To Mr Ray Comfort
From the entire Raytractors community
Originally started as a means to mobilise and bring together those who oppose the misinformation, dishonesty and wilful ignorance promoted by your good self, this group very quickly grew into a large and diverse community. Composed of individuals with no common thread other than their response to you, they grew exponentially, attracting like-minded and not-so-like-minded people from across the net.
But all things must come to an end...
Their time had come. As the blog died, remaining only as a fossil testament to what once was, the individuals who made up this community walked away from the one who inspired them, who caused their community to exist in the first place. As time went on, they found that they could not confine their criticism to one man: the sheer irrationality that he embodied was not his alone. Their very name, the banner they went under, was limiting them.
And so, they changed. Their identity could no longer support who and what they were, so they adapted, evolving into something different at a glance but the same at heart. They built a new environment more conductive to discussion and communication than the blog they had for so long run in tandem to your own, and they named themselves anew, that all who saw them would see and understand that they were not the mere detractors of one purveyor of lies, but the opponents of all those who would use misinformation, pseudoscience and intellectual dishonesty to promote bigotry and hate amongst those who are unable to establish truth for themselves.
They drafted a letter, in third person and in past tense because it sounded impressive and important, and they sent it to the one who had brought them together in the first place. In this document, they announced their newfound independence, and wished Mr Comfort the best in the future. Although they would continue to read and comment on the words uttered by this one, they no longer defined themselves by him, and they would exist as an entity separate from him. They again extended the same invitation to him and his followers that they had previously: if any of you wish for an honest and free exchange of ideas and opinions, without the censorship, format and rules designed to stifle inquiry and prevent individuals from providing evidence and support for their opinions, then you are welcome to join us at the new venue, which you can access from the old BlogSpot. You will be welcomed with open arms by those who used to be the Raytractors.
And so, in a final act of dramatic timing, they signed off with the name they had chosen for themselves, their new identity, which identified them not as your detractors... but as something more.
Goodbye Ray. And thank you for bringing us together.
SMRT.
Skeptical Minds and Rational Thinkers.
http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/index.php
Monday, January 5, 2009
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Technoviking
A fittingly strange and silly end to the Raytractors, a blog about a strange and silly man.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Post...and RUN!!!
And here we go....I'm going to post this and move as fast as I can so that I avoid the stampede. I give you the 1st part...
Our New Forum:
www.wearesmrt.com/bb
Sex, Drugs, & Rock 'n' Roll
Re: Sex, Drugs, & Rock 'n' Roll
Would you agree that Christianity has nothing intelligent to say about any of these three important topics?
Do any other atheists (or even non-fundamentalists) wish to agree with me also that in addition to the rationality, a side benefit of not being religiously committed is that you can have a more sane, balanced, empirical understanding of these three topics?
Would you agree that Christianity has nothing intelligent to say about any of these three important topics?
Do any other atheists (or even non-fundamentalists) wish to agree with me also that in addition to the rationality, a side benefit of not being religiously committed is that you can have a more sane, balanced, empirical understanding of these three topics?
Intro
The voice peeled out across cyberspace. It was harshened by a New Zealand twang, but also had the optimistic lilt of an unmolested choir-boy.
I heard the words flow from the screen. He must be a Poe, I thought, but the look on his face didn't seem to say so. It was hard to tell though - that same naive face was obscured by the kind of moustache that had filtered many a cup of holy sacrament.
That mo' spoke with wisdom, like an old-timer at a bar who comments on the game and how he could have played football, if only he hadn't been illegally tripped over in the 14Ds by Charlie McPhee.
He was the only man I heard of who openly admitted to thinking a banana proved an entire religion. His books came forth like a colony of Streptococcae, numerous, mildly offensive and almost exact replicas.
He was Ray and he was not ashamed.
Draft SMRT forum rules
After a flurry of activity this morning, we've come up with a draft of the forum rules. I've seperated the suggestions into Rules and Values. The former being "Follow these or else", the latter being "Please respect these values - they encourage healthy debate".
Absolute minimum:
RULES
- No Trolling (need to define this)
- Embedded pics/videos should be tasteful
- Warnings will be handed out for the breaking of Rules or the habitual violation of Values. After accruing 3 warnings, this may (at the discretion of the Moderators) subject the user to {insert something nasty here}.
The following values we could probably stick at the top of the forums, as a "Read This First" or something
VALUES
- No Preaching (need to define this)
- Cite your sources as often as possible
- Be civil, but creative cursing can be an asset
- No mention of the missing "a" in SMRT
- Be rational
- Be open-minded / wear a thick skin
- Have fun
- The forums are intended to be self-policing and democratic
- Flagging posts shouldn't be done to harass other people
Not restrictive enough? Something missing?
Let us know what you think...
I need a guinea pig
Anyone other than WEM who is online right now and wants to help me test the functionality of some things on the forum, please shoot me a quick email.
nonmagic@gmail.com
**Not being a jerk to WEM, I just need someone who had no mod privileges so they can tell me if flagging posts is possible, ect. In other words, help me test this interface.
EDIT: I HAVE MY 2 VICTIMS!!! THANKS GUYS!!
nonmagic@gmail.com
**Not being a jerk to WEM, I just need someone who had no mod privileges so they can tell me if flagging posts is possible, ect. In other words, help me test this interface.
EDIT: I HAVE MY 2 VICTIMS!!! THANKS GUYS!!
Another massive Presupositionalist thread!!
We all know the monster of argumentation that is Christian presuppositionalism. This thread is over a thousand posts.
If you don't want to read it, the participants were kind enough to summarise their positions in verse and rhyme.
Sye TenB:
The atheist claims he can know
But when asked how this is so
His response is so dense
For he claims 'reason and sense'
Whose validity he cannot show.
Andrew Louis
There once was a man named Sye
Who was really an irrational guy
He began with proof
Was withdraw and aloof
And it turned out it all was a big lie
If you don't want to read it, the participants were kind enough to summarise their positions in verse and rhyme.
Sye TenB:
The atheist claims he can know
But when asked how this is so
His response is so dense
For he claims 'reason and sense'
Whose validity he cannot show.
Andrew Louis
There once was a man named Sye
Who was really an irrational guy
He began with proof
Was withdraw and aloof
And it turned out it all was a big lie
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Raytractors please read
Mac has got our new place pretty much ready to go! (THANK YOU MAC!!!) We need to do something before everyone goes rushing in, though.
We gotta come up with some rules.
WEM and myself are the mods as of right now and we need your feedback on this!!!
Please give this some thought and post your suggestions here so that we can refine the suggestions into something we can work with and get this train on track.
Thanks to everyone for their input!!
EDIT: This isn't the whole enchilada, just the forum portion... - MacGyver Jr
We gotta come up with some rules.
WEM and myself are the mods as of right now and we need your feedback on this!!!
Please give this some thought and post your suggestions here so that we can refine the suggestions into something we can work with and get this train on track.
Thanks to everyone for their input!!
EDIT: This isn't the whole enchilada, just the forum portion... - MacGyver Jr
For atheists and theists alike who want to better understand evolution
I just got my monthly copy of Scientific American in the mail. This one is a special issue about evolution that has this on the cover:
Evolution at work: How doctors, police and others use it on their job
The evolution of evolution: How Darwin's theory survives, thrives, and reshapes the world
The future of human evolution
Molecular proof of natural selection
How life invents complex traits
Creationist's Latest Tricks
Then inside all of this is broken down into different articles. When you browse the index, lets say at the grocery store or *cough* the library where you can read it for free *cough* the articles are not titled the same as the cover states, just so you know. They are still there, just read the descriptions of the articles to find what you are looking for.
Also, page 74 has an article entitled 'Four Fallacies of Evolutionary Pop Psychology' that looks interesting.
For bonus points mosey on over to SciAm.com and check out the short article entitled Why Everyone Should Learn the Theory of Evolution. Personally, I thought it was so short it was almost more like an extended blurb than an article, but check out the comments.
Here's one:
woundeddog2 at 12:32 PM on 12/15/08
Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
That's it. As if someone who read the article would say to themselves 'Hey, I never believed the creation story before but I'm convinced now!' Trolls are everywhere.
But then there are the more reasonable Christians who leave comments like this:
mlyyski at 12:45 PM on 12/15/08
The creationist/evolutionist debate is maddening. When I was about 9 years old I was given a Bible, and the books "The World of Science" and "The Sea Around Us". It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that God created, and science explains creation. I am a Christian who absolutely believes in evolution. The creationists who sat down and dreamed up their theory, though they probably thought they were defending God (another absurd idea), actually did a huge disservice to Christianity. Most disappointing are the science savvy 'intellectuals' who say creationists got it wrong, so God could not be responsible for creation, even though they haven't the slightest clue as to the origion of the universe. In fact, I have yet to see any theory as plausable as a 9 year old's assesment after nearly 50 years, just a lot of stne throwing and name calling on both sides. Mike Lyyski
After reading that last comment I have a sliver more hope for humanity that tells me maybe one day Christians will at least accept evolution more on the terms that Mr. Lyyski stated. Hey, it's not the whole kit'n caboodle but it's better than what we have now.
Evolution at work: How doctors, police and others use it on their job
The evolution of evolution: How Darwin's theory survives, thrives, and reshapes the world
The future of human evolution
Molecular proof of natural selection
How life invents complex traits
Creationist's Latest Tricks
Then inside all of this is broken down into different articles. When you browse the index, lets say at the grocery store or *cough* the library where you can read it for free *cough* the articles are not titled the same as the cover states, just so you know. They are still there, just read the descriptions of the articles to find what you are looking for.
Also, page 74 has an article entitled 'Four Fallacies of Evolutionary Pop Psychology' that looks interesting.
For bonus points mosey on over to SciAm.com and check out the short article entitled Why Everyone Should Learn the Theory of Evolution. Personally, I thought it was so short it was almost more like an extended blurb than an article, but check out the comments.
Here's one:
woundeddog2 at 12:32 PM on 12/15/08
Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
That's it. As if someone who read the article would say to themselves 'Hey, I never believed the creation story before but I'm convinced now!' Trolls are everywhere.
But then there are the more reasonable Christians who leave comments like this:
mlyyski at 12:45 PM on 12/15/08
The creationist/evolutionist debate is maddening. When I was about 9 years old I was given a Bible, and the books "The World of Science" and "The Sea Around Us". It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that God created, and science explains creation. I am a Christian who absolutely believes in evolution. The creationists who sat down and dreamed up their theory, though they probably thought they were defending God (another absurd idea), actually did a huge disservice to Christianity. Most disappointing are the science savvy 'intellectuals' who say creationists got it wrong, so God could not be responsible for creation, even though they haven't the slightest clue as to the origion of the universe. In fact, I have yet to see any theory as plausable as a 9 year old's assesment after nearly 50 years, just a lot of stne throwing and name calling on both sides. Mike Lyyski
After reading that last comment I have a sliver more hope for humanity that tells me maybe one day Christians will at least accept evolution more on the terms that Mr. Lyyski stated. Hey, it's not the whole kit'n caboodle but it's better than what we have now.
Back by Popular Demand- Just in time for Xmas
HELL VAN- STILL HERE
Normal American shopping mall
What this means, I have no idea
Normal American shopping mall
What this means, I have no idea
God hates you and don't forget it. Especially you, Santa Claus.
Eric- A Study in Absurdity
Sometimes in the course of events over at Ray's, certain individuals single themselves out as the most preposterous, absurd, lying pieces of shit, that they must be recognized as such.
This recognition goes out to "Eric." He has no profile (not a problem actually) but claims he has a science degree while not having a clue about the definition of a scientific Theory."
It has been explained to him on several occasion in a precise manner. Then, some one used a definition from Wiki, so while totally ignoring all the definitions he has been given, he says, "Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability." He thinks he is slyly sidestepping the question by doing that, but of course he is only fooling himself.
Eric then uses the dictionary definition for the colloquial "Theory." It is hilarious the way he so overtly ignores facts that he does not like.
As I said, he is a liar because there is no way on earth that someone can hold a degree in science ad not know the definition of a Scientific Theory.
I'm going to post the comment he made that proves he is a study in absurdity.
"Eric" said...
Jason said,
You're misleadingly distorting the meaning of the word "theory" on purpose, which definitely invalidates your opinion.
DJ said,
Hello Eric. As you have a degree in a science-related area, then I assume that you are aware of the scientific definition of a theory, namely that one is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the world"(wikipedia).
Eric says:
Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability. [He thinks he's being cute by sidestepping the statement]
Funk and Wagnalls New standard Dictionary of the English Language c19261.The act or result of looking into or contemplating any object or group of objects, or any event or series of events; beholding ; viewing; speculation.2.Hence: (1)A mental plan or scheme framed to agree with the observed facts and designed as a rational explanation of them. In this sense, customarily understood to be a scheme of explanation which comes nearer to being a law verifiable by all others on the basis of observation and experiment than does a hypothesis. (2)Mere hypothesis or speculation; hence, an individual view; idea; as, the soldier's theory of duty.3.More specif., a systematic generalization, entertained in the development of some one of the positive sciences, as furnishing the most satisfactory account ofr rational explanation of a series or group of its phenomena; an elaborate and well-sustained working hypothesis designed to embrace temporarily, and to further the continued investigation of some particular science or one of its branches.theorize1.To convince by theorizing. 2.To form or express theories; speculate.
December 16, 2008 4:25 AM
I must tag on a special mention for Shawn, who ignorantly boasts:
"Why bother [studying evolution] If I know something to be a lie, why entertain it further? I would be the fool then, and not the evolutionist. Rather, I will remain in ignorance of the subject and avail my mind on the things of God, which are wholesome and pleasant to the soul. This glorious meat is food for my soul and is the light that leads to salvation. That is the only thing my mind must know.
They will do anything to create the illusion that their silly beliefs are not going up in the smoke of reason.
This recognition goes out to "Eric." He has no profile (not a problem actually) but claims he has a science degree while not having a clue about the definition of a scientific Theory."
It has been explained to him on several occasion in a precise manner. Then, some one used a definition from Wiki, so while totally ignoring all the definitions he has been given, he says, "Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability." He thinks he is slyly sidestepping the question by doing that, but of course he is only fooling himself.
Eric then uses the dictionary definition for the colloquial "Theory." It is hilarious the way he so overtly ignores facts that he does not like.
As I said, he is a liar because there is no way on earth that someone can hold a degree in science ad not know the definition of a Scientific Theory.
I'm going to post the comment he made that proves he is a study in absurdity.
"Eric" said...
Jason said,
You're misleadingly distorting the meaning of the word "theory" on purpose, which definitely invalidates your opinion.
DJ said,
Hello Eric. As you have a degree in a science-related area, then I assume that you are aware of the scientific definition of a theory, namely that one is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the world"(wikipedia).
Eric says:
Wikipedia is not and should ever used as a standard, with a few keystrokes you or I can edit the information without accountability. [He thinks he's being cute by sidestepping the statement]
Funk and Wagnalls New standard Dictionary of the English Language c19261.The act or result of looking into or contemplating any object or group of objects, or any event or series of events; beholding ; viewing; speculation.2.Hence: (1)A mental plan or scheme framed to agree with the observed facts and designed as a rational explanation of them. In this sense, customarily understood to be a scheme of explanation which comes nearer to being a law verifiable by all others on the basis of observation and experiment than does a hypothesis. (2)Mere hypothesis or speculation; hence, an individual view; idea; as, the soldier's theory of duty.3.More specif., a systematic generalization, entertained in the development of some one of the positive sciences, as furnishing the most satisfactory account ofr rational explanation of a series or group of its phenomena; an elaborate and well-sustained working hypothesis designed to embrace temporarily, and to further the continued investigation of some particular science or one of its branches.theorize1.To convince by theorizing. 2.To form or express theories; speculate.
December 16, 2008 4:25 AM
I must tag on a special mention for Shawn, who ignorantly boasts:
"Why bother [studying evolution] If I know something to be a lie, why entertain it further? I would be the fool then, and not the evolutionist. Rather, I will remain in ignorance of the subject and avail my mind on the things of God, which are wholesome and pleasant to the soul. This glorious meat is food for my soul and is the light that leads to salvation. That is the only thing my mind must know.
They will do anything to create the illusion that their silly beliefs are not going up in the smoke of reason.
The cut and paste hack strikes again...
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/12/charles-darwin-bible-200th-birthday.html
Is there no one or nothing that the holy 'tache will not exploit to make a quick buck or two...??
M.
Is there no one or nothing that the holy 'tache will not exploit to make a quick buck or two...??
M.
Ray and the Onset of Dimensio
He's starting to get to him...
From 'The Anvil of Eternal Justice' post (sounds like something the Green Lantern would wield)
The rest is pure cart before horse stuff and his prediction is a desperate attempt to head Dimensio off at the pass because he knows full-well that he has no evidence to back up anything that he says. And I just love how he says; 'That's basic science.' as if he's given some indication that he's capable of understanding, well, anything!
Classic Comfort.
Cheers,
From 'The Anvil of Eternal Justice' post (sounds like something the Green Lantern would wield)
Someone said...'God is real. He's not going away just because you don't like the thought of God. Suppress the truth all you want, but it doesn't change reality.'
And Dimensio - in classic fashion - replied;"Please substantiate your assertion with evidence."
Then Ray loses it and gives Dimensio what for;
"Dimensio...your continual "Please substantiate your assertion with evidence" when it comes to the existence of God, confirms the truth of Psalm 14:1. It is scientifically impossible to have a creation without a Creator. Nothing cannot create something. That's basic science. There has to be an eternal, immaterial first cause. Let me now make a prediction. As surely as tomorrow's sunrise, your come-back will be "Please substantiate your assertion with evidence." Prove me wrong."
The rest is pure cart before horse stuff and his prediction is a desperate attempt to head Dimensio off at the pass because he knows full-well that he has no evidence to back up anything that he says. And I just love how he says; 'That's basic science.' as if he's given some indication that he's capable of understanding, well, anything!
Classic Comfort.
Cheers,
It's not funny any more that people are going to hell !! DON'T TOUCH ME!!!
Alternate title: 'Vera goes to a coffee shop'
If you're gonna come out to your parents, wait until after the holidays...
Just had to share this gem from Atheist Mind:
Someone needs to educate this hysterical mother on the true meaning of "Christmas". c^_^ɔ
Someone needs to educate this hysterical mother on the true meaning of "Christmas". c^_^ɔ
What's in your head, zombie?
My nomination for atheist anthem. The song is about the violence in Northern Ireland, but apply it to the struggle for minds and religion.
Plus great imagery in the video
lyrics here
Monday, December 15, 2008
I thought I made myself pretty FUCKING clear...
THIS is our theme song. If you don't get it, you're a false convert.
Atheist Anthems
Ray recently asked:
"Tell me, what do you sing when you gather for your meetings?"
SmuckersTheDog the came up with Baby Got Back by the ever-relevant Sir Mix-A-Lot
I offered Coconut by Harry Nilsson - the logic of that song speaks to me like the logic of Ray's posts.
A great many people offered Lennon's subliminal Imagine, which if you ask me is a bit of a soft option.
To be honest I'm not one for singing badly together. Trying to space the inherrantly irational preaching of some salt-and-pepper haired minister with some haphazardly vocalised hymns always seemed odd to me. But get a few glasses of jesus-juice in me and I get down like the US financial markets.
So, say we got together and we had to sing one song what would it be?
Our Blogs
From the list of contributers on the side bar, here are the associated blogs.
Some listed as "none" may well have blogs under different IDs or on Wordpress or such.
Some blogs links are just holding pages, but knowing you guys, and looking at the titles I sure wish you'd blog.
Some people share blogs.
Some have stated that Raytractors is their blog. I can cezrtainly attest that my blogging activity has diminished because of time spent reading and commenting on Raytractors.
Take some time to check out the blogs of listed, it's worth the effort.
If anyone's blog was left out because I missed it or whatever, bung it in the comments, or, since you've got edit rights feel free to edit this post direct.
Weemaryanne : Stranger Than Fiction
Paul Brown : God is Irrational
Geoff : Monkey Love Child
Ranting Student : The Lively Art of Ranting
theaceofclubz : none
Rando : none
lonomoholo : none
Lance Christian Johnson : Comics, Beer, and Shakespeare + Ruminations on Eagle-Man + Blog o' Dreams
get_education : none
JicamaEater : none
Craig : none
Dave : Atheist Central
Tilia : sarcopterigyan
NaFa : The Crack House
Rufus : The Rufus T. Firefly Blog
captain howdy : none
Charles : none
The MudSkipper Show : Iron Pyrite
Jeffrey Mark : Escaping Christianity + Dubya's Autobiography
Andrew Louis : Idiot Philosophy
Bob : Hell Yeah!!!!! + lostingermay
Benjamin Franklin : The Feeble Lance of Reason
Milo : The Cat Tail + Delta Daze
mjarsulic : none
DisComforting Ignorance : DisComforting Ignorance
MacGyver Jr : none
Yaeger : none
BaldySlaphead : BaldySlaphead
Froggie : The Bushy Tree
ExPatMatt : Shared Space
TripMaster Monkey : none
Quasar : Quasar Tr-Delta
The Skeptical Sorcerer : The Skeptical Sorcerer
Jill D : none
Atomic Chimp : Squeak My Weasel
Revenant : none
Former Follier : none
Maragon : Atheism is the Rational Response + Talking to Theists
Kirsti : My Little Corner of the Web
Whateverman : Whateverman's Pad
CodewordConduit : Reflections of the Damned
Clostridiophile : Banana Fort + Of Microbes and Men
Stew : A Night on the Tiles + 2000 Years of Deception
GermanMike : Christian Radio Review
Obsidian : none
Matthew Wooller : none
Kaitlyn : Happy Atheist Scientist
TEMPLE : none
Alphgeek : Pain And Suffering
henwli : I have no mouth, and I must blog + Banana Fort +
Vagon : none
Adrian Hayter : The Atheist Blogger
The Celtic Chimp : The Celtic Chimp
nonmagic : nonmagical thinking + The Bushy Tree
Irukandji : Who wants my jellyfish?
John Doyle : Master and Commander
Marlin : none
Daddy Stegosaurus : none
theShaggy : none
Jason : Christian Central -- Jason Brunet's Blog
neil h : La Serenissima + Mix Club + Dogwood Tales
Therine : Pretentious College Student
Rocky "BeamStalk" S : none
Robert Madewell : Superstition Free
KiwiInOz : none
Some listed as "none" may well have blogs under different IDs or on Wordpress or such.
Some blogs links are just holding pages, but knowing you guys, and looking at the titles I sure wish you'd blog.
Some people share blogs.
Some have stated that Raytractors is their blog. I can cezrtainly attest that my blogging activity has diminished because of time spent reading and commenting on Raytractors.
Take some time to check out the blogs of listed, it's worth the effort.
If anyone's blog was left out because I missed it or whatever, bung it in the comments, or, since you've got edit rights feel free to edit this post direct.
Paul Brown : God is Irrational
Geoff : Monkey Love Child
Ranting Student : The Lively Art of Ranting
theaceofclubz : none
Rando : none
lonomoholo : none
Lance Christian Johnson : Comics, Beer, and Shakespeare + Ruminations on Eagle-Man + Blog o' Dreams
get_education : none
JicamaEater : none
Craig : none
Dave : Atheist Central
Tilia : sarcopterigyan
NaFa : The Crack House
Rufus : The Rufus T. Firefly Blog
captain howdy : none
Charles : none
The MudSkipper Show : Iron Pyrite
Jeffrey Mark : Escaping Christianity + Dubya's Autobiography
Andrew Louis : Idiot Philosophy
Bob : Hell Yeah!!!!! + lostingermay
Benjamin Franklin : The Feeble Lance of Reason
Milo : The Cat Tail + Delta Daze
mjarsulic : none
DisComforting Ignorance : DisComforting Ignorance
MacGyver Jr : none
Yaeger : none
BaldySlaphead : BaldySlaphead
Froggie : The Bushy Tree
ExPatMatt : Shared Space
TripMaster Monkey : none
Quasar : Quasar Tr-Delta
The Skeptical Sorcerer : The Skeptical Sorcerer
Jill D : none
Atomic Chimp : Squeak My Weasel
Revenant : none
Former Follier : none
Maragon : Atheism is the Rational Response + Talking to Theists
Kirsti : My Little Corner of the Web
Whateverman : Whateverman's Pad
CodewordConduit : Reflections of the Damned
Clostridiophile : Banana Fort + Of Microbes and Men
Stew : A Night on the Tiles + 2000 Years of Deception
GermanMike : Christian Radio Review
Obsidian : none
Matthew Wooller : none
Kaitlyn : Happy Atheist Scientist
TEMPLE : none
Alphgeek : Pain And Suffering
henwli : I have no mouth, and I must blog + Banana Fort +
Vagon : none
Adrian Hayter : The Atheist Blogger
The Celtic Chimp : The Celtic Chimp
nonmagic : nonmagical thinking + The Bushy Tree
Irukandji : Who wants my jellyfish?
John Doyle : Master and Commander
Marlin : none
Daddy Stegosaurus : none
theShaggy : none
Jason : Christian Central -- Jason Brunet's Blog
neil h : La Serenissima + Mix Club + Dogwood Tales
Therine : Pretentious College Student
Rocky "BeamStalk" S : none
Robert Madewell : Superstition Free
KiwiInOz : none
What is it with the Bible and Incest?
So Ray's latest blathering is an attempt at ridiculing evolution by copy pasting a bit of text from the Berkeley evolution library. The bit that Ray really takes notice of, of course, is this;
"Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales"
Fair enough. I can see why this might be hard to swallow.
But please, for the love of not-god, why does the accompanying image have man and tree hugging each other with love hearts in the air and lustful eyes entwined? Why did a quote about us being distant cousins make Ray think that we should be all loved-up on trees? This could be Ray's most confusing post yet; what the hell is he trying to say?
I'm just disappointed that the cartoon of a hummingbird giving a whale a blow job didn't make the final edit. Shame.
Cheers,
[Disturbing image courtesy of Richard 'Prick-Splinters' Gunther]
Hickory Dickory Dock (By request)
Hickory Dickory Dock,
So you got some errands to do
you go to the cabinet
Take out the Absolut
And swig it from the bottle
hickory dickory dock
You're making jokes about
your cock
The clock stuck 2
you drank some booze
and fell asleep (while your woman waited)
Cause you're all talk.
Hickory Dickery Dock
My bitch just bit my cock
That wasn't very nice
I'll have to punish her
by shooting it in her eyes.
Hickory Dickery Dock
This Rhyme is kinda lame
That's ok cause so are you
And you fucking read it anyway!
So you got some errands to do
you go to the cabinet
Take out the Absolut
And swig it from the bottle
hickory dickory dock
You're making jokes about
your cock
The clock stuck 2
you drank some booze
and fell asleep (while your woman waited)
Cause you're all talk.
Hickory Dickery Dock
My bitch just bit my cock
That wasn't very nice
I'll have to punish her
by shooting it in her eyes.
Hickory Dickery Dock
This Rhyme is kinda lame
That's ok cause so are you
And you fucking read it anyway!
God is Still Busy
I thought he rested on the seventh day?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081215/sc_afp/sciencethailandseasiawildlife_081215132156
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081215/sc_afp/sciencethailandseasiawildlife_081215132156
Careful what you believe
I caught part of Exodus Decoded last night on Discovery. I never would have known it was on if my husband wouldn't have told me about it.
It looked promising, as far at intellectual honesty goes. Then it went down the tubes, so to speak. If you look at the above link, at the bottom of the page you'll find the criticisms, and there are more, just Google it. Yes, I know, people can and will critique anything, but when you make a claim like the first born slept in beds while everyone else slept on roofs while explaining how the 10th plague could have been caused by carbon dioxide poisoning, and then I find out there is no archeological evidence that this is true, you tend to make me highly skeptical of your other claims. It also makes me wonder what the hell you were thinking by making a claim like that with no supporting evidence.
I felt the same way about The God Who Wasn't There and Zeitgeist. I feel the same way about anything I watch/read that is making claims about religion or science. Research it yourself, don't just take the word of the filmmaker/author that it's true or you'll end up believing a lot of false information.
I don't take the claims of the Bible at face value and believe them just because they are supposedly authoritative, why on earth would I take the claims made in a movie or tv show as such without properly researching them? If you want to disbelieve the Bible, there are plenty of perfectly good, sound reasons for doing so without twisting history and blatantly making shit up in order to convince others to do so.
Edit: Here are some of the natural explanations that could be used to explain the plagues. A lot of this is the same stuff covered in Exodus Decoded. But, remember there is a Wiki disclaimer that there might be unverified claims in there.
As an atheist, I think there probably are perfectly natural explanations for the plagues, people just didn't know what those explanations were at the time and they thought a deity caused them. I believe this because it is much more likely that natural phenomena happen for reasons that can be explained scientifically, than it is that a deity does anything.
Think about it. Remember when Katrina hit and people were running around saying it was the xian God's retribution for sin? If you have a solid understanding of hurricanes and weather patterns then you can understand what happened very well, without postulating a deity for which there is no evidence.
It looked promising, as far at intellectual honesty goes. Then it went down the tubes, so to speak. If you look at the above link, at the bottom of the page you'll find the criticisms, and there are more, just Google it. Yes, I know, people can and will critique anything, but when you make a claim like the first born slept in beds while everyone else slept on roofs while explaining how the 10th plague could have been caused by carbon dioxide poisoning, and then I find out there is no archeological evidence that this is true, you tend to make me highly skeptical of your other claims. It also makes me wonder what the hell you were thinking by making a claim like that with no supporting evidence.
I felt the same way about The God Who Wasn't There and Zeitgeist. I feel the same way about anything I watch/read that is making claims about religion or science. Research it yourself, don't just take the word of the filmmaker/author that it's true or you'll end up believing a lot of false information.
I don't take the claims of the Bible at face value and believe them just because they are supposedly authoritative, why on earth would I take the claims made in a movie or tv show as such without properly researching them? If you want to disbelieve the Bible, there are plenty of perfectly good, sound reasons for doing so without twisting history and blatantly making shit up in order to convince others to do so.
Edit: Here are some of the natural explanations that could be used to explain the plagues. A lot of this is the same stuff covered in Exodus Decoded. But, remember there is a Wiki disclaimer that there might be unverified claims in there.
As an atheist, I think there probably are perfectly natural explanations for the plagues, people just didn't know what those explanations were at the time and they thought a deity caused them. I believe this because it is much more likely that natural phenomena happen for reasons that can be explained scientifically, than it is that a deity does anything.
Think about it. Remember when Katrina hit and people were running around saying it was the xian God's retribution for sin? If you have a solid understanding of hurricanes and weather patterns then you can understand what happened very well, without postulating a deity for which there is no evidence.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
I feel so Patriotic right now...
The Evil Atheist Conspiracy is apparently making headway in my home country of Australia: in place of the traditional "Religous Education" classes, we get to teach Humanism!
Victorian state primary school students will soon have an alternative -- religious education lessons taught by people who do not believe in God and say there is "no evidence of any supernatural power".
The Humanist Society of Victoria has developed a curriculum, which the State Government accreditation body says it intends to approve, to deliver 30-minute lessons each week of "humanist applied ethics" to primary pupils.
Accredited volunteers will be able to teach their philosophy in the class time designated for religious instruction. As with lessons delivered by faith groups, parents will be able to request that their children do not participate.
The reactions were predictably deranged and incohesive.
~ The fundies are against it because: "What about witchcraft or Satanism? "If you accredit humanism, then those things would have an equal claim to be taught in schools."
~ The "mainstream religous" are also against it because: "humanism is not a religion and so should not be taught in religious education time." -- (Access Ministries)
But the World Conference of Religions for Peace fully supports it, and intends to approve it when it comes up for approval. So who wants to come to visit?
(Entire Post Stolen pretty much verbatim from Pharyngula.)
PS: The final paragraph contains a quote from fundie Jenny Stokes: "Religious instruction in state schools should be Christian because "basically we are a Christian nation", she said."
What the friggin frig on a frigger? No we're not! Australia's constitution is even clearer than the American one!
Chapter V
"116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
Respectfully, Ms Stokes: Go to Niflheim!
Victorian state primary school students will soon have an alternative -- religious education lessons taught by people who do not believe in God and say there is "no evidence of any supernatural power".
The Humanist Society of Victoria has developed a curriculum, which the State Government accreditation body says it intends to approve, to deliver 30-minute lessons each week of "humanist applied ethics" to primary pupils.
Accredited volunteers will be able to teach their philosophy in the class time designated for religious instruction. As with lessons delivered by faith groups, parents will be able to request that their children do not participate.
The reactions were predictably deranged and incohesive.
~ The fundies are against it because: "What about witchcraft or Satanism? "If you accredit humanism, then those things would have an equal claim to be taught in schools."
~ The "mainstream religous" are also against it because: "humanism is not a religion and so should not be taught in religious education time." -- (Access Ministries)
But the World Conference of Religions for Peace fully supports it, and intends to approve it when it comes up for approval. So who wants to come to visit?
(Entire Post Stolen pretty much verbatim from Pharyngula.)
PS: The final paragraph contains a quote from fundie Jenny Stokes: "Religious instruction in state schools should be Christian because "basically we are a Christian nation", she said."
What the friggin frig on a frigger? No we're not! Australia's constitution is even clearer than the American one!
Chapter V
"116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
Respectfully, Ms Stokes: Go to Niflheim!
The different personalities of Daniel. (No, I'm not using your made up spelling of your name.)
Kelley believes that Daniel (freaky spelling omitted)and Ezekiel (freaky spelling omitted once again)are the same person.
Yep, I'd say so. Lunatics abound and psychosis and trolls are pretty common.
Sorry to anyone who thought he was some sort of prophet or that some deity was getting ready to piss on San Fran.
Yep, I'd say so. Lunatics abound and psychosis and trolls are pretty common.
Sorry to anyone who thought he was some sort of prophet or that some deity was getting ready to piss on San Fran.
Dear Presupposistionalists
Please contrast and explain the differences between truth and absolute truth.
Truth is defined as:
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
As such, it would seem that an adjective applied to 'truth' in regards to how true truth is would be superfluous in the extreme. If something is considered to be true, then there is no reason to add any kind of qualifier to it, nor does said qualifier change the truth of the true stated fact. If the truth of the truism being discussed was in question, then it wouldn't be labelled as 'true' to begin with.
The definition of absolute is:
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic
7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.
Utilizing such definitions and synonyms, one can see how unnecessary adding such adjectives to a truth claim really is.
Pure truth
Complete truth
Unlimited truth
Ultimate truth
Certain truth
Outright truth
How do these words actually effect how true something is? What it is that differentiates absolute truth from regular truth?
In example:
It is true that gravity exists.
It is absolutely true that gravity exists.
Does my adding an unnecessary adjective to that sentence effect whether or not gravity actually exists?
Does me describing truth as purple make a difference in how true something is?
Because to me, this looks like simply more inane word games that the presupposistionalist engages in in lieu of offering any tangible evidence for the existence of a deity.
Truth is defined as:
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
1. Reality; actuality.
2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
As such, it would seem that an adjective applied to 'truth' in regards to how true truth is would be superfluous in the extreme. If something is considered to be true, then there is no reason to add any kind of qualifier to it, nor does said qualifier change the truth of the true stated fact. If the truth of the truism being discussed was in question, then it wouldn't be labelled as 'true' to begin with.
The definition of absolute is:
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic
7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.
Utilizing such definitions and synonyms, one can see how unnecessary adding such adjectives to a truth claim really is.
Pure truth
Complete truth
Unlimited truth
Ultimate truth
Certain truth
Outright truth
How do these words actually effect how true something is? What it is that differentiates absolute truth from regular truth?
In example:
It is true that gravity exists.
It is absolutely true that gravity exists.
Does my adding an unnecessary adjective to that sentence effect whether or not gravity actually exists?
Does me describing truth as purple make a difference in how true something is?
Because to me, this looks like simply more inane word games that the presupposistionalist engages in in lieu of offering any tangible evidence for the existence of a deity.
Ken Ham- A Study of a Pitiful Deluded Fundamentalist
Ray Comfort is an idiot; kind of like a credulous little kid. He even enjoys being the class fool by making his vague circumlocutions and totally fabricated remarks about science. He then goes on to admit that he has no knowledge whatsoever of science. He thinks he is being "cute." I consider him generally discredited and his hate for Catholics and all other xtian sects exhibits his insecurity and his need to demonize others. I see him as a pathetic dunce, at best.
Now we have Ken Ham
From the New Yorker Magazine:
"Dystopia in Kentucky"
".......The sixty-thousand-square-foot museum mimics the language, layout, and technical effects of state-of-the-art science museums: mastodon fossils and mineral crystals, soaring dioramas of life-size animatronic dinosaurs, several movie theatres, conference rooms, cafés, even a planetarium, and an echoing soundtrack of bird calls. But, as you pay your $19.95 and walk through the entry hall, there are clues that this is all a sophisticated sham.
The simulation serves a primitive ideology known as “young-earth creationism,” which promotes the idea that the earth is just over six thousand years old and that the fossil record appeared after the Flood, around 4300 B.C......" But hey, you all knew that.
Here is the tripe that I'm bitching about today.
He has an article up, "Too Many Theories?"
If you have a few minutes, and the stomach for bullshit, have a look and let us know what ya think of this shit.
Ham is bringing in millions of dollars but he did have a quiet mutiny among his minions last year.
I can see his followers donating money to the Kentucky monument to dystopia, but he was quietly testing the waters to try to build a Creation Museum on the Island of Saipan!
Oh! that would have been a coup d' etat, to place a monument to his silly beliefs on an idyllic Pacific island. And what a better place to hang out! He claimed that tourism would bring the visitors, but when Ham's minions discovered that most of the tourists were Japanese, who wouldn't even think of going to a pit of ignorance like that, they balked and the project was dropped. It is obvious that the Hamster considers himself a God, and makes his followers treat him like one, but he went a bit too far in this case.
[Disclaimer] After writing the last paragraph I was looking for some supporting documents but it seems that they have disappeared. So, rather than delete the paragraph please consider it anecdotal until I do find some cites.
Let's rip on him a bit!
[Edit]
Looks like Ham is still trying to make it happen.
"A controversial organization's bid to build a museum devoted to creationism on Saipan appears for now to be on hold due to a need for funding and land for the project, according to a spokesman. In a statement, David Crandall of the group Answers in Genesis said that building a museum on creationism-the belief that the biblical account of the Earth's origins is literal truth-in the CNMI is still on the group's agenda..........
In a 2007 statement that was signed by more than 800 scientists after the opening of the Creation Museum, the National Center for Science Education said that students “who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis.”
This is outright fraud.
Now we have Ken Ham
From the New Yorker Magazine:
"Dystopia in Kentucky"
".......The sixty-thousand-square-foot museum mimics the language, layout, and technical effects of state-of-the-art science museums: mastodon fossils and mineral crystals, soaring dioramas of life-size animatronic dinosaurs, several movie theatres, conference rooms, cafés, even a planetarium, and an echoing soundtrack of bird calls. But, as you pay your $19.95 and walk through the entry hall, there are clues that this is all a sophisticated sham.
The simulation serves a primitive ideology known as “young-earth creationism,” which promotes the idea that the earth is just over six thousand years old and that the fossil record appeared after the Flood, around 4300 B.C......" But hey, you all knew that.
Here is the tripe that I'm bitching about today.
He has an article up, "Too Many Theories?"
If you have a few minutes, and the stomach for bullshit, have a look and let us know what ya think of this shit.
Ham is bringing in millions of dollars but he did have a quiet mutiny among his minions last year.
I can see his followers donating money to the Kentucky monument to dystopia, but he was quietly testing the waters to try to build a Creation Museum on the Island of Saipan!
Oh! that would have been a coup d' etat, to place a monument to his silly beliefs on an idyllic Pacific island. And what a better place to hang out! He claimed that tourism would bring the visitors, but when Ham's minions discovered that most of the tourists were Japanese, who wouldn't even think of going to a pit of ignorance like that, they balked and the project was dropped. It is obvious that the Hamster considers himself a God, and makes his followers treat him like one, but he went a bit too far in this case.
[Disclaimer] After writing the last paragraph I was looking for some supporting documents but it seems that they have disappeared. So, rather than delete the paragraph please consider it anecdotal until I do find some cites.
Let's rip on him a bit!
[Edit]
Looks like Ham is still trying to make it happen.
"A controversial organization's bid to build a museum devoted to creationism on Saipan appears for now to be on hold due to a need for funding and land for the project, according to a spokesman. In a statement, David Crandall of the group Answers in Genesis said that building a museum on creationism-the belief that the biblical account of the Earth's origins is literal truth-in the CNMI is still on the group's agenda..........
In a 2007 statement that was signed by more than 800 scientists after the opening of the Creation Museum, the National Center for Science Education said that students “who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis.”
This is outright fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
