Lewis Black Gets It

Am I stupid, or what?

Before you rush in with comments like "of course, why do you ask?" let me explain. Read the following from bquill73:

Hey Phat,

I wasn't talking to you in my post, I was talking to Ray. And further more, your name "PhatPhil", makes me want to gag. I keep getting visiuals and they are not pleasant.

My immediate reaction was to laugh just because it sounded so childish. After the hilarity of the moment was over, I tried to think what was it about the name "PhatPhil" could possibly make bquill73 want to gag. I mentally checked through a list of possibilities until a light bulb went off. What in God's name would give a fundamentalist unpleasant visuals? Something sexual, of course! duh! Something fat that makes you gag. So immediately I shot off a snarky response (which hasn't been posted yet). Now I am starting to have second thoughts and a little ashamed that my mind went straight for the gutter. Is there an innocent meaning to bquill73's comment? Could fat people be giving her unpleasant visuals? Why would likable, fat people make you want to gag? That doesn't sound like a very Christian response to me.

So help me out here. What does PhatPhil mean? Did I totally miss the boat? Have I made a fool out of myself at Atheist Central? Will Ray post it?

Find out on the next episode of All Ray's Children.

Defeating Presuppositional Apologetics in One Paragraph or Less

Obsidian's last post on presuppositions was a good read, but falls right into the Christian trap of presuppositional apologetics. The reason why Sye and others cling to these arguments is that it obfuscates their core point, and people end up arguing nonsense for hours giving Sye and other Christian apologetics the illusion of being on equal footing with the rationalists.

---------------------------------------------------

The argument starts off by saying the Christian presupposes God exists and that explains everything to them. If we replace to the word, "presupposes" with "has faith that," then you still get the same argument, but it amounts to nothing more than fideism (blind faith). Any attempt to apply this standard of blind faith to atheists will almost certainly fail since even the problem of induction doesn't solve itself through blind faith.

Church Sign Generator

Hey Gang, lets make a church sign. Have fun.

http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/

Thoughts on Presupositionalism

I've been following the debates with Sye and other presups for a while.Presuppositionalism s thought-provoking to say the least. I've seen people's justifications and thoughts n logic and truth and knowlege turned upside down. Though I feel like facepalming every time Sye says "by the impossibility of the contrary he does make good points.
I've recently been reading Azrienoch's blog and I found why the presupper's case was so compelling to me.The full article is here.
Quotes:
"A long time ago, in a land far, far away, there was a word that caused problems for thinking persons: truth. It wasn’t that truth itself was a daunting something, but rather, it was the legend people had made of it that perplexed them. The meaning of the word, the way we used “truth,” became an entity of its own, and it was something thinking persons chased for their entire history. For example, does any one explanatory view have a total lock-hold on rules or axioms that apply to everyone and everything? What is the source of truth; i.e., what makes something true? What makes something not true? Throughout the history of thinking, these questions dominated our agenda. They were answered quickly and with ease by clever people, and accepted just as easily by not-as-clever people. And thinking passed from the memory of each generation without regard.

Then along comes a spider called Socrates, who wasn’t ever satisfied with the answers people gave. He asked things like, “What is truth?” and then he would ask more questions that would lead the interviewee to contradict themselves and admit they just don’t know what they are talking about. [I wonder who else uses that methodology of asking questions until the poster cntradicts himself......hint starts with a S and ends with TenB].Most people don’t know it, but for a number of years, that’s exactly where truth stood: in a place of oblivion and insecurity."

"But after Socrates died, his student and biographer, Plato, thought it might be fun to outdo his mentor and not be satisfied with the answers Socrates produced. So he revived the old question of where truth comes from (as well as other eternal verities like, “meaning,” “morality,” and “justice”). But instead of letting the interviewee answer, Plato (posing as Socrates) decided to postulate an answer. His idea was that there was a logos, a source of everything, that we couldn’t see with our bodily eyes or understand with common-sense reason. The metaphor he explained this by was that of humanity sitting in a dank cave, restrained by chains, and staring at the far wall. The light outside, which represents the logos or source of everything, casts shadows on the wall we are all staring at. And being chained in place, this is the only thing we’ve seen our whole lives, so of course we’re led to believe it is all there is. But, Plato continues, in our role as thinking person, it is our job to take off our chains, leave the cave and look into the light, and then come back so we can shove our newfound enlightenment in others’ faces.

In one form or another, philosophers since that time have been searching for a source for truth and its friends. It may not have been the exterior of a cave, but also the world, physicality, the individual or the collective mind, circumstances, words, logic and mathematics, God, etc. It has always been assumed that there is a source of truth, a method we could be certain of to give us truth. And the whole of this movement by western philosophy climaxed into a sweet and perfect melody called logical positivism. It was a very strong, very influential philosophy whose traces can still be seen all over the place. No system before it had ever come so close to finding the logos – and yes, despite their objections against that metaphysical search, they were hunting for the logos.

It all came down to what they called, the verification principle. The idea is that, “The statement is literally meaningful (it expresses a proposition) if and only if it is either analytically or empirically verifiable” (Wikipedia). That idea failed. Not only could the verification principle not verify itself, but it only brought back all those old problems of induction. Logical positivism died, but the spirit of insistence that came with it lives on..........................................

In ignoring that there is no truth, a new generation has grown up and, like philosophers of most of the time since Plato, assumed that there is a logos. And, consequently, assumed that there is truth. But let us not forget, the arguments from the first kind of post-modernists still exist and are readily available. Imagine it: if someone thought there was a logos and thought there was truth, but also accounted for these two things in a way that the second group of post-modernists could not, they would make quite a formidable opponent against the beast.

Atheists, scientists, philosophers, and other thinking persons that spawn from the second kind of post-modern tradition: I am calling you out. This is your fault. It is this lack of rigor, effort, and sincerity of atheists, scientists, philosophers, and other thinking persons today that has created the monster of Christian presuppositionalism in non-academic philosophy. But mind you, it won’t be non-academic for long.

I’ve seen you fight presuppositionalism with every reasonable bone in your body. But as long as you continue to claim that there is truth, they will win. They have the upper hand against you in using the deconstructive techniques of the first kind of post-modernism. And as long as you insist that there is truth, they can just take you at your own word. Watching you collide with the presuppositionalists is like watching a mother fight with her own child; you want to beat them as hard as you can, but at the same time, you want pieces of them to survive the fight because their truth is your own.

I’ve read paper upon paper on how to defeat a presuppositionalist in debate, and each time I see one of those methods used, I’ve also seen them fail. So listen closely, because I’m about to tell you how to beat them: cut their feet off. Of course, you will only be able to do this by admitting and remembering that you also have no feet. Show them there is no logos and no truth, and they too will have nothing to stand on. This mutated child you’ve given us will die.

But this is a self-sacrificial mission. Your own flawed philosophy, based off of your hopes and desires instead of your honesty and rigor, will die too. That is the tradeoff. If you decide not to, and go about fighting them your way, you only lend them the time and practice to get stronger. "

Hee-larious!

Sorry about putting up two posts in a row, but I just paid a visit, holding my breath, to Answers In Genesis. Ever check out the AIG comic strip, After Eden? It's a laff riot! Tell all your friends!

Beware Gun-Wielding Gay Terrorists! In Your Neighborhood!

Courtesy of PZ Meyers, here's the latest verbal flatulence from old-time Christian ass-hat, Pat Boone, equating the Islamic fundie violence in India with anti-Prop 8 protests here in the US. PZ does a snap-on job of gutting ol' Pat's absurd "reasoning." I just wanted to add to the fun by pointing out this choice passage:

Every homosexual citizen has the same, identical rights as any other American. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, and shouldn't. Marriage is not a governmental creation; it is a time honored and biblically ordained institution that is subject not to the government but to the will of the people. And the people, down through the centuries, have spoken. Not just the Bible, but Webster's Dictionary, defines this covenantal relationship called "marriage" as a commitment between one man and one woman.

Because this elemental building block of society has been so defined and respected throughout history, elected representatives in our self-government have granted certain supports and tax relief and privileges to marriages and families. Again, these privileges did not originate with some benevolent higher authority – they originated with the people, through the democratic process.

So if I understand Pat, the government has absolutely no place in regulating the religious institution of marriage, unless it wants to grant special privileges to certain married couples, in which case it's fine for government to regulate marriage. Just so I've got that straight.

Why I like Ray's new book: "The Atheist Bible"

• Any publicity is good publicity
• At a basic level its thought provoking, unlike your average god bothering book.
• It display Ray's blatant ridiculousness
• Unlike his posts, it cant be edited post-publishing
• It effectively redistributes income from those silly enough to purchase it
• It will reinforce the fact that despite 70% of America believing in Jesus, barely anyone will buy Ray's book.

Feel free to add on!

Do puppies believe in God?

Chritmas Card From a Hooker in Minneapolis (With Silent Night Intro)

Kind of off topic guys, but since it's that time of year, I'd like to wish everyone (even you trolls) Happy Holidays.

Here's one of my favorite Christmas songs, from one of my favorite artists ever, Tom Waits.

This is what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

Mannequins

Convulsing on the bed, my limbs are cold
A strange force takes over me

She is lying next to me
Her face pale and blank
I open her eyes
So she can see me
She doesn't make a sound
The pills must have taken effect

Her plastic stare is haunting
motionless, her eyes see through me
I live the fantasy,
Her labia feel a silver slippery
Reaching inside her has no effect

Thoughts of Sylvia Plath floating
Pressing
I find strength in the darkness
Of putting her head in the oven
Completing my fantasy
Let me state the obvious
Reminds me of retrocopulation

Her face transposed onto
The girl I touch
The prose sends me into a frenzy
"These mannequins lean tonight
In Munich, morgue between Paris and Rome,"
Faceless mannequins
Caught in a dreamscape
Tonight between paris and rome

From Pharyngula

Proof that the Soul Enters the Egg at Conception

You finally have the proof you have been asking for.

Evolution timeline

A neat evolution timeline widget found on PBS

Scroll through with your mouse, click on events for more detail.

It's not heavyweight, but it's quite nice to see various events in context.

via Richard Dawkins net forums (sunscription required)

Former Atheist Proves God With Early Christian Writings & Lee Strobel's Books--- Just Kidding!

Last weeks Atheist Experience was an absolutely fabulous show. If you'd like to see the whole thing go to Google video and type in Atheist Experience 579.

I love the YouTube clips that fans put up of the best callers, and this is a great one. In this one the caller appears to be trying the same thing that MFT tries with his '5 Proofs', at least it sounded pretty familiar.

Here it is, check it out:

Part 1




Part 2

These have to be some kind of Poes

Apparently now all you hot single heathen men can get a hook up if you convert afterward.
Date to save
Flirt to convert
Quotes from site:-
"Hello, my name is Tamara! As you can probably tell, I'm a Christian woman who loves Jesus Christ. What you probably don't know is that I'm hot. I want to use my beauty for GOD, and want to encourage Christian women (my sisters in Christ) to do the same, according to the Great Commission."
"Not only can we date hot guys (as only hot Christian girls could do), but hopefully we can lead them to God and help them get saved them from the burning fires of Hell.p. Jesus saves through hooking up with cute heathen guys!"

"10 Christian Dating Tips for
Effective Missionary Dating

1. If he tells your that you are hot...
Tell him God made you hot.

2. If he wants to hold your hand...
Give him a Bible.

3. If he tries to get closer...
Tell him the Holy Spirit is wooing him.

4. If he asks to pay for dinner...
Remind him that Jesus also paid a debt He did not owe!

5. If he reaches his arm around you...
Tell him that nobody will ever be as close to you as Jesus is.
(or ask him if you instead could "lay hands" on him in prayer)

6. If he tries to kiss you...
Remind him that a kiss killed your Savior.
(and you're not ready to "speak in tongues")

7. If he asks to come inside...
Ask him if he has asked Jesus to come inside his heart.

8. If he tells you he loves you...
Tell him that Jesus loves him.

9. If he gets angry that you won't put out...
Clarify to him that W.W.J.D. does NOT mean "Who would Jesus Do."

10. After you dump him...
Tell him that Jesus Christ will never leave or forsake him."

And in unrelated news

Catchy....(Get zapped)

I guess the bus campaign is old news by now

The Year of Living Biblically

Anybody else read this book? I just finished it; it's the one where the author, AJ Jacobs, tries to live according to the Bible as literally as possible for a full year.

It was pretty good stuff. He starts off as an agnostic and ends there, but he now calls himself more of a "reverent" agnostic. While there's definitely some stuff in The Bible that he can't get behind, he winds up with an appreciation for ritual and a lot of rules that seemingly don't make sense but turn out to be pretty good when put into practice.

I like that term - "reverent agnostic". In a way, I think of myself as a "reverent atheist". I genuinely get pretty stirred up when talking about the Jesus story, and I'd hate to think of what it would be like if I never knew it. Of course, I can't believe it literally, and I get the same charge out of it that I do with The Odyssey, but still, being an atheist hardly makes me think that The Bible is completely useless.

I definitely recommend checking it out if you haven't already.  Above all, it's an entertaining read.

How to disprove evolution

attention: science content

Scientists talk a lot about common ancestors. No reason to go into details, but one thing they all agree with, would be that insects and mammals are only very distantly related. And it should be possible to see that in the genomes of these animals.

So if we know one protein in the mouse and another one with a similiar function in the fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), we should expect that the honeybee has a protein that looks more like the fly protein.

But this isn't always the case. There are for example some genes responsible for circadian rhythms. Their proteins all interact in a complicated manner (if you're interested in details: you can see the paper here: it's from the Guy Bloch group) but there are certain differences between mouse and fly. And one fly protein (it's called cryptochrome) is missing in the bee. The bee has instead the mouse-like cryptochrome.
Does that disprove evolution?

As far as we know, it would.

There is no way that the honeybee is closer related to the mouse than to the fly or that it somehow stole the mouse gene, if evolution is true. Everybody who know me (and reality) a bit knows that there has to be a 'but' in this story.

And, indeed, there is a but.
What do you think the scientists did when they found this?

a) Didn't believe their eyes, had a beer or some more
b) Cried "Oh, this proves ID, Hallelujah, God is great"
c) Cried "Oh, this proves ID, let's do our best to deny it"
d) Had a closer look at the subject

Obviously a) but after they get over their headaches they continued with...any guesses?

d)

Luckily for them, the Drosophila genome is by far not the only sequenced genome today. Apart from mice and human genomes, honey bees, bumble bees, moths, mosquitos, beetles, plants and a lot more genomes are sequenced. So it was only to compare some of them, and they found that in most insect species both the mouse-like and the drosophila-like protein are present.

What does that tell us?
First, that these genes are very old, tracing back to the common ancestor between insects and mammals.

Second, that genes can get lost during evolution (not very surprising). In this case the fly lost one of a pair of similiar proteins and the honeybee lost the other.

Third, that Drosophila might not be the ideal super model organism that fruitfly researchers always try to tell everybody. An ideal insect model organism should be a model insect, and Drosophila isn't. (But that's just me, defending myself for not working with it...)

Forth, and that's the most important one: Don't draw your conclusions too fast. And don't ignore the facts

Good critique of TAG (and how I predict Sye would respond)

Here's a summary of some of my problems with TAG.
However good skepticism is skeptical of itself so I'll put on my presup hat to see how Sye would respond.
There are 2 question wrapped up when Sye ask atheists to "account for logic".
The ontic question and the epistemic question. Sye's answer to the ontic question is that they are reflections of the mind of God. He answers to the epistemic question by saying God has revealed these laws to him in a way he can be certain of them.

*puts on presup hat*
TheoreticBS answers the ontic question by calling them "necessary pre-conditions of existence"ie every object that exists follows these laws by virtue of the fact that it exists. However he is unable to answer the epistemic question,, but he claims Christians cannot do it either. He question-begs by not considering the option that God could reveal it to Sye.
Then he turns around and says presups should account for God.I'm thinking of Sye saying that God is accounted for "by the impossibility of the contrary".If God didn't exist then it would be impossible to be certain of logic and nothing could be accounted for.

*takes off presup hat*
Do you think I did an accurate represntation of Sye's argument?