Our New Home
Sunday, August 31, 2008
My favourite part is how Jack Chick is using a Jack Chick comic to promote handing out Jack Chick comics to kids on Halloween. I don't know about you guys, but where I'm from an apple for Halloween can get your house egged - I can't imagine what would be done if someone gave out retarded comics about Jee-bus.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
I responded to Ray Comfort's blog post "A New Book". I don't want a copy of his book. Please, do something practical and useful instead. Take the cover price of the book, add what it would have cost to mail it to me, then send that amount to Doctors without Borders. Thank You.
"(Ray) is also committed to thinking that atheists aren't really atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, but if atheism is a sin then people who call themselves atheists must know that the Christian god really does exist just as (Ray's particular brand of) Christianity describes it; therefore they can't really be atheists. (Ray is) thus claiming that (he) know(s) atheists better than they know themselves and/or that atheists are lying to themselves about what they really believe.
"Alleged evidence for all this doesn't come from atheists' actual behavior or statements, but from (Ray's) own ideology — which means that (...) (his) own ideology is offered as "evidence" that critics of (his) ideology are wrong. Rather than seriously listen to atheists and consider what they have to say, (Ray is) simply looking backwards to (his) own ideology and coming up with 'answers' that do nothing more than force other human beings to fit into theological preconceptions. In effect, atheists are treated less like individual human beings and more like object lessons for a theology class." --Austin Cline (emphasis added)
To the above I would only add that if voluntarism is correct, then a strong case can be made that Ray is not really a Christian. More on this later.
You pesky Canadians better not find a way to vote for him!
Friday, August 29, 2008
A New Book
I have a new book coming out soon. There will be a chapter on atheism. Tell me, what do atheists (officially) believe about:
Heaven & Hell:
Posted by Ray Comfort on 8/29/2008 06:52:00 PM 0 comments
Anyone looking to be quoted mined?
"I have a new book coming out soon. There will be a chapter on atheism. Tell me, what do atheists (officially) believe about:
Heaven & Hell:
Ray, atheists have no "central" beliefs. When I'm not reading your blog, I don't think about how Yahweh doesn't exist, nor Allah, Zeus, Odin... Atheism doesn't drive beliefs or actions because it's literally a non-statement. There are no atheist "scriptures" or "leaders" that tell us what to "believe."
And really, I don't see a point in saying any more, since it'd just be twisted into some sort of nonsense.
"18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles." (stripped of all literary value so thickies can read it translation)
Why would you leave off the last sentence, Raymundo, huh? Tell me that, could ya? It's clearly the concluding idea of the fucking paragraph. Why miss it off? Why didn't you want anyone to see that bit of the idea, huh?
The pointless dweeb even quote mines the Bible.
Hopefully, you can all forgive me and I wont have to run away to the desert, where I'd live as a hermit.
...But, here goes. As you may or may not know, here in California we have this Proposition 8 (Which would ban Gay marriages) that religious groups keep trying to push. I can see that California is showing it's true intolerance from the conservative religious folk. Yesterday, while reading the L.A. Times, I found this neat letter to the editor: The topic? Proposition 8. Hopefully, you're able to smile at the letter a bit and forgive me....
P.S. I highlighted the letter in a pinkish color....
Faith and Prop. 8
Re "Churches plan a big push against same-sex marriage," Aug. 24
I won't presume to lecture non-Christians on their faiths, but as a lapsed Catholic, I'm slightly familiar with the New Testament. The funny thing is that Jesus' main point was loving your neighbor as yourself. That seems the polar opposite of the Proposition 8 effort.
Jesus spends a tiny bit of New Testament time on homosexuality, but you want to know what he was really tough on? Divorce.
And for all you Old Testament fans, check out the Ten Commandments! Not a single mention of gays and lesbians and their relationships. But it isn't a big leap to understand that "coveting thy neighbor's wife" and "stop with the adultery already" addresses divorce.
So where's the proposition to ban divorce? Do I hear crickets? C'mon!
Mobilize a million people over a proposition that bans straight divorce, one that really keeps families together, and I'll give up my right to gay marriage.
Jesus was also big on comforting the afflicted, feeding the hungry and, in general, helping those less fortunate. I'm happy to work side by side with you on these issues, if you'll see the fight against gay marriage for what it is: a wedge that politicians are using to keep us distracted from the real issues.
Aside from the LA Times, I also read the Press Telegram. A While back, a columnist wrote about the dangers of a secular society. Today in the PT, there was a rightful, short, and 'sweet' letter to the editor...
The main reason Prager opts for the existence of God is so he can continue to write his stupid column.
"Atheism has no moral anchor. There’s no absolute right or absolute wrong. That’s why you can advocate murder and not feel bad about it, all in the name of compassion. "
Ok, Ray, speaking of "murder", or more generally, the act of purposefully taking another person's life, is it absolutely right in all cases at all times and places or is it always, absolutely wrong?? Is it absolutely right or absolutely wrong to steal food? Can you, Ray Comfort, ever think of a time when murder or stealing is acceptable? If so, your morals are relative. Situational.
P.S. I haven't been around much due to my teaching schedule and research obligations.....I haven't forgotten about you all! Take care, be in and out from time to time!!! Fuck Ray!
In the "This is What You Are Saying" post on Ray's increasingly painful to read blog; counselor/pilot/spy/war-hero/schizophrenic Terry Burton (who has previously referred to himself as 'Science Degree Guy') said:
email@example.com (Terry) said...
@ Andrew IRT: Get a CLUE!
you said "seriously, if you're really interested in learning about physics and biology, there are a ton of excellent resources available"
FYI, I have a degree in science. The THEORY of evolution has nothing to do with physics and biology. In fact, both of these sciences show that our bodies and the world around us is very complex and intricate!
evolution is nothing more than a
bad 'guess' about it. It is NOT a science as nothing has been proven by 'hard evidence'.
Let me know if you find that 'missing link' as no one has found it for thousands of years!
God Bless! Hope you wake up and smell the reality of GOD.
August 29, 2008 6:10 AM
Now I'm no skeptic (ahem), but if Terry Burton has a genuine science degree from a real university then I will personally eat my own head. It would be futile to call him on it though - as we can see from Dimensio's continued efforts to get him to back up his lies about Darwin's Bogus Journey on the Beagle.
In other news; blogger 'andy' found this beautiful piece of scripture that blows a species-sized hole in the whole creationist 'kind' thing:
Everyone have a great weekend, I'm off to abort some single-celled humans for fun and, possibly, get some fishing done if I can squeeze in the time.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Atheists know everything ! said...
If humans evolved from apes, why are there no reptile-people or bird-people?
Why do plants not walk or fly?
I don't see grass running away from cows to avoid being eaten.
Why are there still single-celled organisms?
Why do apes still exist?
Why have Evolutionists not evolved any intelligence?
August 28, 2008 10:17 AM
Of course, it's depressing in its own way. I would like to think it's a Poe, but I fear it isn't.
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
These questions deal with the actual development of the Bible that we know today, particular the New Testament
1. How do we know we can trust the authors of the Bible?
With regards to authorship, we know that some of the epistles attributed to Paul really were written by Paul, but that's all we know. It was a commonly accepted practice in those days to attribute written works to a well-known person -- the first five books of the Old Testament, for instance, are attributed to Moses, the gospels are attributed to various disciples, etc. This kind of forgery, called pseudipigrapha, was not considered immoral or fraudulent.
We know that many of the books of the Bible could not have been written by the people to whom they were attributed -- the gospels, for instance, were written 40 to 80 years after the purported resurrection, at a time when the average life expectancy was 45 years. But we have no way of knowing who actually wrote the various books of the Bible. So how do we know we can trust them?
2. How can we verify the original documents, when none exist?
All we have are copies of copies of copies. We don't have a single original document of any of the Biblical works. So how can we verify, as inerrantists want us to believe, that the originals are inerrant?
3. Can we trust the translators of Jesus's words?
Jesus, if he lived, would have spoken Aramaic -- but the entire New Testament is written in Greek. Who were the translators, and how can we be sure they were competent?
4. How do you know there aren't lost documents which disprove Christianity?
We know for a fact that the early Church sought out and destroyed documents critical of Christianity; whatever evidence these documents might have offered is now lost to us forever. What do you suppose the early Christians had to hide?
5. How can you trust documents which are known to have been edited by the church?
The second part of the last chapter of Mark, for instance, was not written until the fourth century or later -- and this is the only mention made in Mark, the earliest gospel written, of any post-resurrection appearances. Another example: 1 John 5:7, the verse most often cited to support the doctrine of the Trinity, was written and inserted into the Bible around the twelfth century. How else were these documents edited over the centuries? What embarrassing passages might have been removed and destroyed over time?
6. Why do you have so much faith in a fourth century compilation?
That is, essentially, what the Bible is. The assembly of the New Testament was a process that began around the year 325, when Constantine convened the Council of Nicea, and cumulated in the canonization of the twenty-seven books we know today eighty years later, by the Pope. Why were those particular books chosen from so many candidates? Why, for example, did they include the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but not those attributed to Peter, Thomas, Andrew, Bartholomew, Judas Iscariot, Mary Magdalene, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus himself?
Did these extremely primitive scholars just happen to pick the "right" ones? Were they, as the Bible writers themselves purportedly were, divinely inspired? How can you be sure of that?
This is the last "Questions..." post that I have planned directly relating to the Bible; there may be others in the future, but in the near future I will be concentrating on more abstract and/or more contemporary matters related to Christianity.
To start. I'm a bit of a health nut. Or I am now anyway. I've lost 30+ pounds in the last 6 months, and I did so by combining a sensible diet with 5-7 days a week of intensive cardio and strength training. I am by no means 'stick thin' nor will I ever be - one thing alot of people need to realize is that genetics play almost as big of a role in your body type and your fitness as your lifestyle choices do, but that's a different rant entirely. However, I was never obese in the sense that most people use the word. Over-weight certainly, but not to the point where I think I stood out for it. I was simply too partial to chocolate and would avoid exercise like the plague.
I'm giving this background so people don't take my following diatribe to be an insensitivity towards over-weight people. I know what it's like to be over-weight and I don't consider myself a 'better person' because I've lost the weight.
The second thing to bear in mind while reading this - yes, I am aware that SOME people have medical conditions that cause them to gain or have an incredibly hard time losing weight. Statistically, these people are NOT even CLOSE to being the majority of chronicly obese people in North America. For ever 1 person that is chronicly obese partly because they have a thyroid condition, like 50 others are chronicly obese because they eat way too fucking much and spend hours sedentary. So while I don't hate people who are chronicly obese, I understand that this condition is largely self-imposed and that is the second largest preventable cause of death in the USA today.
Without further ado(about nothing): <------that's an English Major joke.
Hambeasts drive me crazy. You know, like people that are so fat that they roll around on fucking scooters because walking is too much trouble?
I left the gym today and I had to pick up some cat litter in the Superstore(gym shares the same building). Now I'm aware that I'm a bit sweaty and probably don't smell fantastic, but I generally aim to just grab what I need, stay out of people's way and get out of the store as soon as possible. So, I grab the cat litter, and I'm standing in the self-checkout line when this rolling hambeast whaps me in the back of the legs with her fucking scooter. Well, I fucking bite my tongue but I shoot her a dirty look. She scowls at me while we wait in line, me with my cat litter, her with her ham-basket full of twix, bacon and mayo and one of those pre-cooked chickens. So, I'm checking out and she moves to the self-serve checkout next to mine and as I'm walking past her on my way out she pokes me in the fucking shoulder. So I turn around, and she shakes her fucking jowls at me and informs me that I should "be ashamed of myself." And when I ask her why I should feel this way, she informs me that walking around in the Superstore "all sweaty from the gym" is disgusting, rude and makes her nauseous. So, I smile at her, and I inform her that SHE makes ME sick. Because she's severly obese and doing nothing whatsoever about it. Because she can't even WALK through the Superstore and yet she's buying the fattiest food she can find. Because at least MY sweat is from exercising while her's is from the strain of being 300 pounds too many. Why should I feel shamed for exercising by some woman who probably can't even wipe her own ass? And I walk away while she's shouting for a manager to eject me from the store "for being rude to her."
So, I hope you guys don't hate me now, but I seriously wanted to get that off of my chest.
I like visiting Christian forums of the outrageous degree, and tend to gravitate towards any discussions of science. Of course, science is used extremely loose in this case.
I found Teens 4 Christ one day, a Christian Forum for teens and young adults. Specifically, the thread 'what about evolution?'.
Don't worry, you don't have to visit if you don't want to- Good thing your neighbor R.S. has provided you a high-light reel. Enjoy!
I mean we didn't "evolve"from monkeys.Evolution is a major topic in my younger youth group,my friend says "If we "evolved"why aren't there any new humans walking outta the Birmingham Zoo?" which I think we need to ask the Scientists that question.Any comments?
AMEN... I agree with you. The funny thing is, even Darwin himself said there was no way evolution was true.
I agree it's just another thing to distract people from the Bible. Darwin, before he died though, said that the theory he made up was false.
Evolution is not as widely believed now than it was a few years ago however, scientists are beginning to accept the fact that a higher being created us.
Yea and many scientists are seeing how invalid and false evolution is. Many are turning from evolution and to The LORD.Billy
Shane, I must admit, you are very subtle. The existence of God is proven in the Word of God, by the very creation you live in and, if you are saved, by His residence in your heart. Evolution, on the other hand, has no sufficient evidence to prove it.
Lol My thoughts exactly! A real hilarious one is the church of the flying spageti monster. People will even follow pasta just so they don't have to answer to God. Very sad.
But, Roger, the 'science' has been proven by honest scientists to be flawed, at best. PLUS, the notion of evolution is a THEORY. That means it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Actually, since it is false, it will never be proven.
what about skin color in humans? we would have had to evolve differential skin colors because there are so many skin colors and only adam and eve at the beggining.
INTERESTING FACT1the sun shrinks 2 feet everyday!!!therefore if the world were more then 5000 years old the earth would have been burned upBECAUSE THE SUN WOULD have been SO CLOSE!!!2 some of the planets have layers of iceso the world cant be more then 5000 years old or the ice would have already melted!!!and so many other scientific facts!!that proves tha evolution is not true!!
and my favorite.....
Yeah!And do You even know what "evelution" means... it means "made up"! And if we were made from monkeys why arn't they still evolving ??? Anybody got a answer lol!
The issue of which is correct (evolution or Intelligent Design) is solved instantly, the moment any truth-seeking person humbles him or her self, repents of sin (read Matthew 5:21-30) and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and as Savior.
. . . then why is it, Ray, that four-fifths of evolutionists in the United States are Christians?
On a not-entirely-unrelated note, why is it that the entirety of your blog is vulnerable to a small dose of common sense?
Even Terry Fuckwit has failed to declare Ray's last two commented posts ("Species to Species Definition" and "You are Kidding") 'good posts'. (Of course, Mr Fuckwit may be on holiday. Ray's posts being cataclymically retarded doesn't normally stop him proclaiming them works of genius.)
But seriously, these latest posts are actively imbecilic. They are now so monumentally cretinous that I'm on the point of declaring Ray's whole ministry the greatest Poe in the universe.
I'm having trouble believing that Ray is prepared to open himself and his ministry to such ridicule. Even if I were a bible-fiddler, I'd be able to pick up on the fact that the guy is clearly misrepresenting the facts. It's not even a case of not agreeing with what we say, it's the fact that we tell him 'ABC is what evolution is' and he then says, 'XYZ is what evolution is'. It's soooo transparently dishonest, even believers can see it. I have to wonder if he's having some sort of breakdown or something. Anyone normal would have seen the creaming he's taken and change tactics - delete the blog or something - anything - to protect his livelihood.
The only thing I worry about is whether - and the evidence isn't good for suggesting he's got the wherewithal here, but on the otherhand, ripping people off for thousands of denari a year suggests some level of cunning, (if not morals) - Ray's actually using Atheist Central as a way to deflect attention from something else, or that it's actually of no real importance.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
And then it came to me. Clear thought, as demonstrated by such posters as dimensio and steven j, has acted as an evolutionary pressure. Just as an antibiotic can kill most of the bacteria in a culture, leaving behind a resistant strain, so to has exposure to rationality left behind only those who are utterly immune to reason. Anyone with half a brain has either long since departed, or is making a Spartan-like last stand in the fight to counter the Dark Armies of Ignorance.
Natural Selection really does have amazing explanatory power.
Is he truly incapable of understanding that evolutionary theory doesn't predict that one creature turns into another type of creature in the middle of its lifetime?
I suggest pouncing on this one. Ray so often tiptoes around what he says, making it hard to pin down his mistakes. This may be an opportunity to do so.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
My job has got me knuckled down, as they say, and I needed a break from this battle, but, I have a new blog that you can find on my profile, called, The Bushy Tree.
Back in 1987 I was the number 119 person to sign on to a local ISP which now handles almost a quarter million, yeah small but the magnitude is astonishing still, to me. I got to thinking about that because I am seeing my focus and my intersts changing over time, as they should, and how many of these really cool groups of people I have communicated with to see them little by little, go away. and of course that's not a bad thing.
I'm getting tons of hits at the new blog so, especially Weemaryanne, at least drop by and leave a, hopefully, civil comment (Doggeral accepted without condition.) I want to bring in some other of my ol' cronies into this discussion, and perhaps this could be a meeting place, as it were.
Thanks for your indulgence on this matter and, Don't Let The Bastards Wear You Down!
Most of what gets posted over at Ray's is just a rehashing of ignorant religious superstition and dogma which I rarely pay any attention to anymore, but this comment by Yeager under the post 'The Standard' caught my eye :
"Some questions for theists.
Assume life begins at conception.
Sperm enters the egg and then bam. Soul created.
Now assume that the very same zygote divides as is the case when twins are formed. Would the original soul be split in two, another soul brought in for the twin, or are there an infinite amount of souls assigned to one zygote in the possibility that it may divide.
Now assume that these two embryos fuse back together after dividing forming a chimera (scientific meaning, not mythical creature). This one being is formed from two embryos after fertilization. Would this person have one soul or two?"
I have no idea if any of the Rayniacs will attempt to answer Yeager or not, but I'd be willing to bet they won't and will instead see his comment as a rabbit trail. Just as I finished reading this comment, I went back to the book that I am reading called The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steve Pinker and what should be on the very page I was reading but this lengthy, but directly related section:
The intuitive and morally useful concept of an immaterial spirit simply cannot be reconciled with the scientific concept of brain activity emerging gradually in ontogeny and phylogeny. No matter where we try to draw the line between life and nonlife, or between mind and nonmind, ambiguous cases pop up to challenge our moral intuitions.
The closest event we can find to a thunderclap marking the entry of a soul into the world is the moment of conception. At that instant a new human genome is determined, and we have an entry destined to develop into a new individual. The Catholic Church and certain other Christian denominations designate conception as the moment of ensoulment and the beginning of life (which, of course, makes abortion a form of murder). But just as the microscope reveals that a straight edge is really ragged, research on human reproduction shows that the "moment of conception" is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes. What and where is the soul during this interval? Even when a single sperm enters, its genes remain separate from those of the egg for a day or more, and it takes yet another day or so for the newly merged genome to control the cell. So the "moment" of conception is in fact a span of twenty- four to forty- eight hours. Nor is the conceptus designed to become a baby. Between two- thirds and three- quarters of them never implant in the uterus and are spontaneously aborted, some because they are genetically defective, others for no discernible reason.
Still, one might say that at whatever point during this interlude the new genome is formed, the specification of a unique new person has come into existence. The soul, by this reasoning, may be identified with the genome. But during the next few days, as the embryo's cells begin to divide, they can split into several embryos, which develop into identical twins, triplets, and so on. Do identical twins share a soul? Did the Dionne quintuplets make do with one- fifth of a soul each? If not, where did the four extra souls come from? Indeed, every cell in the growing embryo is capable, with the right manipulations, of becoming a new embryo that can grow into a child. Does a multicell embryo consist of one soul per cell, and if so where do the other souls go when the cells lose that ability? And not only can one embryo become two people, but two embryos can become one person.Occasionally, two fertilized eggs, which ordinarily would go on to become fraternal twins, merge into a single embryo that develops into a person who is a genetic chimera: some of her cells have one genome, others have another genome. Does her body house two souls?" (Emphasis mine.)
Like I said, I doubt they will, but if any fundies would like to take on these questions and the issue in general, especially without entangling it with the issue of abortion, (which is not the topic of this post and which I have no interest in discussing), then I would be interested in reading their replies.
This, by far, is the funniest thing ever said-
firstname.lastname@example.org (Terry) said...
@ Howdy 'Warlock',
Mr. Ouija Boardyou said
"Arguing with religious fanatics about the validity of evolution is like
arguing with neo-Nazis about whether the holocaust really happened or
Religious fanatics are atheist who subscribe to a 'baseless' conjectured
religion called atheism! Its just a theory. :)
They believe they will pass into 'nothingness' at death, and ignore the
evidence of 'paranormal science' and the physical evidence in our universe!Yet
we see them trying to communicate with the 'dead' with a picture of a Ouija
Board! Right Howdy? the devil's 'play toy'.
Perhaps 'ranting student' and his SS Nazi officer profile pic can you help
you Howdy!? ha ha ha
I heard he tries to communicate with Adolph. I speculate that Adolph is too
busy 'dodgin' the flames in Hell! If you stay on the path your on, you will be
right next to him!!!BTW, Atheist profile 'pics' just crack me up! Right Rando?
Have a Nice day atheists! Praying for your immortal souls! REPENT!God Bless! God
Speed! HBKS video!!!
Terry, if you read this, you're my favorite fundie. I really mean that.
In fact, I'm curious, Raytractors, who is YOUR favorite fundie? And, if you have any of their quotes I'd love to read 'em.
"What do you mean, Caius?" the second centurion asked.
"The man who just died up there -- I feel that he was a great man, an extremely wise man and a great teacher."
The second centurion considered for a moment, then shrugged. "He was no Ray Comfort."
Monday, August 25, 2008
Firstly, this "award-winning" video on evolution. An award? Unless it was screened at the special olympics of science where everyone's a winner, I was doubtful. Just what scientific institution would award such a video? He is responding to scientific claims and, in his response, mentions the award, so it should be relevant -- right?
It took about a minute of searching to find that the video one the NRB People's Choice award. What is the NRB? National Religious Broadcasters. This is the same institution which has given awards to Answers in Genesis and hosted a special preview showing of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Winning an award for an evolution denial video from an organization of evolution deniars is a bit like Dylan Avery winning an award for Loose Change from 9/11 Truth for his denialist video. Winning an award from such an institution harms your "scientific" claims rather than bolster them.
Inane Skit: Orangutan
If you looked up "inane" in the dictionary, I think you should find a picture of Ray Comfort, or at least of this video.
His post previous to this one was on abortion and how its a child with rights. Really? I was both anti-abortion rights and anti-abortion up until just a few months ago -- long after becoming an atheist. Now being both pro-abortion rights and pro-abortion, I shall make a video debunking the anti-abortionists. Behold, as I take a page out of Ray's book -- or a scene out of his video, as it were. Here is how I would produce my video:
I am unsure of how to first start off. I considered first to use a zygote (the product of fertilization) or perhaps an embryo, but then I thought I should approach it with some sort of strawman like Ray does. In that case, I should mix a sperm and an ovum in a Petri dish. Since they look pretty much the same to an observer, it doesn't really matter, so I will just go with the zygote.
First, I would take the zygote to a restaurant for lunch and order it a salad. I would try to converse with it and note how it isn't eating its food. It is not behaving as a person so, therefore, it's obviously not a person.
Next, I would call up eight airliners to see if I could take the zygote on the plane. When they say its a biological substance and must be stored, I would insist on a seat for it as it is a "person." When they won't budge, I will acknowledge that it is because they know it is intrinsically not a person.
Inane Skit: Interviewing the laity
Next, I would try to contact some reputable biologists to appear in my silly video. When they had better things to do, I would move on to lay people. They would sound like an expert on sexual reproduction at first, but with a little probing they'll admit they don't have any idea what they're talking about -- and any who do I will edit out. I would ask about haploid and diploid cells, zygotes and fertilization, gametes, mitosis, and diplontic life cycles and watch as they all fumble.
I will then create a blog where I claim to be trying to inform people and get them to become pro-abortion and insist it is out of my love for humanity and their well-being, but I will make sure to plug the video for profit at the bottom of my post.
Perhaps for my next video I will debunk the theory of relativity by interviewing the laity again. They'll sound like experts on gravity, but I will soon show they have no idea what they're talking about, thereby proving that people simply have unfounded faith in the theory tale of gravity.
Then Ray, for the Bible to be inerrant we should not find a single typo in any of them?
Also, do not misrepresent my writing, for some fossil-documented "species-to-species transitions" we have hundreds of fossils, for others we have tens. Why do you do this? Why did you have to change my meaning? Of course: willful liar.
There are several hominid fossils that demonstrate "transitions" between our common ancestor with chimps and ourselves, and you dismissed the whole thing because of a few fakes, and the lie that one fossil was a person with arthritis (willful liar). So, in the case of our evolution from ancestral apes (we are still apes), we do not have thousands, we have tens. So, does that invalidate evolution? Of course not. But you never mention these fossils, do you? Conclusion: willful liar.
Of course orangutans are our very distant relatives, but that does not qualify them to fly in the plane with us. Should now I assume that God does not exist because mentally challenged people would not behave either, then God does not exist because the mentally challenged should be the image of God, and thus be all right? Or else is God mentally challenged too?
Now where you said I spoke to lay folks about the theory and each sounded like an expert at first. Come on! These TEENS sounded like experts first? You are not only a willful liar but a bad one at that. I might believe that the UCLA profs did not want to appear in your mockumentary, but not that those you present in the video sounded like experts first. You have to be kidding me.
Your video does not debunk evolution, it debunks strawmen of evolution. This is what your customers will never understand. Sad but true. Keep the lies coming Ray. It works for you all right.
Anybody buying your special will be buying a bunch of lies and misinformation. I can do nothing about it, so be it.
Evolution is such an important issue. This generation has been brainwashed by
this idiocy, all in the name of science. So, this week’s "Special" is: Buy ten
copies of the DVD for just $20, and we will throw in a free copy of, Evolution.
The Fairy Tale for Grownups (over $60 worth).
As you can see, we have definitely gone under his skin. Just like it was speculated that after the Bumper Sticker incident, Living Waters was going to give out free bumper stickers on April First. Now that Ray is being given an onslaught of scientific facts he is trying incredibly hard to ignore, and being proved wrong and wrong again by people who understand evolution, he obviously has gotten ticked off in some way that he resorts to spreading his propaganda.
Not only does he speak nonsense about something he doesn't understand, he thinks that what he says is legit and correct! He's been proved wrong, yet he still thinks he is justified in ignoring facts! He even posted reviews by other creationists at the end of the post-
"I have never heard evolutionary theory debunked and undone in a more effective
and easy to understand way . . ." Damon H. (CA)
"You'll love this . . .
So funny yet informative and gives you enough to give ‘intelligent’ answers to
those brainwashed by evolution."
(Besides the point, who is the second quote attributed to?).
Anyway, it is those quotes that got me to thinking something. You see, not only has Ray continued to spread his same refuted nonsense and lies and misunderstandings on evolution, his creationist followers believe him. And, he has already won over them. So, there is at least ONE good thing about this whole "I'll give you creationist propaganda crap for only $20! I like to fleece my sheep!" and all that jazz... You see, if Ray Comfort is one of the main guys where Christians get their material, that can be a good thing in certain conditions (A lot of people being deluded by a very dumb man cannot be extremely good, but some good can come out of it).
When we engage theists like those who trust Comfort, we're in luck. All of the things they'll use against us will evidently come from him. And, as we all know, it is incredibly easy for Ray Comfort to be refuted. So, you'll refute the theists incredibly easily, perhaps even showing him/her the error of their thinking (Granted they're intellectually honest).
So Ray, I hope you sell all of your DVDS and Books! Christians, buy them in bulks and distribute them to your church groups! I'm sure many do already. But hurry! That way, in only becomes easier for people like us to refute the arguments from the Christian apologists in our lives!
And this time, it's epic. He's actually caught the attention of the posters at the JREF. Of course, now that he's caught their attention he can't do anything useful with it - he's simply regurgitating the same arguments that were refuted here and on Stephen Law's blog.
This gives the illusion that Ray is "addressing" the arguments of the atheists, when in fact, he's doing the exact opposite - using his bully pulpit to take cheap shots. Moreover, the posts addressing the atheists' comments usually don't even contain honest replies to the comments, but instead only trite, pithy dismissals such as "God will not judge you by the Constitution, but by His Law", and "Can you email me any evidence you can offer to show that atheism is real?".
Ray, if you want to actually discuss the issues raised by your commenters, please do so...in the comments section, where the person addressed has the opportunity to make a reply in kind. Using your bully pulpit to make your "replies" is a dishonest and cowardly tactic, and everyone knows it.
It would be nice to see you actually make your case over here, where the comments are instantly visible and your ridiculous censorship rules don't apply...but I know it would be asking too much to expect you to participate on a playing field that's truly level...
Sunday, August 24, 2008
“Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design, aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for Science Education. More questions can be found on Dr. Wells’s site, http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ More information about biological evolution can be found at http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/.
"Ray Comfort wrote: 'Unwittingly, we are heading for death and Hell.' One of my rules when dealing with the English language is to capitalize all objects of religious veneration. Which makes it incredibly telling for me that Ray Comfort capitalized Hell." German Mike
According to grammar experts it is right to capitalize Hell: "Specific geographical locations: Hartford, Connecticut, Africa, Forest Park Zoo, Lake Erie, the Northeast, the Southend." You made the mistake of going by your grammatical rules. No doubt you are making the same mistake morally.
Specific geographic location. I could show you all of those places on a map, Ray. I could take you to those places. You show me Hell. You take me to Hell.
And when someone makes a comment like this, Ray, and his sheep, will write something like, "if you don't accept Jesus, you'll see Hell soon enough". Terry Burton oughta have a good comment in that vein.
However, our Owner has something in His hand that can cause us to turn to Him. It is the stick of His moral Law (the Ten Commandments).
I got something in my hand too, Ray. Wanna fetch it?
2) Therefore, if Ray Comfort has lied at least once in his life, then Ray Comfort is a liar. (Instantiation of P and X from 1)
3) Ray Comfort has lied at least once in his life. (Implausibility of the contrary)
4) Therefore, Ray Comfort is a liar. (modus ponens from 2 and 3)
Not was a liar, is a liar. QED.
Total Visits - 13,285
Absolute Unique Visitors - 3,329 (~196.29/day // outliers 111 & 389)
Pageviews - 36,446
Average pageviews - 2.74
Avg. time on site (per view) - 8 minutes 22 sec
And just because I have the data, over the last month we have received about 20 total visits from LivingWaters network. I'll have 1 more detailing where our readers are from.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Toward Wee my valued friend
I hope with no intention to offend
Because if you did I will come over there
And kick your scrawny assish*
*Invoking poetic license in the form of a logodaedaly
(in no specific order)
1. Why won't god heal amputees? - Because, like your parents, he doesn't love you.
2. What's wrong with Ray Comfort? - I have asked myself that many times...
3. What do baby snakes eat? - Fangfurters
4. transitional fossils seem fuzzy to me - Have you cleaned the moss off of them?
5. thank the god amen-ray - I guess he's as likely real as any other.
6. snuff porn - So you saw the Passion of the Christ too...
7. Ray Comfort's logic - I'm surprised Google was even able to find any.
8. Ray Comfort pedophile - Why do you ask, is there a job opening?
9. Ray Comfort is a lair - Gee...I always pictured him more as a burrow or bunker, hiding from reason.
10. Ray Comfort brain - See #7.
11. pig dog fish - Snorkel ink hippopotamus; see, I can play the random word game too.
12. olives for ovaries - I think you need a different doctor or a better pawnbroker.
13. me are pariah - Me fail English? That's unpossible.
14. I really tried to believe you. - You never listen anymore.
15. I have to leave now. - I don't know how to quit you.
16. holy sword paladin rpg - "I'm attacking the darkness..."
17. fear of breasts - How common is this? How about clowns with breasts, or even big breasted spider clowns?
18. ancient secrets of mind - There are very few modern ones, what makes you think there are any ancient ones?
19. argue whip experience you with fool don't - Excuse me, my dictionary just threw up.
20. ,.,.`,`.z,x.l.`m,.,. - Cat-like typing detected.
21. "Ray Comfort" pornography - Excuse me, your kink is showing. A good example of Rule 34 in action I suppose.
22. "Ray Comfort" asshole - Wow, you're pretty specific in your porn choices, not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
23. "Bob Larson" -tennis, -contra -costa - Bob's not here right now, but if you'd like to leave a message...
24. "bible's buried secrets" - That it's a collection of fairy tales and morality stories for nomads?
25. Is Ray Comfort for real? - Either that or he's the biggest internet troll EVER.
I have made no edits aside from capitalizing names and adding punctuation if it was a full sentence. Otherwise, all of these Google queries have brought at least person here.
Michael starts off by revealing that he a Christian, and holds to a biblical world view. I think you can see where this is going. The entire essay explains how God and the bible tell us we all should have guns.
This excursion into the twisted logic of a biblical literalist is a great example of how dangerous it can be to foster this kind of thinking. Any idea can be supported by applying this flawed reasoning and the bible to it. It seems that they are not taught how to look at the evidence and see where it leads, but instead to make an assumption and look for evidence to support it. If the evidence doesn't fit, you twist and turn it until it does, or completely reject because it doesn't. In the end though, any evidence you find in the bible automatically is correct, no matter what any other evidence suggests. Here is a great example of Michael applying these skills.
"The question for the Christian then cannot be answered by quoting the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics. The empirical facts are utterly irrelevant in the determination of right and wrong regardless of which side they appear to prove."The entire essay is filled with so many interesting and scary ideas it boggles the mind. I could comment on so many things Michael says but I just don't know where to start, so I suggest taking a moment to experience it yourself. I'll just leave you with a few more quotes to chew on.
"Religious systems cannot peacefully coexist for any great duration of time. One will be ultimately victorious and the others utterly defeated. We are in a war for the minds of men"
"If the family member was killed accidentally, the person who killed them is to flee to a city of refuge in which the avenger of blood may not put him to death. However, the avenger of blood will not be guilty of bloodshed if he kills the person before he goes to the city of refuge. This is exactly how far God extends defense of self and family!"
"... the criminal is to be stoned to death. This would include such crimes as murder, kidnapping, adultery, and male homosexuality. Also, it includes unrepentant or incorrigible criminals (for example, if you were convicted of stealing several times you’d be put to death by stoning)."
After reading this mans post, it frightens me to think that he owns a gun(s).
Friday, August 22, 2008
DAVE: Well . . . this is embarrassing.
RAY (jumping to his feet): I KNEW it! Hah! I TOLD you, and you wouldn't listen! Ohh, you're gonna get it! The Lord came for me, came for both of us!
DAVE (standing): Uh, well . . . hey, aren't you Ray Comfort?
RAY: I am, and you're one of those annoying atheist bloggers, aren't you? Well, I hate to say I told you so, but . . .
DAVE: Go ahead. You know you want to.
RAY: I told you so!
(Ray rubs his hand together and cackles with glee, looking around.)
RAY: Lord? I'm here, Lord! Your servant has arrived! And so has a very surprised, and soon to be very terrified atheist! (to Dave) So what do you have to say now? Huh?
DAVE: Well . . . I do have to admit, the fact that we're even here is one point for you. That is, I mean . . . we are dead, right?
RAY: I'm here, Lord! I'm waiting for you!
DAVE: I remember walking through downtown, looking up at a skyscraper and seeing a refrigerator . . .
RAY: Lord Jesus? I've arrived!
DAVE: . . . and a mountain lion . . .
RAY: Lord! I'm here, Lord!
DAVE: . . . in Minneapolis? (looking at Ray) Look, if God is here, I'm pretty sure he can hear you without you shouting.
RAY: Hee hee! We'll see who's laughing in a minute! LORD! I've come, Lord!
(An awkward pause.)
RAY: Lord? . . . Uh, where are you, Lord?
DAVE: Not really what you were expecting either?
RAY: Shut up, you stupid atheist. Enjoy not being on fire while you still can. Lord! Where are you!?
DAVE: Okay, God, I'm with Ray on this one: Where are you?
RAY: He's coming, don't worry. Or rather, start worrying! (nervous chuckle)
DAVE: Well yes, I'm worried. I didn't expect this for a moment.
RAY: Oh, please. You knew perfectly well that this was coming.
DAVE: No I didn't.
RAY: You knew perfectly well that God exists and that you were in danger of Hell. You chose to live in your sin instead.
DAVE (sighing): NOW, of all times, you're going to keep that routine going?
RAY: Heh, well, we'll see in a moment who's right. LORD! WE'RE HERE, LORD!
DAVE: A moment, two moments, whatever.
RAY: Shut up!
DAVE: Sorry. I make jokes when I'm nervous.
RAY: Yeah, well, you should be nervous. You're gonna get it!
RAY: You act like you're so sure even now. How pathetic. Let me ask you this: Do you still profess atheism?
DAVE: Well, I have to admit, it's not looking as good as it was a few moments ago, but--
RAY: Hah! Not so smart now, are you?
DAVE: Okay, you know what? I'll just shut up and wait and see what happens.
RAY: You do that.
(Dave sits down. A very awkward two minutes pass in silence as Ray paces around, looking anxious, and Dave sits there, in trepidation.)
RAY (suddenly): Not even a little?
DAVE (startled): What? I'm sorry, what?
RAY: You're not even a little bit sorry for being an atheist?
DAVE: Well . . . no, I'm not. I mean, clearly, I was wrong -- at least I think I was, or at least I was about one part of it all, cause we're dead and we're here -- but according to Christianity, it all depends on what you do during your life. So it's too late to change anything now, right?
RAY: That's right. It's too late for you! (cackle)
DAVE: Seriously, you need to stop cackling.
RAY: Er, sorry . . . but I mean, knowing what you know now, would you still claim to be an atheist in your life?
DAVE: Knowing what I know now? Probably not -- this is more in line with your worldview than a naturalistic one.
RAY: So you admit I was right?
DAVE: Like I said, it's looking more that way than it was a moment ago--
RAY: Argh! Why can't you just admit it?
DAVE: Admit what?
RAY: That I was right! That God exists!
DAVE: Does my admitting it mean that much to you?
RAY: I, uh, no, of course not! God has vindicated us.
DAVE: Speaking of God, where IS he?
RAY: HE'LL BE HERE!!
DAVE: . . . okay, calm down . . . as I was saying, it's looking more like you're right than it was a moment ago, but God hasn't shown up. So far, this is just a, uh, white place. Just the two of us. No God, no angels--
RAY: God goes by his own timetable, not yours.
DAVE: Fair enough. But since the guy knows you so well, any chance he's shared that timetable with you?
DAVE: Sorry. The nervous humor thing again.
RAY: Look, just admit that I was right.
DAVE: So it does mean that much to you.
RAY: Yes! I mean, no! I mean . . .
DAVE: God hasn't shown up. And according to you, it's too late to do anything that would make a difference, including say that yes, God does exist.
RAY: You're not serious! After all this, you still claim to think that God does not exist?
DAVE: Well, I guess I can't still say that I'm a strong atheist -- I no longer hold the belief that God is nonexistent. But I'm not yet prepared to say that he does exist, so technically--
RAY: YOU'RE STILL AN ATHEIST? I mean, here you are, in Heaven, and you're still an atheist? What is WRONG with you?
VOICE (O.S.): Actually, he's completely correct.
(Ray and Dave both look toward the voice, surprised. Suddenly, a WOMAN walks onto stage, wearing a white robe, smiling benevolently. Ray kneels before her.)
RAY: Jesus is Lord! I am your servant.
WOMAN: I'm not Jesus.
RAY: Er . . . I know that. But . . .
RAY: You're . . . I mean, you're an angel, right?
(The woman pats Ray on the head condescendingly, and walks over to Dave, who looks uncertain.)
DAVE: Um . . . pleasure to meet you.
WOMAN: And you, Dave. We've been hoping you would pass the test.
RAY: What!? What do you mean, he passed the test? He's an atheist!
WOMAN: Yes. And he's completely correct. God does not exist.
(Ray's jaw falls to the cloud.)
RAY: You . . . what . . . how . . .
DAVE: Whoever you are, ma'am, I think you finally made his brain explode. But I don't think there's any such thing as an atheist angel, is there? So who ARE you?
WOMAN: I am an Explorer. I am one of a vast race of beings, what you would call extra-terrestrial beings.
DAVE: And you run the afterlife?
WOMAN: In a sense. We reconstituted your body from our temporal records at the moment of your death -- which, by the way, was several billion of your years ago, even though you think it was just now.
DAVE: So I'm not really me, I'm just a copy of me? I mean, I know that wasn't too clear--
WOMAN (smiling): It's all right. No, we managed to capture what you think of as a soul, which is really just the material quantum pattern-- here, it'll be easier if I show you.
(She waves her hand in front of Dave. A flat screen appears in front of him, over which tiny letters, numbers, symbols and diagrams flash across it at an amazingly fast rate. Dave watches it for several seconds until it stops and the screen disappears.)
DAVE: Wow. I see. Hey, that's a neat trick! So I really am me, and you -- Explorers, you said? You brought me back from the dead?
WOMAN: We see it as our ethical duty to do so with all sentient beings.
RAY: Um, may I say something here? Even if you're speaking the truth, young lady, it doesn't mean God does not exist, because he does!
WOMAN: No he doesn't. We proved that a long time ago.
RAY: No, that is impossible. You can't prove what is not--
(The woman waves her hand again, and the screen appears in front of Ray, showing him things, then disappears a few seconds later. Ray blinks.)
RAY: . . . wow . . .
DAVE: So, what happens now?
WOMAN: Having done our ethical duty, we have the power to give you whatever existence you desire, to have whatever experiences you wish for as long as you wish. Or . . .
WOMAN: Or you may join us. We Explorers are just what the name suggests: we explore reality itself -- time, space, and all that lays beyond. We believe in acquiring knowledge for its own sake. If you are open minded, and thirst for knowledge as we do, then we would love to have you on our journey.
DAVE: Wow! That sounds incredible!
RAY: Not a chance. I don't care what you people think you've "proved" there, I still believe that the Lord will come for me.
WOMAN: That's all right, Ray -- you're not invited.
RAY: I'm not?
WOMAN: These last few minutes was your final test. Your last chance to open your mind to the possibilities. We knew we wanted Dave, but you didn't appear to be -- how can I put this politely? -- an ideal candidate for our purposes. But even with our temporal records, we've been wrong in the past. So we gave you one final opportunity. And you failed.
RAY: I failed? I mean . . . I don't care what you think! You're obviously a sinful being of some sort, and God will no more choose you than he will choose him! (points at Dave)
WOMAN: Well, we don't feel it ethical to change what a person believes; we can only show you what is and let you make up your own mind. After that, it's up to you. Now, as I said, we can give you whatever existence you desire, for as long as you--
RAY: I'm staying right here! My Lord Jesus will come for me, and I'll be here when he comes! I'll wait forever if that's what it takes!
WOMAN: As you wish. Are you ready, Dave?
DAVE: Yes, I am. (to Ray) I guess this is goodbye, Ray. Are you sure you want to--
RAY: Get away from me! Go to Hell where you belong!
WOMAN: Trust me, Dave, I've been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years -- some people truly are hopeless.
DAVE (sighing): I never really wanted to believe that, but . . . I guess I have to. Goodbye, then, Ray.
WOMAN: When you wish for a ceasation of existence, simply walk in that direction (points) until you find the Void -- there you will find peace. Goodbye.
(Dave and the Woman walk off stage together.)
RAY: Fine! I'll wait here . . . by myself! I don't need . . . you . . . I'm fine. I said I'm FINE! I have my faith! No, not faith -- I KNOW! I don't care what you show on that little screen, I don't care what you . . . I don't care! Jesus will come!
RAY: Jesus? I'm here, Lord! Where are you?
RAY: LORD! . . . how long must I wait? . . .
(long pause. Ray, looking despondent, sits down on a piece of white.)
RAY: He'll come . . . I know he will . . . Lord? . . .
(Long pause. Ray buries his head in his hands. Slow fade-out.)
If Genesis is incorrect, then so could any other part of the Bible - who would decide? how would we know?Patti, much like many others at Ray's blog, seem to apply black-and-white thinking to everything. Its honest comments like these that remind me of why science can be so difficult for them to grasp. Its obvious that they fear it will entirely undermine their belief system, but thats partly due to this polarized world view coupled with an intellectual tunnel vision they seem to have.
*The virgin birth? It is critical that Jesus was born without the sin of man.
*The Resurrection? If Jesus didn't come back from the dead then we have no hope of conquering death.
Genesis stands literally and without error.
The theist will be vindicated by God Himself.
They don't really want to save non-believers. Certainly not all of them, because then there woudn't be anyone left to tell "I told you so". And they are aching to do that. Ray's pettiness and spite drip out of this post. It's why the Left Behind shit is so popular. They love the idea of all that blood and violence, of all the heathens and atheists and Muslims and Catholics and all the rest getting their just rewards. I bet it gets them hard and wet, respectively. It wouldn't be much of a problem it they weren't begging for a nuclear war to set it all off.
There are a few posts on this topic in this thread:
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
This post deals with the doctrine of inerrancy, the idea that the Bible, at least in its original form, is completely and 100% free of error and contradiction of any kind. If you don't hold to the doctrine of Inerrancy, then these questions won't apply to you -- but you can still answer them. Anyone can, in fact. Because this "Questions..." post consists entirely of math questions.
Yes, I said math questions.
Now, what does math have to do with Inerrancy, you ask? To answer that question, let's look at a common example of an apparent contradiction in the Bible?: How many stalls for horses and chariots did Solomon have?? 1 Kings 4:26 gives the number as 4,000, while 2 Chronicles 9:25 gives the number as 40,000. That's an entire order of magnitude of discrepancy. Clearly couldn't have had both 40,000 and only 4,000 stalls. This seems to be a clear contradiction.
However, all apparent contradictions in the Bible have had an explanation offered by at least one Christian inerrantist, and this one is no exception -- in this case, the most common explanation is that the apparent contradiction is the result of a copyist's error.
I see no reason to prefer the "copyist's error" theory over the theory that one or both verses is simply in error -- copyists of the time, especially of sacred historical documents, were extremely painstaking. As far as I'm concerned, it's about 50/50 either way. But let's give the Christian the benefit of the doubt here. Let's say that there's a 99% chance that this was indeed a copyist's error, and only a 1% chance that one or both of the original documents committed a factual error.
Sounds more than fair, right? So let's apply it across the board. Let's say that every apparent contradiction or error in the Bible has, on average, a 99% chance of having an explanation that renders the original documents safely error-free. For some apparent errors the number would be higher, but for others it would be much lower. I think 99% is a good average, if we're giving inerrantists the benefit of the doubt. So what does that mean?
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible lists a total of 742 apparent contradictions and known scientific and historical errors in its "Highlights" section. I think that this is an extremely conservative count, and could easily be increased by including other problematic passages, such as passages which demonstrate questionable moral precepts -- but, again giving the Christian the benefit of the doubt, let's accept 742 as a working number. And recall, let's say that each of the 742 apparent errors has a 99% probability of not being an error.
1. What is the probability that all of the 742 apparent errors are explicable, given an average 99% probability of explicability?
Hint: 99% multiplied by itself 742 times, or 0.99^742.
Now remember, that particular figure is arrived at only by giving the Christian every conceivable quasi-realistic benefit of the doubt. Let's use a more realistic number of apparent factual and moral errors in the Bible, say 5,000, which is my own personal estimate (and I'm a nice guy in that regard; there are estimates ranging in the tens of thousands!).
2. What is the probability that all of the 5,000 apparent errors are explicable, given an average 99% probability of explicability?
Now let's run the numbers one more time, this time using a more realistic average probability of explicability as well -- say, 66%, which I think is still quite generous to the Christian.
3. What is the probability that all of the 5,000 apparent errors are explicable, given an average 66% probability of explicability?
Question 3 above is unique, in that it is not rhetorical. I'm actually asking, because I don't know the answer.
You see, when I plug the formula (0.66^5000) into Microsoft Excel, which I use for pretty much all my number crunching, the result comes back "0". I think this is Excel's way of saying "ERROR" -- the actual number is so low that Excel simply cannot handle it. It simply does what most humans would do in this situation: it throws up its proverbial hands and says, "I don't know. Let's just call it zero."
Which, for purposes of discussion, is good enough for me.
The probability of inerrancy, my Christian friends, is zero. What, then, can possibly excuse someone believing in it?
We have set up a system to send documents by the email, to the addresses you provide, 6 days after the "Rapture" of the Church. This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period. Another 3 days are given to fail safe any false triggering of the system.
We give you 150mb of encrypted storage that can be sent to 12 possible email addresses, in Box #1. You up load any documents and choose which documents go to who. You can edit these documents at any time and change the addresses they will be sent to as needed. Box #1 is for your personal private letters to your closest lost friends and relatives.
We give you another 100mb. of unencrypted storage that can be sent to up to 50 email addresses, in Box #2. You can edit the documents and the addresses any time. Box #2 is for more generic documents to lost family & friends.
The cost is $40 for the first year. Re-subscription will be reduced as the number of subscribers increases. Tell your friends about You've Been left behind.
Ok, so apparently this website provides a service where, for $40 a year, a True Christian can store ‘left behind’ letters, survivalist info, million dollar tracts or whatever. Then when all the True Christians have been Raptured the stored materials will be auto-emailed to the left behinded loved ones.
Are you fucking shitting me? Really, if anyone is this stupid then they deserved to be ripped off. I say we stop fighting ‘em and join ‘em. People are going to throw their money away on this shit anyways, they might as well give it to me.
I gonna start working on my threats of Hell business model….
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Many of you may know them:
CARM, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Owned and/or run by Matt Slick.
I know they're Xtian, but still I'd say he's put a little work into his site. Nothing that can't be easily knocked down natcherly, but still I like his approach to apologetics somehow. (I mean this as a comment about his presentation only, not about his beliefs themselves. Doctrinally, he's garden variety evangelical, so far as I can tell. And about as easy to disarm.)
They even have a chat room. I've been there once, it was pretty cool. Interactive, real-time bronze-aged stupidity. If it was any more fun and bad for you it'd come with fries.
If somehow you're reading this, Matt--
You're Slick, I'll give you that. But I somehow doubt you're really going to fly like a kite someday. Sorry. That's just the hard truth, amigo.
As some of you know from an earlier comment,
that I have had my cover blown by a little high school kid out at the mall bookstore. It turns out that she is a classmate of my son's.
She shows up at a gathering at our house and exposes my devious ways. As I said, those knuckleheads set me up. However, I want to go national with this. You are in the bookstore and you find a Kirk or Ray book, surreptitiously sneak it (them) into the science fiction section. I'm sure that you cannot be like prosecuted or arrested for that.
And, by the way, then all the fundies will have an actual complaint to make about us evil bastards.
The best part is that they cannot retaliate. I am sure there is some scripture that prohibits this type of activity. Meanwhile, I am very conflicted about this vile activity, yet, I am emboldened and we need to go on the attack! Anarchy in the bookstores! (That one's for you, Weemaryanne.)