Update on Cancer Recovery and Stuff »« Election 2012, and the Victory of Secular Values

“Why Are You Atheists So Angry?” Now At Amazon!

Why Are You Atheists So Angry? coverThe print edition of my new book, Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless, is now available at Amazon!

I know that many of you have been waiting for this. A lot of people like to do their book shopping at Amazon: they have affiliate programs with them, they like the discounts and shipping deals, etc. If so, now’s the time to buy! And if you have friends and family you want to recommend the book to, and if they’re also dedicated Amazon shoppers (or are just most familiar with book shopping there), now you can send them the Amazon link!

The book is also available in several ebook formats: the Kindle edition is available on Amazon, the Nook edition is available at Barnes & Noble, and Smashwords has the book in multiple formats, including iBooks, Sony Reader, Kobo, Kindle (.mobi), Stanza, Aldiko, Adobe Digital Editions, any other reader that takes the Epub format, Palm Doc (PDB), PDF, RTF, Online Reading via HTML, and Plain Text for either downloading or viewing. All ebook editions and formats cost just $7.99.

The audiobook version is available at Audible, iTunes, and Amazon. And yes, I did the recording for it!

And you can also get the print edition through Last Gasp — wholesale and retail mail-order — or through the Richard Dawkins Foundation bookstore, the American Atheists bookstore, and directly from the publisher, Pitchstone Publishing. The print edition is $14.95. Less at Amazon.

Here is the description of the book, and some wonderfully flattering blurbs.

*

Why are atheists angry?

Is it because they’re selfish, joyless, lacking in meaning, and alienated from God?

Or is it because they have legitimate reasons to be angry — and are ready to do something about it?

Armed with passionate outrage, absurdist humor, and calm intelligence, popular blogger Greta Christina makes a powerful case for outspoken atheist activism, and explains the empathy and justice that drive it.

This accessible, personal, down-to-earth book speaks not only to atheists, but to believers who want to understand the so-called “new atheism.” “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?” drops a bombshell on the destructive force of religious faith — and gives a voice to millions of angry atheists.

“Greta Christina’s analysis of religion is acute and witty, and at the same time fair and compassionate. And I’m jealous: I sure wish I could write as well as she does.”
-Alan Sokal, Professor of Physics, New York University

“Greta has done something truly impressive with this book: She explains in a calm, reasonable, and thoughtful way exactly why she’s a pissed-off, angry atheist. She’s not alone, though, and it’s not only other atheists who will agree with her. In fact, I *dare* religious people to read this book and not come away furious at the often awful impact faith has had on the world, even if they don’t believe they’re responsible for it. I may be a ‘friendly atheist’ online, but Greta definitely speaks for me in this book.”
-Hemant Mehta, Friendly Atheist, author of I Sold My Soul on eBay

“You should read it, it’s fabulous and ferocious.”
-PZ Myers, Pharyngula

“If only more people could channel their anger into something so inspiring! Greta Christina has written the perfect book for anyone who wonders about the true impact of religious dogma on women’s health, gay rights, science education, and the daily lives of those who have no faith. Her concluding chapter, which contains solid advice for how to make a positive change in the world, will ensure that you’ll have an outlet for all that rage you’ll build up by the end of the book. Trust me — you’ll need it.”
-Rebecca Watson, Skepchick.org

“I found this book informative and enraging! Leave it to Greta to inform and elucidate like no other. I highly recommend this book to everyone, everywhere. And I hope never to get Greta angry at me. :)
-David Silverman, President, American Atheists

“Greta Christina’s book offers a passionately lucid explanation of the reasons for atheist anger and its connection to the energy behind all movements for social justice. It is both informative and inspiring.”
-Ophelia Benson, Butterflies and Wheels

“They say if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention. Well, Greta Christina is definitely paying attention — and in this book, she delivers a clean, bracing blast of atheist anger, like a refreshing cool breeze in a stifling hothouse of faith, that offers compelling reasons why all rational people of conscience should oppose religion and the harm it does.”
-Adam Lee, Daylight Atheism

“Greta Christina is one of the best writers on religion out there, period. I’ve been waiting for this book for a long time.”
-Chris Hallquist, The Uncredible Hallq

“This just became my number-one book to recommend to all believers and new atheists alike. I thought the field of atheist literature was all just rehashing the same stuff by now. But this is an original, visceral, and ultimately complete defense of not just atheist outrage, but atheism itself. Greta sticks to the undeniable facts-on-the-ground and articulates it all correctly and well, heading off every possible rebuttal with brilliant economy. She never gets bogged down in abstract philosophy, yet still hits every key abstract point, leaving you by the end with no rational reason not to agree, and finally kick to the curb that useless old religion, or get off your bum and really do something for the cause.”
-Dr. Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness without God

Comments

  1. ismenia says

    I bought mine from American Atheists and got free postage to the UK. I wondered if it was a mistake up until the day it arrived.

  2. jaaten says

    Already have it from Smashwords but there’s just something about owing s book that you can touch. Just out of curiosity, would You be willing to sell off some signed copies, Greta?

  3. says

    I bought this book at Skepticon last weekend, and I finished it yesterday. Wow. You’re amazing, and I officially have a girl-crush on your brain.

    I can’t tell you how many times I’ve made my family members and friends to listen to the YouTube of your presentation at Skepticon 4 on this subject. Thank you for expanding it to book length.

  4. smudkaren says

    Wonderful book – I’m lovin’ it! You clarify so well what I’ve tried to say over the years but could not, because I was so angry. Thank you for doing the hard work of spelling out what pisses us off so much without getting mired in the rage.

  5. Uncle Ebeneezer says

    I just finished the book last week. Bravo! I was already fairly familiar with most of the religious outrages but Greta managed to find a couple I had never even thought of. She not only lists every conceivable reason why religion deserves to be fought, but she meets all of the anticipated responses and refutes them wholeheartedly and takes the time to explain her arguments with great precision. I also really enjoyed the humor. And while the books title will lead many to expect a long-form, angry rant (and there is some of that), I was surprised by how reasonable Greta’s tone was through most of it. I think alot of people will be surprised at just how fairly and respectfully Greta treats religious faith. Although she skillfully decimates it from every angle imaginable.

    The best thing about this book is that it makes not only the argument for why religion is on-the-whole bad, but she really lays out the case for why atheists are not only justified in their anger, but why they should be encouraged to come out, be proud, and be confrontational. Not that everyone has to fight. But she explains why the fight is important and gives the best explanation that I have seen thus far for why the fighters should be appreciated and encouraged. It was refreshing, given all the cries for accommadation, that we see so regularly in atheism and the greater public sphere.

    I would put this book right up there with Breaking The Spell. I think they are both must-reads for anyone on the fence about faith, and incredible resources for tightening up your arguments for defending atheism. Well done Greta. Thanks for making this atheist feel even better about my positions and the importance of confronting religion head on.

  6. stonyground says

    @#9
    Atheists’ criticism of theists is justified. Theists hate each other just for believing something different, no justification required.

    The book is on my Xmas list, it being available on Amazon makes life easier for everyone.

  7. echidna says

    Sandy@9,
    You seem to think that religion is benign, despite all evidence to the contrary. Unjustifiable beliefs do harm. Read the book.

  8. Shawn Smith says

    Thanks for getting the dead tree version produced and pointing to other places besides fucking evil amazon.com to obtain it. It’s greatly appreciated.

    And sandyaffer, take your prayers into your closet as Matthew tells you to do so and try doing something useful outside of the closet, instead. The world will be a better place for it. Peace.

  9. rrede says

    Yowza, on Kindle! I bought a Kindle earlier this year.

    It is….incredibly addicting and even nifty.

    *dashes off to buy*

  10. joe4060 says

    The statement (in Why are you Atheists so Angry) – “Evolution is the foundation of the science of biology – biology literaly doesn’t make sense without it – and kids who aren’t being taught about evolution are being deprived of one of the most fundamental ways we have of understanding ourselves and the world.” – in ch 1 point 28 that claims evolution to be true is based on unprovable assumptions.

    For evolution to be true, the following questions need to be satisfactorily answered.

    How did life originate?
    Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Havard, said, “We don’t really know how life originated on this planet.” A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even the average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

    How did the DNA code originate?
    The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters – just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

    (The DNA molecule is the most compact and efficient information storage system in the known universe. For example, the amount of information that could be stored in a single pinhead of DNA would be equivalent to a pile of paperback novels 240 times as high as the distance from the earth to the moon, or 100 million times more information than a 40 gigabyte hard drive could hold on your computer. Even if we could explain the creation of complex coded information by chance, there would be another problem. We would need at the same time to create a mechanism capable of reading and using this coded information; otherwise, the information alone is useless. A fully functional system for writing, reading, and using information is required. This is an example of “irreducible complexity.” That is, to be fully functional, the writing mechanism, the reading mechanism, and the mechanism for using the information must all be present the very first instance it appears. If one of these components is missing, the system won’t work. Since life is built on a hierachy of such “irreducibly complex” machines, the idea that natural processes could have made mere chemicals into living systems is untenable. [Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion - UFO's and the Evolution Connection, page 119. An expose of the UFO phenomena])

    Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
    Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in text books are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Havard palaeontologist (and evoutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.” Other evolutionist fossil experts also admit the problem.

    How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
    Professor Gould wrote, “The maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

    How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
    If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

    How could mutations – accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.) – create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?
    How could such ERRORS create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for HOW TO MAKE PROTEINS and also for CONTROLLING THEIR USE – much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless.
    Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1000 human diseases such as haemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biological pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., how did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

    Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution,’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
    By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the ARRIVAL of the fittest (where genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an enviroment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the ORIGIN of the traits that make an organism adapted to an enviroment. E.g., how do minor back and forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain ‘goo-to-you’ evolution?

    Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story telling tolerated?
    Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contary to evolutionary theory. Dr Phillip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggresive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. when an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behaviour, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

  11. joe4060 says

    Science

    Science itself is good…

    The works of the Lord are great, studied by all those who have pleasure in them. Psalm 111:2

    …if it is honest science.
    The main problem in the debate between science and religion is that many people on both sides have been misled into believing that they are incompatible. But religion based on the authority of God’s word in the Bible has nothing to fear from science; on the contrary, all areas of genuine honest scientific study have helped to validate the Bible.
    Most scientific evidence is useless on its own unless it is INTERPRETED correctly and honestly, without bias. The interpreters (scientists) can get the evidence to say anything they want depending on their belief system. Any evidence that may be too contrary to a scientist’s world view can be quietly pushed into the background in favour of something more suitable; and there are also many past interpretations of scientific evidence which have since proven to be fallacious.
    Lies, deceit and corruption reside in ALL areas of human activity, including science and religion.
    Many harmful and dangerous myths, superstitions and fears (including those perpetrated by scientists) of the past would not have gained any advantage over people if some simple individual study had been conducted. For example, from the beginning, most sailors have known that the earth was round because a ship’s mast gets shorter and eventually disappears as it goes over the horizon regardless of which direction they take. The top of a mountain appears first before getting taller the closer the ship sails to land.

    It is he who sits above the circle of the earth… Isaiah 40:22 [700 B.C.]

    Anyone sitting above the earth (in this case God) can see that it is round. A sphere has a circular profile from any angle.
    The fact that chimpanzees and gorillas have some similar features and behaviours as humans is not evidence and proof that we share a common ancestor with them, because these same facts can just as well point to evidence and proof of a Creator.

    The age of the earth
    Biological evidence for a young age of the earth:

    The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for fossils, not the 65 plus million years claimed by the palaeontologists.

    Many fossil bones “dated” at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth.

    DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

    The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deletrious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago (Sanford, J: Genetic Entrophy and the Mystery of the Human Genome. Ivan Press 2005).

    The very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.

    Other evidence:
    Carbon-14 in coal, oil, fossil wood and diamonds: Carbon-14 only lasts thousands, not millions of years.

    Evidence of recent volcanic activity on earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old.

    Human history is consistent with a young age of the earth: Length of recorded history, origin of various civilizations, writing etc. all about the same time several thousand years ago.

    The origin of agriculture: Secular dating puts it at about 10,000 years and yet that same chronology says that modern man has supposedly been around for at least 200,000 years. Surely someone would have worked out much sooner how to sow seeds of plants to produce food.

    Evidence for Noah’s global flood
    Many road or highway cuttings world-wide, through high ground, hills and mountains show multiple sedimentary layers that were laid down in quick succession before setting (like concrete).
    Secular science claims that these sedimentary layers were formed separately over millions of years rather than as a result of a catastrophic universal flood.

    Some evidences that refute this:

    The alleged great ages between the layers does not acccount for the lack of erosion between them. There are clean lines marking the different layers indicating that they were all formed together in quick succession before they could be disturbed by erosion.

    Objects like boulders and trees are embedded in and pass through many layers at the same time.

    Vast thicknesses of sedimentary layers folded or doubled back on themselves with no signs of stress or cracking showing that all the layers were soft during the process of being folded, indicating that they were all laid down within a short time.

    No mechanism is able to form these vast world-wide sedimentary deposits, which can be seen exposed on mountains and in valleys (like the Grand Canyon), other than a world-wide catastrophic flood, which had to be deep, fast, and of enormous power in order to be able to move and sort such a vast quantity of earth, huge boulders and silt into layers covering whole continents the world over.

    The evolutionary view of time

    The theory of evolution can only survive at all if it keeps shovelling more and more zeros onto the age of relics from the past, the earth and the universe (at last count between 15-20 billion years depending on who is telling the story).
    Without the alleged great age of the physical universe, evolution as an idea much less a reality is dead.

  12. joe4060 says

    The Biblical view of time

    Since God is eternal, time is also subject to him:

    …that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2Peter 3:8

    Any quantity of time regardless of its size still comes under the authority of eternity.

    …the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy… Isaiah 57:15

    Next to eternity, time, as our reasoning perceives it (past, present and future) shrinks to nothing.
    Without physical movement (by sun, planet or atom) there is no reference for time as we know it.
    In reality, “time” is just a bundle or sequence of events which occur within eternity.
    All of time and history is contained in a cup. The cup is surrounded by eternity. Eternity is one continual ‘now.’
    Time does not exist outside the cup. We are part of the history in the cup which is surrounded by eternity and so we are living within eternity. God is holding the cup, that is, time had a beginning…

    So the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5

    …and it will also have an end.

    “…that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40

    Whenever time or times is mentioned in The Bible, it refers to an event or events, or, a measurement of duration of these events relative to us, i.e.days, weeks, months and years as ordered by our sun and planet; that is, a local measurement of duration in reference to physical movement within our solar system.

    Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years…” Gen 1:14

    This being the original ‘clock,’ to which all other time keeping devices are tuned. Even the precision of an atomic clock could not tell if it was night or day anywhere on earth without an original reference to an actual sun-rise and sun-set in a specific geographic position.

    Eternity, rather than being linear, that is, “from eternity past to future eternity” (eternity does not need a past, present or future; otherwise it would not be eternity. Trying to blend past, present and future tense with eternity is self refuting) is instead, a “continual now.”
    Eternity or the “continual now” is the reality. The finite or temporary events which occur in our lives reside within this reality.
    Since the physical universe is like a clock hanging in eternity, with no reference of time outside of itself to which it can be tuned, this renders “time” captive and limited to and only “generated” by the dictates of movement within the physical realm of the universe itself, be it solar system, star or atom.
    For example, the body of the clock (universe) is stationary. The only thing that moves to generate a measurement of duration (time) are some minor cogs and mechanisms (solar system, star or atom) within, but which have no bearing or influence on anything around it, since it is only a minor mechanical movement inside an unmoving whole (the body of the clock). This would also apply if the cogs and mechanisms ceased to function; nothing would change; eternity would still remain eternity despite anything that was or was not moving within it.
    From this model it can be shown that, Time, as an entity, does not exist. There is just a finite duration of finite events occuring within eternity. The continual now is not affected simply because a physical device (the universe) suddenly appears (creation) within in it and starts to tick away.
    We are always in the present moment; the continual now.

    “Time” that is to say, a standard unit of duration as indicated to an observer by means of regular and precise phtsical movement (between sun and planet), has no more importance or function, other than as a God given tool to measure and control the duration of events in our lives i.e. work, play, sleep etc. that is, to keep events instigated by us or by God flowing in an orderly fashion.

    …to divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years…

  13. joe4060 says

    The big bang theory (everything came from nothing)

    Nothing begets nothing. What property does nothing have that allows it to create? It cannot have any properties; otherwise it would not be nothing.
    For the big bang theory to even be plausible it still requires a cause outside of itself to initiate it in the first place. Anything that has a beginning in existence cannot be its OWN cause; it requires CAUSATION.
    The following is the well-known “cosmological argument” for the existence of an independent cause or Creator as the cause of the universe, and who therefore necessarily existed in eternity before the physical universe (time and space) came into being.

    1. Everything that begins to exist (comes into being) has a cause.

    2. The universe began to exist.

    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    The logic that everything came from nothing, of its own accord, without cause (design without a designer) could at best be described as a mad pagan fantasy.
    The question could be asked: why was it the UNIVERSE that came into existence rather than something ELSE? And why did it begin to exist at THAT particular moment, instead of any other moment?

    Rather, the cause of the universe would need to be transcendent, uncaused, timeless, changeless, and immaterial (outside of time and space). There would need to exist beforehand, a personal, all powerful, unembodied mind that could cause everything to come into being from nothing.

    For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

    If things LOOK designed, then logically, they ARE designed. For example, if we found some machinery on the back side of the moon, with no sign of anyone about, we would still assume that someone had designed it.

    Another well-known argument for the existence of a transcendent, personal cause of the universe is: Moral evil proves the existence of God.

    1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (values that transcend nature, and that universally transcend, for example, that of the Nazis, cannibal’s etc. which are cultural or RELATIVE rather than objective).

    2. Evil exists

    3. Therefore, objective moral values exist

    4. Some things are evil, therefore God exists.

    Some argue that the existence of evil DISPROVES the existence of an all-good, all-powerful and loving God. But this argument cannot prove that an all-good, all-powerful and loving God does not have MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASONS for temporarily permitting evil in the world.

    The theory

    Darwin’s theory is self-refuting in its claim that natural selection is a mechanism by which evolution works. Natural selection by DEFINITION gets rid of, or selects against any useless physical parts, which means that it would also select against a useless partially evolved organ, limb etc. that requires great ages to become functional and of any benefit. Mutations would never survive natural selection long enough to fully develop. Natural selection actually PREVENTS evolution.

    “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while its happening.”
    Bill moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network.

    One way the theory has tried to defeat this problem in the past is by claiming that ‘vestigial organs’ in humans and animals are evidence for evolution, that is, things like the appendix and tailbone in humans were claimed to be the shrinking remnants of once useful parts left over from the evolutionary process, but are now no longer necessary. But almost all of these parts have now been proven to be part of the biological function, and in many cases actually necessary for life and health.

    Conclusion

    Evolution is really an anti-Christian belief system which requires a lot of blind faith to make it ‘work.’
    It is just another religion, full of lies and fables, which is taught in schools as scientific and historic fact.

    “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian… The literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution from the beginning and it is true of evolution still today… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
    Micheal Ruse, who was a professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada.

    At its core, it is actually an old pagan religion based on nature worship and humanism that has been around for thousands of years in one guise or another. Its modern incarnation is simply hiding behind the pseudo-scientific cloak given to it by Darwin, whose book – ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STUGGLE FOR LIFE (which also helped to give racism scientific respectability a century ago) – is full of imaginative stories and special pleading rather than solid science. As in past ages, nature has been turned into a ‘god’ or idol.

    …and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator… Romans 1:25

    The theory was basically formulated as a means of escaping God. If there is no God then there is no accountability and judgement.
    This allows for a very flexible morality which is generally the real reason behind its popularity.

    The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. Psalm 14:1

  14. Greta Christina says

    joe4060: Please read this blog’s comment policy. This blog has a rule against comment hogging and topic hijacking, and you are in egregious violation of that rule. I am especially unimpressed with comment hogging that is clearly copied and pasted from another website, without any original thought put into it. Please respect my comment policy, or leave this blog. Thank you.

  15. joe4060 says

    Greta

    Being unimpressed with comments that are copied and pasted or “without any original thought” does not answer the questions or refute the statements.
    If you are (rightly) angered at the harmful lies and deciet found in religion then you should be just as angry at the lies and deciet that constitutes evolution.

  16. Greta Christina says

    joe4060: Experience has taught me that it is a waste of time to debate with people who are unable to make their own arguments – especially when they are so disrespectful of my blog that they fill It with comment after comment of copied and pasted nonsense. I am eapecially unwilling to waste my time this way now: due to my recent illness, my energy is extremely low, and I am being very selective about what I work on and how. Make your own arguments, and do so concisely, or leave. Thank you.

  17. thebookofdave says

    @ joe4060

    tl;dr;dc

    @ Greta

    I’m unfamiliar with the Kindle thing. Is there a way to buy your book and send it as a gift to a friend’s Kindle? How would I go about doing that?

  18. says

    joe4060:

    Much of the scientific information in the above comments can be found at creation.com

    Uhm, no it can’t.

    I mean, the words you copied and pasted are there. But that’s not science, my gullible sweetums. It’s really just a bunch of gobbledygook. As in, there’s no scientific basis to what you posted. So really, there’s nothing requiring response. It’s as if a child said, “But the sky is kelly green. And you haven’t given me any reason to believe otherwise!” How do you respond, except to wonder if perhaps the child is colorblind?

    You, my dinkums, are colorblind to science. But good show. Truly. I mean, to bravely cut-and-paste arguments against things you don’t understand — fucking brilliant.

    It’s so sad to see people like you just accept what your pastors say, or repeat those places on the internet to which you’ve been directed, like cattle. Such a waste of human intelligence.

    But, on-topic: Greta, thank you. I just received my copy a couple of days ago. I’ve been reading it. Wonderful. Not so much in its originality, but in its expression. Most of what you’ve presented has been presented before — but not so entertainingly. You’ve captured unbelief concisely and drolly, making me laugh and cry, often at the same time.

    Thank you. You’ve saved me a helluva lot of writing. Now I can just point folks to your book and be done with it.

  19. joe4060 says

    nigelthebold

    “Its really just a bunch of gobbeldygook. As in, there’s no scientific basis to what youve posted.”

    This is not a very scientific response to some perfectly legitimate questions that anyone can understand.

    Hiding behind “you copied and pasted” and “colourblind to science” etc. is just dodging the issue.

    P.S the sky is blue

  20. says

    This is not a very scientific response to some perfectly legitimate questions that anyone can understand.

    First, my response wasn’t intended to be scientific. It was intended to be dismissive, the same way I’d dismiss non sequiturs of any stripe. Your questions aren’t scientific questions. They are ginned-up questions about scientific topics; the questions themselves aren’t in any way scientific.

    Hiding behind “you copied and pasted” and “colourblind to science” etc. is just dodging the issue.

    Okay. I’ll address the non-scientific nature of your questions, so-as not to dodge the issue.

    First, let me address this statement:

    For evolution to be true, the following questions need to be satisfactorily answered.

    This is an assertion without logical standing. You present a list of questions, but fail to establish they must be answered for evolution to be true. Evolution through natural selection is an established, observed, and well-modeled process, one that is not only very well understood, but well-documented. The validity of the theory is not predicated on satisfactorily answering other questions. Claiming the accuracy of a theory — one that not only adequately explains observation, but has predicted some of the most astounding discoveries in science — is questionable due to our current ignorance in other areas is absurd, and shows a distinct misunderstanding of what science is.

    But let’s take this seriously, as if you weren’t an ignoramus presenting old and tired arguments that have been refuted a hundred times already.

    How did life originate?

    We don’t know. We have ideas on how life might have originated, but we don’t know for sure which model is correct, or if it was some other mechanism that has yet to be proposed.

    Big deal. Ignorance of something does not mean that something did not occur, or could not occur.

    Again you flaunt your basic misapprehension of the nature of science.

    How did the DNA code originate?

    Ah! The old, “DNA is a code, and codes must be intelligently created” canard. Again, not very scientific of you, is it?

    What other coding system has existed without intelligent design?

    Mathematics. Logic. But even without these examples, the question itself is not scientific in any way. There are built-in biases and assumptions, which is exactly the opposite of what the epistemology and methodology of science require. The practice of science is spent almost entirely in eliminating assumptions and biases, and yet you cart them in proudly.

    Not only do you misunderstand science, you really misunderstand the fundamental nature of information, and what is meant by a code. You expressed your definition of code as this:

    The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters – just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen).

    Your understanding of code is constrained by this definition. Written information is purely artificial, by definition. If you define the word code in terms of artificial information, then DNA is not a code. The key to understanding this is to realize that information is a natural property of the universe. Look at the formula for any principle in physics and you’ll see an encoding for information. Whether it’s distance or charge or spin or the respective velocity of two bodies, information is fundamental to physics. Which means it’s fundamental to nature.

    DNA doesn’t code information as you conceive of information, with words and sentences, encoding human communication. What DNA does is fundamentally similar to the function of catalysts everywhere. It’s a chemical reaction — which is information. It’s just not words and sentences describing a protein. It’s a chemical template for the protein.

    The DNA molecule is the most compact and efficient information storage system in the known universe.

    Bullshit. Again, you show your ignorance. Quantum systems are the most compact and efficient information storage system in the known universe. And they encode reality.

    Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

    Why do you think they are missing?

    We find transitional fossils all the time. Y’know those predictions of evolution I mentioned above? Yeah. Read about the discovery of tiktaalik. Using what we understand of geology and evolution, Neil Shubin predicted where he would find a specific kind of transitional fossil.

    This canard has been addressed thousands of times before. It demonstrates an ignorance of evolution, of history, and the current state of science in general.

    Please do try to keep up.

    How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

    Again, you ask a non-scientific question as if it were scientific. Your assumptions are spelled out right there in your question — blind is a loaded word, one rife with bias and assumptions, which is the exact opposite of what science is about. But I’m getting used to that from you.

    The mind is just the process of the brain, an information processor. Not information like in a computer, information as in, the mathematical and logical relationships that exist between all things, independent of observation or understanding.

    In any non-trivial mathematical system, patterns emerge. Hell, that’s what mathematics is, quantifiable patterns. In a coherent system, fundamental patterns can be combined to produce higher-level patterns. Check out Conway’s Game of Life for an excellent example of these higher-level patterns emerging from low-level patterns. (We call these higher-level patterns emergent behavior.)

    Intelligence is an emergent behavior built up from lower-level patterns. All of this is based solely on the mathematical nature of the universe, which we model under the discipline of physics.

    Your conflation of morality with evolution (or science in general) is yet another flagrant disregard for the actual nature of science.

    If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching…

    I’m not sure what “evolutionary teaching” is, other than a buzzword for “I really don’t understand evolution.” Evolution through natural selection is a scientific theory, not a school of thought. It’s a model of reality based on observation, and tested through successful prediction. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of God, so your argument starts off nonsensically.

    But whatever.

    …what purpose or meaning is there to human life?

    To exist.

    Really. Were you expecting something else?

    Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

    Why? Nihilism has nothing to do with science. I know creationists like to present non-science in science classes, but it’s not a very sound policy.

    How could mutations – accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.) – create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

    Seriously? What do you think the term “natural selection” means, exactly?

    You haven’t bothered learning anything at all about evolution, have you? This is one of the things evolution requires to even work. Hell, it’s this very requirement that predicted the existence of DNA.

    (I’d like to point out that the theory of evolution has predicted many things that have proven true. The Bible has never predicted on single scientific fact that has proven true.)

    I will give you a hint, though. All that complexity in DNA? Yeah. It didn’t start out with that level of complexity. And if you wanted, I could write you a ten-line Perl script that would demonstrate how randomness can result in complexity, as long as there is selection.

    It’s really quite a simple concept.

    Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story telling tolerated?

    It’s not tolerated.

    I notice your examples are all of evolutionary psychology. If you read Pharyngula at all, you’ll find that biologists tend to have no patience with evolutionary psychology. So, sorry young Padwan, your question is a non sequitur.

    But while we’re on the subject of just-so stories, tell me how religion isn’t the ultimate just-so story. Since the mind of God cannot be known, people can make up whatever they want. Even folks working from the same source material (say, the Bible) end up with wildly divergent concepts about the will of God.

    In fact, near as I can tell, religion is no different from making shit up. And as Greta pointed out in her book, tell me how you can know the Bible is true, since it has no way to check it against reality?

    You question the principles of evolution, which is fine. (You don’t ask any meaningful questions, and you obviously don’t understand that which you question, but we’ll ignore that for just a second.)

    But what do you propose in its stead? You seem to propose using a book written by bronze-age goat herders as a template for reality, when that very book doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You claim those who consider evolution through natural selection a good model of observed reality are dogmatic, while attempting to substitute a model that has very little congruence with observed reality.

    That’s the exact opposite of science, Sweetums.

     

    Okay. I’ve gone through your first long message, and didn’t find anything of scientific substance. Your “perfectly legitimate” questions turned out to be neither perfect, nor legitimate. You’ve demonstrated you know nothing about evolution, failing comprehension of the most fundamental principles. Your questions were loaded with bias and supposition, lacking the neutral objectivity required by science. The questions that hadn’t been discredited sixty years ago (or, in one notable case, well over a century ago) are either non sequiturs or nonsensical.

    You can do better than that. I mean, you didn’t even trot out irreducible complexity.

  21. says

    To continue:

    The main problem in the debate between science and religion is that many people on both sides have been misled into believing that they are incompatible. But religion based on the authority of God’s word in the Bible has nothing to fear from science; on the contrary, all areas of genuine honest scientific study have helped to validate the Bible.

    Really? in what way?

    For instance, scientifically, there was no world-wide flood during the time presented in the Bible. Scientifically, there is no reasonable way a single wooden boat would hold two of all species (and seven of many species). Scientifically, there is no evidence the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt (and therefore, there was no exodus). Scientifically, there is no sound evidence Jesus ever existed.

    Scientifically, pi is not 3.

    Scientifically, the world is not flat. Nor is the sky held up by pillars. Nor is the moon its own light. Nor does the sun revolve around the earth.

    In fact, name one scientific prediction made in the Bible that has proven true. And I don’t mean by post hoc creative interpretation.

    Many harmful and dangerous myths, superstitions and fears (including those perpetrated by scientists) of the past would not have gained any advantage over people if some simple individual study had been conducted.

    There’s a huge difference between myths and superstitions perpetuated by theologians, and those perpetuated by scientists. With science, you can compare their assertions against observed reality. If they are full of shit, they will be found out. Scientific fraud has been attempted, sometimes even successfully within the lifetime of the shyster.

    But it is always found out. Science attempts to model reality, and if reality and an assertion are at odds, reality wins.

    The same is not true of priests, rabbis, amams, monks, prophets, seers, mediums, and other religious figures. Their business is entirely the opposite of reality. And you’d understand this, if you read Greta’s book.

    It is he who sits above the circle of the earth… Isaiah 40:22 [700 B.C.]

    A circle is not a sphere. A circle exists in a plane, and so is flat.

    But why didn’t you give the rest of that verse?

    He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

    The heavens are nothing like a canopy. They are nothing like a tent to live in.

    The fact that chimpanzees and gorillas have some similar features and behaviours as humans is not evidence and proof that we share a common ancestor with them, because these same facts can just as well point to evidence and proof of a Creator.

    Untrue. For it to be evidence and proof of a Creator, you’d have to be able to predict that result from the proposition. The proposition of a Creator does not predict similarities between organisms. You can rationalize after-the-fact that God would create different kinds of organisms, but it isn’t predicted from the proposition of a Creator.

    However, the theory of evolution through natural selection does predict similarities between organisms. Further, it made a prediction we didn’t know at the time: that family relationships would exhibit genetic similarities, too. What’s even cooler, common descent predicts a specific, mathematical relationship between mutations in non-coding areas of DNA. The proposition of a Creator specifically does not make this prediction. It’d be a senseless thing for a Creator to bother with.

    The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deletrious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago (Sanford, J: Genetic Entrophy and the Mystery of the Human Genome. Ivan Press 2005).

    Sanford is a young-earth creationist who proposes “devolution.” His model is based on that concept, a concept which just doesn’t hold water. It’s really just a variation on the, “How can randomness result in information?” question. He just dresses it up in statistical models.

    Presenting this as “evidence” is ludicrous, as his models are unsupported by any evidence.

    The very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.

    Actually, it’s evidence for a limited population some time in our fairly recent past (say, around a million years ago). This isn’t an argument against evolution.

    Carbon-14 in coal, oil, fossil wood and diamonds: Carbon-14 only lasts thousands, not millions of years.

    Oh, come on. This has been refuted long ago. Others have taken the same measurements with the expected results, indicating the RATE measurements suffered from incorrect procedures.

    If all you’re going to do is keep presenting previously-discredited arguments and evidence, why should we take your seriously?

  22. joe4060 says

    nigelthebold

    Much of your response is just a deceptive smokescreen for “I don’t know” and for trying to defend a self-refuting theory that it’s proponents claim to be true history.

    Your spiel on information still does not address where the information came from in the first place and how it came to be in it’s present form.
    Your explanation of the DNA code still does not explain its origin.
    Mathematics and logic are just tools; they are lifeless, like a screwdriver or a hammer, and so could not bring themselves into existence either.

    The Bible’s account of creation clearly gives the answer as to where information came from.

    ‘He who streches out the heavens’ is obviously an analogy of God’s creative power directed at people who lived in tents. The heavens, being overhead, are like a conopy.

    Pillars and foundations of the earth refer to the pillars and foundations on which rest the administration of justice i.e. God’s commandments.

    The sky being held up by pillars refer to God’s physical laws.

    ‘The moon is its own light’ and the ‘sun revolves around the earth’ is from the point of view of the observer standing on the earth.

    Proof of Jesus’ (God was manifested in the flesh. 1Tim 3:16) existence is a historical rather than a scientific question.

    Your interpretation of the Bible has theology, science and history mixed together in confusion.

    The correct method of interpreting scripture is to put Christ the Redeemer, our God and Creator at its center, from Genesis to Revelation.
    Any method other than this is idolatry and only gives interpretations that can at best be described as blind madness.

  23. says

    joe4060:

    Much of your response is just a deceptive smokescreen for “I don’t know” and for trying to defend a self-refuting theory that it’s proponents claim to be true history.

    What smokescreen? Much of what I said was an explicit, “We don’t know.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by a “self-refuting theory,” though. What makes evolution self-refuting?

    Your spiel on information still does not address where the information came from in the first place and how it came to be in it’s present form.

    Yes, I did address where information comes from. Information is the set of relationships between physical entities. These relationships are intrinsic to the universe. Whether it’s the number of valence electrons in an atom, or the gravitational attraction between two bodies, or the spin entanglement of two particles, information at its most fundamental level is about relationships.

    In DNA, that information is the relationship between DNA, mRNA, and the proteins formed by the mRNA templates. The “code” of DNA isn’t a code like you are trying to use it here. It’s funny, though: a friend posted this great explanation after I mentioned that DNA is not a code in the same way the alphabet encodes words, and words encode concepts. Go read that.

    As for “where did DNA come from?” That’s another mystery. We have some ideas, but we don’t know which one is correct (or perhaps DNA came to arise in a way we haven’t thought of yet).

    Oops. Did I just admit we don’t know something? Y’know, that’s a dirty little secret of science. We all talk about it behind closed scientific doors, but scientists don’t claim to know everything. In secret, that’s really all we talk about, how we’re deceiving everyone into thinking scientists know everything. But really, we kind of rejoice in the idea that there are things left to discover, ideas we’ve not had yet, bits of reality to figure out, novel and fresh ideas that will astound and amaze us, and leave us stunned with wonder.

    But don’t tell anyone. That’s a dirty little secret.

    ‘He who streches out the heavens’ is obviously an analogy of God’s creative power directed at people who lived in tents. The heavens, being overhead, are like a conopy.

    Absolutely! That’s quite obvious. The other thing that’s obvious is that it was written from the perspective of people who live in tents, from the knowledge of people who live in tents.

    It’s almost as if it were written by someone who lived in a tent.

    It certainly presents no real objective knowledge about the nature of reality.

    Your interpretation of the Bible has theology, science and history mixed together in confusion.

    Uhm, no. You’re the one trying to use the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge. I’m merely pointing out that the Bible is a collection of myths and legends, often borrowed from other cultures, written down well after the fact. I’m saying the Bible is the confusion, with two divergent accounts of creation, an outright stealing of the Gilgamesh mythology, and bits and pieces of an oral history that had become confused over time.

    I’m saying the Bible is nothing more than a collection of documents from a culture that was neither the scientific pinnacle of the time, nor the region-spanning empire it claims. I’m saying the Bible has nothing at all to say on the subject of science, nor on objective reality — and the fact you attempt to dispose of my counter-arguments without so much as engaging them suggests you understand that fact, too.

  24. says

    joe4060:

    Also, too, we should probably take this discussion somewhere else, if you’re serious about it. This particular post is about Greta’s incredible awesomeness, specifically concerning her book (which the FDA has certified as 99 44/100% pure awesome, and the New York Times book review person reviewed as, “Awesome, with a hint of bacon*”).

    I suggest Pharyngula’s Thunderdome. It opens you up to a lot of other folks critiquing you, but if you like, I could politely ask those other folks to leave us alone.

    Respond here if you accept this as a good alternative, and I’ll kick things off in Thunderdome. Otherwise, I’ll consider this subject dropped and dead.

    I don’t wanna clutter up Greta’s blog more than we have.

     

    * Not an actual review, but it should be

  25. joe4060 says

    Thanks Nigel I enjoyed that. As to the details of our argument it will be more efficient if you went directly to creation.com with its 9000 articles and in-house scientists to answer any questions you may have.

  26. says

    joe4060:

    Thanks for the offer. However, I’ve been there, read that, and been greatly disappointed. As most creation science, they have gone about science exactly wrong — they have taken a supposition as fact (that the Bible is literally true), and used that as the basis for their research. Unfortunately, this is in clear violation of the epistemology of science, and destroys any utility science might provide them.

    Take, for example, the insistence (that you repeated above) that the various strata were laid down in a worldwide flood. This hypothesis is easily disproved. You can do it at home. Here’s how.

    First, consider how strata would be laid down by a worldwide flood. All the particulate matter would be mixed together during the initial turbulence. Then that particulate matter would settle out. But consider: how would it settle out? Why, it sounds like it’s time for an experiment!

    Take a jar with a cap. Throw in a handful of sand, a handful of pebbles, and a handful of mud. Fill the jar with water. Give it a good shake to simulate the initial conditions of the flood. Let the particulate matter settle out. Observe how the strata are formed.

    Note what this experiment predicts: the strata we observe, if laid down in a single event by a single catastrophic world-wide flood, would consist of heavier materials on the bottom (sand, which forms sandstone) and lighter materials on top (mud, which produces shale). So, the hypothesis that the strata were laid down in a single event makes certain predictions.

    However, what we find in various strata are completely different. We find layers of siltstone and shale with sandstone and conglomerates above. We find siltstone with channels of sandstone. We find the strata are all mixed up, almost as if they were laid down by different processes at different times.

    Take light from distant stars. We can measure with fair accuracy the distance from a light source (like a far-off galaxy). Many of these objects are several billion light-years away.

    Now, a scientist would work with what we know to judge the number of years that light has been in transit. We know the speed of light, and so the scientist concludes this light must have left the source billions of years ago.

    Not the creation scientist. No, because this conclusion — which is based on what we have observed of reality — violates their presupposition (that the universe is no more than 10,000 years old), they have to come up with an alternate explanation. They can’t claim those stars and galaxies are only 10,000 light years away, much closer than they appear, as then the universe would be nothing but a giant black hole, it would be so densely packed. No — they have to make up explanations whole-cloth, with no evidence, no observation, and no rational reason. They claim the speed of light has slowed over time.

    Never mind that this explanation makes predictions about background radiation, the effects of gravity, and other observable things — which all turn out to disallow a massive change in the speed of light. So, never mind that their explanation has been disproven. This is (last I checked a couple of years ago) their preferred solution to this conundrum.

    Creation scientists have to go through contortions to make their just-so stories work, simply to fit the age of the universe into a timeframe suitable for their theology. Yet they still have to ignore observations that contradict their propositions. This isn’t science. This isn’t even close to science. This is just making shit up to suit their preferred myth, while ignoring reality.

    It’s sad, really, as what we’ve learned from reality is far more fascinating, far more awe-inspiring than the set of contradictory stories and collection of bad morality in the Bible. And it’s sad that folks like you get your conception of science from them, so all you have is a corrupted understanding of the nature of science — and the science of nature.

    Saddest of all is your refusal to engage me yourself, choosing instead to lure me to a site that disregards science in favor of mythology.

    Anyway, I’ve already written more than I’d intended. If you want to discuss this further, it’ll have to be in Thunderdome.

  27. joe4060 says

    nigelthebold

    Thunderdome? Looks more like a two-man tent; but I will give it a go.

    P.S. Your admission that you don’t know the origins of information and the DNA molecule renders the claim that evolution is a proven fact, false, and therefore much of what is in Greta’s book is also false.
    Evolution has to be believed by faith, which makes it just another religion.
    Science itself has been turned into “God” or an idol of man’s own invention.

  28. thebookofdave says

    It’s official: comment hogged and topic hijacked. Challenge extended and accepted.

    I have placed my bet: an Act of God will force one of the contenders to forfeit.

    May the best paper tiger win.

  29. says

    Your admission that you don’t know the origins of information and the DNA molecule renders the claim that evolution is a proven fact, false, and therefore much of what is in Greta’s book is also false.

    Anybody who has any idea what they’re talking about is laughing at you right now. Just FYI.

    The scientific method, at its core, is based on the admission that we don’t know. That’s the basis of any reasonable epistemology. When you try to phrase that as a critique, you’re only exposing your own ignorance.

    The essential problem is that the people you’ve been listening to have been lying to you. They’re making shit up and they’re filling your head with crap.
    I strongly encourage you to study these subjects independently. Until you do that, you’re only going to be surrounded by lies.

    Don’t trust me and don’t trust them. Think for yourself.

  30. richardt says

    Greta I hope you are regaining strength and you will soon be bale to fight the good fight as it were.

    Can I mention one thing for the readers of your blog that in the UK there is a growing movement to boycott Amazon (and Starbucks and Google as well) for their corporate avoidance of UK tax. Their activities have been exposed by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee which has gone for them in a big way. Their profits are concealed by off shoring operations so that on sales of £400million Amazon paid no tax because it claims it made no profit as its operations are conducted from Luxembourg. Starbucks is running scared and is suing the UK government for peace. We’re waiting on the rest but clearly support from the USA would be welcomed.

    Thanks for the abuse of your space.

  31. i8thecat says

    Yes… I will be picking up this book.

    .

    I am the grandson of a pastor and the nephew of three pastors. I had religion thrust down my throat until I was old enough and moved out and was on my own. I still have to deal with it at holidays. As a child, I questioned the validity of the bible and all the stories within, I was quickly told to stop asking questions (especially questions that could never be answered with valid answers).

    .

    God never made sense to me and the whole religion thing seemed just like another version of the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and Santa Clause all rolled into the world’s oldest chain letter. It didn’t take long until I discovered that the gut instinct of a child is always right. Today I am a pissed off Atheist… I am tired of all the religie BS that has popped up in politics since Dubyah Dumbass went on his moronic faith based rampage. I’m tired of people knocking on my door and irritating the hell out of me in a lame attempt to validate their own stupid beliefs. I’m tired of religies try to force their beliefs on America, the country founded on freedom of religion/choice and the white Europeans desire to genocide a nation of Indians.

    .

    I don’t do this to family, but I do it to everyone else. I can usually shut any religie up with two questions… Why do you believe you are inbred and who created god. No one will ever convince me that we are all inbred from Adam and Eve and then inbred again from Noah and his inbred Ark. And as for the failed argument that someone must have created all we know… By that same logic, someone must have created god. Surely god just didn’t just pop out of empty nothingness. And who created the god that created god, and who created that god that created the creator of god and how far does that madness go on? Why are you just worshiping god and not the creator of god, or the creator of the creator of god? I’m sure god has to be far more complex and magnificent that all we know, after all, he created everything, and there is no way he could create something more splendid them himself. But it still doesn’t answer the question of why are you worshiping middle management and not the CEO?

    .

    The bible is fiction and it’s really bad fiction at that, not to mention being full of contradictions and boring as hell. Some people question the heck out of me when they learn that I am an Atheist. I tell them they are reading too much into it… Aside from the science it’s real simple. If you don’t believe in god or the bible, then you don’t believe in the devil or hell either… Atheist are not lost, we are just irritated with all the stupid people. When the stupid people leave us alone, we are very happy people who are full of life and love.

    .

    As for nigelTheBold… You Rock Dude!!!

    .

    As for joe4060… Go get laid and get a friggin life… The meaning of life comes when you are enjoying it, living it, and loving it. It doesn’t come from irritating others. Dump your baggage and start living, respect others and love everything and everyone you can and you will never question the meaning of life… Ever.

Leave a Reply