Dragon Force

Ken Ham is “low hanging fruit”. It’s fun to laugh at him because some of his arguments are just “terrible”.

Today’s is no different. Not only is the Earth 6000 odd years old and all of us have come out of the super incest that was Noah but Dragons also existed.

“So the valiant knight slew the fire-breathing dragon and rode off with the beautiful princess to the castle. And they lived happily ever after.”

“Daddy, that was a great story! But are dragons real?”

“No, honey. There’s no such thing as dragons. That’s all make-believe. Close your eyes now. Sweet dreams!”

It starts with this little story. Yes there are no such things as dragons. Considering the size of our idea of dragons and their capability of flight? You would have  to invoke some mad magic to get that to work.

Does that mean dragons didn’t exist? Well yes and no. You see, I quite “like” visiting churches. I log the various relics. There are countless nails that were used to hold Christ on the cross (amusing considering the Romans tied people to them) and enough pieces of the true Cross to crucify a dozen sons of Jehovah. There are many saints who have more than two arms thanks to this.

And among all these one of the weirdest relics was t he skull of St. George’s dragon.

It’s a Crocodile skull. I believe the idea of dragons came from the descriptions of creatures such as the crocodile  and indeed the preserved fossils of dinosaurs.

However, they aren’t magical. No matter how much Ken Ham claims.

There are other relics of this sort.

Yes. It’s the Skull of a Cyclops. AKA an Elephant to you and me. People used to display these in Greece since most Europeans had never seen an elephant.

Dragons and Humans—Together?

For evolutionists, legends of men slaying dragons must be mythical because their timeline has creatures like dinosaurs die out over 60 million years before humans existed. But dragon accounts aren’t easy to dismiss as mere fantasy.

Dragons are memorialized in legends, historical accounts, and artwork from around the world. To name a few, there’s an Aboriginal depiction of a water monster that resembles a plesiosaur, an ancient historical account of serpents in Egypt with bat-like wings, the epic poem Beowulf with its account of a fiery flying serpent, and Native American petroglyphs (etchings in stone) that resemble dragons. Dragons are depicted on flags, emblems, tapestries, maps, pottery, pictographs, and more.

Actually no…

The design of western dragons is entirely diifferent to eastern dragon and their mythos varies. In usage of Beowulf to validate the Dragon also means equal validation to Grendel.

And I repeat. Crocodile Skulls often are portrayed as “Dragons” in the same way that Elephant skulls were used to portray the cyclops. We now know how foolish it is.

To date no fossil or remains of any “dragon” has been found on any strata occupied by mankind. They are separated by 60 million odd years of life.

Although from disconnected cultures, the descriptions are remarkably similar—perhaps because dragons were real? Find out more at the Creation Museum’s new dragon exhibit. Filled with colorful artwork and artifacts, intriguing dragon legends, and a couple of 60-foot-long Chinese dragons, this exhibit asks visitors the question, “Were dinosaurs dragons?”

The stupidity. It’s overwhelming!

I repeat. This museum should not recieve tax payer funding for actively discussing the existence of Winged Fucking Magical Monsters. We may as well chuck in the book and start museums dedicated to the proof that Porphyria is Vampirism.

Starting with the Bible

Biblical creationists are not surprised by artifacts depicting dragons or the worldwide accounts of dragons living among men—that idea is consistent with the Bible. Genesis 1 tells us that on Day Five of Creation God created great “sea creatures” (Hebrew word tanninim, a word we’ll explore below) and flying creatures, so this would have included swimming pliosaurs and flying pterodactyls, which we would call dragons. God made land animals, including dinosaurs and other land dragons, on Day Six, the day He created man. So man lived among these awesome creatures from the beginning.

Except no depiction of a dragon looks remotely like a pterodactyl or for that matter a pliosaur. I mean this is looking at “the evidence”.

The physical structure of these beasts do not fit the depiction.

And if that is the case… why are there no four “pillar legged” dragons or dragons that walk on two legs with big heads and tiny hands?

Does the Bible mention dragons? Used multiple times in Scripture, the Hebrew word tannin is defined by The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon as “serpent, dragon, sea-monster.” It likely refers to certain reptiles, including giant marine creatures and serpentine land animals. Though translated several different ways and differing in precise meanings based on context, tannin can denote a dragon and therefore can potentially refer to a dinosaur since all dinosaurs are dragons (though not all dragons are dinosaurs by definition). This semi-technical article lists all the uses of tannin in Scripture.

Even Nessie turned out to be a hoax.

The new dragon exhibit virtually fills the large portico of the Creation Museum with dragons and dragon-related displays!

Why isn’t tannin translated as “dragon” in more recent English versions? Perhaps it’s because secular ideas have influenced even biblical scholars. For example, we see scholars indent Genesis 1, implying it is poetry instead of literal history (such as the NIV); we find that translations list elephant or hippopotamus in the footnotes in Job 40 when discussing behemoth. Let’s look closer at the behemoth to give you some context. In the book of Job, God describes the behemoth that “eats grass like an ox” and “moves his tail like a cedar” with bones that “are like beams of bronze” The beast the passage describes fits well with something similar to a sauropod dinosaur like Brachiosaurus.

Or you know… that other gargantuan land mammal with massive bones. The elephant.

Next, God describes at length a leviathan, a fire-breathing sea monster with impenetrable scales that none could face except its Creator. Read Job 41 and see if you picture a ferocious marine reptile, like a Kronosaurus. Leviathan is mentioned in five passages of Scripture and is identified as a type of tannin in Psalm 74:13–14  and Isaiah 27:1
. Dragons are real—created creatures, some of which terrorized in the waters and others that roved the land and air.


And how does it breathe fire?

I mean any creature with the ability to breath fire is a creature that’s very very prone to exploding. The bombardier beetle uses catalysis of two compounds to create it’s “flamethrower” but that’s not “fire”. I suppose it’s “magic”.

So How Are Dinosaurs Explained?

The word dinosaur wasn’t even around until scientist Sir Richard Owen introduced it in the mid-1800s. Before then, large reptiles were called dragons. But the term dinosaur is more narrow, referring only to reptilian land animals whose hip structures raise them off the ground. So dinosaurs, we would say, are specific types of dragons.

Actually, most people didn’t know what to make of them. And dinosaurs aren’t reptiles. They are more closely related to birds.

But Fire-Breathing? Come On!

The burden against the beasts of the South. Through a land of trouble and anguish, From which came the lioness and lion, The viper and fiery flying serpent, They will carry their riches on the backs of young donkeys, And their treasures on the humps of camels, To a people who shall not profit. (Isaiah 30:6)

Many dragon legends such as what we find outside the Bible could be embellished, but the basic characteristics of dragons can be found in known creatures. Some dragon descriptions fit well with certain dinosaurs. Fossil pterosaurs reveal dragon-like wings. Certain beetles shoot out burning chemicals, so is a fire-breathing dragon really that far-fetched?


We don’t store “fire” in a bottle. We store fuel in a bottle. We can store poison in a bottle. So it’s easier to spray “poison” than it is to spray fire. Also? Any chemical volatile enough to combust with air on contact is not going to survive in an organism that relies on oxygen to survive.

What Happened to the Dragons?

Land and air dragons would have been taken on Noah’s Ark and probably existed for some time afterward, based on the descriptions we see in the Bible and legends and artifacts worldwide. But they died out due to the curse of sin, with factors such as environmental and habitat changes, food source problems, genetic mutations, and diseases. Also, man most likely played a role in the demise of dragons, as we read in the legends of dragon slayers.

It amazes me that Ken Ham is right. Dinosaurs vanished due to genetic mutations. The mighty T-Rex died but the delicious Chicken lives on.

Also Ken Ham forgets that man would have probably tried to ride the damn things or keep them as pets. To claim that all dinosaurs vanished is to forget that the majority of dinosaurs were “small”. The true giants were rarities. IF the giants died out then why did all the small ones vanish? All of them? Simultaneously?

And again. Not one dinosaur fossil has been found with a man made object being responsible for it’s death.

It’s just such a laughable idea really.

A Deadly Dragon Is Still Prowling!

We have a very real enemy who is called a dragon (Revelation 12:9). His trickery led the human race into sin, and he’s still deceiving and devouring today (1 Peter 5:81 John 5:19). In 1 John, we find an unsettling test that divides people into one of two camps—the children of the devil or the children of God:

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:8–10, ESV)

You cannot defeat this dragon on your own. As prophesied in Genesis 3:15, we needed Jesus to crush the head of this serpent. Through repentant faith in Christ and His work on the Cross and Resurrection from the dead, we can become children of God (John 1:12). Then we can rejoice with the Apostle John as overcomers “because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).

I thought he was a snake? Are snakes dragons too? Wasn’t he a Cherub as well?

It’s actuallly amazing. Through this entire article Ken Ham has managed to do something remarkable.

To Utter the Truth Without Realising It.

Rebuttal for Creationists – Did God Use Evolution – Introduction

This was something I have been working on for a fair while. In fact it’s something I have wanted to do for ages but lacked the drive to begin.

What I hope to do here is a series of posts as a rebuttal to Creationist Literature.

But Avi! You say! No one fights Creationists Anymore! No one will read your article! It is a fools errand! You would be better off photographing your dog doing something cute and slant it towards a religious angle.

Well? Here is the problem. Creationists stopped fighting US because we make them look like fools. It doesn’t mean they have stopped spreading their bullshit. In fact if anything they have gotten away with a lot more. Rather than try to flog creationism on an equal footing to science they have eroded away at the teaching of science. Often what is being taught is the most shambolic representation of science to children.

So I figured I should field Did God Use Evolution from Answers in Genesis. Written by no other than the father of the German Creationist Movement. Dr. Werner Gitt.

The theory of evolution is currently so widely established that it could be described as the all-inclusive and even the only philosophy of the 20th century.

It’s a bad sign when you start your book with a mistake.

The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory to explain Evolution which is a Scientific Fact. It is not philosophy and purely exists in the realm of evidence.

And really? Marxism, Post Modernism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Neopragmatism and indeed Epistemology. I am not even in philosophy and I can name a few philosophical ideas. I honestly think that the author (Dr. Werner Gitt) is trying to sneak the notion that.

1. Evolution is a Philosophy and doesn’t exist in a realm of proof

2. There are no other philosophical branches out there.

The idea of self-organization from the simple to the more complex has been commonly appropriated—even in disciplines foreign to biological evolution. The development of computers is often falsely referred to as the “evolution of computers,” even though the current high-performance computers are the result of intensive research by many brilliant minds. They have been planned, constructed, and produced on purpose, and are clearly not the result of an evolutionary process.

Yes, however that only applies if we use the biological term of evolution rather than say the colloquial usage of the word which means “A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.”. It is a synonym with development when used in this context. I understand Werner is NOT a native speaker to English but in English context of usage of words is important.

He was a lion in battle doesn’t mean he physically turned into a lion during fights.

If you cannot tell the difference between technological usage of a term and scientific usage of a term then we are going to stumble before we begin. I am afraid you don’t grasp the gravity of the situation.

Otherwise you don’t believe in Mathematical Evolution which is the extraction of a root of a quantity either.

Theology, too, was affected; evolutionary ideas have even been carried into biblical exegesis.

We will show below why evolutionistic thought is completely foreign to the Bible. This book is aimed predominantly at Christian readers who might be inclined to accept some version of theistic evolution. Over and above that, the book is set out in such a way that skeptical readers may also be guided to some decision.

The Internet is also completely foreign to the Bible yet we still see Creationists on it.

No the thing is Evolution is inimical to idea of the Bible being the exact History of mankind. And nothing is as much as an affront to Creationists as Biology because it disputes the divinity of Adam and Eve and indeed the whole 6000 year old Earth. If you believe that the Bible is entirely Canon rather than Allegory then if even one tiny bit of it collapses then the whole thing comes crumbling down.

What this means in reality is that Creationists have to make people believe in the same thing as they do because if you tell a lie a sufficient amount of times then the lie carries the same weight as the truth.

The basic assumptions of science are discussed in a separate chapter. This should enable the reader to recognize which basic assumptions he automatically accepts when he decides for or against creation or evolution.

Use of the term “the theory of evolution” is intentionally avoided, because, according to the standards of scientific theory, evolution is a philosophical doctrine and not a scientific theory. For the same reason, we do not refer to creation theory, but to the biblical doctrine of creation. Creation research concerns itself with deducing models from physical reality, which are based on fundamental biblical statements. A total of 20 objections (OB1 to OB20) against theistic evolution are discussed in this book. In addition to valid criticisms of evolution, the alternative, creation, is increasingly expounded more clearly in recent literature, such as [B4, E2, G3, G5, G7, G8, G10, G11, J2, S3, S4, S5]. This book also refers repeatedly to this very sustainable alternative.

Okay and since this is a spread out argument I shall respond in kind with rebuttals. (If I don’t, keep kicking me till I do).

But we do need to keep producing articles even if it is a ludicrous prospect that doesn’t really get many people reading. Because we are preaching to the choir when we should be punching at the lines.

         The author is an information scientist, but the discussions on information concepts in chapter 6 should be readily understood by the layman. In the last chapter, scientific and biblical objections against evolution culminate in the exposition of ten dangers inherent in theistic evolution. Many quotations expose the anti-biblical nature of such a viewpoint.

And yes I understand that we have made these arguments before. You aren’t doing anything new.

You see I do feel we are slowly moving into the nadir of Atheist writing. We do not reward original content as much as we used to. A pithy one liner attached to a picture of Tigger (My dog) would get more hits than this. If I still had Loki (my cat) I would probably get even more hits.

And I understand but here is the thing. The creationists did not vanish when you stopped talking to them. They are still out there spreading their stupid on a daily basis and trying to insert Jesus into Children via more surreptitious routes. And rather than fight science head on they are more willing to do things in a more round about way. They erode the education of science so people don’t understand the world around them. They force science to teach improperly. They have tried to and often succeeded in hamstringing science education to make it as bad as the kind of education that would come from teaching religion as a purely canonical subject. It is creating a nation of people so blinded to actual science that the majority of science is completely alien to the people who benefit from it. It is very short term thinking and it harms thousands of young children in their quest for an actual understanding of the world around them.

So I covered his Introduction. Would people be interested in reading a dissection (Very Post-Modern!) this silly book that’s being flogged to children and “scared parents”?

Reality vs. Ken Ham

The USA has a major problem with Creationism. Now before you all (Y’all?) descend on me calling me a commie secret muslim (This seems to be a major problem) you have to realise that I actually quite like America. I just feel that a lot of it is wasted on Americans who don’t seem to appreciate what they have. That the crass commercialism and the vapidity of populist American culture makes them ignorant of their own achievements and their own incredibleness that they are forced to make things up and lie to themselves.

The second time I went to the USA I made a trip to the Scripps Aquarium. Oh for those who have been, you would know whose office is near enough to the Scripps Aquarium. I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing Duane T. Gish (AKA Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution because there is an increase of net complexity and no source of energy! AKA the man who never learnt about photosynthesis or indeed noticed the giant ball of nuclear fire in the sky). It was my first “taste” of Creationism.

I was pretty lapsed at this point and began to debate evolution on forums, but I kept getting exposed to more and more creationists as time went by. My initial atheism may have been born out of the sheer madness of the violence perpetrated by Hindus and Muslims on each other but I cut my atheist teeth on creationists.

And Zack Kopplin reminds me of the things I fought for. And Zack reminds me that I have met people from the old areas where evolution wasn’t taught. People who forever would be ignorant of science because they were taught applied theology instead. People who genuinely believed in 6000 year old planets and 4000 year old floods and the like. I remember things like Dr. Dino and his museum piece of a giant. I was a kid but remember laughing at those silly things while people like Hitchens and Dennet and Dawkins fought against such silliness.

And now Zack Kopplin has come under the firing line of the always amusing Ken Ham. [Read more…]

And I will have my own Reason Rally too! With Blackjack and Hookers!

Infact! Forget the blackjack!

Ken Ham’s usual crazy is black and this time trying to match wits with the collected atheist might at Reason Rally. And it’s where he simply doesn’t get it.

The Reason Rally is an atheist convention. Camp Quest are a secular organisation. They don’t run around teaching you that there is no god, it just doesn’t come up in the same way that they don’t need to teach you that there are no fairies. What they seem to do is just be a summer camp/children’s activity coordinator group with no religious overtones. They go hiking but they don’t have bible study.

So showing up to try and piss on that bowl of cheerios is particularly daft. We aren’t forcing children to stamp on  Bibles, Korans and Gitas, we are merely teaching them that there is more to the world than faith in the imaginary and that reality is actually far cooler than the fantasy that Ken Ham could dream up.

The Chronic inability to tell vegetarian
animals from carnivores is my theory on why Christians
were eaten by lions.

By the logic of Ken Ham, my parents (Who are both Hindu) should be thrown into the sea with a fashionably heavy necklace. Why? Because they tried to make me a decent human being by educating me in a variety of things including hinduism. But also on being a decent human being. Irrespective of faith. They probably are disappointed that I don’t believe in god. But they are proud that (In their minds) in spite of me not having any faith I am good.

We fight Ken Ham because he leads children away from the truth. He would rather encourage children to be mindless vapid drones who think Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian. I mean what does this specifically tell our kids? At it’s best it’s merely creating stupid children by spreading lies. At it’s worst its creating a world of children who will grow up to never do science and to actively fight progress.

We fight Ken Ham because he actively promotes a world view that encourages people to tie millstones around necks and hurl people into the sea. The only thing keeping him from enacting this advice is the rule of law.

We fight Ken Ham because he thinks we are brainwashing children by encouraging them to experiment and learn rather than close their minds to reality and live in a fantasy. That is not to say we don’t encourage fantasy.We do, we just call it “fantasy” and “fiction”. I would love to attend something like this. I would really love to meet people like Ken Ham and do something “for atheism” in real life by debate or by simply attending the Rally and things like TAM. I am sure many others do and this allows their kids to get involved in something that’s fun for them too.

Don’t get angry at Ken Ham. Feel Sorry for him. He is part of the culturally acceptable delusion. 

Neo-Atheism is filled with crazy people

I recently read Bryan Appleyard’s critique of the new atheist backlash against the more moderate atheists who wish to not be seen as a rabidly anti-theistic.

I don’t know… I am torn between both camps, it’s a pretty ridiculous issue being made by both sides. Atheists are not immune to stupidity, I have mentioned that I know anti-vaccine atheists and many animal liberation fanatics are atheists too. Doesn’t make their stupidity free from criticism, nor should it ever be.

But at this point? I don’t think either of these two extremes is right. Not if actual death threats were made.

On the one hand we have a group of passionate individuals who don’t want to appease religion. Which is all fine and dandy and great! New Atheism is something I identify closely with, but I also am a lot more moderate. My faith was not personally ruined and I was lucky enough to be educated in more than one faith (I am aware of Islamic, Hindu and Christian philosophy and to some extent about Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism alongside the Animist faith of my ancestors). Lucky because faith and religion has so little a hold of me because I am aware of all the differences.

I don’t feel the urge to go rub it in the average religious person’s face. I feel that one can be completely civil about atheism as such. By all means fight against religious intolerance but don’t become intolerant yourself. I see no issue in insulting the crazies while being as civil as possible.

However on the other side we see a more accommodating group. These atheists think we need some spirituality in our lives and that we should have a “temple of atheism” and maybe outreach programs to present a more likeable face. It’s not for me, but as long as it’s not spreading woo and nonsense I have no qualms about them.

And there we have it. The problem in our argument is that we as a group of people do not have a structure like faith. We have huge differences as atheists even in what we believe in. Despite all accusations, there is no arch-atheist. At our core we simply do not believe in any gods. With that in mind let’s deconstruct the arguments in a more sensible way.

De Botton is the most recent and, consequently, the most shocked victim. He has just produced a book, Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, mildly suggesting that atheists like himself have much to learn from religion and that, in fact, religion is too important to be left to believers. He has also proposed an atheists’ temple, a place where non-believers can partake of the consolations of silence and meditation.

We do have a lot to learn from religion! It’s just that me and De Botton have different ideas on what we can learn from it.

I have no issues with the different ways religion inspires people. It does do that, the question remains is, how can we do the same thing. My opinion?

Religion is basically a story, not one like Harry Potter but one with a rich heritage and history. There is not many things similar to it because of the age of the material. So let’s just take science as an example.

ArtArchitecture? Music? It’s all there. The thing is religion may have inspired these things, but so can many other things. One doesn’t have to believe in Zeus to like the Parthenon. Atheism doesn’t inspire these things because there isn’t anything in atheism to inspire. We don’t have biblical imagery. We don’t revere anyone in particular in the same way that people revere Shiva. We don’t have “atheism only buildings” so we don’t have an architectural style that we like beyond personal taste.

So let’s say a sense of society. Can we as atheists learn something about this? Well we can, and we should learn! Many religious groups have a strong sense of community, can we not match that? Can we improve on their model and make it even more inclusive as we have seen recent. We don’t have to have a temple, but we can make our meetings a bit more friendly to everyone involved.

It’s not stupid to realise that there are some things (like charity) that religion does better than us. It’s not stupid to try and improve ourselves to match or exceed them.

However we can improve these in a way that makes sense. Catholic Charity would be very good if they sent more doctors and less priests, more condoms and less communion wafers. Why not be that? Why should their sermons not be matched with our classes on science, our better women’s health, or teaching modern farm theory. Why not start secular missionary work? 

There have been threats of violence. De Botton has been told he will be beaten up and his guts taken out of him. One email simply said, “You have betrayed Atheism. Go over to the other side and die.”

This is probably true. If there is one thing that we know about the internet is that it’s easy to say things like this. This isn’t indicative of new atheists, this is the problem of the internet where people post without thinking. De Botton has merely portrayed a version of religion where he ignores all the bad and just looks at all the good. Rose tinted atheism if you will.

De Botton finds it bewildering, the unexpected appearance in the culture of a tyrannical sect, content to whip up a mob mentality. “To say something along the lines of ‘I’m an atheist; I think religions are not all bad’ has become a dramatically peculiar thing to say and if you do say it on the internet you will get savage messages calling you a fascist, an idiot or a fool. This is a very odd moment in our culture. Why has this happened?”

For the same reason that writing “I am an Atheist” will get “Repent or Die Messages” or “I work on vaccines” would get you “Child killing torturer and Mengele fan” on your wall.

First, a definition. By “neo-atheism”, I mean a tripartite belief system founded on the conviction that science provides the only road to truth and that all religions are deluded, irrational and destructive.

See this is where we begin to disagree. Science is a system where we test and retest hypothesis to form theories of how the universe functions based on observation, experiment and inference. Religion is merely the confused writings of people from ages ago about how they perceived the world and is very often wrong. They are deluded to a phenomenal level. The entire point is we can simply ignore that and look at how they function and learn a few lessons. Of things to avoid and of things to do.

Atheism is just one-third of this exotic ideological cocktail. Secularism, the political wing of the movement, is another third. Neo-atheists often assume that the two are the same thing; in fact, atheism is a metaphysical position and secularism is a view of how society should be organised. So a Chris
tian can easily be a secularist – indeed, even Christ was being one when he said, “Render unto Caesar” – and an atheist can be anti-secularist if he happens to believe that religious views should be taken into account. But, in some muddled way, the two ideas have been combined by the cultists.

Secularism is the idea that in the work place and in government there should not be any arguments based on the belief in an imaginary friend. That no religion should be given a leg up by the government. Atheism is an entirely physical metaphysical position and leads onto secularism as a political position. Caesar’s position was unchangeable by lay christians. Render unto Caesar merely states the opinion that christians should go along with Caesar. In a democracy the vote affects the people and “Render Unto Caesar” means “Tough No Abortion” or “Tough, you are now being taught stupid sex education” or “Tough, Earth now 6000 years ago, Jesus rode a Stegosaurus”. Religious views should not be taken into account because the arguments are not based on logic but on frankly insane beliefs.

Do you seriously think we should discuss banning women from public places because muslims, LDS and some Jews think so? Some religious views are fine and dandy, some are just backwards and nonsensical and should be treated as such. Not everyone’s opinion is good. I don’t see why I should have to listen to the Pope’s opinion on women’s healthcare and sex education since he clearly has no fucking clue what’s going on. Secularism is just the stance that we shouldn’t let religious officials have a say in the functioning of our government, nor should we do things solely because of our faith in a god.

To put it in a simple way, if you don’t believe women should have abortions, then you don’t have an abortion. Don’t force other women to follow your religion’s rules.

The third leg of neo-atheism is Darwinism, the AK-47 of neo-atheist shock troops. Alone among scientists, and perhaps because of the enormous influence of Richard Dawkins, Darwin has been embraced as the final conclusive proof not only that God does not exist but also that religion as a whole is a uniquely dangerous threat to scientific rationality.

No. Darwinism is merely the insult used by religious people to describe modern evolution theory by comparing it to a belief system rather than a fact like gravity which is also explained by a theory (like gravity). It’s used to denigrate an actual science in the USA (the term has no negative connotations in the UK) by making it seem like evolution is without facts, evidence and logic and is more akin to a religious belief.

It’s not an AK-47, it’s more like a battleground where Christian, Jewish and now Muslim faithful have suddenly realised that they aren’t the divine spark of magic within a clay shell like their book says but the product of evolution and they are “just” a very intelligent ape. It’s not a bad thing, but when we say ape, these individuals assume that this is carte blanche to behave like a chimpanzee.

Religion is a uniquely dangerous threat since despite evolution being fact, it is still under threat by religious fanatics who try and shovel their Jesus into science at the cost of evolutionary theory or co-opting it to give credence to their arguments. 45% of the USA do not believe in Evolution which is like saying that 45% of a nation believe that gravity is caused by the gravity fairy.

“There is this strange supposition,” says the American philosopher Jerry Fodor, “that if you’re a Darwinian you have to be an atheist. In my case, I’m an anti-Darwinian and I’m an atheist. But people are so incoherent on these issues that it’s hard for me to figure out what is driving them.”

Well it’s a good think Jerry Fodor is a philosopher! Because it certainly is the only field where you can happily say that you don’t believe in evolution and not be considered a moron.

The neo-atheist cause has been gathering strength for roughly two decades and recently exploded into very public view. Sayeeda Warsi, co-chairman of the Conservative Party, was in the headlines for making a speech at the Vatican warning of the dangers of secular fundamentalism, which aims to prevent religions from having a public voice or role. Warsi, a Muslim, subdivides propagators of this anti-religious impulse into two categories. First, there are the well-meaning liberal elite, who want to suppress religion in order not to cause offence to anybody. Second, there is the “perverse kind of secular” believer, who wants to “wipe religion from the public sphere” on principle.

Let’s see, because all religions have to live under a single set of rules and we cannot have Sharia law for Muslims, Catholic law for Catholics and so on. We live under one law and the law that works the best is secular law. The gripe of these people is that they are being made more and more unnecessary in a modern world and they can no longer get handouts to their faith based on who they know.

And yes, it shouldn’t be in the public sphere. Because nearly every religion is either equal to a secular government where decisions are made sensibly, or worse. I don’t think any Abrahamic faith has anything to give modern society that cannot be gained from a non religious source.

As Warsi was on her way to catch her flight to Rome she heard Dawkins, the supreme prophet of neo-atheism, on Radio 4’s Today programme. He was attempting to celebrate a survey that proved, at least to his satisfaction, that supposedly Christian Britain was a fraud. People who said they were Christians did not go to church and knew little of the faith. Giles Fraser, a priest of the Church of England, then challenged Dawkins to give the full title of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Falling into confusion, he failed. Fraser’s point was that Dawkins was therefore, by his own criterion, not a Darwinian. Becoming even more confused, Dawkins exclaimed in his response: “Oh, God!”

We don’t follow Darwin anymore in biology. The idea of evolution that Darwin proposed and what we have are entirely different beasts. Darwin’s books are actually for all intents and purposes “Wrong”. Accusing someone of being a Darwinist is like accusing someone of being an Aristotlean. We don’t actually study Darwin’s work because it’s now part of literature.

“Immediately he was out of control, he said, ‘Oh, God!'” Warsi recalls, “so even the most self-confessed secular fundamentalist at this moment of need needed to turn to the Almighty. It kind of defeats his own argument that only people who go to church have a faith.”

“Oh God!” is a stock standard phrase derived from blasphemy in the same way that I say “Jesus Christ” when I swear. It doesn’t mean I am turning to Jesus who to me is about as fictional as Asterix the Gaul, it means I am swearing.

It’s a statement of exasperation. No one who says “Oh My God!” is invoking a god but is expressing disbelief with a stock phrase.

“He has taken a very strange position. He’s unusual, in that he came from an elite British Anglican family with all its privileges and then he had this extraordinary career, and now he stands at the head of what can really be called a cult . . . I think what happened was that he has been frightened by the militancy of religious people he has met on his travels and it has driven him to the other side. 

“It smacks of a sort of psychological collapse in him, a collapse in those resources of maturity that would keep someone on an even keel. There is what psychoanalysts would call a deep rigidity in him.”

Hardly. Dawkins has been subjected to criticism from within the new atheist movement. Like every celebrity, he has fans but he doesn’t speak for most atheists.

I ask Fraser what he thinks are the roots of this ideological rigidity among the neo-atheists. “It coincides with post-9/11,” he says. “The enemy is Islam for them. That was true about [Christopher] Hitchens in an obvious way and Dawkins said something like ‘it was the most evil religion in the world’. 

“With Hitchens, it was bound up with liberal interventionism. It is also clearly an Americanisation. It has come over from their culture wars . . . People are pissed off with Dawkins because there is a feeling that we don’t do that over here.”

Actually, most New Atheists live in the USA. There is a massive USA centred movement about them (and indeed this is seen by the demographic) and they are mainly anti-christian. Those who are in the UK however are mainly anti-islamic in their mindset since in the USA the big threat to secular values is Christianity while in the UK the rise of islamic fundementalism represents a threat to secular values particularly in the fact that there are only two opinions in the UK which range from “Islam isn’t so bad” to “Muslims should be put on a plane to wherever it is they came from!”. There is no middle ground between Sharia Court and BNP. It’s frankly irritating that the people who shout “Yeah!” over your shoulder when you criticise Islam are people who want to throw me out with the Muslims!

Islam has MASSIVE problems. It’s a violently reactionary religion. It’s a religion with a terrible history of the treatment of women. It’s a religion which is incredibly anti-education. It’s a religion that doesn’t encourage scientific thought and discourse. It cannot handle criticism rationally. In short? It’s a massive elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

When we do talk about it we have charges of islamophobia or racism levelled at us, leaving atheists incredibly puzzled as to why in the UK we have things like Sharia Courts and tolerate the thuggish behaviour of some islamic groups.

For me, the events of 9/11 were certainly a catalyst, the new ingredient that turned the already bubbling mix of anti-religious feeling into an explosive concoction. Coming from a scientific family, I had accepted the common-sense orthodoxy that religion and science were two separate but complementary and non-conflicting entities, or what the great evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould called “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA). I first became aware of my own complacency in this regard when I interviewed Stephen Hawking just before the publication of A Brief History of Time (1988). He had become – it was his then wife who told me this – vehemently anti-religious. And in my presence he was contemptuously anti-philosophical.

Hardly. September 11th just made Islamic Terrorism a bit more personal and less about distant people dying in third world nations. It was basically a taste of what people have to go through across the world to a group of people who didn’t have to experience that kind of fear. Atheists came out in force because it was a perfect demonstration of the ills of evil. But remember so did Christianity which nearly turned the war into a bloody crusade.

There had always been an anti-religious strain in science, a strain that had been present since Galileo and which, indeed, had grown stronger after Darwin. In the postwar period, both Francis Crick and James Watson conceded that one of their main motivations in unravelling the molecular structure of DNA was to undermine religion. It was strengthened even further in the popular imagination when Dawkins expounded the outlines of the neo-Darwinian synthesis in his fine book The Selfish Gene (1976). In the 1990s it became routine to hear scientists – notably in this country Peter Atkins and Lewis Wolpert – pouring scorn on the claims of philosophy and religion. They were, for entirely non-scientific reasons, in a triumph­ant mood. The sales of A Brief History of Time had sent publishing advances for popular science books soaring, and the more astounding the claims, the better the money.

Watson and Crick were atheists from a young age and the structure of DNA was a race between Oxford and Cambridge. There were three people who should be credited with the discovery of the structure of DNA. Rosalind Franklin was one of the discoverers of the structure. And yes, why shouldn’t we laugh at religion and indeed philosophy? It’s a group of people who don’t do experiments about the observed while discussing the unobservable while making claims about their conclusions that are not based on an ounce of empirical data.

While observing this, I became aware that the ground had shifted beneath my own cosy orthodoxy. Scientistic thinkers were no longer prepared to accept NOMA, the separate, complementary, non-conflicting realms. In the early 1990s I was engaged in a debate with Dawkins at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He said, to much applause, that the existence of God was a scientific issue. If, in effect, God could not live up to the standards of scientific proof, then He must be declared dead. There were no longer two magisteria, but just one, before which we must all bow.

Are we to simply declare the giant elephant in the room as taboo for discussion. Religion claims  to have an entity that is not only external to the universe but also fully capable of breaking the laws of physics through magic and we are to blindly accept this and carry on with our science and not even take a single measurement? Are we to simply ignore the man behind the curtain?

It was in the midst of this that Fodor and the cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini published What Darwin Got Wrong, a highly sophisticated analysis of Darwinian thought which concluded that the theory of natural selection could not be stated coherently. All hell broke loose. Such was the abuse that Fodor vowed never to read a blog again. Myers the provocateur announced that he had no intention of reading the book but spent 3,000 words trashing it anyway, a remarkably frank statement of intellectual tyranny.

It was not highly sophisticated. It was a book written by a philosopher with a poor understanding about evolutionary biology, writing about a theory that was nearly 100 years old by that point and had grown based on newer proof.

The argument was a philosophical one and one that simply doesn’t hold true in nature. It wasn’t all hell breaking lose so much as people calling them out for their inherent mistakes when they
tried to play scientist. Basically? Real Scientists in the field simply tore their arguments to shreds because these two individuals failed to realise that science has progressed a lot since the days of Darwin.

Ultimately, the problem with militant neo-atheism is that it represents a profound category error. Explaining religion – or, indeed, the human experience – in scientific terms is futile. “It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love,” de Botton says. “It’s a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . . It’s a kind of category error. It’s a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers.”

No it wouldn’t. The truth about Anna Karenina would be fascinating. Are we to suggest that archeology and paleontology isn’t fascinating because they deal with the past? Love as a study into neurology would be intensely fascinating while not altering it’s meaning one bit. So what if it’s just chemistry? Knowing how it works doesn’t make it less special. The entire point of science is you can ask any question and get an answer through empirical thought. Simply stating that you shouldn’t answer some questions is a ludicrous idea.

The answer demonstrates the futility of the neo-atheist project. Religion is not going to go away. It is a natural and legitimate response to the human condition, to human consciousness and to human ignorance. One of the most striking things revealed by the progress of science has been the revelation of how little we know and how easily what we do know can be overthrown. Furthermore, as Hitchens in effect acknowledged and as the neo-atheists demonstrate by their ideological rigidity and savagery, absence of religion does not guarantee that the demonic side of our natures will be eliminated. People should have learned this from the catastrophic failed atheist project of communism, but too many didn’t.

However we can oppose it’s grasp on our children and indeed on our daily lives which are being influenced by people who lived 2000 years ago and had no idea about the world. Really? Do we honestly think that “Gay Marriage Is Anti Christian” is a logical and sane answer to the modern issue? No! You would have to be a madman to say that you refuse to accept two people’s marriage solely because you believe in the same things as people did 2000 years ago!

It is better to know that we know nothing than claim that we know everything. That’s the difference between science and religion. Science may be truly small but it will get bigger and bigger as we understand more of how the universe works. Religion assumes it knows everything which is why it stagnates and why it’s god is so small, petty and insignificant.

The ideological savagery exists in atheism, but should we point out the actual savagery of faith? The savage verbal assaults on the four gentlemen mentioned earlier are no different from ones we have all faced. This is a problem of humanity irrespective of faith. The problem with faith is that it can encourage a lot of people to assault a single concept. The problem with faith is that it can drive people to actual savagery.

Happily, the backlash against neo-atheism has begun, inspired by the cult’s own intolerance. In the Christmas issue of this magazine, Dawkins interviewed Hitchens. Halfway through, Dawkins asked: “Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?” At dinner at the restaurant in Bayswater we all laughed at this, but our laughter was uneasy. The history of attempts to destroy religion is littered with the corpses of believers and unbelievers alike. There are many roads to truth, but cultish intolerance is not one of them.

So far this article has been one of strawman after strawman. If it was about learning from religion and genuine criticism about the atheist movement and how to improve ourselves then it would be fine. Instead it’s a ridiculous assault on evolution, mixed in with complaints that people called other people out for making the ridiculous assault on evolution finally culminating in the idea that religion will always exist because people are too stupid and if we get rid of one we would have to deal with a crazier one.

There are many roads to the truth but the truth is singular. The truth of religion and of science are entirely different and science is based on proof and evidence while religion is not. Science does not accept anything as true until proven, while religion accepts things as true before finding proof. 

Valentine’s Day Massacre: Indiana’s Drones and the Temple of Dumb

Why are we even discussing whether religion and science should be taught on the same footing in a classroom? It is 2012, and we have touched the moon, made smallpox extinct, created the internet and routinely chose to hurl ourselves through the air in metal cylinders powered by dead monsters.

And somehow despite all this technology that science has created to make our lives better in every single possible way, you still have people like the members of the Indiana Senate who tried (and will probably try again) to get a bill that allows for the teaching of creationism in schools.

It’s such a faulty premise that something that has been repeatedly proven to be true has to be taught alongside the notion that the world was created as it is by magic. It beggars belief that we are even discussing this in this time period with what we know. At its heart it is an attempt to shoehorn Jesus into children and hammer home the idea that religion also has answers that should be treated as equally valid to science. After all, it’s rather embarrassing to claim divine knowledge and be so ignorant about the functioning of the world. Science just makes religion look bad by exposing the depths of wilful ignorance that it encourages.

The teaching of Creationism irrespective of its source does not align at all with reality and therefore with science. They are stories, nothing more and nothing less than that. Teaching them in a classroom as fact doesn’t harm you. It harms your children by creating a group of people who do not question things properly and who simply blindly accept the fact that magic exists. 

As a United Methodist pastor, I am part of a Christian tradition that looks to Scripture, church tradition, critical thinking and relevant experience to reflect on God and make decisions about life in relationship to our Scriptures. Within this framework, there is plenty of room for science, including the science of evolution. What can be measured and tested and studied through scientific methods informs my theology, and my theology informs how I understand the results of that scientific method. I am not an expert on other faith traditions, but I imagine that many of them could make similar claims.

Brenda Freije doesn’t get the point in the best way. Her attitude is that reconciliation between science and wishful thinking is possible. She chooses to treat the account in Genesis as a guideline or story, stating that there is tremendous wisdom in the bible as its defence. There is tremendous wisdom in Harry Potter (honour, courage, intelligence, hard work, bravery, friendship, sacrifice, doing what’s right, love, responsibility and universality) but I wouldn’t want it to be read in schools in lieu of actual science. To me the bible has some really terrible things in it. So does Harry Potter, but the terrible things in Harry Potter are done by people who are clearly villains while a lot of the terrible things done in the bible are due to the direct action of men who are considered “good” and by the deity who claims to be good. Her vision of Christianity is a very mellow and mild one that simply ignores a lot of the text of the book.

Rather than stating that science is right because it is based on experiment and proof and that the biblical account is based on allegory, she goes for the “we don’t know what’s right” argument. The truths in the Bible have been repeatedly proven empirically wrong and the only way to deal with that is by claiming that there is mystical truth that only comes from belief and study. 

Science and religion ask different questions and apply different methods of study. This doesn’t make them incompatible. It does make them distinct. Claims about God as the creator of life are claims of faith. Claims that there is no divine power behind the created order are claims of a different kind of faith. It is the role of parents and our communities of faith to teach about these claims and to help our children think critically about the science they are learning. 

Science asks questions, religion makes up answers. Science does study and experiment and test while religion does not. The claim that there is no divine power in the universe is based on the observable fact that there is no divine power in the universe. To date not one person who claims to believe in the divine has been capable of providing evidence that the divine exists. The day proof is provided; we will accept a god exists. But till now there is none.

Next we have Donald Lacy, a United Methodist Pastor.

First, and likely the most difficult, has to do with what understanding(s) of creationism is to be presented to students. I suggest the place to begin for our great state is to seek out scholarly representatives of those that can trace their beginning to Father Abraham: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Perhaps the Senate itself could do this. But what branches of each should come together? Christianity alone has numerous denominational groupings. Potential chaos? Is consensus possible? 

Firstly, the USA has a establishment clause banning the promotion of religion in a classroom. It doesn’t matter what god you believe in, you cannot flog it in a classroom. And none of the Abrahamic faiths have a grasp on how old the earth is by a factor of nearly the entire existence of the earth. Islam has been around for less than 2000 years. The world has been around for 4.5 billion years. This isn’t philosophy where all views are equal. This is science, and it’s not a democracy. It’s a meritocracy. If your view has evidence then your view stands. If your evidence is flawed then your view falls. And the evidence for all abrahamic faith is faulty at its very core. It doesn’t matter how much you agree about it if you are agreeing about the existence of unicorns. 

Second, if some agreement can be reached on what is to be taught as creationism and implemented, we must look into the future. Who or what has the authority, responsibility and accountability to decide the validity of such teaching by providing objective testing? We may very well have a menacing wall that only partially comes down. Will each proponent insist on his/her way? Again, is consensus possible? 

Secondly, creationism shouldn’t be taught. Not until they can provide empirical evidence. Because so far there has been no empirical research out of the movement let alone any
thing that substantiates their proof. We hear about research but close examination shows it to be laughable and unacceptable at the level at which a 12 year old child would do science. We cannot and should not teach anything this faulty. 

Third, we must at least mention Buddhism and Hinduism. Our state definitely has devotees. In the late 1950s, we had a brilliant Christian professor at Butler School of Religion (Christian Theological Seminary) whose name was Joseph Smith. I relished every minute of his comparative history of religions and wrote essays on both religions. Often, after classes, I was ready to convert or find a way to incorporate them into Methodism. Well, dear friends, is consensus possible?

Thirdly, Hinduism’s creation mythos is clearly entrenched in magic. And hindus themselves tend to not believe in their own creation mythos relying heavily on science because that explains the world better. The Buddhist mythos varies wildly depending on the influence of Hinduism but it was originally a atheistic/agnostic belief system with the flaw being that it believed in a series of personal laws that apply to behaviour. Neither of these religions have enforced creationist mythos to the same level as the nonsense portrayed by the Abrahamic faiths. Encouraging them to be just like you just adds to the whole problem. And their creation mythos is completely alien to Abrahamic Faith.

Fourth, the crossing of lines between church, synagogue, mosque and state is probable. Aligning creationism with science may simply seem politically practical. Simply? Really now, it gets at the heart of who and what we are. We Christians should seriously propose a major interfaith event — inviting Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to a spacious classroom for prayers. The governor, legislature, Supreme Court and state superintendent of public instruction should join us. 

Fourthly, Why? This seems like a giant waste of time and money. The USA has a tonne of problems regarding education without dragging magic into the mix. And it does not get at the heart of who we are as human beings.

We are the product of 3 billion years or so of evolution. We are a product of death, destruction and pain since the wheel of evolution is based on the deaths of others. Those who live to breed were lucky or were the best. We are the product of that. We have evolved to use tools and to solve problems using tools. And those two skills have allowed us as humans to break the normal cycle of evolution and become a force of nature unto ourselves. Our tools and brain have allowed us to create a society where we are not subject to the normal pressures of evolution. We have come from a history of incredible cruelty, brutality and strife to create a society that doesn’t need to be those things. We have the luxury as people to explore ideas such as kinship, universality and knowledge. At the heart of it, a human being is a powerful brain coupled with artifice mixed in with the right measures of cunning, dexterity and brute force to have become the most powerful and most self aware species that we are currently aware of. And it is these abilities and the appropriate application of them that allow us to get along with each other and become more.

To claim that we are the magic offspring of some mythical entity is to insult our true nature, and to forget what we truly are.

And finally we get to Greg Manship. An instructor in ethics at the University of Indianapolis.

Creationism aligns with science because both seek to bring understanding to the origins and fundamentals of the material world as we know it. Both science and faith help us to understand ourselves as human beings living with other human and nonhuman beings in a finite, material world within an infinite universe.

Creationism is not science, it is faith. It tries to ally with science because every time it has raised its ugly head it’s been defeated by empirical evidence which is what science is based on. It is trying to pass itself off as science in the same way that chiropractors and homeopaths try to pass themselves off as doctors. It does so in order to get acceptance into schools and so that it can replace genuine education with “Jesus”.

By faith, we understand the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Scriptures to reveal God as creator of the sun and the moon as “great lights . . . to mark day and night.” By science, we understand the nature of the sun’s light to be a massive release of visible and invisible electromagnetic energy, and the nature of the moon’s light to be the reflection of the sun’s light. 

Why has this man been hired to teach at a university? This man blatantly doesn’t even grasp how stars are formed. In this idiot’s world the sun and moon’s existence are to mark day and night as the world’s largest clocks. That god created the goddamn sun (a ball of nuclear fire that is a million times larger than the earth) solely for us to be able to tell when morning begins. Does God not intend for us to live in the Arctic or Antarctic where the sun often doesn’t set for months and where night can last an entire winter? No! Because that is clearly moronic because the “Ancient Hebrew Text” assumes the sun exists solely for human benefit.

On the other hand, by science we understand that the Higgs boson is a hypothetical subatomic particle that is the theoretical cause for mass and matter, which constitutes material reality as we know it. And by faith (defined by the author of the Book of Hebrews as “confidence in what we hope for . . . evidence of what we cannot see”) we understand that despite the lack of evidence so far, with more experimentation and explanation, the Higgs boson (which the media have labeled the “God particle”) will be found, thus completing our understanding of the material world (according to the Standard Model of particle physics). 

I will raise my hand here. I do not understand the science behind particle physics. I understand it is science, but my education diverged from physics down the route of biology which is closer to chemistry than it is to particle physics. To me it is a mysterious world of strange names and I feel like the average physicist when confronted by the strange names of medicine. However? I understand that there is a logical position on why physicists make the statements they do. I understand that they test their hypothesis and are not making assumptions or guesses but are working towards understanding the world slowly and painfully.

I will not however assume that a bunch of 3000 year old Jews knew anything about the Higgs Boson just because a single line in a book, nor apply the term faith to what is effectively an educated guess or a prediction. The Higgs Boson is a prediction; mathematics and logic postulate the existence of the Higgs Boson in much the same way that Mendeleev predicted the existence of Noble Gases and even left space out for undiscover
ed elements in his periodic table. These were not based on faith but logic and actual hard science. A biological example would be the Darwin Orchid, where Darwin predicted it was pollinated by a moth whose tongue was of unprecedented length. 21 years after his death the moth was discovered vindicating his theory based on the fact that the plant had honey whose sole purpose is the attraction of insects, but it was honey placed deep within the flower which had a long flower that needed a long tongue. So since Darwin noticed no hummingbirds that would have the necessary tongue and bill to drink, he postulated it must be a night living moth since he hadn’t seen the creature and humming birds are diurnal. His education in entomology and biology allowed him to make the postulation. It wasn’t a leap of faith but a calculated jump made using knowledge and understanding.

There is no faith without science, for even Jesus challenged Thomas to gather empirical evidence by touching Jesus’ resurrected body. And there is no science without faith, for even scientists have faith and believe in the possibilities of what they have not yet seen with their own eyes. We fail our students and we fool ourselves when we “believe” we have “proof” of the “incompatibility” between science and faith. 

And finally it’s the assumption that faith in science and in religion is equivalent to each other. Faith is the absence of science, and the faith of a scientist in possibilities that are yet to come is not based on faith but by the theoretical application of a new discovery or an existing piece of technology. We do not live our lives based on that technological future and we apply logic and common sense to it as we develop a greater understanding that religion simply does not.

What fails the American student is the introduction of non-real things to education. We are not discussing creationism, we are discussing magic. We are discussing a belief in a hypothetical entity possessing the ability to break the known laws of the universe at whim in order to create an entire universe solely for the benefit of around 7 billion people who have to worship it in order for an unknown benefit that is poorly defined. Creationism is not science; it is superstition attempting to masquerade as science in order to flog more superstition. It is entirely incompatible with science as science requires proof.

If creationism is allowed to enter our schools, then science should be allowed to enter your church. After all, if we are trying to be fair and balanced we should be fair and balanced in all aspects. All in favour say aye! 

Damn! I should have called myself the Hindunator instead!

The Hindunator – Now with all the guns, and all the pomade!

Curses! Is it too late to call myself the Hindunator instead of Avicenna?

Gideon from the blog House of Gideon has called me out in his post. I shall respond to him in dual (here and there). My posts here will carry images to add some colour to the proceedings. 

In fact, mainline “Christianity” is naught but a derivative of a pagan construct, which most of the unwashed assume is at the head of what they deem as typical Christianity and that the so-called “protestant” denominations, ultimately, owe their allegiance to it. If, in fact, Catholicism was, indeed, the representative entity of Christ’s church on Earth, this would be true. Most of what entails Protestantism, today, comes from Catholicism, particularly where the various sacraments, holidays, and day of worship are concerned. These are modeled after pagan rites and deities which are what the people of ancient Rome worshiped, the Catholic Church being the direct progeny of pagan Rome. All religions, including that of the blogger whom I am critiquing, here, are bastardizations of the first and greatest faith system, the one instituted by God before the fall of man, itself falling victim to various and specious alternate interpretations by Satan and evil men. Only the Bible has faithfully recorded this transference, all other sources inadvertently or have conveniently neglected to mention this in their writings.

Nothing to do with that terrible

It is certainly a human construct in that all religions are constructed by human beings. I however have no religion to criticise. I am an ex-hindu, an atheist. The website says so too. And hey, I am not the one saying “All the Christians are wrong! I know this through my studies of a single bible and not through my grasp of history”.

All of christianity is based out of the Council of Nicea under Emperor Constantine, which included writings from “roman christians” who were influenced by their prior faiths. All the bibles in the world are based out of the Vulgate which was the first bible. Prior to that there were none. This is recorded history.

There was no “fall”. If there was then we would have died out considering the sheer level of inbreeding required post fall that we would have no genetic diversity what so ever. There is no such thing as perfect DNA since we live in a system of evolution. Even without evolutionary pressure then we would have had the genetic variation of two individuals and probably died out as an entire species. Also there was no flood because that would have actually reduced genetic variation to practically nothing again. These are allegories not fact. You aren’t supposed to take them seriously because that’s bloody stupid. 

In response to the “Hindunator” on his claims of Hinduism being older than Christianity, yes, it is older, given the popular interpretation of Christianity, above. However, the faith I follow… the REALreligion of Christ… is the oldest and first, all others being cheap knock-offs of the grand original! You will always be able to ascertain it’s uniqueness and superiority over all other religions by the fact that the Bible religion is the ONLY faith that promises salvation by works NOT attributable to men! All others emphasize what it is that man must do to expiate himself, to justify himself and please whatever contrived deity is involved. Christianity… the true version, not the self-justifying works of Catholicism and the myriad of eastern religions, demands that God’s (Christ’s) authority, ALONE, be recognized as the only redeeming force available. You will not find any other faith with this specific tenet.

The Hindunator shows of his skills
accompanied by his cylon crew…

How is christianity the oldest religion when it is based out of the teachings of Judaism which is younger than Hinduism? Time travel? And the works doctrine is a far more superior doctrine since it requires you to be good. Your theology specifically indicates that there are serial killers in heaven because they “found jesus” while their non christian victims are not. And this is without me even breaking Godwin’s law.

And you fail to understand Karma and Dharma and other faiths. And man doesn’t need to do anything to please a mythical entity. Show me one empirical, repeatable piece of proof for your god. The bible is not proof of your god as then you have just validated every other book of religious belief since they use the same logic. You are pretty much saying “My way is best because I say so! Aren’t I clever?”. It’s like me writing a book that justifies me as the world’s best dancer and when people say that I am terrible I show them that same book as proof that I am
the world’s greatest dance machine! 

The first written evidence of deviation from God’s original plan of self-LESS expiation, comes from the example in Genesis, where Cain went against God’s established rule of offering flesh (signifying the body of His Son) as the only acceptable sacrifice. This, of course, does not condone or promote cannibalism, as some stupid infidels have asserted, it was meant as a teaching aid meant to reinforce the fact that God, Himself, in the form of His Son, would in future pay the penalty for sin which they could not and still remain alive. Only God had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. This effectively skirted Satan’s accusations that the law couldn’t be kept. You see the fallen angel’s spirit in so many infidels, today. They claim God’s law is foolish and non-existent, yet it is the sole originator of all moral values in our society.

How is rejecting a sacrifice of grain a teaching aid to a convoluted set of plans that aren’t even required that culminates in the death of God’s son to absolve mankind of a non crime? That’s bloody idiotic. In order for me to forgive someone, I just have to do that. I don’t have to kill my only son. That’s the weakest part of christian theology considering your god is supposed to be omnipotent and has to dance through this ritual?

Morality predates religion. There were moral societies before christianity. See it’s actually an evolutionary advantage to be moral. Societies with moral behaviour tended to destroy ones that didn’t have any rules. Don’t murder, steal or lie actually make sense. Societies with basic rules such as that are more cohesive and are able to destroy and defeat groups of individuals who steal from each other and kill each other simply because the society without rules is more divided and easier to defeat as they cannot work together.

We can actually see the beginnings of morality by simply observing children at play as they make rules up to facilitate play. The more inclusive the rules the bigger the game. Eventually those games turned into sport with complex rules so as to encourage fair play and inclusiveness of the game to all. If life and death were in the equation, then these rules would be morality.

From this first deviation; Cain offering vegetable produce in place of the required blood-sacrifice, man has sought to do things on his own terms, eventually negating God from life’s equation through the satanic philosophy of evolution. All of the other religions sprang up around the premise that man could justify himself, offering something of himself to ‘appease’ the wrath of his manufactured deities. Paganism has evolved into a subtler but no less destructive version of self-justification, disguised as ‘science’ that absurdly teaches the same old pagan theory that natural forces are responsible for our origins and sustenance. Now, men worship lower animals as their progenitors, and/or other lower biological processes sustained by God, themselves, having or having formerly possessed some overt intelligence to ‘evolve’ later and more advanced versions of themselves, seemingly not satisfied with having attained a workable level of practicality in existence. The whole construct would be laughable, were it not so destructive.

No. All other religions are due to the extended mistake of assuming that there is an entity out there who control our environment and doing certain rituals allows us to produce favourable controls to our environment. It is a product of human ignorance and a lack of understanding. It is a product of fear. 

Paganism has nothing to do with science, science is a product of understanding the natural processes by which the universe functions and providing human beings with the ability to utilise this understanding to produce achievable human progress. Natural forces are responsible for origins and sustenance. Your entire life is directly dependant on the nuclear fusion of the sun’s hydrogen atoms which powers life on earth via photosynthesis. Without that you would die within days of starvation.

And evolution is fact. In each cell there is a DNA code which is the mechanism of inheritance that has been demonstrated empirically. Alterations to the frequency of variations in the genetic code and mutations and recombinations and expressions of the DNA code in different ways are responsible for our complexity. Not magic. You are an ape. A hominid (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) of the great apes with our distant relatives the orangutan, chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla. There were other hominids but they all went extinct over time. It’s fact in the same way that gravity is a fact. 

The only way to true happiness and fulfillment is not through endless and successive evolutionary transformations, (or lives, as Hinduism teaches… see the connection between it and evolutionary ‘science’?) it is through God, rather, His Son. Christ, incarnate, was and is the God of the Old Testament, it was He Who wrote the law on Mt, Sinai and gave it to Moses to give the world. It was God, Himself, that offered His life for man. Satan, man’s accuser, has done nothing but lead man astray with his specious teachings and promises of self-fulfilled, so-called enlightenment. Like his promise to Eve, his first dupe, of supplying her with forbidden wisdom; likewise, today, men strive to know the mind of God, failing miserably. Christ and His law, alone, stand firm while the best-laid plans of man come to naught.

Hinduism does not see true happiness in endless lives. It sees it in transcendence from this existence. Evolution doesn’t care about happiness, it cares about survival. It’s actually not that nice. Remember for the lion to live the deer must die, for the deer to live the lion must starve.

And happiness and fulfilment is not through your god. That is false happiness. Happiness is whatever you wish it to be. Fulfilment occurs not when you reach some heaven but when you achieve the small happiness that makes up human existence. You stand on the shoulders of small things achieved.

It’s a tragedy, only christians and fools think that acquisition of knowledge is mankind’s original sin. Without knowledge and wisdom you are no different from a chimpanzee. That is the difference between man and animal. Not divinity. The simple drive to achieve k
nowledge and utilise it to improve ourselves.

Fucking biology! How does it work?

Stands firm? I beg to disagree. I can do most of “christ’s miracles” with my technology. I have raised the dead (CPR), brought sight to the blind (glasses) and cured lepers (Dapsone). The green revolution feeds a billion people on this planet today, and I am talking to you using tame lightning on a device made out of sand, metal and the bodies of million year old monsters. The best laid plans of men are frankly titanic compared to your tiny god. The best laid plans of mice are titanic compared to your god.

Yes, your god is small. In scale and scope. We live on a single planet in a huge universe. And you are worried about some heaven when we wish to touch the stars themselves. There is more wonder in a single cell than in your entire bible. You just don’t realise it because you haven’t opened your mind. The only difference between us and the animals is the one thing you refused to use. Your capacity to accumulate knowledge and apply it. There are greater things on earth than in your philosophy.

The world’s population, for the most part, have rejected Christ and the life He brings. Yet, a small minority will overcome and accept, representative of the power of God’s Spirit in the lives of those willing to crucify darling self, such as He did, 2000 years ago. The infidel lives only for himself and those he deems worthy to be around him. He goes to an Godless grave, the same hopeless scenario that he espouses in his heretical worship of nature through evolutionary teaching. Irony incomprehensible!

I may or may not be dressed like Darth Vader.

Hahah! This is where we see the difference. Willing to crucify yourself? Okay. Prove it. I don’t like people who make grandiose claims. I am an atheist and a skeptic. If you say you are willing to crucify yourself then do so.

I go to a Jedi Funeral, not a grave. And to me the grave is the end of all things. Life is it’s own reward, it’s not a race to be run, it’s a walk to be enjoyed. And we do live for others. I learn to save lives for a living. I give people the gift of time to do as they see fit. Anything from a few seconds for a lover to say goodbye to a full life to someone who may have died. I have more value than anything I could gain from believing in any faith.

No magic belief can match upto the feeling you get when you see what you can do with your own human hands and the effective use of knowledge and human ingenuity is what achieved everything we have today. You are so fascinated with the bible that you haven’t realised how far man has rose.