Why every theistic argument fails

The Kalam cosmological argument, the transcendental argument for the existence of god, Fine tuning argument, Pascal's wager etc etc etc. Whatever argument is used by a theist to prove a god automatically fails, and now I want to explain why.

If you hold the position that there is a god, then you also hold the position (usually) that it is a specific god that you believe in. Now here lies the conundrum, if you use any of the multitude of arguments for the existence of god then even if I say ok you proved a god (which I will not) you now need to show me your god is the god you just proved.

If you are a christian, I will take the Allah standpoint.
If you are a Muslim, I will take the God standpoint.
If you are a whatever god y theist, I will take the whatever god x standpoint.

 (Pic source)

Your argument has now failed, as there is no way you can prove to me that this argument presented refers to your god. If you then say that is not the point the argument proves that a god does exist, you are been dishonest. You have a god which you believe in and think you have proof for. If you do not at least try present this evidence for your god, then you are lying about your faith. So I do not accept your evidence for a god, especially when you are trying to prove that a specific god is real.

xxxxx
On a sidenote, if you are a deist that believes a god created the universe and then left the universe to be, a god that has no influence on anything we do. Well, I can't debate that and well done you proved a god that is useless and I will call your god the singularity. After all this god is as helpful as the singularity, so honestly this whole point is mute.

Religion and children

I was watching an episode of the The Big Questions which dealt with the question is "religion good for children?", see the videos below if you are interested. It amazes me that the religious folks out there think religion is good for children. Granted in the show the theists were for the most part liberal and more open to different ideas than the crazy fundamentalists we know and berate. Sidenote: the liberal Christian issue reminds me of a good post by Neil at godlessindixieland which deals with his positive experience as a christian.

Back to the issue, my opinion is that religion is not good for children for the same reason that I think teaching pseudo science is bad for children. Why would you want to lie and teach a child something wrong? There are no facts available that show god is real, and so why are we teaching children this rubbish. An analogy is parents that tell children Santa Claus is real, but there is a few major difference. After a certain age the parents say,  "hey Santa is not real." Additionally, the Santa issue is dealt with once a year and not every single day. Also Santa doe not teach warped morals while God has a very good ability to do that. Everyone is always trying to teach children what is right and wrong, so why should we be filling their minds with lies.....is that not wrong?

More importantly, world wide it seems  that mental disorders are on the rise (I think this has to do with better psychology and psychiatry practices), so why would we want to be filling fragile minds with things that can are a burden to rational thought? Cognitive Dissonance is a simple thing that in a very active mind could lead to a serious amount of stress which could lead to a breakdown in the persons emotional stability. Cognitive dissonance I realize is not something that most people would think could lead to a emotional breakdown, but don't you think it could when your eternal life lies in the balance! Religion teaches about an eternal torment of pain which is false, but if it is ingrained then it can still be a burden as the brain is not always rational. If the brain was rational all the time, there would be no divorce, as people would not get married and cheat on one another.

xxxxxx
The videos, ironically from IslamHDTube

Scienceislam II

Did you know that the Koran tells us all about human embryonic development? Did you know that this information was in the Koran 1400 years before science worked it out?  I am guessing you didn’t know this after all, its not true in any way or form. According to the pseudoscience scienceislam website however this is all hard cold fact. Interesting that the Koran had all this information yet never shared it with the science community until after the discoveries. Its as if they are lying and filling in the gaps after the fact, but I am sure the words and figures in the Koran will clarify this for us.

Here is the Koran explaining in detail the human embryonic development.
23:12 Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;
23:13 Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; 
23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!
Not very scientific as this does not explain anything about a very complex process. A process which is summed up very differently by scientists and for which I would have to produce a book to explain in detail. (cool link)

So how do they make this absurd claim? Apparently the word seed above is the Arabic word "alaqah" which means either leech, suspended thing or blood clot (conveniently three definitions). Either of these words then can get twisted in various ways to describe an embryo in its beginning stages. But I guess they forgot verse 12 where man is a product of wet earth (mud). Also why would god not just use the word embryo and leave the whole mud thing out? These assumptions that are made about this word are ridiculous and the leaps of logic amazing. Here is my favourite one of them.
The second meaning of the word alaqah is 'suspended thing'. The suspension of the embryo, during the alaqah stage, in the womb of the mother very appropriately fits this description.
BTW the embryo is not suspended its embedded in the wall of the uterus during the initial stage.

But its not over yet, this gem arises in the next paragraph.
The next stage mentioned in the verse is the mudghah stage. The Arabic word mudghah means "chewed-like substance." If one were to take a piece of gum and chew it in his mouth, and then compare it with the embryo at the mudghah stage, we would conclude that they would be almost identical because of the somites at the back of the embryo that 'somewhat resemble teeth marks in a chewed substance.' 
And now we know that this is someone who has no fundamental understanding of biology let alone science and rational thought. If you call it the word then obviously it matches what you want to see, again Allah could have just used the proper terminology. Also what the hell is the mudghah stage in embryonic development?

The article then goes on to explain how awesome Muhhamed is for knowing all this before scientists. Uhhhhm no he didn’t, He said humans came from mud and what about the little issue of fertilisation? Keith Moore the embryologist agrees that the Koran is correct with its analysis of human embryonic development. All I can say to that is thankfully he is retired. Even if Keith Moore was the most respected embryologist in the world I would still not trust this bad science theory as it is obviously flawed.

The scientific view (Pic source)

 The Koranic view.

Why I trust science

Some theists seem to think I believe in science like they believe in god. I don’t believe in science, however I do have very valid reasons why I trust science. I thought I would mention a very recent example that should have a lot of power.

With the stem cell debate going amid the new embryonic stem cell discovery and possible treatments using stem cells. I though it would be interesting to reference this Editorial from Nature magazine from a few weeks ago. This editorial deals with the fact that scientists are not heartless monsters as some theists like to point out.

Pic source


In this piece it is pointed out that scientists are trying to stop a stem cell therapy trial with regard to the hyped up Stamina therapy. The idea behind Stamina therapy involves extracting bone marrow from a patient to obtain stem cells and then injecting them back into the patients veins or spinal cord. This therapy is meant to cure fatal illness, but this is where it gets murky as the claims are not backed up by scientific data. Its just a claim, with no proof.

The scientists leading this drive to stop the trial believe their is no good scientific reason why it should happen. The reasons that have been put forward are 1) that the method is based on bad data, 2) lack of scientific method, 3) fabricated data and 4) independent tests have been shown to not work. While I am sure their are potential patients that would want this therapy, it should not be done as it is not proven and it is based on bad data. Additionally, this treatment is invasive and their is no reason to proceed with it if it does not work.

This example is for me a perfect example of science which is self correcting and truthful. This is one of many reasons why I trust science.

Unicorns are real!!!!!

When I was a Christian in faith not name, I used to read the New International Bible. But now I have decided to switch to the way more cooler King James Version, after all I can read about unicorns. That's right unicorns are real according to the bible.

Picture source.

I came across this while reading the introduction to Steve Wells (Skeptics Bile fame) book Drunk With Blood. I actually had to reread the sentence as I thought I was hallucinating. But here are the verses for you doubters who have no faith in the holy book.

Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
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. 
Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Picture source.


So there you go Unicorns are real. God said so!

 Enjoy the weekend......and yes this is satire, but the bible verses are real.

Dear God V

Dear god

Today I just want to thank you for giving my armour with which to deflect all negative and demonic attacks. Thank you for the ability to avoid the evils of non-believers who try so hard with their science and logic to derail my belief.

You will always be there for me to counteract evil by giving me strength to avoid these questions.

Amen

xxxxxxxx

Classic example....oh and I was not trolling BTW, just pointing out flaws is not trolling.

Why dont theists like fantasy novels/comics/TV/movies?

Its always been my belief that theist leaders (preachers/imams etc) do not like fantasy novels and TV, because they had a deprived childhood. So the only way they can make their childhood look normal is to try and deprive children of their fun. I think maybe its more complex than that though. Its so complex that it can be summed up in one word. IDIOTS. Idiocy is a serious disease.And this idiocy is a not a new kind of idiocy. My Christian preachers "back in the day" told us not to watch ThunderCats and He-Man too.

Luckily as an atheist I can just appreciate fantasy for what it is......Fantasy. For theists however if you believe in invisible gods then magic, ghosts and demons all become real too. And anything that does not seem normal too you, which is pretty much anything in fantasy land, is evil.

This is one of many reasons theists irritate me.

Here are some examples of idiots telling your children (or parents who believe in fairy tales) not to watch certain TV shows and movies.
Idiocy and Harry Potter

Idioacy and ThunderCats/He-Man.

Idiocay and Twilight.

This is just another dumb theist

I love football (aka soccer) so when I read this story I was irritated at the stupidity and arrogance of this Muslim player. Yet this story could be applied to multiple theists anywhere in the world who like to live their double standard life. BBC news link.

So this fool Papiss Cisse in June was reported to be considering his future as he did not want to wear the logo of the new club sponsor on his shirt, as it did not fit with his Muslim beliefs. The companies logo under the spotlight is a high interest pay day loan company. This disagreement lead him to pull out of the clubs preseason training tour. as of yesterday the club and player have not come to a conclusion regarding his future if he still refuses to wear the logo.

I am guessing the fact that he was caught in a casino will make the clubs decision easier to get rid of him and his useless set of morals a lot easier. Or at least for the club to say you can no  longer disagree on moral grounds.

(BBC picture source)
Apparently he was not gambling according to his agent and the casino was not prepared to comment. From the picture it looks like gambling to me.

In conclusion Papiss Cisse you are an Islamic hypocrite idiot.

Update: The club and player have agreed that he will wear the logo of the company. Guess he had no more moral high ground.

List of funny Atheist Comdeians (Strong Language)

I am having computer problems. So I thought I would give you a list of the funniest atheist comedians out there in no specific order.(Again beware strong language in some of these)
1) Eddie Izzard

1) Jim Jeffries

1) Margaret Cho

 

 1) Ricky Gervais

1) George Carlin

1) Bill Maher

1) Tim Michin

Omniscience..... but maybe not

Omniscience......Omniscience......Omniscience. Recently this word has been driving me crazy as I think theists have no idea what it means. Or I have no idea what it means. Either way today today I get my answer.

So what does it mean according to Merriam Webster:

1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge 

According to the philosophers at Stanford:

Omniscience is the property of having complete or maximal knowledge.

According to Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:

Omniscience is an attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all knowledge (Isaiah 40:14). God knows all things possible as well as actual because he has ordained whatsover will come to pass according to the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11).

So I originally though that omniscient meant all knowing, and from the definitions I was right. So does god then know what will happen in the future if god knows everything?  The answer must be yes, as if god has all knowledge then surely god must know the future. If god does not know the future then god cannot have all knowledge, as the future determines what knowledge we humans will learn.

At this point a theist can say that does not mean that god does not have the knowledge as god can still have this knowledge, but we as humans do not have it yet. I disagree with this, as knowledge means who did what as well. So by default god must know who will discover this knowledge. For example if  say E=mc^2, everyone immediately thinks Einstein. That is knowledge, so god must know this and herein lies the problem.

Sorry theists if god is omniscient there is no longer any free will. If god knows everything then there can be no free will, as god already knows what will happen so our choices are already made before we make them. This is a big problem for theists as god then has already decided who will burn in hell. In my humble opinion this makes god a very bad deity.

Debating theists

Speaking to a theist can be like talking to a brick wall and you feel that you are getting nowhere. But remember theists beliefs

can change




and you never know how it will end

 

So keep speaking until their beliefs crumble. Its better for them.

Atheist Churches - Join any skeptic group

The final instalment of the Atheist "churches" deals with what else you could do now that you don’t need god(s). For part 3 click here. The biggest problem that many atheist encounter is the lack of the sense of community that churches/temples/mosques used to offer. They want/need to do something to feel part of a community again, so here is my list of things that you could do to both contribute to yourself and to your community.

1) Join a sceptic group. Most atheists I know have come to atheism by applying a sceptical attitude towards religion. This sceptical attitude in my opinion should be something that gets a lot of work, so why not join a sceptic group. Joining a sceptic group will only improve your ability to debate irrational people.

2) Get a hobby so that you can meet like minded people. Or better still create a hobby group that has no religious affiliations if that is what you are concerned about. In that way you are positively contributing to your community and showing that atheists are not bad people. Final note here "No agendas".

3) Join a charity. News media and religious groups like to point out that atheists do no charity work. So join a charity and contribute towards relief efforts or clean up efforts. Better still create a charity drive that is non secular that has no strings attached like some religious charities. BTW to any theist reading this atheists are very active in charities.

4) Team up with other secular organisations. These organisations that are on the front line fighting for equality for all people and are always in need of volunteers. Freedom from religion foundation.Atheist Alliance.

There are ways other than attending "church" to feel a sense of community. As atheists we can create for ourselves a sense of community the one thing we don't need is church.

Dear God IV

The point of this weekly segment is to thank god for all the awesome stuff he/she/it gives to us in the form of a prayer. Not to be taken seriously by atheists, but to be taken seriously by theists.

Dear god

I am here to ask you for your favour as I really am in need of a blessing. I would really like you to cure me of this disease. I feel such a burden and I know you have the power to cure anything you want. I also know that you do not want me to suffer so please help me god.

God, if you don't heal me I also know that you are doing to teach me a lesson. I am OK with you teaching me humility and so I will endure the suffering. You are amazing and all powerful and that’s why I serve you with all my heart.

Amen

Cognitive Dissonance anyone.

Atheist Churches - Theists win

I think an appropriate way to start part 3 of 4 (part 2 here) about atheist churches is to ask the following questions.
1) How many times have you tried to explain to a theist what atheism is?
2) How many times have they actually understood what you meant and taken the new definition and used it.
My guess you answers were somewhere along the lines of.
1) So many times I feel like a stuck record.
2) Its never happened.

This is why the title of this post is theists win, which is short for theists win in their mind at least. Often I have encountered  theists who say it takes faith to be an atheist. Unfortunately, once a theist has said this no matter how the debate progresses they still stick to their original claim. The only time this is not true is a  few special cases when the theist is looking for some reason to establish their new-found disbelief in a god. I believe this problem of "atheist belief" will be come even more complicated with the establishment of atheist churches.

The reason for this is all word play. I have noticed that most theists favourite arguments are world play as their are no other rational and factual arguments for god. So with the introduction of the word "church", its pretty much the same as theist opposition to gay marriage. They get stuck on the word that they have attributed meaning to and are incapable of moving forward in the discussion. I see theists in the future using the following line "but atheists also have churches, how are you any different to us?" or "you church is not correct in their belief." The hard (yet illogical) part is that they are right, after all we are now a "church" and this word means something very different to them.

My closing thought is as follows: "Atheist churches are different but human brains do not think logically, especially when you are not a sceptic in the first place."

Athesit Churches -Segregation

This post is part 2 of 4 regarding the so called atheist church movement. Part 1 which deals with authority can be found here.

I think Atheist Churches will be harmful for the atheist movement as they will surely cause segregation among members on issues that have absolutely nothing to do with atheism. This I want to repeat "they will surely cause segregation among members on issues that have absolutely nothing to do with atheism." You may wonder how I can be so certain about this, one word "elevatorgate". Its three years later and people are still just not letting it go and it has caused a split in the atheist community (link).

Atheism is  the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. I had fun writing that as for the first time I am explaining this to atheists and not theists :). Atheism should only focus on that and not other issues. An analogy to segregation and factions in the so called atheist churches would be the splitting of the Christian Church from the Roman Catholic Church into the Church of England so Henry could get a divorce. I understand that when you look at it like this it seems absurd and like something that would never happen. But it will and it already has on a smaller scale (elevatorgate). But lets take a more classic example and consider the Brights who are humanists and atheists.

Its not that I oppose the Brights, but they are naturalists and not atheists. A Bright is also an atheist, but this is not what the movement is about, otherwise they would be called atheists. From their website we can see the movement's three major aims are:
1) Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
2) Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
3)Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
In these three aims we see their worldview is free of deities which is atheistic. However, they want people to understand that they are naturalists first.

To be an atheist you do not need a Church. What you do need is for atheists to stand together and have rational discussion relating to the deity question. Segregation will not lead to this when one section of the atheist community starts putting forward ideas that are not rational or have nothing to do with the deity question.

Atheist Churches - Authority

There is lets call it a movement (more a desire) among certain atheist to create  so called "atheist churches". Now this is something that really bothers me. So I am taking the time this week to try and focus on why I think this is a horrible idea and what else you could be doing with your time instead of attending a "church". Please realize I am using the term church here just as its the word that seems to be used by everyone. Regardless of the word if it was assembly, group, temple I would feel the same way.

The main problem I have with this concept is that it elevates some people into a position of authority. Now this may seem irrational as a opening statement but bare with me. At the moment there are already people in the Atheist community that are elevated which people do not question. One only has to think of Richard Dawkins, P.Z.Meyers, Matt Dillahuntey etc. etc. and this is not good as we as atheists should question religious statements all the time even when they are coming from fellow atheists. What we need is people telling others to question everything they hear. On a side-note, I actually would like everyone to question everything I post and to go and look and see if they come to the same conclusion.

We do not need more authority figures especially in the framework of a group  following. This is a really important from the viewpoint of psychology as well, as individual psychology can get lost in crowd psychology. I would think the whole mob psychology factor would not be important as atheists should be rational people, but this is not true as I will explain in another post this week. Maybe I am too cynical  for saying this, but honestly I do not trust people who obtain too much power. What other agendas could start getting pushed in the so called atheist churches, especially when authority figures as mentioned before are not been questioned. Ultimately, I believe this is dangerous as someone could hijack the movement. I think we have to realise that not all atheists are good people and not all good people are atheists.

XXXXXX
For the record, I am not saying P.Z.Meyers, Richard Dawkins etc are evil people.

Bryan Fischer and the second... no first.... no wait... law of thermodynamics

I am so happy we have scientists in this world and for a simple reason when you get people like Bryan Fischer who try explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Just for reference Bryan, you quoted the First Law of Thermodynamics (matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed) and not the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the entropy of an isolated system will never decrease).

However, he does get it right when he talks about the eventual heat death of the Universe which is most likely the way the universe will die. But, that does not mean vaporize it means just no reactions, no suns, no heat and no energy flow and all us humans will be long dead.

But he then goes on to say the Bible explains the Second Law of thermodynamics and that if scientists had just looked at the bible they would have figure it out years ago. So let see how the Bible explains the Second Law of thermodynamics in Psalm 102 25-28. New Internationl Version.
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.
But you remain the same, and your years will never end.
The children of your servants will live in your presence; their descendants will be established before you.
Ok maybe we need to look at the New King James Version.
Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:   
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.   
The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.

Nope its just not there, the bible says creation and then everything will perish, but like earlier in the post heat death does not mean vaporization. So the bible is wrong in its so called profound explanation of the Second Law. For reference if you want to know more about the second Law which is one of the more complicated laws of thermodynamics click here. From the hyperphysics website the second law can be stated very differently to the bible.
The second law of thermodynamics is a general principle which places constraints upon the direction of heat transfer and the attainable efficiencies of heat engines.
OR 
In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.

I think I will get my science from real scientists and not radio talk show hosts with hidden agendas. Bryan please go away.

God and Allah don't exist

I was reading a great post about the assertion that god does not exist at God is a myth!. Wit this is mind, I know it that the burden of proof lays with someone that makes a positive claim. So I will make two positive claims here and prove them.

Claim : God does not exist
God defined as the god of Christianity. If this God is real then this god inspired the divine texts and as such we can look in the bible for testable claims.

Hypothesis: Mark 11:24  Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
So here we have a claim we can test, if we ask for anything in prayer it will be granted to us. This means prayer should always work if you believe. We also know that people would not pray if they did not believe. So all prayers will be granted.

Result: Prayer does not work! Scientific studies have shown this to be the case. See the links for further information on prayer that does not work  link1 and link2.

Claim : Allah does not exist
Allah defined as the god of Islam. If this Allah is real then this god inspired the divine texts and as such we can look in the Koran for testable claims.

Hypothesis: Surah 7:80-81 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.
Here Muhammad says that homosexuality is unnatural and that no creature engages in homosexual behavior. So if their are animals that engage in homosexual behavior then Muhammad and hence Allah are wrong. If the god of creation is wrong about their creations then surely this creator cannot exist.

Result: Homosexual behavior is seen in penguins and dolphins among other animals. So Allah was wrong and hence does not exist.

This are but two examples of multiple testable claims in divinely inspired texts. So either God/Allah is useless (and does not deserve worship) or God/Allah does not exist. I would say the latter is true.

Dear God III

The point of this weekly segment is to thank god for all the awesome stuff he/she/it gives to us in the form of a prayer. Not to be taken seriously by atheists, but to be taken seriously by theists.

Dear god

When I look at your creations it is so clearly evident that everything in our world comes from your majesty. How anyone can think evolution is real is something I will never understand. It is very clear that only you could have designed the wonderful creatures that roam our planet. It is with this knowledge in my mind that I can appreciate the world for what it is.

Just one question god, why did you make the platypus which is clearly a transition between an otter and a duck. It proves evolution so well.

amen

xxxxxxxxx
I mean even Kirk Cameron knows about transitional forms.

Catholic Church faces UN comittee

There is a report in the Gaurdian about the Catholic Church facing a United Nations committee about child abuse scandals as well as tax issues. This is good news as the UN is actually considering that the Vatican is a threat, and unfortunately for the Vatican they are a member of the UN so they are obliged to comply. But that said Iran and North Korea are members of the UN, so lets not hold our breath for anything dramatic.

The bigger question now is whether the faithful will start turning away from a state that is unquestionably abusive. A state that is run by the voice of God on earth but which is anything but godly. My guess is that the faithful will stay with the church until the bitter end, when they close the doors and there is no where else to go but away.

Maybe the Vatican could start and alternative United Nations with other great countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, north Korea, Myanmar.... I think you see where I am going with this.

scienceislam I

I have been know to blog about the silly pseudoscience website godandscience.org, but as with everything religious you need a break at times. So I went searching for something a bit different to debunk and I came across another very poorly written religious science cite called scienceislam. So here I want to take the time to show my readers how ridiculous this site is and why the koran is just as pathetic as the bible when it comes to science.

The first point to tackle would have to be the origin of the universe which is neatly summarised in the koran....or so they say.
http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_miracles.php
This page starts badly with the following statement:
"The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of 'smoke' (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition)."
I am glad the author put the word smoke in quotation marks, as this is nothing close to what science says. As according to a quick google search you will find this definition:
The explosion of dense matter that, according to current cosmological theories, marked the origin of the universe.
So when talking about what the universe origins are, it would be more correct to say there was nothing. But it is important that the author keeps their definition, as then they can falsely claim that the koran tells about the origins of the universe in the following line.
Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke... koran 41:11
Funnily enough, one would surely expect this in chapter 1 after all it is the origin of the universe?

 The author then goes on to say that as the universe was one big swirling smoke that the heavens and earth were once connected and then god separated them according to the following line in the koran.
Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?.. koran 21:30
But this makes no sense as what heavens are the referring to here. If its the stars and outer space then sure we can say it was a lucky guess by Muhammad while he was tripping from food and sleep deprivation. But if it means this then anywhere else in the koran where heavens is mentioned it can only mean this as it is defined and we know there are not 7 dimensions right?
Allah created seven heavens. koran 2:29
And we also know it does not rain food....

Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Allah, Lord of us! Send down for us a table spread with food from heaven, that it may be a feast for us, for the first of us and for the last of us, and a sign from Thee. Give us sustenance, for Thou art the Best of Sustainers. Allah said: Lo! I send it down for you. And whoso disbelieveth of you afterward, him surely will I punish with a punishment wherewith I have not punished any of (My) creatures. koran 5:114-115

Finally the page ends with a quote from Professor Alfred Kroner on the universe and Muhammad.
"Thinking where Muhammad came from .. I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years with very complicated and advance technological methods that this is the case."
By the way just in case you forgot Muhammad got it all wrong.

Religious wars

I was watching a debate between the late Cristopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza. In the question and answer section around 1 hour 14 minutes the debate between the two focuses on religion and war. In which Cristopher talks about the second world war and that Hitler was a Christian. He also mentions that in the first world war that all the heads of state were theists and as such these first and the second world war are attributable to religion. Dinesh then goes on to explain that this is not right as we cannot hold the religions of the heads of state culpable as then all wars can be said to be religious.

Here is where both Hitchens and D'Souza get things a bit muddled in my opinion. So here is my take on the matter.

Yes, wars are religious if the head of states are religious.I think especially in years past it is important to realise that the head of sate decided whether a country goes to war or not. Even in the modern day the official decision rests with the head of state, although it is more complicated as the decisions are taken with committees. The point is though that if this head of state is a Christian, then it is against the New Testament for this leader to go to war. So if this leader then makes a choice to go to war it is a religious one as they are denying their belief system.Additionally, for us in the west who like to point out that Islamic countries are terrorist states etc etc. We are saying that these countries are religious when they make decisions to go to war, so how is it any different when a Christian leader sits in the presidential or prime ministerial chair.

On the other hand I don't think one can claim a war started by an atheist leader can be attributed to atheism. I feel I can say this honestly as atheism is not about morality it is simply about the disbelief in a god. So this atheist leader is basing his/her war decisions based on moral principles that come from upbringing and past life experiences and have nothing to do with religion. This is very different to the case of a religious leader whose morals supposedly come from a sacred divinely inspired text. 

Here is the full debate. I would recommend it to anyone who has not seen it before as Cristopher Hitchens was a master debater.

DNA is awesome...Also XNA and PNA and GNA and TNA

I often get irritated with creationists, well because their arguments are faulty. One such argument is that DNA could only have been created as it can carry all the hereditary information for a person. I agree this is truly amazing but it does not mean that it was created. For example if it was created, I would expect the creator to have done a better job on it so let me elaborate.

Simple mutations in the DNA strand can lead to some very serious sicknesses or retardation's. One only has to think as far as trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) which is simply three copies of chromosome 21. Or hemophilia which effects the X sex chromosome making men far more susceptible to get it than women ...... and they say god is a man? If these are simple mutations then one would think that a creator would make these mutations impossible by creating an information system that does not allow chromosome mutations. I mean after all god is meant to be omnipotent in most religions.

Talking about stronger DNA types. I think I creator would have done a better job like scientists have shown with artificial genetic material. These various genetic materials have been shown to be more chemically stable compared to DNA which is impressive when you consider that it was created by humble scientists (okay not always humble) in a small laboratory and not with a swish of the hand like the imaginary god.Here is a list of the synthetic genetic materials with their wikipedia links. XNA, PNA,GNA and TNA.

I am guessing some creationists will now try use the analogy of a designer (scientist) for synthetic genetic material as a way to show that their god exists. One problem DNA still allows these horrible mutations, which synthetic DNA shows less of. So in effect your god did a shocking job and as such is not a good creator.....or  your god is a very very bad person. Your choice?

Personally I go with the non existence choice after all one would expect more from a designer. I know when I buy a watch I buy a good one to last, not a cheap fake.

Stem Cells and Theistic Choices

I have written about stem cells before. Actually let me say I have written about embryonic stem cells before and all the theistic arguments that do not hold for not using stem cells.

However, now their is a new twist to theistic decisions regarding stem cells.
http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-transplants-may-purge-hiv-1.13297
It was reported at a conference in Kuala Lumpur this week that 2 HIV patients have been cured using a new treatment where stem cells were transplanted into these patients. It has now been 5 and 3 years since the transplants and the patients show no HIV in their blood. Although the doctors are still hesitant to say they have been cured it certainly seems that way. Interestingly this method is similar to the method used to cure a patient of HIV in Germany.In the Germany case the added bonus was they used stem cells from a person who carried a HIV resistance gene.

This result is remarkably as if these two patients are deemed cured from HIV. Then in effect we have 3 patients that have been cured from HIV using stem cell treatments. So doctors have cured people from a viral disease that was thought would never be curable. Or at least not curable before other common viruses could be cured.

So why would anyone want to deny stem cell treatment? On what grounds can you deny it and in effect sentence someone to death? These are the types of questions theists need to think about before they oppose stem cell treatments. If a theist for example believes that the HIV the person has is due to immoral behaviour and as such does not warrant stem cell treatment. Then they also have to live with the fact that they are condemning someone to death and that is not very moral. If a theist opposes stem cell treatments because they believe a life has been "murdered" to create the stem cell line. Then they are condemning people to death due to something that the person afflicted has nothing to do with.

In closing let me ask, "where do you derive your morals from?"

xxxx
Update 8/29/2014: A correction to this blogpost has been published here.

Dear God II

The point of this weekly segment is to thank god for all the awesome stuff he/she/it gives to us in the form of a prayer. Not to be taken seriously by atheists, but to be taken seriously by theists.

 Dear god

Your rational and logical way is always something that has amazed me. I was reminded of this last week while I was playing football (soccer). It was amazing how my eye and foot coordination worked so well together and I was able to easily flick the ball into the goal with the agility that you afforded me. It still blows my mind that I am able to run so fast with a ball dribbling away at my feet, and I know this can only be due to your divine grace.

I want to thank you for allowing me to win the game last week. I know you made the other team lose so that you could teach them humility. I didnt make it to the end of the game however god as about 10 minutes to the end the other team had a free kick and I was in the wall and I picked up an injury. This injury really made me wonder something though go.

Why are my testicles on the outside of my body?

Amen/ Allahu Akbar

This is not me, but it proves the point.

Mentally Ill Theists

To those of you that have read this blog you will know that I suffer from depression. Now this blog has nothing to do with depression, but with the fact that I faced up to my mental illness and took the action necessary to correct myself. The reason why I think this is important is due to two fantastic but disturbing blogs I have read recently.

http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2013/06/30/horror-show-sunday-there-is-no-honor-in-islam/
http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/07/more-evidence-of-catholic-child-rape.html

My question is simple to theists how can you continue denying these abuses and killings that are happening. This is mainstream Christianity and mainstream Islam, so to say this is not a major issue means there is something wrong with you. I honestly think if you identify with these organisations then you have a serious mental problem that needs to be dealt with. Now I can see that theists will disagree with this as they will say I do not approve of these things, but lets look at it simply.

If you attend an organisations activities (i.e. attend church) then you are supporting this association (religion). By supporting this organisation you are agreeing with whatever happens in this organisation. You are unable to distance yourself from the bad, as this is what is happening and nothing is getting done about it. For example its a fact that the catholic church moves paedophiles around. Remember this is not politics, you cannot vote the new pope or imam into office, this is not determined by you.

In closing I have this to say.

I faced my mental illness. How about you face yours.

godandscience X

In the latest edition of the pseudo science website godandscience.org we are looking at the so called fine tuning. Or should I say the belief by theists that god fine tunes the Universe.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

Right of the bat, we realize again what kind of website we are dealing with as the author has this to say.
"However, the idea that the universe is all is not a scientific fact, but an assumption based upon materialistic naturalism."
No, where is the evidence for there been more than the universe. This is an assumption based on the fact that it can never be proved or disproved. So it is dishonest if I can prove things about the universe, then if you wish to claim about things beyond the universe you need to be able to prove it.

Then this cracker of a statement
"Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering."
No, this is absurd. How can you use constants determined by scientists to talk about fine tuning. Scientists work out these values and now you insert god into the equation. Yet you have shown no proof for this god. So the constants of physics are worked out using science and not using god. There is no fine tuning.

For the rest of the article the author then goes in to explaining how big and complex the so called fine tuning values are. He also shows how if one of these values changes by less than 1 % that life could not exist. So many examples, but yet no reason as to why this is divine intervention.

Here is my conclusion regarding the fine tuning argument. It is ridiculous for the following reason:
If one of these values change then all the values will change as they affect each other. Then it is still possible that life could form. That is unless we think we are so special that every thing has to be the only way we know.

xxxxx
For you pleasure here are some cracking fine tuning examples that make me wonder how anyone can think this is a scientific website. BTW these are all cited examples of the fine tuning that make absolutely no sense 
age of the universe
 if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
 if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

Theistic arguments

Here is my list of theistic arguments in easy words and explained I hope perfectly well.

1. Big words they understandYou just believe our Antidisestablishmentarianism is Floccinaucinihilipilification.
or
I think that we should have special statuts in society and it bothers us that we cannot be special.

2. Big complicated sentences they dont understand 
But Quantumn Entanglement clearly explains god because superposition can only happen if something operates outside of the normal bounds of our understanding.
or
I am not sure what I am saying but I am sure trying my best to confuse you with one of the most complicated subjects....and please dont be a physicist.

3. Avoidance 
When talking about god approved rape/murder you may notice that the answer to a question is not even remotely connected to what you asked.
Q: How can you say Christianity does not discriminate against homsexuals?
A: Jesus told Thomas that you will doubt me.


4. Philosophy
When a theist has no scientific proof the revert to some philosophy. This is ridiculous as you need some foundation for your philosophy otherwise we could insert any god/ham sandwich/alien into the equation. For a brilliant post on this see the link below.
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.kr/2013/06/the-ontological-blunder.html

5. Pseudo Science
Pseudo science is defined as " a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method". So to try get around the no evidence for god a lot of theists like to use pseudo science and then claim when called out that the scientific establishment is censoring the science.

And of course lest we forget

6. Personal attacks.
"You an idiot"
"atheist scum"
I always just like to quote back.....Aaah (insert religion) full of compassion and tolerance.