Tuesday, March 10, 2009

'God Spot' In Brain Proves Intelligent Designer!

LOL...I just had to use that headline for this article:

Belief and the brain's 'God spot'

I mean, if you were going to build a creature that you wanted to worship you, wouldn't you design a part of its brain that makes them believe in you?

But, what if you weren't very good at designing creatures? What if you did silly things like putting the penis next to the anus, or used the same tube for eating, drinking, and breathing, giving rise to a risk of choking? Then it wouldn't be a stretch to think that the designer wouldn't do a very good job at creating the belief centers of the brain, which explains doubters like me.

I don't REALLY think that what these scientists have found shows there is a designer, but I can totally see how there will be lots of ID and creationist people who would come to that conclusion. After all, they are the ones who only use scientific findings when it suits their needs and ignore all the rest.

Monday, March 9, 2009

America: Slightly More Rational Than 20 Years Ago?

Living in the south with two parents who both think we are in the end-of-days I tend to get the feeling that EVERYONE in this country feels the same as they do.

But, it seems I'm wrong:

15 Percent of Americans Have No Religion
Fewer Call Themselves Christians; Nondenominational Identification Increases


I feel like going door-to-door and asking people if they've heard the good news! LOL, I bet I would get run out of town if I asked people if they were excited to hear America is getting less religious.

Seriously, though, perhaps we need to start rehab clinics for the formerly indoctrinated. We could have group sessions..
"Hi! I'm Foo, and I used to go to church and think the bible was literally true."

"HI FOO!"
From the article:
The survey of more than 54,000 people conducted between February and November of last year showed that the percentage of Americans identifying as Christians has dropped to 76 percent of the population, down from 86 percent in 1990.

I doubt, though, that people who are non-religious will go as far as calling themselves agnostic, much less atheist. I still tend to the deistic point of view, though I'm effectively an atheist. I don't consider if a FOUR-LETTER-WORD like most people here.

Perhaps I should move:

The only group that grew in every U.S. state since the 2001 survey was people saying they had "no" religion; the survey says this group is now 15 percent of the population. Silk said this group is likely responsible for the shrinking percentage of Christians in the United States.

Northern New England has surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country; 34 percent of Vermont residents say they have "no religion." The report said that the country has a "growing non-religious or irreligious minority." Twenty-seven percent of those interviewed said they did not expect to have a religious funeral or service when they died, and 30 percent of people who had married said their service was not religious. Those questions weren't asked in previous surveys.

Our Modern World: 40 Lashes For Mingling

Oh, what an aweful hussy she was! Two men at the same time! And at her advanced age!!!

Saudis order 40 lashes for elderly woman for mingling

A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports.

But wait, there's a silver lining! She gets out of that horrible country! Deported, yay! Yay!

Some in the country are not happy:

The case has sparked anger in Saudi Arabia.

"It's made everybody angry because this is like a grandmother," Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider told CNN. "Forty lashes -- how can she handle that pain? You cannot justify it."

How does a modern society find itself living as if it were the year 1200? Extreme religious dogma. Blinded by the pursuit of God they trample over their own humanity as if it were a dung pile, only stopping to scrape the shit off their shoes every so often.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Did Nazareth Exist During Jesus' Time?

About a year ago I listened to an episode of The Infidel Guy where he interviewed René Salm about his new book The Myth Of Nazareth: The Invented Town Of Jesus. At the time I thought he made a pretty convincing argument that the evidence of a town called Nazareth was not established long after Jesus' time.

Here is a link to the Infidel Guy show: IG: The Myth of Nazareth

Now, James Randi has read the book and has some things to say about it. With all of the work he has done debunking frauds I would imagine that he has a higher standard for evidence than you or I...unless, of course, he is suffering from confirmation bias! (LOL, I say that tongue-in-cheek)

Friday, March 6, 2009

Where was God when this happened?

9 Year-Old Girl Raped By Step-Father - Catholic Church Has A Hissy Over Abortion


THIS PISSES ME OFF SOOOO MUCH! I'm fuming!

Question the girl should ask the HIGH AND FUCKING MIGHTY priest:

WHERE WAS GOD WHEN MY STEP-DAD WAS RAPING ME?

Nice fucking world you made for us!

Friday, February 27, 2009

Scientist Cock Fight

(I used the word cock in the title in hopes that I would get more traffic from the random Internet searches! LOL!)

Over at Rationally Speaking there is a healthy debate between Massimo Pigliucci and Ken Miller.

Orignial post here titled "Why I disagree with Ken Miller"

Rebuttal from Miller here titled "Ken Miller responds to Massimo."

They're too professional and polite. I want some profanity thrown around! Come on, one of you needs to drop an F bomb! haha, j/k.

I found Miller's explanation of why evolution requires suffering very interesting:
What you suggest is that a gracious God would have design a world in which there was no death, no pain, no suffering, no “waste,” and no extinction. Fair enough. But in that world, there would also be no room for a new species (since nothing would die to make room for it), no reason for evolutionary novelty (none of the competition that leads to natural selection), and no beauty (why produce beautiful flowers, plumage, or natural ornaments if survival is assured for every individual?). Furthermore, in the world you envision as ideal, there is no place for human courage, since there is nothing to fear, no place for virtue, since good is universal, and no reason to invent, discover, and create. Why bother to heal when there is no sickness, why help the poor and sick and disabled when they do not exist, and why face difficulties with courage when there are no such difficulties?

From a purely philosophical point of view, if I were working from the premise that there IS a God then I tend to agree with what he is saying as long as God is not very personal. It would have to be an impersonal God and not gentle Jesus meek and mild.

Looks like I will have to read more on the anthropic principle to better understand Massimo's response.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Dr. Michael Shermer at UNF for the "University Skeptics Forum"

My wife and I had the pleasure of seeing Michael Shermer speak last night at what was billed as a debate about ID versus evolution. It took place on the University of North Florida campus.

A few people from an organization called "Reasons To Believe" were part of a panel of professionals who were to discuss their testable creation model while Michael Shermer was to provide arguments against what they were proposing. It turns out that the event was sponsored by a few Christian organizations and the "University Skeptics Forum" was a title from the Reasons to Believe organization. They were quick to point out that they were NOT young earth creationists or Intelligent Design proponents but had come up with a real scientific way to prove that the universe was created by God.

All three were given 25 minutes each to make their arguments, so we had 50 minutes from the creationists and only 25 minutes from the rational scientist.

Dr. Hugh Ross started things off with a whirlwind tour of how their biblical cosmology fits perfectly with both scripture and science. There were a lot of big words used and large numbers were presented as proof of the number of discoveries in astronomy that point to a divine creator. Each year more and more discoveries show proof of God. But he didn't exactly go into what these discoveries were, instead we were directed to read his book. He made many references to Genesis and the story of Job for evidence that scientific ideas were presented in the bible long ago but we just weren't reading it correctly. I should have taken notes so I can provide you with specifics but one of the things he kept talking about was how in the story of Job God is described as having "stretched" the heavens. He takes this to mean God created an expanding universe. But it is his ideas that are the stretch. He kept talking about how scientists will never find God by using a naturalistic approach because God is currently resting, we are in the seventh day still. But then he said that as an astronomer when he looks in his telescope he is looking back in time, back into the first 6 days, so if that were true would we not see God doing all that work from the first 6 days? Also, he was later contradicted by his own partner because the next presenter talked about how God was still remaking animals and that explained all of the fossils. So is he resting or is he still working?

The next presenter was Dr. Fazale Rana, who spoke about their theories of biological science that were supposed explained things better than evolution and were still backed up by the bible. Again, the 25 minutes was densely packed with lots of big words that made it difficult to figure out where to start with your rebuttal. One feature of his talk that I found humorous was his frequent use of quotes from Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould to back up his premise that what we see in nature is actually designed by a creator and not by evolution. Dawkins does comment a lot about the apparent design of things in nature but he does a very good job of explaining how evolution by natural selection makes that possible.

The final presenter was Dr. Michael Shermer. His presentation gave a broad smattering of ideas in the skeptical community. Rather than spend his 25 minutes making point by point rebuttals he simply tried to tackle some of the typical misinformation held by society on subjects like cosmology, evolution, and religion. I have a feeling there were a good number of believers in the audience who, like me until recently, had never bothered to learn about the parallels between Christianity and other believe systems from the Mediterranean area in first century like virgin births and resurrection, or the parallels between all of the creation stories from that area, or the flood stories. So, perhaps a few people were enlightened by what he said, or at least will be curious and start reading more.

Next, Shermer was allowed to ask direct questions of the first two presenters. He specifically brought up the expanding universe bible quote and showed how the description in Job of the heavens more closely resembled that of the Babylonian cosmology, probably taken from the time the Jews spent in exile in Babylon. Their response was that some guy, who's name they forgot, wrote a book, and he was a physicist and a theologian, and he proved that the description in Job was not that of a Babylonian cosmology. That was about as direct as any of their answers got.

The audience was then given time to ask questions. I think all of this information was sitting heavily on the moderator, Ken Amaro, because he started cutting off the questioners if they tried to ask followups. But the answers being given were so poor and went in so many different directions that followups were really needed. Only a few people asked Shermer anything; I was expecting people to throw bibles at him but nothing like that happened. By the end you could hear lots of groans from the audience when Dr. Ross would go on a lengthy answer that said pretty much nothing.

After things ended I went up and thanked Dr. Shermer for coming and I went over and asked Dr. Ross if all of his cosmology could be explained through Torah, why does he believe that the Christian religion is true and not the Jewish one. And if God is now resting in the seventh day why did he take time off to come down to earth as Jesus. He started to explain that there were some things in Romans that he uses and then went off on how the Jews don't read all of the torah and if they would just read the forbidden stuff that their rabbis told them not to read then they would see that Christianity was true. And we will have all of our questions answered on the Eighth day. It was at that point that I realized I was surrounded by people who were doing lots of nodding and I was in no position to try and argue my points since I am no biblical scholar. But I did get the feeling that they must have thought I was Jewish because of the wording of my questions and maybe they thought they could convert me!

Without reading their books and just going by what they presented last night my biggest problem with their "testable biblical cosmology" is that they cherry picked their evidence which ignoring other things in the bible that are just plain wrong. Gallileo was arrested for contradicting the biblical view of an Earth centered universe and we all know now he was right and the bible was wrong. Perhaps I will get a copy of a few of their books and use that as an exercise in debunking kooky ideas this year.