God Is A Poopyhead

I haven't read "The God Delusion" or" God Is Not Great". I don't need effete French intellectuals to tell me how to think...

I was therefore interested to read this in Brent Rasmussen's review of Vox Day's new book called "The Irrational Atheist":

"Day... scrupulously breaks down many of the arguments and claims made by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and Onfray in their books, and then demonstrates, with meticulously detailed footnotes and references, why each one is flawed in some fashion - logically fallacious, historically inaccurate, mathematically incorrect, or statistically flawed.

This is no surprise. Anyone who thinks they can prove that there is no "greater power" in the Universe is on the same road to delusion as the South Carolina housewife who thinks Jesus helps her biscuits raise in the oven. We're all irrational beings.

The point is, of course, that the burden of proof is on those who want to argue that some definable, understandable, type of God actually does exist... And the whole point of Reason, surely, is to help us keep a collective grip on reality.

In many ways the whole argument is diversionary. As Rasmussen says:

"over the years I have come to realize that being an atheist is only rather secondary to who I am, and how I choose to define myself. First and foremost, I am a husband, and a father. Second, I am an American. After that, I am a civil libertarian politically. Then, I am an atheist.

Weirdly enough, this doesn't put me very far off from Vox Day himself -- except for the whole God and Jesus thing. Heh."

Well put.

Of course, things get gnarly when people insist that their particular irrational view of the world should be imposed on everyone else. We saw it in the 20th century with Facism and Communism, and we're seeing it in this century with religious Fundamentalism.

Over at the amusingly named Casey's Critical Thinking, I got into a discussion with Casey and a commenter on his blog about predestination and free will.

As ever, the conversation swiftly turned to morals in a world without God:

"If your conscience tells you that it is wrong to
rape and murder, what if someone else feels it is perfectly normal to do these things? On what basis can you condemn these actions other than you feel it is wrong?"

I could never work out why anyone would think that this argument is anything more than droolingly cretinous.

But then I had a revelation. I realised Fundamentalist Christians think that in a world without "God" might would be right, the end would justify the means, and no-one would be accountable to anyone because that is precisely how their "God" acts in the Bible.

"He" is accountable to no-one - not even his own rules... Might is Right and He broaches no opposition or dissent... And the End Justifies the Means, since all arguments about "the problem of evil" ultimately come down to God being a bit of a jerk either (a) for reasons beyond our comprehension; or (b) for our own good. (Ht: AtBC).

It's not just the Fundamentalist God which is utterly absurd. The standard "Christian" view of God depends entirely on the Resurrection of Christ meaning something. But we are talking about an all-powerful omnipotent omniscient God: a God who can fix the World Series and watch Angelina Jolie in the Shower any time He wants; a God who can take the pain of a bazillion Supernovas going off directly in his face without flinching. I fail to see what could possibly be impressive about the "suffering" he incurred dying on a cross. He's bloomin' immortal, for heaven's sake.

The God described in the Christian Bible is a dysfunctional father. He is a bully, a tyrant and a psychopath. But beyond that, the mere notion that a Universe-Encompassing being would be so insecure as to require us to believe it and punish us if we don't, is ludicrous.

That's why I can safely say that God is a poopyhead.

LOLTheist: Blasphemy is Teh Funneh

Here's a website that does exactly what it says on the tin. I made the lamb one using Rolfbot.

7 Questions Intelligent Design Can't Answer

A few days back, I wrote about the 7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism I just couldn't seem to refute. So why, you ask, haven't I become a True Believer[tm] and signed my blog over to Denyse O'Leary? Well, you know I just might... If only someone could help with these seven questions that "Intelligent Design" just can't seem to answer...

1. Why the censorship?

   For all their bluster about not being invited to all the best science parties, IDers are themselves staggeringly intolerant of debate. Sure, they squabble amongst themselves like a bunch of schoolgirls at the mall... But try asking them simple questions on their home ground, and you'll be shown the door faster than if you'd made a drunken pass at their mother.
   
   Here's one of my questions which Uncommon Descent thought too dangerous to print...

   "[Is] the “designer”... responsible for nature itself (in which case why should we be surprised that the universe works in wondrous ways) or is the designer only responsible for things which do not work in nature?"

   Ask yourself... Why would that question be controversial?
   
   

2. Why the deliberate ignorance?

   In the same thread at Uncommon Descent, "Unlettered and Ordinary" wrote:

   "Why do you think very skeptical atheists after studying the universes physics become theists? The same goes for some who study the OOL inquiry. No one twists their arm, they come to the conclution after studying the evidence that these things were designed."

   Here's my reply which was blocked:

   "Physicists are substantially less likely to believe in God than the general population. Biologists are even less likely."

   It seems that True Believer[tm]s don't like to be bothered with little things like "facts".
   
   

3. What do engineers know?

   Why on earth do IDers think engineers should know more about biology than biologists? CBEB picked up on this whacko comment at UD:

   "...how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any “brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to voice his incredulity."

   You have to wonder how these IDers would they like it if biologists came and told them how to fix cash registers and comment their Java code...
   
   

4. If it's not about religion, why the Bible stuff?

   Throw a rock at UD, and hit a Bible quote. One user, Lutepisc, quoted Isiah and Psalms in one post, and scolded me for asking him if "the God of Abraham" was the "Intelligent Designer" in the next:

   "Why not seek an answer to your question at a church, synagogue, or mosque? Why ask it on an ID blog? (Unless, of course, you’re basically here trolling…)"

   Remember - he had quoted the Bible to me...
   
   

5. What else has "materialistic ideology" subverted?

   Every page at Uncommon Descent trumpets:

   "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted."

   WTF? Do these guys use non-materialistic ideologies when building bridges or making computer chips? Do they sacrifice goats to keep struts from falling, or have to bat invisible dancing pixies away from subroutines? Do they cast runes to find out legal precedents? If not, why on Earth do they think biologists should be troubled by such concerns?
   
   

6. Who designed the designer?

   Here's another question you can't ask at Uncommon Descent. Literally. Even ID supporters are not allowed to ask it. Why? Because the obvious answer ("It's Intelligent Designers all the way down") shows the whole ID-as-science enterprise to be completely, utterly, and irredeemably vacuous.
   
   

7. Where's the science?

   The Wedge Document was written in 1998. And yet ten years later, despite the delusional aspirations and beliefs of ID's supporters, even William Demski and Michael Behe admit that ID hasn't "yet" produced any science. One day soon Howard Ahmanson, Jr. is going to want to know what's happened to all his money. At least Dembski has one comfort... No-one thinks he's being spending it on clothes...

So there you have it. If any IDers would like to take a stab at answering any of these questions, please, you can comment here.

Casey Luskin - The Chuck Norris Of cDesign

Word comes from ERV that noted scientist and Discovery Institute ("NAMBLA") attack-dog Casey Luskin has sent out a scary "lawyer letter" demanding "copyright" pictures of himself be removed from the internet.

Laskin, the Chuck Norris of the cDesign Movement, knows a thing or two about copyright, having a hand in warding off allegations that William "Wild Bill" Dembski ripped off some video for one of his "presentations".

It is not known whether Laskin, picutred here, was involved in the recent theft of an M&M Parody by the noted peer-reviewed science-ology journal "Uncommonly Dense".

Meanwhile, Chuck Norris, the Casey Luskin of the action-movie world, has attracted controversy himself.

Fans of the noted not-gay scientist and movie tough-guy have rallied to his defense after a Republican Party hack called for an improbable "boycott" of Norris because, amongst other things, he does not believe in Evolution. The Church Burning Ebola Boys have more, including some priceless nonsense from Chuck's fans.

In other news... My comments awaiting moderation at UD have now been deleted for good. I can only presume they were scared the whole edifice of CDesign Proponentsism would have crashed to the ground if my words had been printed. Damn their eyes! If only there was somewhere else I could publish what I had to say. Well, somewhere where one could get insider the hermetically-sealed minds of the typical ID supporter would be nice...

Apart from that it's been a quiet day on the blogosphere. If you're looking for something remarkable, check out CBEB’s Hillbilly Gospel Show.

(And if Luskin's lawyers would like his picture removed from this blog entry, all they have to do is ask).



Update: Luskin tries to roundhouse kick ERV and falls on his ass - More here.

Radio Otherfunk has a whacked out Country Special - check it out.

Teach The Controversy? Not in ID-land...

It's a sad day for free speech. I've only been back blogging a short while, and already I'm being silenced. It's like there is some sort of conspiracy...

First, Reasonable Kansans wouldn't publish my comment on their blog entry about what a nasty racist Charles Darwin was. All I did was agree with them that racism didn't exist before Darwin. What's so controversial about that?

Then, the very same blog ripped off my crappy picture of Darwin with scary eyes and didn't even say where they got it from. That's cold, man.

Even worse, I have a whole bunch of comments "awaiting moderation" on a thread at the ID Blog Uncommon Descent. There's nothing rude in them... But I guess they might be considered "awkward questions". I mean - are my meandering words really going to bring the whole edifice of ID down if they are published? It seems unlikely.

And finally, due no doubt to some administrative oversight, my access to the press section of the forthcoming movie "Expelled" seems to have been revoked. I can't think why.

I'm not saying in the slightest that blog owners should not have the right to moderate or even delete comments... But one has to ask oneself, surely, why Creationist and ID websites and blogs practically never link to sites with opposing viewpoints. Compare that with their "enemies". We almost universally do link to creationists and IDers.

Ask yourself why.

For now, I'm going to try that "faith" I keep hearing about. I'm going to pray really hard, and maybe, just maybe, Godthe Intelligent Designer will speak to someone with the courage to stand up to censorship (Enbay Einstay!?) who will come to my rescue.

After all, we know for a fact that the ID community regularly use the supernatural in their work as engineers, lawyers, journalists, computer scientists and speech writers. That's how they are so sure that "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins". If it works for the ID crowd, surely it will work for me too!

I'll let you know if anything changes. Fingers crossed. Pray for me.



Update 1:

Reasonable Kansans let me comment on the ripped-off-picture:

LOL...Oh, I knew you'd be slithering around soon enough and provide us with said link.

Thanks for a horrible night's sleep. Your Darwin is creepy...it made me dream about freaky transitional zombies chasing me in an attempt to kill off the weaker link. Oh the HORROR!!!

Nice. Still nothing on their racist Darwin thread. But hey...


Update 2:

My comments are no longer "awaiting moderation" at Uncommon Descent. They've been deleted entirely. Damn! And I was so close to bringing down "Intelligent Design" too. So much for the power of prayer. It's no wonder I hate God so much.

7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism

I've been investigating creationism for around eight years, on and off. Luckily, my heart is hardened to the Infinite love offered freely and without precondition by The Good Lord God, and I have so far been immune to all attempts to save me from eternal hellfire. Praise SatanDarwin.

Recently, however, my faith in un-belief has been troubled.

A new intriguing concept called "CDesign Proponentsism" has appeared, offering a new way of looking at the Universe not tied to outmoded, intellectually bankrupt notions such as logic, evidence, or testability.

CDesign Proponentsism challenges not only secular progressive humanist atheist daughter-defilers like myself, but also Theistic Evolutionists (the same thing, of course). For the first time in several generations, we are at risk from losing the secular stranglehold which keeps our country from being great.

As we atheists and fellow travelers know, CDesign Proponentsist's do not read our blogs or websites. Why else would they not to link to us? Safe in the knowledge that this post will be kept secret and between ourselves, I would like to share my concerns with you.

There are, as far as I can see, seven irrefutable arguments in favour of "CDesign Proponentsism". Luckily, I have something called "Cognitive Dissonance", and I am immune to their power.

If you feel that your atheistic commitment to living without moral limits is fragile in any way, I would urge you to stop reading here. The rest of you may proceed - with caution...

I give you.... 7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism.

1. The Explanatory Filter

The world's greatest living Mathematician is one William Dembski, the Paris Hilton of Information Theory. Dr Dembski has created the notion of the "Explanatory Filter", which I shall explain by applying it to a mystery uncovered recently by the elusive Dr. Snail.

One Galapagos Finch posted an M&M "survival of the fittest" parody at Uncommon Descent on 24 January which is remarkably similar to one which appeared anonymously last year on Craigslist. (My 37173 g00gle skillz suggest it dates back to at least 2003).

As a committed materialist, it is painful for me to admit that the scientific method offers no answers as to how such near-identical complex specified information systems could have arisen independently on at least two separate occasions. I could of course use imaginary, psuedo-scientific concepts as "convergent evolution" in order to construct a just-so-story as to how this might have happened.

Dr Dembski's "Explanatory Filter", on the other hand, offers a much more satisfactory conclusion. The parody was quite obviously coded into the DNA of the original writer and of DembskiGalapagos Finch, and was triggered only to appear in the latter's consciousness at a time and place foretold by the Bible Code. It's that simple.

2. Irreducible Complexity

As Dr Michael J. Behe explains here to Stephen Colbert, the component parts of a mousetrap have no function whatsoever.

3. The Controversy

There is no controversy? The mere fact that I am talking about CDesign Proponentsism proves there is a controversy.

4. It is not Creationism

When watched in the light of Scripture, this video clip demonstrates conclusively that CDesign Proponentsism is not creationism.

5. Parodies

What greater evidence is there is of the moral bankruptcy of a position than when its adherents go the trouble of creating elaborate parodies of their opponents? Take this song, for example, written by Amadan and sung here by Karl J. Mogel:

I Am The Very Model Of A CDesign Proponentsist

6. Chuck Norris Believes It

Here Chuck Norris, playing the part of blowhard reporter William "Bill" O'Reilly, endorses "Intelligent Design - that is 'a Deity Created life'". Also watch out for noted scientist Ben Stein, who rightly points out that cells contain "hundreds of thousands of moving parts each of which has to work perfectly"; and that "maybe we're wrong... maybe we're stupid, but we'd like to be able to ask the questions..."

7. Scriptural Support

How could the Bible, written by illiterate bronze-age goat-herders 5,000 years ago, have anticipated modern scientific understanding so exactly? CDesign Proponentsism does exactly what it says in the Bible.



There we have it. The best evidences that CDesign Proponentsism can offer. And still I am unmoved. Praise SatanDarwin indeed!

ID - The Hideous Truth

I haven't seen this picked up anywhere else, but Uncommon Descent recently mentioned interviews with William Dembski & Michael Behe by the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa, and carried at IDEAcenter.

Both interviews show how far removed the average ID supporter is from the reality of ID's Hideous (un)Truth.

In the first conversation, the interviewer gushes about all of the wondrous science ID has produced. Dembski has to point out that, err, there hasn't actually been any science resulting from his "ideas".

"CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."

When you've picked your jaw up from the floor following that little revelation, check out Michael Behe coming so far off the fence on Common Descent to give the average Uncommon Descenter a clutcher...

"ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution."

Well, maybe I've got it all wrong? Maybe Dembski and Behe are just substantially more intellectually honest than the cdesign proponentsists I tend to come across.

What do you think?

Conservapedia: Because every time you use Wikipedia, God kills a puppy...

Why are creationists so stupid? Easy. They don't process information which challenges their beliefs.

In my head-banging discussions on the Expelled IMDB Message Boards, a chap called Pooua said this:

I have seen this play out for 25 years. This is the way that evolutionists behave. When I take standardized tests that show that I am in the top few percent of the nation in scientific literacy, and yet am told constantly that I am scientifically ignorant simply because I dispute evolutionary theory... ...I actually read the court transcripts (and not from Wikipedia or T.O.). I know what Behe said, and he did not say that ID is no more scientific than astrology."

Well, if the guy will repeat nothing but creationist drivel, he's going to look like a moron no matter how smart he is. Poor sod. And I just love the concept that the same information has a different value because it comes from a "conservative" source (he linked to ARN) than it does if it comes from Wikipedia or T.O..

Thank God for Conservapedia, huh? Although by my experience, any time that organ says anything sensible, it's enough to make a creationists head asplode.

And for the records, Michael Behe did say in court that if ID were to be considered a scientific theory, astrology would too.

Evolution News helpfully explains:

"The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS or Behe's definition of science 500 years ago. The problem is that it is not supported by the evidence. That is why, unlike ID, no serious scientists are advocating astrology as a good theory which could be presented to students in science classrooms. Nor do serious academics reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of astrology, as serious scientists do for ID."

The minute "serious scientists for ID" can quote any part of the scientific literature as positive evidence for "Intelligent Design", Behe will have established that ID is more scientific than astrology.

Until then... I believe Jesus was a Capricorn. Or did I dream it?

Do you know who else was racist?

The surreally-named Reasonable Kansans blog ask Who Said It?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Thankfully they tell us. It was Charles Darwin in his, Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.

Look, I've drawn a Hitler-moustache on a picture of Darwin so you can see just how evil he was.

Do you know who else was racist?

That's right. It was Hitler.

And as we all know, there was no racism before Charles Darwin.

It was Charles Darwin who inspired Adolf Hitler to write these words in Mein Kampf:

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."

And it was the rejection of its long tradition of Darwinism in 1995 which allowed the Southern Baptist Convention to say:

"Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership; and... we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty..."

Yes indeed. Before Darwinism took over, Christians in America were never done being nice to Jews and Black people; inviting them to join their country clubs and marry their daughters; not publishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact or making them sit at the back of the bus; and the like.

No sirree.

So what can we conclude from this?

Oh yeah. Reasonable Kansans are idiots.

Get Expelled in '08

It's been a long time since I posted here. Even so, every once in a while I get emails from people discussing something or other I wrote long ago. Such is the joy of blogging. Apologies if you are one of these people and I didn't respond. It was nice of you to get in touch. And I do appreciate it. You are all lovely.

The problem is, though, some times I do respond, and sometimes when I respond to evangelising christians, I get dragged into meandering discussions of such intense depressitude that it puts me off the whole blogging endeavor yet again.

What is it with these people? Why can't they love me as their neighbor and accept I might not want to be a batshit crazy as them, talking daily as they do personally to their lord and savior and all? I'm sure they are very nice. But they are so ingrained in their voluntary brain-damage that it hurts. I'm too smart to believe in evilutionism, they say. Did I know about the 6 million prophesies in the Bible that Jesus personally fulfilled? Maybe if I could just for one minute ask their God to come into my heart I'd be prepared to blow myself up for His Mercy. That kind of thing.

Case in point.

I heard about this one movie "Expelled", which claims that the Fundamentalists nutjobs who run large parts of Americanian culture are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed to bring their invisible friend with them when they go to science class. As ever with these lying scumbags, the movie (from its publicity material) doesn't even bother to explain to the audience what "evolution" and "intelligent design" are... It just allows them to wallow in their ignorance, portraying the intelligent, educated segment of the culture as atheistic pondlife, intent on corrupting America's daughters. (Which is a fair point. If any of America's daughters out there would like to be corrupted, drop me a line. 18+ only. 14 in Iowa with parental consent, apparently).



And this ignorance has been headily on display on the IMDB message boards for Expelled, where I've been hanging out a bit, and where the quality of "debate" from the "pro-ID" crowd has just brought home to me time and time again why I stopped talking to these assholes in the first place. Some of them even seem embarrassed by the crapness of their own arguments. Others post the same non-sensical garbage over and over again, doubtless in the hope that everyone else will get bored eventually and go home and they can claim victory.

But hey.

There are some nice things in blogland. The Church Burning Ebola Boys have brought a smile to myself... And it's been fun watching the IDiot crowd trying to get their heads round some of the extremely technical ID-related sciency arguments posited at Overwhelming Evidence.

And if you've got this far, why not leave a wee comment and then check out Radio Otherfunk?

That's me for now. Fight the good fight :)