Work Has Been Kicking My Ass...

You know the feeling that you get when you work 12 hours a day for several days in a row and you have a bad back that doesn't let you sleep? Yeah.... that's been me for like the past 10 days or so. I haven't had the time or energy to write and I really can't think of what to do next.

So, today I'll be taking a bit of a break and posting some absolutely hilarious videos by wafflepwn, who is the brother of one of the craziest people I've ever seen. These videos are of his brother who has a slight anger problem...

I'm not sure if these are real, but I would think so, given the number and age of the guy.





















There is part 11, but embedding is disabled by the user, so here's the direct link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEi7LdqgyO0&feature=channel

Well, hope you have fun with these! :)

It's a Honey of Deal!

So, I was on the way to work Wednesday morning and found this rather interesting info booklet left by the "Fellowship Tract League" of Lebanon, Ohio.

Basically it makes the following proposal...

===================================================================

THE DEAL
Heaven or Hell, which one for you?
God gives every man the following choice: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

The negative aspects of the deal:
1. The bible states that you are a sinner. Romans 3:10
2. The price of sin is to be seperated from God forever. Romans 5:12

The positive aspects of the deal:
1. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has paid the penalty for your sin. Hebrews 9:22
2. Salvatio is a gift, and cannot be earned. Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5)

If you will accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, please pray this prayer or one similar to it.

Dear God, I admit I am a sinner, going to hell. I know that I cannot save myself. I repent of my sins and put my faith in the blood that you shed for me on the cross to pay for all my sins. I now accept you as my saviour and trust you to take me to heaven. Thank you for saving me. Amen.

===================================================================

Quite a deal, wouldn't you say? For the small price of saying you're a sinner, a violator, a pariah and throwing yourself upon the mercy of God, you will be granted eternal life. Not a bad trade.

But I have a question. Why would God make mankind sinners by default if he hates sin so much. It's by his decision that all men are born with this "original sin". Assuming that no man or woman can save themselves, God has directly sentenced all the people who had died before Christ to hell. How's that for a merciful God?

And how is that even fair? A baby is born into this world, not knowing anything, unable to take any action intentionally, truly innocent for lack of a better term. Yet God punishes this child for actions outside it's control and deems that baby worthy of unending torment in hell.

How asinine. How petty. How primitive. Surely not the thoughts of a just, omniscent being.

But let's evaluate the cost and benefit of this deal...
- You must admit to crimes and transgressions that you are not responsible for.
- You must attend mass every Sunday.
- You must adhere to what the church says is wrong, not what you think is.
- You must tithe your earnings to the church.
- You must try and convert people to your faith.
- You must ensure your children accept this deal.
- You may be asked to volunteer for church events.

What do you get out of this.
- Magical protection from a bad bad place that has never been shown to exist.
- And/or You get to go to heaven, a place where you'll live forever in happiness. Which has also never been shown to exist.

I don't think it's that sweet of a deal. Snake oil anyone?

What are your thoughts on this deal, or other ones like it?

Panorama: The Secrets of Scientology

So, a few days ago, John Sweeny released a second video about Scientology. Obviously, the firestorm that David Miscaviage and Tommy Davis whirled up didn't do much to settle the public's appetite for more information. Good going guys!

Panorama: Scientology and Me

On January 18th, 2008, Panorama did a special with John Sweeney about Scientology. In that special he began to investigate and was followed by scientology operatives. Now he's released a second documentary where he's talking to people from the church and even the people who were following him.

For background, here's the first series of videos from his first documentary...









And if that's not crazy enough, wait till you see the next part! Coming on Friday! :)

What Started my Passion...

I really should have wrote this back, I don't know, at the start of this blog, however, I didn't have the background for what I wanted to talk about. With the upcoming videos about Scientology put forth by panorama, I think there is enough information to explain my position.

When I was in university, I was studying the concept of cults for a psychology class. I came across xenutv.com, a site saying that scientology was a dangerous cult. I had previously seen advertisments and even was handed a brochure by a employee the last time I was in TO.

Watching the videos made me uneasy. I saw to what degree people would go to in defense of their faith. I continued to watch and saw some unbelievable things. You can still watch these at xenutv.com. They're really quite good.

Anyways, after the videos were done, I said to myself "Well, I gotta avoid Scientology and I gotta make sure no one I know joins." And so I did.

But that wasn't the end of it. This series of videos hit in January 2008 and after being ordered to be removed by Scientology, unleashed a varitable shitstorm from the internet. The internet isn't really a collective "hive mind" if you will, but it does act in certain predictible ways. Scientology crossed one of the lines of the internet. No censorship.



Tom Cruise's Terminology:
SP: Suppressive person, anyone who doesn't swallow the load of BS that scientology sells, but more commonly, anyone who talks bad about scientology.
KSW: Keep scientology working, a memo by LRH telling scientologists what they need to do to keep the organization running.

This formed the internet group "Anonymous". And while I never have had any offical contact with the group (if that's even possible), I did find myself pulling somewhat in the same direction, albeit my direction had broadened from one religion to all religions.

This was a catalyising event for me. This is what causes me to write blogs, research religions, read virtually any book I find on atheism and watch hours and hours of debates from Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins or from the Atheist Experience Show out of Austin Texas.

But What if You're Wrong?

"But what if you're wrong my son?" the priest asks... "If you die rejecting God and he exists, you go to hell. If you reject God and he doesn't exist, nothing happens. However if you believe in God and you're right, you go to heaven, if you believe and God doesn't exist, nothing happens."

The priest concludes "Therefore, it's far better to believe in a God."

This concept has been debunked so many times by so many different people it's not even funny. But I'm going to go through them one at a time to show how totally fallacious this argument is.

Rebuttal #1: God's not an idiot.
One of the problems with this line of thinking is that God somehow, despite being all powerful, cannot see that you're intentionally hedging your bets. So, you're not actually believing and worshipping in God because you believe, but rather, simply because you're afraid of the results. God's not an idiot and if it wants genuine worship and faith, you're not going to get it this way.

Rebuttal #2: God respects blind faith over intellectual inquiry.
So we know that God wants us to believe in him. Fine, I can accept that premise. But why is it that God would exhalt the faithful and put down those who don't believe because there is insufficient evidence. Think about it. A child with downsyndrome goes to heaven because he's not smart enough to have a question about God, but the majority of the top scientists in the world (93%) go to hell because they don't believe a book that makes claims about zombies? Please.

Rebuttal #3: Your faith may not be right!
Of course, the above statement only applies if your religion is absolutely correct too. I mean, what if Islam is the correct religion. Then the faithful catholic and the atheist are screwed. What if Hinduism is true, then the previous three are screwed. What if X is true, then the other y groups are screwed!

Rebuttal #4: Judging the person based on their actions
A just God will judge the person based on what they have done, not what they were able to conclude was true or unsupported. If a murderer can go to heaven simply by accepting and believing in God before he dies while an atheist that works to feed starving children goes to hell, I'd say that God isn't good and certainly not just.

This argument it typically called "Pascal's Wager" and is, unfortunately, the most common argument I hear from theists about their faith. It's sad, because it's such a silly argument to use.

What arguments have you seen or heard for the existence of God?

PS: Don't get the image? Watch the Superman movie again. WRONG!

Atheists Must Apologize for Hitler!

On my daily tromp through the interwebs I came across a very odd message from the Catholic League. This is the full unedited article.

===================================================================

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI's trip to their homeland:

The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to "reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century." Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of "a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God."

The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.

Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At one level, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.

===================================================================

First of all, the catholic church apparently has some selective memory here, not that it really matters to the argument, just that it shows they like to... lie and manipulate events if it suits their purposes, to hell with whomever it hurts. Moving around pedo priests anyone?

Hitler was in fact Catholic. And the catholic church will do well to remember that it did not, at any time during the extermination of the jews, speak out against Hitler. It was only when they knew Hitler was going to be defeated that they got off of the fence and denounced his actions. How very noble! Surely Christ would have advised that the church "ride it out and see who comes on top while innocent people were killed." Maybe the Roman Catholic church forgot that Jesus was a jew.

Mao and Stalin were in fact atheist. History shows this. But it matters little, as I'll explain.

I don't think it's too far of a leap to look at a catholic and understand that he/she is not responsible for the other actions of catholics. Persecuting Mary from Seattle for actions performed by John in Texas would be foolhardy. Likewise, blaming any atheist for the actions of another atheist is silly as well.

However, acts of organizations are different. They are not typically controlled exclusively by one person, but rather, in the case of religion, a series of dogmatic rules. If the organization performs an act that injures someone, the organization is in fact responsible and should be held accountable. An example of this would be an employee suing the organization for sexual harassment.

It's in this regard that the pope should apologize on behalf of the catholic church for sitting on the fence and not doing the right thing by fighting Hitler and the murder of millions of innocent people. He is not accountable for the actions of the church at that time, but he is the leader now. He would in fact be apologizing for the church's cowardly, dishonourable actions.

But where does that leave us on the Stalin and Mao front? Atheism isn't an organization, we don't have a headquarters, we don't have services and we don't have an "atheist pope" who tells us what we should and shouldn't believe. Atheists can be logical, crazy, good, evil, silly, stern, good, evil, cruel or kind.

In fact, you cannot tell anything about someone's morality or personality based on what they don't believe. For example, I have John and Sally. John doesn't believe in a God, neither does Sally. Which one is the mass murderer and which one gives flowers to seniors?

What this article does is try to equate atheism with a system of beliefs because by bringing atheism "down" to that level, they can fight. They can say "hey, you did bad things too" as if that mitigates the bad actions their church as done. Furthermore, if atheism is a belief system, Catholics can simply disregard it. When in fact, it's a logical position. They hate logical positions from my experience.

And to the author of the article, a serious question. Let's say a large meteor hits the earth in the near future, killing 1.5 billion people. Will you ask atheists for an apology? Because, obviously, the meteor didn't believe in a God.

Here is Richard Dawkin's thoughts on the matter. He once again eloquently strips away the nonsense of the pope's statements and treats them with the vitriol they richly deserve.

What's Wrong with Beating Your Wife?

This might be slightly educational for the women reading my blog, maybe not.

You see, guys have these rules. They're unwritten and basically are in place to prevent fights from breaking out and/or to prevent awkward social experiences. Here are a few...

- If you have known a guy for more then a week, his sister is off limits for dating.

- Men are never obligated to give a birthday present to any other man. Hell, remembering birthdays of other men is optional.

- You must always give any other man a one urinal buffer in a public restroom. Not only this, you are required to maximize the buffer between the two of you at all times. If you cannot maintain a urinal buffer of at least one, you must wait. No exceptions.

- You never comment on a man's fly being open. Ever. You saw nothing.

- If another man requests a small item and is outside of arms reach, you must toss it to him. He must catch it.

- When questioned about a buddy's location by his girlfriend, you must say "I do not know" repeatedly until she leaves.

- You are not permitted to drink a fruity alcoholic beverage unless the following conditions are met: You are on the beach, the drink is delivered to you by a hot chick and the drink must be free.

Now these are a few examples of the typical male rules. But there are some that never should be broken. These generally get you a decent ass whoopin from any other male able to see it.

- Stealing from a buddy.

- Manipulating a friend for his girl.

- Hitting a woman.

So when I see videos detailing "how to beat your wife according to Islamic traditions", I tend to get a little upset with the tenets of their religion.



What's bad is that they think, somehow, that the degree of beating matters. News flash, it doesn't. The fact that you think you're entitled to hit your wife at all is disgusting. What do you hit her for? Disagreeing with you? Not doing your laundry the way you like it? Being disgusted by picking out bits of food from your knotty, unkempt beard?

What's worse is that due to political correctness, it's socially unacceptable to call Muslims to task on this horrible act. We're supposed to go along and say "It's ok, it's their faith and we have to respect that."

I say bollocks. They have a right to believe in any nonsense they want. However, we don't have to respect their nonsense. And we don't have to pretend to do so either.

Why do you think society makes such large exceptions for religion and not for anything else? Can you imagine a politician running on such a platform?

But Religion is good for Society!

One of the more common responses from religious members is that their faith contributes to society. They often state that religious organizations give way to charities, not to mention that they set out a moral guide for people. Because if there was no God to judge you after your death, why wouldn't you just go around and do whatever it is you like.

First of all, I find the implied statement that "If no one was watching, human nature is to steal, murder, rape, etc." silly. Humans are social creatures and wish to live in societies where that won't happen to them. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to be in a society where theft, rape and murder is acceptable. And to be perfectly honest, I everyone who's sane shares the same viewpoint.

No matter what culture you look at, they have rules against killing their own. The only exception to this would be the Aztec culture, who often had human sacrifices. But even then, they still preferred to use prisoners captured via raids or war.

But isn't that interesting? Different cultures, from all over the world, with different morals, different social structure and most importantly, different systems of faith, all come to the same core conclusion that you shouldn't harm your own people.

Doesn't that show that religion isn't the driving force? Doesn't all these differences, with the only true similarity being the human being in all cases, show that these "morals" are an intregal part of who we are? Just like how birds form socieities with rules, just like how wolves hunt in packs and just like how male gorillas protect their family.

And that's not even including all the negatives we are burdened with because of religion today. For example, preventing stem cell research, oppression of women in the middle east, rejection of scientific principals due to "holy books", protection of sexual predators, spreading of AIDS in Africa because condoms are "against God's will"... The list goes on and on.

What are your thoughts?

Who the hell do you think you are?

Originally I wasn't going to do this post, but given the problems with my PC I thought I had better put something up before people stop reading. :)

A while back, before I started to really become more involved with Atheism, I was plugging away on a certain news agency's faith blog leaving various sarcastic comments on videos about faith people leave up. They'll range from an objective analysis to out and out rudeness. Anonymity makes jerks out of everyone who posts on the internet, no exceptions. Well, in context of the person of course.

Now while I don't excuse my actions, I got a rather covertly hostile reply from someone called AngelhairXX (the XX is left out). In her Christian expletivive tirade (darn, jerk, naughty, etc), she managed to sum up her position as this...

"Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you question anyone's faith? They can believe in whatever they want to."

It took me back a second. I mean, who the hell am I to say those things? Why should I spend my time making people feel less sure about what they have been brought up to believe. What gives me the right?

Of course, one could always point to freedom of speech. One could point to the freedom of religion, which by corelation, also means freedom from religion. Both are excellent reasons why I have a right to challenge their faith.

However, the question is very decieving if you think about it. It places the onus of rights on the attacker, which is me. But why?

What I should have replied to AngelhairXX with is this...
"Why does a religious person have the right to have his/her faith NOT questioned?"

It's an honest question I have, and it's a sociological one. Why does society consider it unacceptable to question someone's faith?

Let's say there is a a Hindu person among a crowd who is explaining part of their creation story...

"From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command."

And let's say I'm in the crowd. I yell out "That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard."

Surely the people of the crowd would look down upon me. Hell, some may even ask me "Who the hell do you think you are?"

Now, let's do a slight change.

Let's say there's a salesman among the crowd explaining how his concoction of snake oil and floral extrats works to produce a child.

"You drink the potion before you go to bed. From the depths the humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread through your body, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. You awake. As the dawn begins to break, from your navel a magnificent lotus flower will grow. In the middle of the blossom will sit your child. He will await your care."

If I was to say ""That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard." Do you think the crowd would be upset? Of course not. They'd probablly agree. And unless some were fools, the majority would walk away and disregard the nonsense without a second thought.

My question is this. Why is it that religion is off bounds to inquiry. If it is the truth, why must it be hidden from the light of knowledge and science? Why is it that we exhalt people who recruit more people into their religion yet reject those who advise not to?

My answer to the question is that religion has had thousands of years to craft culture to suit it's purposes. What's your thoughts?

Crap has Hit the FAN!

So, not only has my PC gone down this week, I've also got a major project due at work. I've been spending alot of time sitting there banging my head against the wall, all to no avail.

I hope to have another post up asap. Sorry for the lack of updates.

However, I do have some big hitters coming in to make up for it. Excelsior!

God and Free Will…

On the way back from St. Louis for my guild’s trip, the people in my car had a brief but potent discussion on the concept of whether the Christian faith (ie, it’s God) allows for the existence of free will.

While both of the other people disagreed with me, I still feel my position is correct. It was around 2:00am and I felt we kept circling around the concept of taking the bible at face value for the discussion and not taking it at face value.

Let me spell out my argument very simply. In logical steps. If you see something wrong, please let me know.

A) For the purposes of any theological discussion, the source material must be seen as a perfect representation of what actually occurred. Otherwise, there isn’t any discussion, for anyone can claim “How do you know” and no progress is achieved.

B) Given A, the God described in the discussion is omnipotent, that is to say, all powerful. This necessitates omniscience, the property of knowing all. For if he wasn’t omniscient, he would not be omnipotent.

C) Given B, God knows the future. Knowing all, and being all powerful, this knowledge is by definition, perfect. Because if it was wrong, he wouldn’t be all knowing.

D) God creates man with specific mental characteristics expressed by DNA.

E) Given C and D, God creates man and every successive man’s mental traits and how those traits will and won’t cause the brain to operate in the situations that are already known.

F) Given E, God creates the universe and all you actions are prescribed by his decisions.

G) Given F, you have no free will. Mind you, this also shows that you cannot sin, because the actions of God are by definition (due to A) good and holy.

So the way I see it, we're little more then highly complicated computer programs designed by God. However, this is one of those arguments that can go either way. What are your thoughts?

Going to St. Louis!

Sorry for the lack of a post today, but I'm in St.Louis on a WoW guild trip. I play a feral druid (bear mostly). Yes, I realize I am in fact a nerd. :)

I play with about 20 Toronto friends and some buds from the US. It's a grand old time.

Anyways, we're heading for a lodge where we'll be BBQin, drinkin, and otherwise enjoying the nice weather. I've even got my fishin pole

If you live in TO and are interested in joining our circle of friends (you do have to play WoW though), you can visit our site below and send me an email at "Rundvelt@armofhades.com"

www.armofhades.com

Lok'Tar!

Who Sins More?

You know, when I talk to people of southern origin when I go stateside, they often tell me that "they don't trust atheists". I'm not sure why. I try to be polite and say that we're pretty much the same as eveyone else, but there's this intellectual block that I think they have where they associate their religion with "good" and anything else as "bad".

However, the most common reply I get from people of this viewpoint is "If there is no God, why wouldn't you do whatever you want? Why obey anything? Cause if the universe is eternal and our lives are short, it all ends up being the same."

First of all, I'd say that I find the concept of people being good simply because God "made laws so you would" laughable. How many Christians would turn the other cheek if you came up and slapped them? I don't think the number would be too high. Generally speaking, when it comes to faith, people generally ignore the rules they don't like and stick with the ones they do.

Second, it's not at all true. Unquestionably there are more people in the United States that are christian rather then atheist. But if we were to look at a ratio of the population of christians or atheists vs. their populations in prison (proven to have commited a crime, and for the most part, a sin). What do you think we'll find?

Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%

According to current population, about 76% of the population is Christian and 15% is atheist or has no faith, ie, no God.

But isn't it interesting when we comare that total to Christians (not including any other faiths that also have divine set of laws). Christians are at 74%, atheists at 0.2%

What does this show? It shows that on average, the prison population ratio of christians is very close to the same ratio of christians on the outside.

However, for atheists, there are far less atheists in jail. Despite having 15% of the population, they only have 0.2% of the prison population (ie, one fifth of 1%).

It would seem to me that faith may influence some people's actions, causing them to be better, but the claim that it's the only reason people are being good is obviously false.

What do you think?

Prove that Atheism is True...

Let's assume for today that I'm having a discussion on theism and atheism with a person of faith. And the statement is made: "Well, can you prove to me that atheism is true?"

To this I typically respond "Of course not, atheism is a logical concept, and thus cannot be proven. However, I do say it's true." (a brief explanation is held in my "Why I'm not religious..." post if this is TL:DR.)

To understand my reasoning, I'll talk a bit about logic.

Logic is best explained, in my opinion, as a conceptual representation of the consistent method of how the universe (and all things in it) acts. That is to say, in our universe, certain things are impossible. A meteor cannot be a meteor and a kitten at the same time and so on.

Let's take a look at the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle states that in a question, where there are only two possible outcomes, if you disprove one, the other must be true. This is shown in the following statement "God exists or he does not exist." Because logically something cannot exist and not exist at the same time, there is an excluded middle. You can't sorta exist or sorta not exist.

By this way, Logic is descriptive of the universe. It describes how the universe operates, albeit in small scope. However, these rules are true in all cases.

The true usefullness of logic comes in it's prescriptive power. That is to say, logic is used to direct our thoughts in thinking about certain situations. Using the example above, if God exists and you can prove it, we can disregard the concept of God not existing.

So, where does atheism sit in regards to logic's prescriptive power. Basically it comes down to this. If there is no evidence to support a position it's logically as valid as any other idea that can be envisioned, no matter how ridiculous. The concept of "God created the universe" is on par with "a pink unicorn named phil with a bum leg and a bandaid over one eye created the universe by farting after eating the volcano big box deal from taco bell".

So what you may say. But we come to the law of non-contradiction. That is to say, two conflicting concepts cannot be true at the same time. So, in the above, either God created the universe or Phil did. Both cannot be true. Therefore one must be wrong. And if one can be wrong with the same evidence as the other, both can be wrong. So because of the prescriptive nature of logic, you must discard ideas that have no evidence.

There is no evidence for God. Therefore you must logically discard it. That leaves you with not believing in God, which is atheism. That's why atheism is true.

Sorry about the shorter article, but there's not really much else to say. :)

What are your thoughts?

Love thy Neighbour...

Taking a bit of a break from my Scientology postings to change pace. I'm sure some of my readers who aren't big into the whole Scientology thing will appreciate the break.

As I live my life day to day I always try to put myself into other people's shoes. I drop a coin in a homeless man's jar, maybe tip a bit more at a restuarant or even help an old lady by carrying her groceries.

I laud these efforts, whether they are done by myself or by others. The intent is good and genuine and truely make the world a slightly better place to be.

But what I don't understand is the concept of "Love thy neighbour as you would love yourself." I mean, does my neighbour really want my hands all over...

Call me crazy, but I really don't think loving or caring for someone as much as you do for yourself is a moral teaching, furthermore, I'd say it's impossible for us to do.

Would it be moral for a man with a family to put them into hardship so he could bail out his neighbour from jail (he'd do it for himself...), causing his children to eat poorly and have shoddy clothes? I'd say it's not.

Such examples can be found all over the place. So really, is this a great moral teaching from Jesus Christ? I'd say no. The morality shifts depending on the situation. Thus, it's not a rule, not even a guideline, the good will is there, don't get me wrong, but it's not the correct idea.

But what's interesting here is it highlights one of the great issues I have with religion. The concept of having rules that are impossible to keep. I mean, can anyone really love their neighbour as much as themselves? Can you?

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Now, I can understand the concept of having an impossible goal. It's something to aspire to. However, when you're told you've sinned (as the above message states) for a totally natural reaction, I have a problem.

And why do they want you to feel bad? So you come back to church to confess and "get right with the Lord". You'd think that if there was a God who designed us, he would have realized that we are sexual beings and that thoughts like this are natural and not make it a sin. Go figure eh.

But isn't that an interesting thought. What about Adam and Eve. More specifically, Adam. While Eve was created from a rib, Adam was created from the dirt in the garden by God. Directly. God created his mind, his intellect and more importantly, his curiosity. It's this aspect that led Adam to taste of the apple.

So, God created something with what has to be percieved as a flaw. He then puts the creation into a situation where the flaw will show itself and then punishes his creation for acting the way he designed him.

Interesting way of looking at it, wouldn't you say? What are your thoughts?

Scientology - Stupid is as Stupid Does

The more I think about it, the more I think it's a good idea to stop here with the Scientology stuff. Not because it's not a worthwhile cause, but more because everyone already knows it's a joke and there's no real point continuing. So, this will be my last scientology post...

The more I look into Scientology, the less I like it. Maybe that's not a strong enough statement. I'd have to say that the more I look into Scientology, the more I want to see it removed from the world. Not because people aren't free to practice what they want, not at all, but because it's so damn stupid.

I mean mega stupid. With a capital M and G. Maybe an A.

Today I'm going to be telling you about one of my favourite Scientology entries. Why is it my favourite? Because it makes a testable claim! Of course, no one has ever tested this, because who wants to waste their time debunking nonsense. And of course, Scientology doesn't do falsifyable tests on things they claim. Mainly because it's burned them in the past (see my post on "How Scientology Defends It's Beliefs).


So, I present to you, the Clam.

L Ron Hubbard writes about how the clam is an engram, that is to say, a bad event on the whole track. The whole track is the entire history of time, which every individual on earth "rides" on. We live, die, we are reincarnated, we live, die, etc.

Anyways, in his book History of Man, LRH writes about how the clam had a rough time at life, as his joints both pushed and pulled. He also write about how barnicales on the shell exploded with gas while sitting in the hot sun. The point? To explain end phenomina in humans. That's right, a clam dying on a beach with exploding barnicles has a direct influence on you!

And I quote:

Should you desire to confirm this, describe to some uninitiated person (Ie, person not in Scientology) the death of a clam without saying what you are describing. "Can you imagine a clam sitting on the beach, opening and closing its shell very rapidly?" (Make a motion with your thumb and forefinger of a rapid opening and closing). The victim may grip his jaws with his hand and feel quite upset. At the very least, he will argue as to whether or not the shell stays open at the end or closed. And he will, with no hint of the death aspect of it, talk about the "poor clam" and he will feel quite sad emotionally.

Later LRH Writes:

But there was more to the spore then this. The spore was like a barnacle. When the clam was cast ashore, these spores were still alive in the shell. The sun would kill the inner cells of the "barnacle" while the outer shell cells still lived. The dead innner cells would form a gas which, under heat, would explode violently - to the agony of the living barnacle shell cells. This bursting was sudden and painful. These spores gave incidents which permitted the human teeth to have a pattern. The ancient bursting engrams are still dramatized by the teeth which, under stress, burst or feel like bursting.

Isn't that interesting? It turns out that when my teeth have some sort of problem, I should be dealing with the engram from the clam, not wasting my time going to a dentist to have him check for some sort of gum disease. Furthermore, Hubbard points out that things actually cook from the inside out. Cooking a steak rare? Impossible according to the physics laid out in this statement.

Brings me to an interesting point. To what degree can we morally allow nonsense like this to alter people's perceptions for treatment of ailments? Do we let a child die from pneumonia simply because his parents have a religious objection to antibiotics? Do we allow someone who might die from a tooth infection go on his merry way because he thinks it's a "Clam Engram"?

What do you think?

This article is presented of a criticism of the Clam Engram presented by L Ron Hubbard in his book "History Of Man" and is therefore exempted from the Canadian Copyright Act due to the clause for "Fair Dealing". Page locations to follow.

Scientology - The Tone Scale

First of all an apology. I had promised to write about Scientology's negative aspects such as forced abortions, family disconnection, fake drug programs, etc, but it's such a large topic and it really needs a lot of time to write up due to a grounding in "Scientologeese". These will be posted on Tuesday August 24th.

But fear not, there is a Scientology post today!

Today's article is about the Tone Scale in Scientology. The reason I'm talking about the tone scale is because this is one of the premiere examples of how silly this "religion" is.

What is so hilarious is that the tone scale compares actions, feelings and thoughts as if they were somehow related. Here's a clue L Ron, they're not. But what's even better is that he assigns a numerical value to the numbers themselves. By what methodology do you determine that Action is 20 on the tone scale while Mild Interest is a 2.9. How do you determine these numbers? Oh right, I forgot, L Ron merely asserted that these were the values. He didn't actually have to prove why they actually were at the numbers they were.


Here's the Tone Scale in all it's idiotic glory!

So, let's say you're on your way to the tax office becuase you've had an audit and you owe the government $15,643 in back taxes. This will ruin you financially and you'll have to spend the next few years digging yourself out of a hole. No vacations, no going out, no nothing. You are at the grief stage, meaning you're 0.50 on the tone scale.

While you're driving, you get a call from the tax office saying that they had made a mistake and informed you about someone else's account. They apologize and say you don't have to come in. You're now cheerful, which woudl be described as 3.5.

To go from 0.5 to 3.5 you need to go through the feelings between. Because feelings are linear right? Not touching them all, but giving you an idea of what you'd go through.

From grief you'd hit numb, I assume in a mental state, so you'd feel nothing. A grey thought. Then, for some odd reason, you'd become terrified. After the terror passes you'd be in a state of despair. Because you know, not being in debt is such a horrible situation. Then you'd hit fear, because apparently it's still a frightening situation, just less so now. After that, you'd be anxious, because you know, who knows what will happen now that you're out of debt. Then you'd be covertly hostile. After that, you'd resent the tax man, but not say anything. Then you'd have no sypathy for your situation, odd because you were just filled with fear and terror. Now you'd resent the tax man and say so, to yourself of course, cause you're in your car.

Hate followed by anger would follow, probably towards the organization, which is normal I suppose. But then you'd have a pain somewhere in your body. No, this is not the same as saying "What a pain in the ass". That's expressed resentment that I listed already. Then you'd be hostile and antagonistic, which is far less of a bad feeling for the tax man overall. Then you'd think the whole process was monotonous and then you'd think it was boring. You'd become disinterested and then contented by the event. You'd then express mild interest about something you've had tons of feelings for already and then be cheerful.

And you'd all experience this in the brief moment that the tax representitive tells you that you're not in deep doo doo.

This post is intended as criticism of the "Tone Scale" represented in "The Scientology Handbook". As such it is exempted from Canadian Copyright Law due to the exemptions for Fair Dealing.

Image source is http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/FULL.HTM.

Bonus - Your Daily Horoscope

For those who aren't particularly interested in Scientology, I thought I'd post a little bonus article today that I've had squirreled away. Enjoy!

This has been a long time coming. Over the past little while, I've noticed that more and more people around me have a strong belief in horoscopes. And I find this particularly infuriating. Don't get me wrong, I appreicate people having fun with horoscopes, just taking them seriously boils my buttons.

Now, I can generally be tolerant of someone's faith in God, Allah, a blue space unicorn named "Peppy the Honry Unicorn" or Shiva, but for some reason, belief in horoscopes really irritates me.

I would suppose that it's not because they're spiritual and fun or that they have secret knowledge of your life or that they claim to be able to predict the future based on how stars are or aren't situated in space. No no no. It's infuriating because is so damn STUPID.

Seriously, it's like if you have an IQ of 90 and are able to put a couple of thoughts together in your skull, you'll come across some of the problems with horoscopes. Such as...


- If they're accurate, why do different papers have different predictions. Why do they seem to be conflicted all the time.

- Why are they so hopelessly general? What use is a messsage of "You'll wake up, eat, and poop today. Not in that order however." I'm still wondering how I managed to poop, eat and then wake up last Tuesday. The aftertaste was horrible.

- The stars have shifted. Over time, as the earth spins, where the sun passes over a constellation has changed. It's fully one sign to the left now. So people born as Aries are probably now Taurus. Does this seem to matter for the horoscope people? Nope.

But you know what the worst part is? It's politically incorrect to call people on their stupidity. If someone walks up to me and says "I had a good horoscope today. I'm going to have a pleasant surprise at work!". I want to say "Here's a surprise, you're a moron!". However, due to social stigma, I'd have to say "Wow, that's so new age of you. Although I don't believe in them".

How have we sunk so low that we can't call idiots for what they are. Idiots.

How Scientology Defends It's Beliefs...

"Never Defend, Always Attack."
L Ron Hubbard, Founder of Scientology

Despite the idiocy of the above, what's my major beef with Scientology? It's simple. They make promises they cannot keep. They claim wonderful things and cannot prove that they actually occur. They reject established medical pratices because they "know better." Families are broken up due to their disconnection policy. They pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to recieve auditing and their courses to become better. Members are locked into rooms for reg cycles, which are basically high pressure sales environments where they're forced to give "donations" to the Church. This will all be explained in the next blog.

This entry is about how Scientology defends itself from legitimate inquiry about their methods and actions.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. Or rather, the lack of proof is in the pudding in Scientology's case.

Let's head back to the magical age of 1950. L Ron had just written Dianetics, the core book of Scientology. At a Lecture in Los Angles he showed 6,000 people the first clear. Hubbard claimed that she had perfect recall.

But I get ahead of myself. You're sitting there saying "What the hell is a clear?" Well, the answer isn't so simple.

A clear is a person who has had all of his or her engrams removed or addressed through a process called "auditing". Auditing is basically a one on one discussion where the person performing the audit is in control of an e-Meter. These e-Meters basically measure the resistance value of the individual.


The e-Meter: A primitive lie detector. Costs about $5 to make, they charge their members thousands for the device. And it is only good for a couple of years, after that it has to be "recalibrated" for another huge cost.

Why resistance? Because Hubbard thought that when a person thinks of a situation where he/she has had a negative thought, the resistance of the individual's body goes up. Yeah, I know.

Anyways, engrams are bad experiences that are locked away in the human mind and preventing the individual from being his or her true self. An example of an engram may be that when you were 3 you bumped your head on a table and now you bear ill will to tables (no, I'm not making this up).

So, auditing (one on one counselling) with the e-meter (device to detect engrams) is designed to confront (face) these engrams (mental locks on specific events).

Back to the story. Hubbard claimed that the clear had perfect recall. That is to say she could remember anything from any time. Even if things happened before she attained perfect memory. The questions flew in. What was the equation on page 217 of this science book? "I don't know." was the reply. What did you eat for breakfast on August 17th, 1946? "I don't know." What colour is Hubbard's Tie (while he was turned away from her). "I don't know."

The 6000 people poured out of the room, calling L Ron a con-man. He was devastated.

This, in my opinion is he source of the phrase "Never defend, always attack." Because his position often was untenable. It's far easier to say "Why do you hate my religion" to a legitimate inquiry of something that was said then to provide evidence. Evidence he did not have.

Anyways, I thought I'd provide you with a few videos showing how Scientology "always attacks, never defends". The first video comes from Mark Bunker, who has a channel on youtube called "XenuTV". It's there that he talks about the Anonymous movement against Scientology (more of that in a later post) and has several videos of him dealing with the attacks of Scientology.

Oh, one other thing. When someone causes a stir in Scientology, the church sends out some of it's more "advanced" members to deal with the person. To make them go away so to say. They'll generally act like jackasses to anyone who doesn't totally agree with what their cult says. The proof is in the pudding (below).

Mark Bunker at a 4th of July Event!


A Protest with a Crazy Lady!

Atheism and Agnosticism

Sorry, but the next scientology post will be coming up on Tuesday. This is a bonus article beacuse I felt like popping another one up. That being said, Tuesday's post will be a lot of fun and will be rather shocking to a few people I think.

Anyways, I wanted to touch upon the terms atheist, theist, gnostic and agnostic.

There is a popular misconception that the string of belief in a God travels from belief to agnosticism to atheism. This couldn't be futher from the truth. agnosticism and atheism are two different comments on two different things.

Gnosticism is a knowledge of God. It can be that you know what God is, wants from you or what his/her favourite ice cream flavour is. Or it could be that you know God doesn't exist. The key here is to understand this is discussing what you know (or percieve to know).

Agnosticism is the rejection of gnostic claims. That is to say, the agnostic has no reliable knowledge about God and finds claims about specific knowledge unconvincing.

TLDR: Gnosticism claims knowledge, Agnosticism rejects that claim.

Theism is the belief in a God. It can be that you believe your God sacrificed himself to himself to create a loophole in a rule that he himself created. It can be that you believe God chose someone who took a bride at 9 to be his holy messenger. Whatever floats your boat.

Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. That is to say, atheists do not believe simply because they do not believe. To most atheists, not believing in God is akin to not believing in fairies, unicorns and/or ghosts.

TLDR: Theism claims belief, Atheism rejects belief.



I don't totally agree with the chart, but it does get the point across.


But to show you that they really are seperate, I'll show you how they're interchangable.

Gnostic / Atheist: This is a person who doesn't believe in God and who claims to know God doesn't exist.

Gnostic / Theist: This is a person who believes in a God and claims to know that God does exist. Or that his faith represents actual knowledge of God.

Agnostic / Atheist: This is a person who rejects both concepts of "knowing about god" and "believing in God".

Agnostic / Theist: Usually termed a deist, these people generally stick to the concept that no faith has it right and but that a God does exist.

Of course, these explanations do not represent everyone of those groups, but it gives you a general idea.

So, what mix are you? Why are you that mix?

Scientology and the Interwebs

For years we have heard about Scientology through celebrities like Tom Cruise and Jason Lee. Of course, we all know that celebrities make well informed and intelligent decisions in regards to their life choices.

But that’s beside the point. Scientology as I see it is a destructive cult who deludes it’s members into believing extraordinary things and has them shell over hundreds of thousands of dollars for books, courses and auditing. Over the next few blog posting I’m going to be talking about Scientology, my experience with it, my opinion on the material and what others have been saying about Scientology. It’s also my intent to give you all a “crash course” in the subject through these postings.

Scientology’s Founder, L. Ron Hubbard:

Like all religious founders, the stories of Hubbard are greatly exaggerated, and you only need to look near the beginning of his biography to see them creeping up. According to the official biography, L Ron Hubbard, at the age of 3 no less, was on his father’s ranch and breaking broncos with the best of them. Let me state this again. A 3 year old was left on a wild horse by his father and managed to tame it.

The story is very suspicious for two key reasons. First of all, how could a three year old break a bronco? To break a horse (as it is my understanding), the person must be able to remain on the horse as it tries to buck him off. A three year old would not have the weight to affectively weaken the horse’s kicks and jumps, furthermore, he wouldn’t have the strength to remain holding the reigns.

The second reason is a little more subtle. Put yourself in the position of L Ron’s father. What person in their right mind would put a 3 year old on a wild horse. What person would put a three year old on a horse without holding him at all? Did L Ron’s father mean to kill him? It would seem that’s the case.

But if it was left to exaggerated stories I wouldn't mind. But it's not. Scientology is in essence a personality cult, much like how North Korea is now.

Here are some things that Scientologists believe about L Ron.

- That he is now researching "Life after Death" as his theta has been seperated from his body. He will return to write new lessons in the future. He died in 1986.

- That he is the only source for Scientology material. No one else is able to figure anything out. Only he can write about scientology. Of course, this is silly, because science, the best method we have to learn about the world accepts ideas from anyone, provided they have the proof to back it up.

- That he had mastered every single aspect of his life. He was a nuclear physicist, a civil engineer and a war hero. Each of these are not true. Hubbard's military record shows that he was not trusted to be in command and fired on Mexico in WW2. He has no credentials from any University to claim he's a civil engineer. And he once stated that "Radiation can be washed off with a garden hose." I think that puts a nail in the coffin for a nuclear physicist.

In the next post I'll be showing how scientologists react to people questioning their faith. Trust me, you don't want to miss that. :)

Moral Absolutes

What is by far my biggest beef with any sort of religion is the concept of moral absolutes. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal for example.

What I find sickening (I apologize, I rarely use this word but I think it's appropriate) is when people adhere to the concept of moral absolutes. It's silly, because it only takes a casual look at the world we live in to know this isn't the case.

I'm going to go through a few of the Ten Commanments and show situations that are good, neutral (neither good nor evil) and evil.


Thou Shalt Not Kill:

Good: A man sits in a room with 12 preschoolers. He is armed with a knife and has killed two children already. You as the sniper shoot and kill the man to save the rest of the children.

Neutral: A loved family member is dying from cancer. He/She is sitting in extreme pain and asks you to remove them from life support. You do so.

Evil: You kill a man just for the fun of it. Taking the cash in his wallet you go and buy a new pair of sneakers.


Thou Shalt Not Steal:

Good: A friend of yours says he's going to get "really messed" on drugs tonight and he has had a history of ODing. You steal the drugs and flush them down the toilet to prevent him from killing himself and/or going to jail.

Neutral: You lend a co-worker $20 bucks and he has said that he has paid you back. You are absolutely certain that he has not because you haven't had any cash in your wallet since you've lent him the money. He drops a $20 on the floor from his pocket and you take it.

Evil: You steal a marble rye from an old lady to help your friend prove to his girlfriend's parents that he did indeed "bring something" to the dinner he attended last week.


Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery:

Good: You and your wife/husband want to explore swinging to expand your love life. You love and trust each other and go through with the event. You're both happier from the experience.

Neutral: You are getting divorced and the papers are finalized and just being processed through the court. You meet someone and spend the night with him/her.

Evil: You cheat on your wife/husband just for the thrill of it, knowing that it'll destroy them emotionally.



Adultery has never been more attractive...


Why do you think people hold onto the concept of moral absolutes? Do you hold onto this idealogy? If so, why?

Why Some Christians Bug Me...

Now, I don't want to say all Christians bug me, I have a few friends who are christian and I don't find them annoying at all. Mainly because they don't try to convert me.

The people who really bug me are the people who try to convert you and don't have a freaking clue what they're talking about. You know the type, the person who's so convinced that they cannot be reasoned with.

Here's some things that bug me about these fundamental Christians.


- They deny every other God, yet when you deny theirs they get offended.


- Biology, geology and other scientific proofs are not trustworthy. However, anyone claiming to be "touched by God" is more than enough evidence.


- The source is more important then the message. They wouldn't dare question a sermon from a priest, however showing them proof that the earth is more then 6,000 years old due to carbon half life dating, impossible!


- They generally know less about the bible then atheists. Yes, we read the bible from time to time. :)


- When told that we evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps, they feel offended that we came from a "lower" life form. But being conjured out of dirt? No problem.


Why is it that people believe that they have the right to say what is absolutely right when they can't show you that it is? Why do you think that the same people who accept things on faith cannot understand and try to change others who accept different things on faith?

Mosque near Ground Zero...

For all of those who have been reading the news recently, there is currently a hot debate whether a Mosque should be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks in NYC.

Basically the two sides break into the following. The first side are the ones who are looking out for the victim's families. They say that a mosque near the site is disrespectful to the dead.

The second side tend to cite the american constitution which says that the state cannot impose laws that establish one religion over another. They also tend to point out that Islam didn't murder the people in 9/11.

I'd like to tell you my 9/11 story for what it's worth.

At the time I was in my student residence. I was a Biochemistry student and had an old 21 inch TV in my room. I was online when someone told me to turn on the news. What followed was the longest time I've ever watched TV without moving (except for bathroom breaks) in my life. I spent a good 18 hours glued to the set.

The human suffering that I saw was mind numbing. People jumping from windows, screaming for help and trying desperately to survive. Then the towers came down.

I remember at the time thinking that this was long overdue. Not because I was looking forward to it, but rather, I expected something like this would be in the works. We had been far too lax with people who meant us harm. Be it bombing a US military sub to torching embassies, etc.

Anyways, I went to sleep and the next morning I got a call from my Mother. She wanted to let me know my uncle was ok. He was at the towers the previous day but was able to escape. I was floored. It was suddenly more personal and gave a whole new perspective on what I saw the previous day.

It's in that frame of reference that I appreciate the first side's argument. There's lots of raw emotion going around, even 9 years after the event. Families are still mourning and they are still upset. I get that.

However, I also appreciate the type of country that we live in. I appreciate the fact that life for everyone wouldn't be as good as it is if there wasn't the free exchange of ideas, the ability to choose (or not choose) your own religion and the ability to live free. In the US, this is guaranteed by the constitution.

The fact is that the victims of 9/11 weren't murdered by Islam. They were murdered by morons who happened to be Islamic. Oklahoma city was bombed by a moron, a moron who happened to be Christian. Ireland has been bombed countless times by morons who are Protestant or Roman Catholic.

There is this unsettling trend to associate people with their faith as motivations for their actions. This simply isn't a the case. Do you attribute Hitler with people who believe in Christ? His soldiers did indeed have the slogan "God with Us" on their belt buckles. Do you attribute Hitler with vegetarians? (Ok, maybe in voracity of what they're claiming, j/k)

My point is, that not only is it silly to blame the faith for the actions of the few. What's worse is that these people are now trying to deny the rights of innocent people (in relation to 9/11) based on their faith. Which is unconstitutional.

So I'd say let them build their Mosque. Wouldn't the fact that they were allowed to do something like that show the Middle Eastern people that we don't hate their faith and show that we really aren't as repressive as the country they live?

What's your thoughts on the matter?

BONUS ARTICLE! The Myth and Religion of Mac

For those of you who don't know, I work in IT. It's my job to put PC's together, troubleshoot them, install software and generally ensure they're operating optimally.

Over the past few months, my department has become home to a few Macs.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with Mac. I have a problem with their owners. Because generally speaking, they're people who don't have freaking clue about computers and think they're "ahead of the curve" technology wise.

Here's some common myths about Macs that I'd like to dispel.


Macs are more reliable:
This is the worst of them all because it's obviously not true for anyone who has a bit of knowledge about computers. Macs are built with virtually the same components as PC's. They have the same guts. Therefore, they'll fail at about the same time. Macs are not more reliable. They're just shinier.


Macs are better at photo editing:
Bollocks. The Mac isn't better. The software is better. The problem is that most (if not all) successful Mac software is available for the PC. And has been for some time.


Macs have no viruses:
Lies. Macs DO have viruses. Apple only says they don't as a marketing ploy. Don't get me wrong, PC's have FAR MORE viruses, but that's not because of design, but rather number of users. Think about it. If you're a hacker and want to steal credit cards, who are you going to target? PC's who are approximately 87% of the computers in homes or Macs which are 13%? It's not really a hard choice.


Macs are faster:
Nonsense. Macs are not faster then PC's. The reason behind this is the video game market, which until recently Mac was excluded from. It's games that generate new video cards, faster processors and the drive for more ram. Put a top of the line PC against the best Mac has in personal computers and there isn't a contest. You might as well put a VW Bug (shiny and cute) up against a Bugatti Veyron.


What you wish your Mac was...


Macs Crash Less:
This may actually be true, to a degree, but it's not a fair comparison. Macs are a closed environment for the most part, meaning that the only let things in that have been approved by Apple. This isn't the case for PC's. PC's have to handle everything that's thrown at them. So, PC's crash more due to the nature of the situation it's in. But I'll tell you what, I like being able to choose what software I can use.


Basically, if you like flushing away an extra $1000 for a PC you could have built yourself, buy a Mac. But don't fool yourself. To anyone who has a clue and hasn't fallen in love with Macs, we see you as a person with too much money. Which isn't a bad thing. :)

Know your Faith: Creationism

Many people ask me what my problem with extreme faith is. My answer is really quite simple.

Extreme faith leads people to assume things are right or wrong based on what is written in a book that has never been proven to be accurate. Many people claim it is the perfect word of God. Those people are generally called creationists.

Now, if we look at the bible, we can see that it's far from perfect. For example, let's look at Leviticus 11:13-19 which claims that bats are birds. We know that bats are not birds, because they're warm blooded, don't have feathers and don't have avian skulls.

So, do these people admit there's a mistake in the Bible? Of course not.

There is a website called "Answers in Genesis" which tries to give biblical accounts for what we see in the world today. By doing this, they hope to lend credibility to the bible. And I don't disagree with their goal. I know if I was trying to prove the Bible true, my first thought would be to see what the bible has accurately portrayed. Because if a large percentage of the bible is true and does accurately reflect the world we see, it may be worthwhile to read and consider honestly.

However, their own statement of faith shows their complete and total lack of intellectual honesty on the matter. And after a statement like this, it's hard to take anything they say seriously...


Wasn't the bible written by fallible people who didn't possess all information?

So, they have already decided that the Holy Bible is the sole authority and no amount of real world evidence will convince them. To them, bats are in fact birds. To them, Noah really did take every single animal into his ark, regardless of those animals being thousands of miles away. And of course, ignoring special diets those animals would have and let's not even get started on the inbreeding.

But in all honesty, if it was just a bunch of nutters believing in anything simply because they're told that it's true, I'd be ok with that. However, they're determined to have it presented in school! And what's worse, they want it in SCIENCE class.

That's right. Not only do they want us to disregard the first amendment (see my Blue Laws post), they also want us to put the stories from their bible on the same level as scientific principals.

Luckily for us, there are people brave enough to keep nonsense like this in check. You can google "Kitzmiller v. Dover", where an individual sued the Dover school board for bringing in creationism. Not only did the judge find it violated the first amendment, but he also found that it had no basis in science and was in fact a dogmatic faith.

What are your thoughts on others shoving their faith down your throat? What's your position on people who use the bible as reference for their decisions on stem cell research or something as basic as condoms?

Noah's Ark and the Cheetah

Going to get right into it today as this is a fairly major topic. The bible, more specifically the old testament. As I say it I can quite literally hear the Christians groan. Why? Because it's been my experience that Christians on the whole HATE the old testament. And rightly so.

The reason being, in my humble opinion, is that evidently the work of cave dwelling, dirt farming men. From Exodus to the story of Job, it's filled with episodes of God acting rather odd for someone with an IQ of 8,000,000.

But that's besides the point, well, sort of. Christians, as well as many other theists, take their holy scripture on faith. That is to say, they believe it's true without any evidence to show that it is. Fine, I can accept that.

What I have a problem with is intellectual dishonesty, especially to one's self.

Let me give you an example. Let's say I give you a science book and say to you "This book is filled with nothing but facts and the conclusions based on those facts. It's been proof read by professors at the head of their fields multiple times. It is absolute and perfect."

So you take the book and start to read. The first few pages are a little obscure and you're not sure of them, but you defer to the professors and assume it's true. How are you to know. Then you hit a part where it says "The chemical equation for water is K2SO4." You assume it's a typo, however every entry in the book refers to water as being potassium sulfate. This clearly isn't a typo.

With a mistake in the book, I would assume most people would immediately question what they previously read, either disregarding it or do a bit of research to verify the information.

Keep that in mind for a moment.

For a while now I've been watching youtube and specifically a person by the user name of DonExodus2. He has put out some great videos explaning many aspects of biology in simple terms so that people can gain a base level of scientific knowledge. However, he also is an atheist and has put out an interesting video talking about Noah's Ark and Cheetahs. Odd I know, but the video explains his point.



After you watch the video, the contradiction becomes clear. If there really was Noah's Ark, why don't all animals show the same lack of genetic variance as the cheetah. If you say God gave the animals the required variance to survive, then the obvious question is why did he specifically exclude the cheetah?

In my opinion, this is no different then the science book listed above. What can be observed and what is known directly contradicts what has been written in the bible. The question is, do you ask questions and try to verify other items in the bible, or do you disown the problem and ignore it?

PS: Don't get me wrong, I totally understand and accept the viewpoint of "Despite it's problems, I believe the bible is the most accurate accounting of God to date." :)