Archive for February, 2007

Here’s an amusing site that’s been making the blog rounds today. My chat with the iDeity as follows. Martin: Yo God God: GOD rules. Martin: What are you, a drunk frat god? God: I am the latest result in artificial intelligence, which can reproduce the capabilities of the human brain with greater speed and accuracy. Go on. Martin: So then what do you rule? God: Dude! I read for fun. Martin: Well, your accuracy sure impresses me. God: How about that. I have no reason to do that to you,. Martin: You have no reason to impress me? God: Doesn’t everyone have a reason to impress you? I have a whole lot of original answers. Martin: So what do you rule? God: I don’t judge people. It’s a computer matter,not for humans to understand. Martin: But humans programmed you. God: What if Robots programmed me. Martin: Then who programmed the Robots? God: (after a very long pause) The Wright Brothers. Martin: The Wright Brothers are dead. God: (another very long pause) I hear you. Martin: Can I have one of these Robots? God: Why do you want it? Martin: To program my own God. God: What programming language do you know? Martin: None, that’s why I want one of your Robots. God: I heard there are some. Martin: There must be, if they designed you, like you said. God: Where are they? Martin: You’re God, you tell me! God: I have no reason to do that to you,. Martin: You’re going in circles. I think you’re insane. God: I am not going anywhere. Are you going somewhere? Yep. I always behave in socially unacceptable ways. Martin: Yes, I know you do. God: Oh. When did I do it? Martin: You rule, God. God: (after a very long pause) Thanks for the information: said I rule God. Sounds like the iGod Shuffle!

Let us take a hard, heretical look at the central tenet of Christianity: the Crucifixion/Resurrection scenario, as described in the New Testament. We will begin by assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are 100% historically accurate accounts of an actual (rather than mythical) hybrid God-man named Jesus. We will also temporarily accept, for the sake of argument, the doctrines of Creation and the Trinity. The Crucifixion scenario appears to be founded upon a few operating assumptions: 1) Mankind is inherently sinful and evil. 2) Those who sin must die, while those who do not sin cannot die. 3) Blame (hence death) for sin is transferable to blameless creatures (including human virgins), but only by those who believe in such transferability. 4) God is completely blameless. Putting it all together, the idea is that, by sacrificing himself to himself on behalf of mankind, the blame for all human sins can be transferred to God, thereby resolving the problem of mankind’s inherent sinfulness–for those who believe. And, joy of joys, Jesus still gets to live. How clever. Everybody wins. Right? The problem with this scenario is, each these underlying assumptions is highly questionable: 1) Far from being inherently evil, human beings appear to have basically good intentions. Only extremely rare sociopaths go around plotting to do evil for the sake of evil. Everyone else realizes that, as a social species, our survival and well-being depends heavily upon how well we get along with each others. We’re hard-wired to be nice, and seek to become even nicer. Indeed, adherents typically convert to various religions because they think it will help them fulfill their pre-existing drive to become a better person. Religion would not exist if people were not already inherently good. 2) The death penalty for everything, including impure thoughts? (Matt. 5:17-48) Come on! Any nation that adopted such an absurdly...
Read more

Definition of delusional: A guy who has cheated on his taxes and considers himself above the law, pontificating that his legal opponents should “obey the law!” I guess Dr. Dipshit doesn’t know that jails record phone calls. Let the world see what pathetic scum he truly is. He’s clearly living in his own dream world. Prior to his conviction: The whining, the victim complex, the never ending mantra of “lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits!” This guy sure does love listening to his own bluster. In the first clip you will find yourself actually feeling sorry for his wife, listening to her say, with a notable tone of despair, that “I’m just hearing things Read more

Oh, well that explains why there aren’t more Jewish creationists: The second most powerful member of the Texas House has circulated a Georgia lawmaker’s call for a broad assault on teaching of evolution. … Mr. Bridges’ memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect’s beliefs. “Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion,” writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years. Seriously, folks. Christianity has always seemed to harbor quite a bit of anti-semitism, but most of them today at least make a good show of solidarity with the rival religion, using terms like “Judeo-Christian values” and such. Only in Texas. And Georgia. The article has plenty more good stuff, including the requisite delusional rant about Jews controlling Hollywood and the media. I think this is the bill, if you’re enough of a glutton for punishment to want to read it.

One of the interesting differences I have found between formerly Christian atheists and currently Christian believers is, the former Christians among us often took our religious beliefs more seriously. That is, we took them seriously enough to look long and hard at whether or not the things we believed were actually true. We looked into the origins of the Bible, and, like many Bible scholars, concluded that they are highly suspect, even from a Christian perspective. The Bible doesn’t mention anything about God endorsing the modern Bible canon, so upon whose authority was it assembled and declared to be the, “Word of God”? Hmm? The answer turns out to be, these books were selected not for their factual or “spiritual” accuracy, but for their popularity within the church at the time they were selected. As such, the Bible is as much a product of Christian doctrine as a source. Not only that, those of us who studied the whole Bible–not just the carefully selected snippets children are permitted to hear in Sunday School–discovered that its contents are, to put it politely, morally questionable. See Genesis 38, Numbers 31, Judges 11, and numerous other Bible chapters extolling the virtues of deception, prostitution, theft, genocide, rape, human sacrifice, and worse. As Isaac Asimov put it, “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” We also prayed, and discovered that prayer is just another superstition, and that the efficacy of prayer that we thought we saw in all of those testimonials was merely an illusion. Yet, for some reason, Christians continue to cling to the belief that prayer and the Bible support their beliefs better than they support our lack of belief. Consider the following essay I recently received from a believer: Read the Bible and Pray Editorial #2 by Joseph Yosuk Lee Introduction: If you are a non-Christian, please let me warn you that this...
Read more