creationist and he is known as the "father of taxonomy" in which taxonomy is still widely used today by every biologist in the field. But of course he was a creationist- we lived over a century before Darwin and no other theory of the diversity of life was even proposed. Do you really think he would still be a full blown creationist had he heard about evolution during his lifetime? Again, he was not a creation scientist because he was not looking for ways to try to prove a presupposition.
So for all you creationists who get upset whenever refers to REAL scientists in comparison to CREATION scientist, it's not because we don't like you, it's not because we are sinners, it's not because we are homosexually active animals raping Satan worshippers- it's because there is a real difference between creation scientists and real scientists just like there is a real difference between evolution and the origin of life.
However I'm sure that analogy just confused you more because the CREATION scientists that you listen to actually tell you that evolution and the origin of life are the same thing, which of course they're not. Evolution explains the diversity of life, period. Origin of life is just that, the origin of life. Evolution STARTS after the origin of life.
But I digress. Now you know the difference between real scientists and creation scientists. Keep this in mind whenever you hear the phrase "creation scientist" thrown around too loosely.
19 April, 2010
Had a Visit
Yes indeed I had a visit from the nice people at my local church, St Stephen’s Parish church. After pushing a leaflet through the door they knocked and I opened it be greeted by a man and his wife spreading the word about our local church.
He asks me if I know of a man called Jesus and I reply yes I know of this Jesus character. He seemed happy and as if reading from a script asked me
“How long do you want to live?”
Now this to me is a simple one to answer , I would like to live for as long as possible but not forever. This seemed to puzzle my visitor as he expected the standard answer of eternity.
Now why do I not want to live forever? because that is simply put my idea of Hell. Our mortality defines us knowing that one day all this will be over makes it so much more precious. For billions of years atoms in the universe have swirled around and through an incredible series of astonishing events have come together for but a tiny fraction on the cosmic scale come together to make me. As Carl Sagan put it “We are a way the cosmos can know itself”.
Eternal life would rob our existence of such great things as discovery and what would you do after the first thousand or so millennia ? I have met so many people on this journey of life that I will never see again but when you think that each one of us is unique and only here for the blink of an eye on that cosmic scale, it makes this thing we call life truly worth living.
18 April, 2010
Is God Just?
(This is the transcript for my next video, audio already recorded- video in the works.)
So, Is god really all that just?
I'll look at a few instances;
In Genesis 19-26 Lot's wife looked back whilst fleeing Sodom towards Zoah after being told not to look behind in the previous verse of Genesis 19:17 by the two angels and because of that- was turned into a pillar of salt.
Going by the numerous commentaries I have- for the most part they seem to think Lot's wife (apparently named with Adith or Irith) looked back because she longed for her left behind posessions.
However, the true reason was never actually stated and so it is up to pure speculation.
Focussing on one particular commentary, that of Gill, they seem to give a relatively unbiased view.
They say that according to the Targums of Jonothan and Jerusalem, she was a native of sodom.
So try to Imagine living in a place all your life,
then one night being told to flee to another city because yours was going to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone from a god that you perhaps didn't fully believe in by two guys who claim to be angels but did nothing to prove it.
Imagine the sadness in her to leave everything she treasured- not just in possessions, but in friends and family too.
But there is another possibility- perhaps she looked back to check to make sure her daughters were behind her and weren't lagging behind and had become consumed in the firey hail? A purely innocent and well-to-do action.
Was it truly just to smite her on the spot into a pillar of salt?
My next example is in Second Samuel, Chapter 6 Verses 6 through 7. Later paraphrased in First Chronicles chapter 12, verse 9 through 10.
So at this point in the Bible,
Everyone's singing, dancing, playing music and having a good time.
At some point, the Oxen holding the prized Ark of the Covenant stumbled.
So Uzza, being the decent guy he was, wanting to save his God's holy word- held out his hand to stop the Ark from falling.
For his trouble- killed on the spot.
So basically, don't help your Yahweh out. He won't thank you for it, he'll just kill you.
All of the commentaries I've read have basically said that "A good intention does not justify a negative act".
Okay then, if no man is allowed to touch the covenant of the ark- how the fuck is ANYONE supposed to save the bastard when it was falling?
So it's basically a choice between, save it and get killed- or let it drop and be smashed and- I can safely assume, be killed for not saving it.
Yeah, okay, what-the-fuck-ever.
And also, are Yahweh and Satan always enemies?
Not from the account of Job.
In that account it clearly states that Satan is able to freely enter heaven at will and have a little chit-chats with God.
In this particular instance, Satan makes a bet that Yahweh's little pet (Job) would forsake him if Yahweh took away everything Job had.
Instead of dismissing this, and taking the higher route- God himself directly gives Satan the power to go down and kill all of Job's Family, Slaves and Cattle.
Now despite the fact that this insinuates that Satan can't do jack shit against people, this clearly shows that God GAVE his perceived enemy the ability to do something against his most prized worshipper.
So, after being given the power to do so, Satan goes down and using the power of god- has himself a mini killing spree.
Moral of the story;
if God makes a bet- make sure you get naked, shave your head and pretend to be a baby afterwards. ...Freud would have a field day.
And is the price of apostacy death, solely in Islam? Obviously not- there're many instances in the Bible in which God kills those who turn from him.
And he gives specific instructions to followers to KILL Apostates in Ezekiel 3-18;
When I say unto the wicked,
Thou shalt surely die;
and thou givest him not warning,
nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life;
the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity;
but his blood will I require at thine hand.
And if you're born to parents who blaspheme, christian or not, you shouldn't be alive according to Second Samuel 12-14;
Howbeit,
because by this deed
thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
And before I get the typical response-
yes, I do know that there're a lot of verses in the bible which tell about prophets preaching the Love of God-
but to be honest.
Unless you're born to meet the criteria of what can only be considered a Christian version of the Nazi's Arian race- then you shouldn't even be alive by Biblical standards.
Zig Heil.
So again, I ask you- is God really all that Just?
So, Is god really all that just?
I'll look at a few instances;
In Genesis 19-26 Lot's wife looked back whilst fleeing Sodom towards Zoah after being told not to look behind in the previous verse of Genesis 19:17 by the two angels and because of that- was turned into a pillar of salt.
Going by the numerous commentaries I have- for the most part they seem to think Lot's wife (apparently named with Adith or Irith) looked back because she longed for her left behind posessions.
However, the true reason was never actually stated and so it is up to pure speculation.
Focussing on one particular commentary, that of Gill, they seem to give a relatively unbiased view.
They say that according to the Targums of Jonothan and Jerusalem, she was a native of sodom.
So try to Imagine living in a place all your life,
then one night being told to flee to another city because yours was going to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone from a god that you perhaps didn't fully believe in by two guys who claim to be angels but did nothing to prove it.
Imagine the sadness in her to leave everything she treasured- not just in possessions, but in friends and family too.
But there is another possibility- perhaps she looked back to check to make sure her daughters were behind her and weren't lagging behind and had become consumed in the firey hail? A purely innocent and well-to-do action.
Was it truly just to smite her on the spot into a pillar of salt?
My next example is in Second Samuel, Chapter 6 Verses 6 through 7. Later paraphrased in First Chronicles chapter 12, verse 9 through 10.
So at this point in the Bible,
Everyone's singing, dancing, playing music and having a good time.
At some point, the Oxen holding the prized Ark of the Covenant stumbled.
So Uzza, being the decent guy he was, wanting to save his God's holy word- held out his hand to stop the Ark from falling.
For his trouble- killed on the spot.
So basically, don't help your Yahweh out. He won't thank you for it, he'll just kill you.
All of the commentaries I've read have basically said that "A good intention does not justify a negative act".
Okay then, if no man is allowed to touch the covenant of the ark- how the fuck is ANYONE supposed to save the bastard when it was falling?
So it's basically a choice between, save it and get killed- or let it drop and be smashed and- I can safely assume, be killed for not saving it.
Yeah, okay, what-the-fuck-ever.
And also, are Yahweh and Satan always enemies?
Not from the account of Job.
In that account it clearly states that Satan is able to freely enter heaven at will and have a little chit-chats with God.
In this particular instance, Satan makes a bet that Yahweh's little pet (Job) would forsake him if Yahweh took away everything Job had.
Instead of dismissing this, and taking the higher route- God himself directly gives Satan the power to go down and kill all of Job's Family, Slaves and Cattle.
Now despite the fact that this insinuates that Satan can't do jack shit against people, this clearly shows that God GAVE his perceived enemy the ability to do something against his most prized worshipper.
So, after being given the power to do so, Satan goes down and using the power of god- has himself a mini killing spree.
Moral of the story;
if God makes a bet- make sure you get naked, shave your head and pretend to be a baby afterwards. ...Freud would have a field day.
And is the price of apostacy death, solely in Islam? Obviously not- there're many instances in the Bible in which God kills those who turn from him.
And he gives specific instructions to followers to KILL Apostates in Ezekiel 3-18;
When I say unto the wicked,
Thou shalt surely die;
and thou givest him not warning,
nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life;
the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity;
but his blood will I require at thine hand.
And if you're born to parents who blaspheme, christian or not, you shouldn't be alive according to Second Samuel 12-14;
Howbeit,
because by this deed
thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
And before I get the typical response-
yes, I do know that there're a lot of verses in the bible which tell about prophets preaching the Love of God-
but to be honest.
Unless you're born to meet the criteria of what can only be considered a Christian version of the Nazi's Arian race- then you shouldn't even be alive by Biblical standards.
Zig Heil.
So again, I ask you- is God really all that Just?
14 April, 2010
Setting Traps
Yes, I will admit that setting traps for people is a twisted thing to do because it sets them up for public failure against their choosing. However, perhaps framing would be good if the person being trapped had a secret which needed desperately to be exposed- a secret which many people trust. There is a large handful of people who already know this secret, but trapping this person would get the secret out much more, especially if it spreads through youtube like wildfire.
Perhaps we already know how stupid a particular creationist site is. We know how desperate creationists are getting now but we want to show the world just how desperate they are- which could possibly be MUCH more desperate. They could be hiding things and lying even more than we already know they do.
Stay Tuned
Perhaps we already know how stupid a particular creationist site is. We know how desperate creationists are getting now but we want to show the world just how desperate they are- which could possibly be MUCH more desperate. They could be hiding things and lying even more than we already know they do.
Stay Tuned
12 April, 2010
Creationists V Real Science
Scientific discoveries and achievements of last few hundred years. (selected from my faves).
Cure for small pox, Theory of relativity, Haber Process, Nuclear Fission, Large Hadron Collider, Lenski Experiments, transistors, televisions, internet, DNA profiling, Human Genome project, Penicillin, Anti-Biotics, Quantum Theory, Radio Telescopes, Hubble Telescope, Computers, microprocessors, Microwave ovens, Combustion Engines, CD's, Water on Mars, Omh's law, Magnets, Mobile phones, GPS, Satellites, Climate modelling, Plate tectonics, Geological Strata, Fossils, Carbon dating, radio metric dating, vaccinations to name a few
Creationist discoveries and achievements -
Leave a message after the tone.
Cure for small pox, Theory of relativity, Haber Process, Nuclear Fission, Large Hadron Collider, Lenski Experiments, transistors, televisions, internet, DNA profiling, Human Genome project, Penicillin, Anti-Biotics, Quantum Theory, Radio Telescopes, Hubble Telescope, Computers, microprocessors, Microwave ovens, Combustion Engines, CD's, Water on Mars, Omh's law, Magnets, Mobile phones, GPS, Satellites, Climate modelling, Plate tectonics, Geological Strata, Fossils, Carbon dating, radio metric dating, vaccinations to name a few
Creationist discoveries and achievements -
Leave a message after the tone.
11 April, 2010
Creatards Say The Dumbest Things - Part 2
Yebo folk, still in South Africa for this edition
Posted by vuvuzela at 2010-04-09 20:41:22
"Many claim that evolution is a proven fact."
Abseloute fucking bollocks. Nothing in science is ever 100% proven, Evolution is a fact, change over time happens get used to it you twat.
"No, It's not! It is a theory."
Its a fact and a change over time happens (fact of evolution) and that natural selection is the mechanism that explains that change (Theory of evolution by natural selection). Much like the fact you are a Retard (Fact) and that your religion has cuased it (Theory of religious brainwashing)
"An alternative to those who rebel against God."
An alternative to those who rebel against superstitious bullshit
"It should always be referred to as the Theory of Evolution. "
It is you fucking moron. Like fact of relativity - Planets orbit sun. Theory - Bodies warp the space around causing the attraction.
"There is no proven fact to qualify it as scientific fact."
Yes there is , allelic frequencies in populations change over time. Observed fact
"I don't know why such utter rubbish is passed of as science in schools and universities."
Because of evidence. Vast amounts, Mountains of Evidence has been gathered.
"With all the big brains and so much money spent to research a theory? "
That's what scientists do you cretinous dog turd. They research theories is this really a huge surprise to you ?
"This speaks of a hidden agenda to try and disprove God".
You can't prove a universal negative. But this could also be a hidden agenda to disprove Thor.
"No creature can disprove God. "
Correct, no-one disprove Thor.
"He transcends time and space and we can search the heights and depths of our universe only to reveal more of God's authority and power."
You all-power creator loves a good game of hide and seek ?
"The study of true factual science will point to a Master Designer, a perfect Creator. [In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1]"
True Factual science and the book of genesis ? that's like comparing the finest whisky to 6 month old sewage waste. Apologies to sewage waste being compare to genesis.
Posted by vuvuzela at 2010-04-09 20:41:22
"Many claim that evolution is a proven fact."
Abseloute fucking bollocks. Nothing in science is ever 100% proven, Evolution is a fact, change over time happens get used to it you twat.
"No, It's not! It is a theory."
Its a fact and a change over time happens (fact of evolution) and that natural selection is the mechanism that explains that change (Theory of evolution by natural selection). Much like the fact you are a Retard (Fact) and that your religion has cuased it (Theory of religious brainwashing)
"An alternative to those who rebel against God."
An alternative to those who rebel against superstitious bullshit
"It should always be referred to as the Theory of Evolution. "
It is you fucking moron. Like fact of relativity - Planets orbit sun. Theory - Bodies warp the space around causing the attraction.
"There is no proven fact to qualify it as scientific fact."
Yes there is , allelic frequencies in populations change over time. Observed fact
"I don't know why such utter rubbish is passed of as science in schools and universities."
Because of evidence. Vast amounts, Mountains of Evidence has been gathered.
"With all the big brains and so much money spent to research a theory? "
That's what scientists do you cretinous dog turd. They research theories is this really a huge surprise to you ?
"This speaks of a hidden agenda to try and disprove God".
You can't prove a universal negative. But this could also be a hidden agenda to disprove Thor.
"No creature can disprove God. "
Correct, no-one disprove Thor.
"He transcends time and space and we can search the heights and depths of our universe only to reveal more of God's authority and power."
You all-power creator loves a good game of hide and seek ?
"The study of true factual science will point to a Master Designer, a perfect Creator. [In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1]"
True Factual science and the book of genesis ? that's like comparing the finest whisky to 6 month old sewage waste. Apologies to sewage waste being compare to genesis.
10 April, 2010
The Usual Discourse Between a Theist and an Atheist
The 10 phases on the usual discourse between a Theist and an Atheist.
This is how the usual scenario plays out;
1. A Theist produces an argument for their belief in God (“I believe in God!”)
2. An Atheists produces a counter-argument (“Why?”)
3. The Theist rejects the counterargument citing passages from The Bible;
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
4. The Atheist gets pissed off because their time is wasted and starts a series of verbal attacks on the Theist. (“Ignorant Twat.”)
5. The Theist claims that the Atheist (and Atheists in general) are of a hateful nature, saying insults are the only thing they can do, again citing Bible Verses, usually referencing the Devil.
6. The Atheist, tired with the Theists ignorance chooses to ignore them and go onto something else.
7. The Theist claims victory and ends it with saying the Atheist is against Free Speech for not accepting the “arguments” presented from the Bible.
8. The Atheist responds with a similar reply, saying the Theist is against Free Speech for not accepting the original reply.
9. Everyone’s Time is Wasted.
10. Steps 7 through 10 are repeated into Infinity.
I’m sure anyone who has had a “debate” with a Theist- in particular a Fundamentalist- would be very familiar with this set of events which just continues to spiral into a complete waste of time for both parties.
Just my particular note on this.
I’d like to end, quoting from the King James Version 1611 of The Bible.
1 Peter 3:15;
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
So if any Christian dodges the question- bring this little quote up to get them back to the topic at hand.
Trolling with Logic,
RyuOni1989
Creatards Say The Dumbest Things - Part 1
Found this on a South African site that held a poll on if people believe in evolution. You can read it here
Posted by Viv at 2010-04-09 06:25:21
"At what stage did some dumb organism decide to get together, crawl out of the sea and start to walk?"
It didn't you ignorant twat. Organisms adapt to their surrounding through mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. Speaking of dumb organisms when are you going to get educated?.
"Why do we not see half fish and half humans now?"
Fish and humans share a common ancestor and are on different branches of the evolutionary tree.
"Why did it stop with us the 'top of the species'?"
Evolution has not stopped and all organisms present are equally evolved. But I can maybe think of one exception ...
"Get real people Darwin was a 'dork',"
Ad hominem eh? Darwin may be a dork but judging by your retarded bullshit a hell of a lot smarter than you are.
"we were created, as was the rest of the universe."
For fucks sake, how many times? Big Bang and evolution are two different fields of study. Big Bang is the explanation for current state of the universe, a field of physics. Evolution is explanation for the diversity of life, biology.
"I do not believe that I evolved from some knuckle dragging ape"
Neither do I as that would insult apes everywhere to be related to a fucktard such as yourself. We share a common ancestor with modern day apes and furthermore we are apes.
" Anyhow the debate will rage on - Who came first, the chicken or the egg. I think it was the rooster. "
WHAT THE FUCK ??? Are you truthful Christian ?
Posted by Viv at 2010-04-09 06:25:21
"At what stage did some dumb organism decide to get together, crawl out of the sea and start to walk?"
It didn't you ignorant twat. Organisms adapt to their surrounding through mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. Speaking of dumb organisms when are you going to get educated?.
"Why do we not see half fish and half humans now?"
Fish and humans share a common ancestor and are on different branches of the evolutionary tree.
"Why did it stop with us the 'top of the species'?"
Evolution has not stopped and all organisms present are equally evolved. But I can maybe think of one exception ...
"Get real people Darwin was a 'dork',"
Ad hominem eh? Darwin may be a dork but judging by your retarded bullshit a hell of a lot smarter than you are.
"we were created, as was the rest of the universe."
For fucks sake, how many times? Big Bang and evolution are two different fields of study. Big Bang is the explanation for current state of the universe, a field of physics. Evolution is explanation for the diversity of life, biology.
"I do not believe that I evolved from some knuckle dragging ape"
Neither do I as that would insult apes everywhere to be related to a fucktard such as yourself. We share a common ancestor with modern day apes and furthermore we are apes.
" Anyhow the debate will rage on - Who came first, the chicken or the egg. I think it was the rooster. "
WHAT THE FUCK ??? Are you truthful Christian ?
In Defence of the LHC
Something I have to get off my chest here, and its the constant bashing by the ignorant of the Large Hadron Collider. Whilst I am excited at the new possibilities that this awesome piece of engineering will offer I still hear the same grumbling from the anti-science mob "It costs too much" "It's not going to affect me" "could they not spend the money on something more worthwhile?" etc.
To those who say it costs too much, this project was undertaken with participation from 40 different countries - Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan Republic, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan. Costs being split (not equally) among them, Also what price do you put on building something never before attempted?. CERN is also a nuclear physics research group so what else are they going to do?. People like to just lump them with the general term "scientists" but the are a distinct breed of scientist, physicists and these are the tools of their trade.
"Its not going to affect me" to these guys I ask do you feel the same about general relativity theory ? some have said yes, that general relativity has no impact on their day to day lives. Yet I notice they all use cell phones, most have GPS in their cars as they drive home, some watch satellite TV, all of us pay attention to the weather forecast. So how are all these linked?. Satellites, All the way up there in the sky and keeping them up there would be much more difficult if we did not understand that planets warp the space around them. The deeper understanding we have the orbital mechanics around us had directly impacted out life in a huge way. The LHC is now going to push our understanding further answering the questions such as what is mass? are there extra dimensions? how exactly does gravity work?. The possibilities that await us as a result of these discoveries are endless and could impact us in every area of our life.
But it saddens me that every scientific endeavour now is met with a shoulder shrugging "so what" attitude. But put it like this for £6 billion 40 countries came together and put together the worlds largest machine. The LHC now employs over 100 different nationalities all brought together in the spirit of discovery. If you are a US citizen then the Iraq war as of 2008 cost near on $450 billion the LHC costs $9 billion. So for a 0.02% of the Iraq war you can push the advance human knowledge on the grandest scale yet.
Bargain of the century.
To those who say it costs too much, this project was undertaken with participation from 40 different countries - Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan Republic, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan. Costs being split (not equally) among them, Also what price do you put on building something never before attempted?. CERN is also a nuclear physics research group so what else are they going to do?. People like to just lump them with the general term "scientists" but the are a distinct breed of scientist, physicists and these are the tools of their trade.
"Its not going to affect me" to these guys I ask do you feel the same about general relativity theory ? some have said yes, that general relativity has no impact on their day to day lives. Yet I notice they all use cell phones, most have GPS in their cars as they drive home, some watch satellite TV, all of us pay attention to the weather forecast. So how are all these linked?. Satellites, All the way up there in the sky and keeping them up there would be much more difficult if we did not understand that planets warp the space around them. The deeper understanding we have the orbital mechanics around us had directly impacted out life in a huge way. The LHC is now going to push our understanding further answering the questions such as what is mass? are there extra dimensions? how exactly does gravity work?. The possibilities that await us as a result of these discoveries are endless and could impact us in every area of our life.
But it saddens me that every scientific endeavour now is met with a shoulder shrugging "so what" attitude. But put it like this for £6 billion 40 countries came together and put together the worlds largest machine. The LHC now employs over 100 different nationalities all brought together in the spirit of discovery. If you are a US citizen then the Iraq war as of 2008 cost near on $450 billion the LHC costs $9 billion. So for a 0.02% of the Iraq war you can push the advance human knowledge on the grandest scale yet.
Bargain of the century.
08 April, 2010
UK Election 2010, Questions for your candidate
Yes here in UK an election campaign has swung into full force. And although we like to believe that we are immune from the Creationist Crazies, seeing them as an American Phenomena. There are still other things for the rational community on these shores to worry about. Namely the ever increasing push for "Alternative" medicine and the wedging of Shariah Law into our courts. But we voters can do our own bit www.skeptical-voter.org has published a list that any rational thinker should be asking their prospective MP. Here is the list
Skeptical Voter’s suggested questions for candidates ahead of the General Election 2010:
1. Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven alternative “treatments” such as homeopathy?
2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?
3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?
5. Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?
6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?
7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?
8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?
9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?
10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger ‘public interest’ defence?
I'll be emailing this round my prospective candidates here and letting you know of the results. Any other UK readers, I strongly advise you follow suit.
Skeptical Voter’s suggested questions for candidates ahead of the General Election 2010:
1. Do you support the use of public funds to provide unproven alternative “treatments” such as homeopathy?
2. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to evolution?
3. Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
4. Should an independent government adviser whose views in their area of expertise conflict with government policy be able to express those views publicly without fear of being sacked?
5. Should Sharia law be allowed as an alternative system within UK law?
6. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of the development of medicines?
7. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-intuitive?
8. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current scientific and medical consensus?
9. Should religious leaders be entitled to vote in the House of Lords?
10. Do you support the reform of English and Welsh libel law to allow a stronger ‘public interest’ defence?
I'll be emailing this round my prospective candidates here and letting you know of the results. Any other UK readers, I strongly advise you follow suit.
The spike has arrived
Hey. This is Chattiestspike2. Right to the point- I am a huge promoter of science and education. An educated society has an infinitely higher chance of propogating than a society which isn't- and the big block that is a huge barrier between advancement and recession is not financial issues nor is it geographic or ethnic placing; it is religion and it's bible literalists: Creationists.
I am anti intelligent design, anti magic-man-dun-it, anti hovind, anti comfort, anti strobel, anti cameron, and anti ham. I find it sickening that these huge fundamentalist organizations go out of their way to retard the knowledge of society in the name of a diety which has no evidence for it's existence except for a man-made book written hundreds of years ago- and because of this, because of my hatred for this kind of abuse, I find it my moral duty to fight against it with all the power I have, which might not be much but whatever I DO have, it will be unleashed.
I am not anti religion. I want to make that as clear as possible right off the bat. If someone wants to believe in a magical space fairy, that's perfectly fine with me. But I begin to have problems when religious people impose it on other people and force their ideologies down the throats of others. I begin to have problems when religious people tell me, or other people for the matter, they they are going to hell because they don't accept the same beliefs which they do. I begin to have problems with religious people who have a hatred for people outside their religion. And I begin to have problems when religious people try to slow down the progession of society and scientific advancements. If you cross any of those lines, you crossed into Chattiestspike territory, and you better expect conflict.
If you are religious but you don't bother anyone, you don't force your ideologies nor do you shun those who are outside your religion, AND you don't try to stop scientific progress in any way, shape, or form- you are a very rare kind of person, and you don't have to worry.
I sense you may have the idea of where I am coming from. I am please to be on this blog and I look forward to its progess.
- Chattiestspike2
I am anti intelligent design, anti magic-man-dun-it, anti hovind, anti comfort, anti strobel, anti cameron, and anti ham. I find it sickening that these huge fundamentalist organizations go out of their way to retard the knowledge of society in the name of a diety which has no evidence for it's existence except for a man-made book written hundreds of years ago- and because of this, because of my hatred for this kind of abuse, I find it my moral duty to fight against it with all the power I have, which might not be much but whatever I DO have, it will be unleashed.
I am not anti religion. I want to make that as clear as possible right off the bat. If someone wants to believe in a magical space fairy, that's perfectly fine with me. But I begin to have problems when religious people impose it on other people and force their ideologies down the throats of others. I begin to have problems when religious people tell me, or other people for the matter, they they are going to hell because they don't accept the same beliefs which they do. I begin to have problems with religious people who have a hatred for people outside their religion. And I begin to have problems when religious people try to slow down the progession of society and scientific advancements. If you cross any of those lines, you crossed into Chattiestspike territory, and you better expect conflict.
If you are religious but you don't bother anyone, you don't force your ideologies nor do you shun those who are outside your religion, AND you don't try to stop scientific progress in any way, shape, or form- you are a very rare kind of person, and you don't have to worry.
I sense you may have the idea of where I am coming from. I am please to be on this blog and I look forward to its progess.
- Chattiestspike2
Intro for RyuOni1989
Yo, this is RyuOni1989.
Just a brief intro from me, I'll mainly be repeating what I've said on youtube in my "Intro" vid there.
I'm 20 years old, currently working in Japan- in a home for the Mentally Handicapped with a charity.
I was previously an evangelical creationist but have been an atheist since around the age of 12 after coming to the age of reason.
I'm an atheist purely by logic and backed by facts and science. Quite the competetive person I guess- but at least I'll never just lay down and play dead for the idiots of the world.
I'm logical, but not heartless. Harsh, but fair.
I'm not really much for the writing- more for the ranting, but this is just an intro post.
With that, I'm gonna sign off-
Trolling with Logic, RyuOni1989.
Just a brief intro from me, I'll mainly be repeating what I've said on youtube in my "Intro" vid there.
I'm 20 years old, currently working in Japan- in a home for the Mentally Handicapped with a charity.
I was previously an evangelical creationist but have been an atheist since around the age of 12 after coming to the age of reason.
I'm an atheist purely by logic and backed by facts and science. Quite the competetive person I guess- but at least I'll never just lay down and play dead for the idiots of the world.
I'm logical, but not heartless. Harsh, but fair.
I'm not really much for the writing- more for the ranting, but this is just an intro post.
With that, I'm gonna sign off-
Trolling with Logic, RyuOni1989.
07 April, 2010
Scientists , more useful than any ex-Lord Provost.
The following is an email sent to the former provost of Aberdeen, Jim Reynolds. As seems to custom these days people take stabs at CERN and the LHC without taking time to fully understand what it is and the incredible discoveries that await.
Mr Reynolds,
I couldn't help but read with a lot of dismay your ill-informed, anti-science rhetoric in your "Second Big Bang is A Waste of Cash" today's (5th April 2010) Evening express. You seem to dismiss one of greatest engineering and scientific achievements in human history, namely the LHC built by CERN. Lets look at your article step by step.
"I thought the world was going through recession and money was tight, yet scientists have spent over £6 Billion on a machine to re-create the Big Bang"
Well a number of problems here, if you had done some research first you would have found out that that the building of the LHC was approved back in 1995, and the first passing of the particles through the LHC began in September 2008. Also over 40 countries were involved in the construction with each country contributing to the cost. This is hardly a new thing that scientists cooked up over night.
"What an absolute waste of money who cares what happened 13 billion years ago"
Is there a cut-of date for how far into the past scientists can research?. Also the LHC is about more than the Big Bang it is an attempt to understand the fundamentals of space, time, mass energy. If Einstein was with us right now he would be excited beyond words, but hey you an Ex-Provost would tell us what do these damned scientists know about anything?. We stand on the brink of discovering what makes up mass, how quantum mechanics and general relativity interact, are there extra dimensions to space? and many other profound discoveries await us but you think this is a waste of time and money?. Please I would like to see you tell that to the hundreds of brilliant minds that brought this into reality. Would you have scoffed at Copernicus when he discovered helio centrism? would you tell him who cares if our planet orbits the sun?
"Who gives a hoot if our great, great granny was an ape?"
Now you are showing how truly ignorant you are of science, and that you are in no position to be so scathing. Firstly the LHC has nothing to do with you poorly worded attack on evolution. The LHC deals with physics and Evolution is Biology, a basic secondary eduction would tell you this. Also we humans are apes, not separate from ape we share a common ancestor with modern day apes extensive research but those pesky scientists you seem to have so little time for confirms this. Also if you don't give a hoot about evolutionary biology then I'm sure you wouldn't object to never having another vaccination. Vaccinations only came about through our understanding that viruses evolve over time and change, but then again who gives a hoot?.
"Their latest test which was carried out last week was obviously timed to coincide with Easter"
This is worrying as you have now gone from anti science into plain conspiracy mode. The latest test were performed because the LHC has to shut down in the winter to save the costs of running it. And are you suggesting they should avoid doing tests just because of Easter would you advise them not to test in case in clashed with Ramadan ?
"Could it be they merely wanted to Disprove the existence of God?"
How this is linked to the work at the LHC I have no idea , a great many scientists believe in god and science does not make any comment on the supernatural pro or con. Science draws conclusions based on the evidence it discovers and has an excellent track record of discovery and expanding human knowledge.
But then again discovery, knowledge and understanding reality who really gives a hoot ?
Answer - Humanity.
Mr Reynolds,
I couldn't help but read with a lot of dismay your ill-informed, anti-science rhetoric in your "Second Big Bang is A Waste of Cash" today's (5th April 2010) Evening express. You seem to dismiss one of greatest engineering and scientific achievements in human history, namely the LHC built by CERN. Lets look at your article step by step.
"I thought the world was going through recession and money was tight, yet scientists have spent over £6 Billion on a machine to re-create the Big Bang"
Well a number of problems here, if you had done some research first you would have found out that that the building of the LHC was approved back in 1995, and the first passing of the particles through the LHC began in September 2008. Also over 40 countries were involved in the construction with each country contributing to the cost. This is hardly a new thing that scientists cooked up over night.
"What an absolute waste of money who cares what happened 13 billion years ago"
Is there a cut-of date for how far into the past scientists can research?. Also the LHC is about more than the Big Bang it is an attempt to understand the fundamentals of space, time, mass energy. If Einstein was with us right now he would be excited beyond words, but hey you an Ex-Provost would tell us what do these damned scientists know about anything?. We stand on the brink of discovering what makes up mass, how quantum mechanics and general relativity interact, are there extra dimensions to space? and many other profound discoveries await us but you think this is a waste of time and money?. Please I would like to see you tell that to the hundreds of brilliant minds that brought this into reality. Would you have scoffed at Copernicus when he discovered helio centrism? would you tell him who cares if our planet orbits the sun?
"Who gives a hoot if our great, great granny was an ape?"
Now you are showing how truly ignorant you are of science, and that you are in no position to be so scathing. Firstly the LHC has nothing to do with you poorly worded attack on evolution. The LHC deals with physics and Evolution is Biology, a basic secondary eduction would tell you this. Also we humans are apes, not separate from ape we share a common ancestor with modern day apes extensive research but those pesky scientists you seem to have so little time for confirms this. Also if you don't give a hoot about evolutionary biology then I'm sure you wouldn't object to never having another vaccination. Vaccinations only came about through our understanding that viruses evolve over time and change, but then again who gives a hoot?.
"Their latest test which was carried out last week was obviously timed to coincide with Easter"
This is worrying as you have now gone from anti science into plain conspiracy mode. The latest test were performed because the LHC has to shut down in the winter to save the costs of running it. And are you suggesting they should avoid doing tests just because of Easter would you advise them not to test in case in clashed with Ramadan ?
"Could it be they merely wanted to Disprove the existence of God?"
How this is linked to the work at the LHC I have no idea , a great many scientists believe in god and science does not make any comment on the supernatural pro or con. Science draws conclusions based on the evidence it discovers and has an excellent track record of discovery and expanding human knowledge.
But then again discovery, knowledge and understanding reality who really gives a hoot ?
Answer - Humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
