an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Archive for the month “June, 2011”

Chris Taylor Watch

Hilarious post today from Chris Taylor

Brilliant, just brilliant! I hope that someone somewhere is citing Youtube in their thesis.

Six Months of Blogging

Half a year, just under 300 posts, and more arguments than I can count!

Tomorrow I’m getting my wisdom teeth removed, so it may be a few days until I post on here again. In the meantime the second episode of Fundamentally Flawed should be available to download soon

Ten Reasons Not to Believe in God

I’ve read some stupid shit in my time, and a lot more since I started trawling the web for the more idiotic word vomits from creationists to use as material for this blog, but this takes some kind of biscuit.

A pissy biscuit.

From some weird blog aggregator site (meaning I can’t identify the moron responsible) comes the following version of Pascal’s Wager, titled ‘Ten Logical Reasons to Believe in God’. I’ll go through them one at a time –

Whether you are an atheist, agnostic or a person who is struggling to believe, have little faith or great faith there is a set of logistical thinking that can be applied to understand the probability of God as indicated in the Old and New testaments. The following logic applies:

1. The existence of God is a 50/50 probability. He either exists or he does not. God is either true or false. If true, then ALL true. If false, all false.

Absolutely bollocks from the outset. Yes, gods either exist or they don’t, but the likelihood is so vanishingly small as to be almost zero. ‘If true, the ALL true’….really? So if a god of some kind exists it immediately defaults to being the Christian god? What about all the other gods man has invented over the centuries? Even if you could prove that A god existed, the odds of that god being Yahweh are 4000/1 at least. This argument for gods hasn’t started well.

2. Our decision to reject or accept the existence of God is also a 50/50 probability. Either right or wrong.

Again, complete donkey shit. I don’t know how a vague restating of point 1 could be considered as a new argument.

3. Our decision has a potential twofold outcome: If God is FALSE, then whether we accept or reject God, the consequences is irrelevant. If God is TRUE, then our decision to accept or reject God will have eternal consequences.

How do you know that? You have no idea that the god that might exist is the Christian one! Perhaps there is a god who will reward all of those of us who used our brains and questioned his existence! Three points in, and the argument is nothing but a rather weak jizz of special pleading.

4. The same logic applies to Jesus Christ. The proposition of his divinity is 50/50 probability. He was either the unique, divine Son of God or He was not. It is either true or false. If true, all true. If false, all false.

No. In a world where NO-ONE has ever been ‘divine’, the odds of Jesus being so are non-existent. You lot can’t even provide convincing evidence that he existed….

5. What if Jesus was a mad man who believed his own delusion? Or a liar? This is possible. But is it probable? While Jesus may have died on the cross as a mad man who believed his own delusion, what is the probability that his disciples, (who may have followed him knowing he was a lying mad man for some perceived potential power or political gain), would follow him to death?

What evidence do you have that Jesus died on the cross? Certainly not the contemporary Roman records, which make no mention of him, and probably not even Josephus, whose famous ‘Jesus passage’ is most likely a fraudulent later addition by believing Christians. As for his disciples – do you even know they existed? There’s even less evidence for them than there is for Jesus.

6. While one disciple, or even two could have been manipulated by Jesus’ charisma to die for him, what is the probability that 11 disciples (Judas killed himself) would willingly die for a mad liar?

OK, here’s a question for you – why do Muslim suicide bombers go willingly to their deaths? They believe something YOU know to be entirely untrue, a lie if you will. See? 

7. Re-framing the question: What is the probability they wouldn’t have died for a mad liar? All they had to do to avoid death was to deny Jesus as the risen Son of God after his execution. They did not deny the resurrection. All eleven apostles stuck to their testimonies until their death when executed by Jewish and Roman officials.

Why re-frame the question? It was shit the first time. Also I think you’ll find it very hard to find any evidence of Jews executing anyone. All your basing your ‘facts’ upon are what the early church fathers believed, beliefs that were already turning into myths.

8. The apostles must have seen something that compelled them to stick to their testimony to the point of death. That single something could only be the resurrected Jesus.

You’ve gone off the rails completely now, using your presupposed faith in the Biblical story as ‘evidence’ for it’s own truth. Didn’t you claim this was going to be a list of ‘logical’ reasons to believe in God?

9. While this does not factually prove the existence or truth of God or Jesus, it does slightly tip the scales of probability in favor of God and Jesus to 51/49 in favor of God.

No it doesn’t! It makes absolutely ZERO difference to the odds for or against the existence of a god!

10. Given this analysis, if you are not a believer, perhaps you should rethink your decision to accept Jesus into your life. The decision you make will be either right or wrong. And there are only three possible outcomes: No consequence, eternal life or eternal death in hell without God, for eternity.

I don’t think so. Only three outcomes? As I’ve said before, what if gods exist but the god you believe in ISN’T the right one? There could be an almost infinite number of outcomes! Your ‘logic’ is astonishingly pathetic!

All you’ve done is presented a rather watered down version of Pascal’s Wager, and he was a craven coward. If the best argument for belief in a god is ‘what do you have to lose?’ then you need to get some better ideas, and maybe you shouldn’t be believing yourself.

A Quick, Yet Important Point for Creationists.

Micro evolution and macro evolution ARE THE SAME THING.

There is literally no difference, other than the amount of time needed, between them.

The sooner you witless reality deniers get this into your thick skulls the better.

Seems Chris Taylor of Conroe, Texas has lots to say

Not content with his @bz1461 and @wasp1461 accounts, Chris Taylor, wannabe teacher, creationist, and massive racist, has started tweeting as @Lynn_7506 as well.

It’s classic Chris, a mixture of racism, witless musings on the USA’s best course of action for renewable energy, and barely coherent attacks on Obama.

Some examples….

Now, you might be wondering why I keep coming back to this sad little man…it’s simple, after he boasted that he would abuse any teaching position he might get I’ve made it an occasional mission to ensure that his views remain easily found via a quick googling of his name and home town. Yes, it’s probably pretty petty of me, but I feel I’m doing something useful if I stop this half wit from getting near children.
Anyway, as a reminder of his ‘brilliance’ here are some older posts about him  – 

Another Creationist Myth Collapses in the Lab

Creationists are always keen to claim that ‘molecules to man’ is impossible, that we’ve never witnessed a single cell organism become multicellular…..well they’re wrong.

IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism, complete with division of labour between cells. This suggests that the evolutionary leap to multicellularity may be a surprisingly small hurdle.

Read the rest of the article over at New Scientist.

The gaps that Creationists cram their gods into are getting smaller and smaller, soon there won’t be anywhere for them to fit at all.

Three Chaps Talk for an Hour

It’s the first ‘proper’ episode of ‘Fundamentally Flawed’, recorded this evening. There’s a bit of background noise, but it doesn’t detract from the content.

Description from the Fundamentally Flawed blog

“In this show we discuss Jesus Tweeters, the fact that micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just how embarrassed we all were by Dawkin’s ‘Brights’ project, and touch on a couple of the overlooked books about atheism and/or evolution that are out there.”

Here it is – enjoy.

Moving forward, we’re working on getting it onto iTunes, I’ll let you know when that happens.

And Talking of That Podcast….

….here it is!

Episode 1a (or 0, or any other name you want to give it that indicates that it’s not the first ‘proper’ episode) of Fundamentally Flawed

Remember, this is the first test episode, recorded in a rather ad hoc manner. Jim, Peter, and I discussed various topics, and managed to entirely fail to get started on Peter’s series about the historicity of Jesus.

We’ll probably be recording another show during one of the evenings this week, there’s a whole lot of mileage to be got out of Joe Cienkowski’s failed church.

Hope you enjoy the initial test episode.

Sorry I’ve Been a Bit Quiet

Been busy with ‘real life’ things, as well as starting the first faltering steps towards a regular podcast. I’ve also been reading the rather excellent ‘Atheism, The Case Against God’ by Smith.

Am ruminating on ideas for posts, and should have some more up soon

Joe and Brandy Cienkowski, Creationist Soap Opera

Latest developments…..

Apparently Brandy gets ‘a little emotional’, let’s see what ’emotional’ looks like (from Facebook)

I’ll update if/when anything else happens.

Post Navigation