Don't You Touch My Organs

The Israeli government is reportedly looking into a law where those who agree to be organ donors will get preference if they ever need an organ in return. "Wow," you might think, what a fair idea. Yet, as it turns out, some orthodox Jews are upset because their religion forbids them from being organ donors and they don't want their place in line bumped.

Is anyone else catching the hypocrisy of a religion that says it is not OK to donate organs, but it is OK to receive other people's donated organs? How selfish and self-centered does one need to be in order to believe that god wants for you to keep your organs, even when you aren't using them anymore or if you have more than you need, but wants all those other sorry saps to give their organs up for you should you require them? I think this is just another instance of irrationality on display from religion.

Why Won't god Heal Amputees?

I'm sure that everyone here is aware and familiar with the website named in the post title, right? If not, please check it out.

Now, I happen to think it's a very good question. If you listen to some Xians, however, it's a stupid question to ask (12th comment in and later). Apparently, it's so stupid that the person who asks only deserves mockery and scorn. This is not the first time that I've run into this sentiment either.

But why? I've yet to hear a response as to why it's a dumb question. This is especially true when some Xians boast of the miraculous results of their faith healings. From remission of cancer to cures for disease - even to lengthening of limbs (this blogger has routinely claimed as much as well as other outlandish claims) - god supposedly heals people. If god can make limbs grow longer, what's to stop god from making limbs regrow? But, apparently it's easier to heap scorn upon someone else for daring to ask the question than to examine one's own theology to see if there are any issue with it. One might have to face up to the possibility that one's theology doesn't make sense.

Q: What do you call a gay dinosaur?

We all know that dinosaurs didn't go with Noah on the ark, right? Not so fast. As it turns out, there is a way that Noah could have had dinosaurs on the ark and they would still have died off because they simply didn't reproduce. That's right, Noah could have unintentionally selected gay dinosaurs. (Obviously it would be unintentional since god would not have wanted Noah to collect gay anything, since gays are deviants and choose to be so and so are in defiance to god and all of that silly stuff.)

It's not so far-fetched. We know that there are examples of homosexual animals that obviously choose to spite god by being gay. Isn't it possible that the gay dinosaurs infiltrated the ark so that they would be saved, and in the process killed off their own kinds? Ha ha, take that evilutionists!

(Note: the answer to the title is either Megasauras or Lickalotapus.)

Theism Predicts (Part IV)

Last time, our theist tried to dab his toe into the waters of evolution, and didn't do such a good job. This time around, we find that the theist is still having trouble with reality. For instance:

9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford)

The first sentence is not even close to being true. No one is claiming that most mutations are beneficial. Most mutations are either deleterious or neutral, with some being advantageous. Mutations, however, are not "overwhelmingly detrimental." This is incorrect. And, there are not serious questions as to "whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever." The only ones making this claim are unserious creationists like Behe and Sanford who are roundly ignored, debunked, and/or chided for their unscrupulous inattention to the evidence.

What evidence? Try Lenski's work, genetic algorithms, or the many observed instance of speciation. How can they claim credibility when they deny the obvious evidence that has been produced?

10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

Again, the theist puts words into the "materialist's" mouth. The first life was very simple, but how it came about is probably not in "a warm little pond." We don't know exactly how life arose or in what conditions, but we do know that it is possible in quite a few conditions.

Our theist, of course, jumps to the claim that life is complex, but this doesn't at all show that the first lifeform was not simple. Of course, to go from simple to complex we need a mechanism that accomplishes the task. Luckily enough for us, we have evolution, which is more than adequate to the job and has been demonstrated to have the ability to go from simple to complex (see above and/or pick up any textbook).

Finally, that something may be more complex than anything man has made doesn't necessarily imply that it was made in turn. We could make the counter argument that we see complexity in nature that we can not hope to match, so what makes the theist think that anything could create that complexity? Both are non-starter arguments and the fact that the theist must rely on such arguments indicates that the theist is not operating from a position of strength.

11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth

If materialism did predict that it took a very long time for life to appear on Earth, well that is correct. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago (bya). The oldest rocks we've found are from about 4 bya. The oldest life we've found is from about 3.5 bya. IOW, life formed about 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth. Apparently that's abrupt to the theist?

Of course, that's up for some debate, and I give the theist some credit here as some recent finds may indicate older life, maybe from as early as 3.8 bya. Still, this does not support the theist's position, especially when the reference to Genesis is made. Genesis goes right out the window when discussing billions of years. Genesis refers to days and abrupt changes that simply did not happen. Genesis is disproven. Sorry Mr. Theist, but as soon as you brought Genesis into the discussion, you lost all credibility. Still, the next installment will deal with the last of the supposed predictions.


Other posts in this series...

Random

I was sent this apology from a former Xian, and I liked it so much I wanted to pass it on. Please enjoy.

Also, here's a pretty good Onion-esque satire site that I know has fooled at least one gullible Xian. See, apparently we'd all be cannibals if not for Jebus, even if not everyone was a cannibal before Jebus supposedly came to Earth or before ever hearing about Jebus. You're not supposed to actually use logic and facts and stuff!

Rude? Insulting? Intolerant?

Lots of Xians who post here often complain about me, saying that I'm rude and insulting, and even intolerant. Apparently, making an argument about or pointing out that their religion is inconsistent, illogical, and/or irrational is rude, insulting, and intolerant. Confused? Well, it can be difficult to determine what Xians (and other theists) find rude, insulting, and/or intolerant.

So, now you're probably wondering to yourself, "So, how can I tell when I'm being rude, insulting, or intolerant?" Well, you're in luck, as I've put together this handy guide to help you figure out what is and is not rude, insulting, and/or intolerant.

When the Xian says:
1. Gays are abhorrent, sexual deviants, etc. - Not rude, not insulting, not intolerant. You may be tempted to think that denigrating people simply because they were born with certain sexual preferences would be rude, insulting, and/or intolerant, but you'd be wrong. The only time it becomes somewhat rude, insulting, and intolerant is if you picket military funerals.

2. Women are inferior and shouldn't hold positions of power - agian, not rude, not insulting, not intolerant. You see, this is a loving position from the Xian god who decided women are simply not as good as men and should be treated as property.

3. All people are deserving of eternal torture - not rude, not insulting, not intolerant. You see, this is OK, because all people are being called bad, wicked, and worthy of the most heinous and horrible fate that could possible await them.

4. All atheists/non-theists are fools, idiots, morons, stupid, etc. - not insulting, etc. That's because this is simply true, as the Bible says. I mean, what do/did a bunch of simpletons like Einstein, Sagan, Paine, Freud, Feynmann, Russell, et al know?

5. All scientists are either lazy incompetents or devious liars advancing the atheist agenda - not insulting. Again, this is apparently true, because all of these scientists are either too stupid to realize evolution is false, or intentionally misleading the public because they are using the copious funds they receive to build super-villain, island lairs with which to enact their schemes of world domination.

More...

When the atheist says:
1. Anything - this is extremely rude, extremely insulting, extremely intolerant. Whenever an atheist says anything, the inevitable result is rude, insulting, and intolerant, simply because the atheist is speaking. In fact, the simple fact of the existence of the atheist is rude, insulting, and intolerant.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
The picture in the above is a nastygram written by a Xian (in crayon) because of a sticker that was on the back of the car of a dinosaur eating a Jesus fish. See here and here.

Natural Evil and the Fall

Unless you live under a rock, you've heard by now that a major Earthquake has hit Haiti and done lots of damage. You've probably also heard that asshats like Pat Robertson have been claiming that it was divine retribution for some sin or another of the Haitians. Of course, other Xians are rushing to god's aid and claiming that god had nothing to do with it. The problem, you see, is that we live in a fallen world and humans (specifically Adam and Eve) are to blame.

Honestly, I find the former approach to be more intellectually honest and better thought out. How does eating an apple cause Earthquakes to happen? How did eating an apple cause the Earth to be made in such a way that tectonic plates would exist that can bump and slide against each other causing devastating earthquakes that would result in terrible human suffering? Even if it was a direct result of the actions of Adam and Eve, who came up with the idea to make this part of the punishment, a punishment that would affect people for thousands upon thousands of years after the original supposed transgression? And, who put it into effect?

Is there any possible way to claim a god that rules over all that isn't somehow responsible? No, there really isn't.

Beyond the Empirical

Some (many) theists claim that god is beyond scientific/empirical scrutiny, that god, being supernatural, can not be detected by scientific/empirical means. This is usually accompanied by a smug attitude, of course, about how science/empiricism is not the only method for acquiring knowledge.

OK, so here's my very simple question:

What other method do you propose to use to detect/prove/evidence god, how do you go about using it, and how do you know it works?

It's all well and good to complain about science not showing their god, but the theist should put up or shut up and show us their methodology and see how well it works. My guess is that these theists that claim that science doesn't work will either be unable to answer the question, or will try to rely on empirical methods in the end.

Maybe god Told him to?

It seems another man of the cloth (this time a baptist) is accused of raping a 13 year old (6 charges brought against him) and assault as well.

Not to make light of this, but he should have chosen better. He should have been a Muslim where Mohamed had a child bride and it wouldn't be looked down on. At least if he had been Catholic, they might have hidden him away and quietly paid off the girls he raped (allegedly I suppose). Or, maybe god is telling all these priests and others to rape girls and boys. How can we tell that that is not what is happening?

When religions boast of the power of private, personal revelation, how can religionists them justify claims that one has not had a private communique from god that raping young children is what god wants of them? I've asked this question numerous times in numerous forms, and no Xian (or theist) has ever had an answer for it. The usual pablum is that stuff like this is against the Bible, but what they don't get is that their answer is certainly open to interpretation and they can't prove that it is against the Bible. This is especially true since god has ordered rape in the past.

It seems the theist is trapped. We have no real mention of god, except through personal revelation, but if that is true, then we have no way to evaluate the veracity of one person's revelation vs. another person's version. If we toss out personal revelation, then there's no argument for god (not that it's an argument anyway, but theists seem to think it is). So, theists, which is it? Can we discern which personal revelation is bunk and which is valid, or is personal revelation useless to us in discerning the truth of the existence of god and what this god wants?

Theism Predicts (Part III)

Let's jump right back in...(there's a link to previous posts at the bottom of this entry)

6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind – Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe.

Actually, for once, the commenter has almost gotten something right. What we see from science and empirical evidence is no indication, no evidence that there is any consciousness to the universe itself that would indicate that it has anything in mind or that there's some puppet master behind the scenes pulling strings. Mutations are random. Particles can and do blink into and out of existence. Quantum mechanics works based on probability instead of certainty and we even have theorems that state that this is simply the way the world works. In short, we see no evidence of purpose. To brazenly state that one sees purpose is to speak beyond what evidence we do have.

As for the fine-tuning argument, there are many issues with that. For one, the Xian can't contend fine tuning and also that humans could not have arisen in this universe without divine intervention. Secondly, the vast majority of the universe seems rather inhabitable to humans. Third, we find that life can form and thrive in a vast variety of conditions, not simply those that support human life. Fourth, we have no evidence of the constants being tuned to any degree, we simply know that they are what they are. It's quite possible that we are one of many universes that have different values, or that many of these values are emergent properties that simply must be. Also, implicit in this is that the constants must be some value plus or minus some factor, but inherent in that are still infinite different possible universes that would still meet the same restrictions of this universe. Making the leap to a fine-tuned universe that was fine-tuned by a god is an unjustified leap.

7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe – Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe.

And, we're back to going off the rails. Nowhere does "Materialism predict complex life in this universe should be fairly common." Once again, I have no idea where this person gets their ideas from.

What we do understand is some of the conditions necessary for life as we know it. But, we don't know quite a bit, and it's rather unjustified to go on as if we do, yet this Xian seems to feel fully justified that not only is complex life can only arise in certain specific conditions that we know of, but that the Earth is the only place in the billions and billions of galaxies that this is the case. What presumptuous rubbish.

8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”.

Actually, it was evolutionary biologists that discovered that much of the DNA code is junk, end of story. If this Xian wants to try and argue that we don't have junk DNA, and that it's a testable prediction of his god, then I say, "Go right ahead. Please do."

This question has been empirically settled. Some creationists do try to make up data or claim that examples of functional non-coding DNA, that were already known to scientists, somehow disputes the claim of junk DNA, but they are simply making stuff up. The empirical evidence has been gathered, and the creationists lost...as they always do.


Other posts in this series.

Absolutes

Quite a few time in my dealings with Xians on the intarwebs, I've been accused of dealing in black/white and absolutes (and atheists are accused of this in general). god is either evil or good, according to us atheists. These Xians wonder, why can't we look at the good stuff in the Bible and see that god is good?

How ironic they would say this, considering that the problem is a self-inflicted one for the theist, in that the theist has formed the scenario around a god possessing absolute attributes.

Omnipotence is an absolute.
Omniscience is an absolute.
Omni-benevolence is an absolute.
Perfection is an absolute.
Xians claim to hold to absolute morality.
Etc. etc. etc.

When the atheist points out the inconsistency of these absolutes, the theist must own up to the fact that the fault lies in their argument, not in the responses to that argument. Pointing out that a god that commits genocide is not perfectly good is a valid response to an argument that god is perfectly good. If theists really wish to argue for absolutes, they should not be surprised when the atheist points out their absolutes fail.

The Cure?

On a recent blog post, in response to a comment I made, the author of the post included an analogy:

Who said you go to hell just because you’re human? They lied to you. You don’t go to hell simply because you are born with the disease called sin. You only go to hell if you reject the cure.

“Well gee, I got gang green on my foot and they had to amputate my whole leg and I’m mad about it!”

“Well did you take medicine for it when you first noticed it??”

“No. I don’t believe in medicines.”

Who’s responsible for the amputation, the advanced gang green or the guy who rejected the medicine after he was told it would cure him?

My response is rather long and directly follows that, but I think this is an important point that often gets thrown out there by Xians, and looks pretty reasonable until one actually looks at it a little closer.

If god is the "cure" then wouldn't we be stupid to resist? Wouldn't it be our fault for going to hell for not taking the "cure" that's staring us right in the face? Oh, if only it were so simply though, right?

This is similar to Pascal's Wager, which I won't rehash too much here, I hope. But, it must be said that the Xian has no assurance that a cure is even necessary, or that their beliefs constitute the true cure if one is indeed necessary. There are tons of purported cures out there for the all too human fear of death, and picking one out of a hat has just as much a chance of being right as being born into those beliefs.

But, what the analogy really misses is why the victim is suffering in the first place. How did the patient get gang green? If someone somehow gave the patient this condition, would we not find fault with that person? If that person then went out and found the cure and brought it back, would we simply absolve them of all their responsibility in bringing about this sequence of events? Wouldn't we hold that it was their moral duty to try and correct their mistake?

In this instance, is it not god that created humans as fallible beings with sinful natures? It would only be god's moral responsibility to fix that by giving us a cure, and one without strings, like demanding obedience from us and that we conform to specific beliefs. Sorry, but this is an analogy fail, because it glosses over the important parts of the equation, namely god's involvement in the condition. That's part of the problem with a so-called perfect, omni-max god, the buck always stops with him.

How To Helpfuls

Let's say you're a Xian who really wants to convert heathens like me, but you just don't know how. Well, you're in luck, because the helpful people at wikiHow have a guide just for you. Make sure you are adequately prepared with tidbits like these:

Conversion is an act of love. A gift.

It's a gift all right to be convinced that you deserve to be tortured in hell for eternity out of love.

...increase your friendship before attempting to influence their religious beliefs.

Because emotional blackmail is a great way to get people to convert.

Pray to God.

Because that's always helpful, right?

It's not all dumb though. There are some good points made, like this one:

Do your homework. If you are a Christian, and you believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, then certainly you have read most of the Bible, especially the Gospels, right? If not, you may find the person you are trying to convert is better versed in the Bible than you.

This is actually good advice.

Similarly the rest of the piece has its ups and downs, but overall it's pretty humorous I think.

And, of course, for those new converts who just don't know how to believe in god, there's a guide for you too! Of course, it can be summed up pretty quickly by saying simply shut off your reasoning faculties and simply believe.

Respect

Must we respect people's religious beliefs?

We often hear theists complain that atheists don't properly respect their beliefs, that we don't give them the proper deference. Because the theist holds deep beliefs, about serious, religious stuff dealing with the nature of the supernatural, these beliefs are to be held sacrosanct, by all. One is not allowed to question those beliefs, or else one is intolerant. One must simply accept those beliefs as valid and rational and act as if those beliefs are very important and worthy ones to have. (The theist, of course, is under no obligation to reciprocate or treat theists of other religions with the same deference.)

Well, sorry but "Homey don't play that." People should be respected. Rights should be respected. People have the right to believe as they do and I respect that (just don't try to foist it on me or complain if I also speak out). Beliefs themselves, however, are not automatically worthy of respect. Beliefs must be rational and defensible before they are worthy of respect. A belief in magic crystals is not worthy of respect when (because) there is no accompanying evidence for it. Same goes for a belief that one is physically eating the flesh of her god when taking communion. If a theist wants their beliefs to be respected, then that theist should present respectable beliefs. I am, however, under no obligation, morally or in terms of rights, to treat all beliefs as if they are worthy of respect.

In fact, I would go further than that. I am under an obligation to speak out when one presents beliefs that are irrational, unsupported, and are detrimental to society. This is why I speak out against religion.

Does Belief Hurt America?

Here's an interesting article that goes over some research done that measured national success vs. the degree of secularity. The findings show that the most secular states end up performing the best in area of societal and economic stability.

Paul is quick to point out that his study reveals correlation, not causation. Which came first — prosperity or secularity — is unclear, but Paul ventures a guess. While it's possible that good governance and socioeconomic health are byproducts of a secular society, more likely, he speculates, people are inclined to drop their attachment to religion once they feel distanced from the insecurities and burdens of life.

This is probably true. How often do we see religious apologists trying to prey upon the downtrodden, the old, the sick, etc. It's because religion very often targets those who are most vulnerable. When people aren't vulnerable, they are less likely to be religious, which is why we see such a significant shift away from religion in developed countries.

This study also shows that religion need not be the backbone for a moral society. In fact, the US, which is more religious than the other countries studied ended up on the tail end of just about all of the moral and social indicators used. And, we don't see the implosion of those secular states which are leading the way. So, for those who believe in belief (as Dennett puts it) have one more data point to have to explain away.

Theism Predicts (Part II)

Let's just jump right in (for the previous post, the link is at the bottom).

3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) – Space was created in the Big Bang. -

OK, so let's break this down. Different religions have all had different ideas about the formation of the Earth, where some believe that space was always around and other didn't. This particular theist has included Psalm 89:12 as evidence that he believes god created space. Um, let's look at that psalm, shall we?

89:12 The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.

Well, it doesn't really indicate that god created space. Nor, coincidentally, does Genesis, which this theist is really pushing for. The reality though is that once again materialistic science (not religion) figured out that space was a result of the big bang, and it is not a problem for a material universe to be composed of "space." Once again the apologist is barking up the wrong tree.

4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space – Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. -

This one is just plain bizarre (as if the others aren't?) Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality to the components of our universe, but it doesn't defy our concepts of time and space. I don't know where he's getting this. To make matters worse, how is this in any way tied to the idea of an infinitely powerful and transcendent Being?" Here, the apologist is simply reaching for anything that he thinks he can use to say "goddidit."

5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4)-

Actually, that time was not relative was pretty well accepted by all, both theists and materialists alike until Einstein came along. Then, when Einstein's ideas were accepted, materialists accepted the findings and moved on, while we still have creationists that try to argue that time is not relative.

Still, I fail to see how relativity relates to a god that is supposedly outside of space and time. Is the apologist arguing that god travels around at the speed of light and so doesn't experience the flow of time? This would be at odds with most conceptions of the Xian god where god is simply not a part of the timeline of the universe, i.e. that god exists separate from time. god is timeless, which is different from god moving around at the speed of light.

The impression that one is left with is that the apologist doesn't really understand the science behind what he's saying and is really flailing around for something, anything that he thinks he can apply to his cherished beliefs.

Other posts in this series.

Living With Sin

So, apparently god is really, really perfect and stuff, and that means that god can not live with sin, so that's why he sends people to hell. You see, it's not his fault that he's perfect and can't live with sin, and it's not his choice, it's just the way things are. So what if he created beings that by design can't live up to perfection and therefore can't not sin? He's perfect after all.

But, seriously, this brings to mind a couple issues. First, god is supposedly omnipresent, so the existence of hell kind of calls that into question if it is supposedly a place where sinners go and god can't be around sin. Also, sin supposedly exists right here on Earth, and god would be around it if he were omnipresent, so I guess something's gotta give. I'll leave it up to the apologists to decide which part of their story they want to jettison (although I predict that most apologists will cling to the notion that nothing is amiss in their idea).

Secondly, how can it not be god's choice that the system is set up so that people will sin and then go to hell because god can't be with them? Why set up the universe in that way? This makes god out to be either extremely cruel and vindictive or extremely stupid. Even a non-omniscient being should be smart enough to see the problem with this arrangement, yet a perfect god didn't? It's just another story from Xianity that strains credulity.

god Loves the Raped Children

One of the Xian commenters here, Tracy, has her own blog (linked to her name) where she recently had a post with the following passage:

There's nothing I wouldn't do for my children; and to think that God calls me His child...

So, why do children starve to death? Why do children get beaten and raped, especially by those who claim to be this same god's emissaries here on Earth as catholic priests claim? Why are children mistreated in any way by others while god sits there and watches? In fact, if we are all god's children, why does he not help all of us?

god, being omniscient surely knows that children are being made to suffer on this world. god, being omnipotent surely has the ability to do something about it. Yet, it's demonstrable that children still suffer on this world. Since god is also supposedly omnipresent, doesn't that indicate that god is there, watching these children suffer and doing nothing to stop it? How cruel is that. How uncaring, indifferent, vile, and evil. Is there any defense for this? Most of us would do all we could to help children that are not even our own, yet god sits there and watches as his children are brutalized, beaten, raped, starve, etc. and has the power to stop it, yet he watches it go on and does nothing. This is not a god that loves us, and people should stop making excuses for such a god if he does exist.

Theism Predicts (Introduction)

Over at Daylight Atheism, a commenter named "Ric" asked if Ebonmuse would take a crack at a list predictions written by a creationist and have a go at answer them. I told Ric that I would take a stab, and this post is the beginning of that, but first, some background is in order.

The list in question comes from William Dembski's old blog (he turned the asylum over to the lunatics some time ago) Uncommon Descent. As someone who used to frequent a site called
After the Bar Closes quite a bit, I can tell you that there are whole threads devoted to showing the bad argumentation displayed by the denizens of UD. In fact, the Uncommonly Dense Threads have amassed almost 1600 pages of comments critical of UD and the bad reasoning, arguments, and general idiocy posted there, including that which comes from the head honchos that write there. (For instance, one poster believes that one can not simulate mutation and selection in a population unless one also mutates the OS of the computer running the sim, and another swears that Dawkins' Methinks it's a Weasel program somehow cheats even though it's been pointed out multiple times that he's wrong.)

Anyway, on to the list. There's 14 listed "predictions" that are made by theism and materialism according to a commenter named Bornagain77 (BA77). Yet, right off the bat there's a problem. Most of what BA77 says is predicted by Materialism is a strawman representation, and none of what he claims is predicted by "theism" is actually predicted by simple belief in a god, which is what theism boils down to. What he really wants to say is that his brand of literal creationism predicts these things, but he's still wrong as we shall see.

1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. – Big Bang points to a creation event.

The first one is a common error that creationists make that centers around conflation and misunderstanding the physics behind the big bang. What most creationists fail to understand is that ideas like Olber's paradox, for example, show that an eternal static state universe does not exist and has not ever existed. The big bang model does away with this idea by showing that there has been a definite change in state of the universe at some point that we label time t=0 where our current idea of the universe came to be. This does not imply that the universe is not eternal or that it is, and materialism doesn't rely on either of these being the case.

To make matters worse, the big bang marks the beginning of time for our universe. Time as we know it did not exist before the big bang, so speaking of time before time started is rather useless. It's rather odd to speak of an eternal universe that existed before time existed.

Now, what does "theism" predict? In BA77's case, theism predicts a creation event it is true. We can not, however, claim that creation has happened. And, the creation event being "predicted" here is that of the story of Genesis, which has been shown to be wrong (i.e. time scales, sequence of events, etc.)

2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation – Time was created in the Big Bang.

Similar to the above, this is not predicted by materialism as we know from the big bang that time as we measure it did not exist before that event. In fact, it is materialistic science that showed us that the big bang happened, not Biblical creationism. In fact, there's no mention of god creating time in the Bible in the Genesis account at all.* If we truly went by the Genesis account, we wouldn't be able to say one way or the other whether god created time or it just was. Again, we see a straw man depiction of materialism coupled with an incorrect summation of the creationist's position. Hind sight is 20/20 of course.

This post is getting rather long, so subsequent posts will handle the rest of the 14 "predictions" on the list.

*Edit: Some theists claim that "In the beginning" means that time began then, but the Genesis account need not mean that. It could simply mean the beginning of the universe, story, Earth, whatever, independent of time. It also doesn't say that god made this beginning happen or that god created the initial conditions of "in the beginning."

No You Can Not Haz Communion

The catholic church is very serious about abortion. They're also very serious about their influence in the politics of this nation. They are so serious that they refuse to allow politicians that don't vote against abortion rights to be cannibals in their churches. This happened in 2004 with John Kerry and has happened again recently with Patrick Kennedy.

So, looking past the absurd notion that the catholic church has any room to preach morality to anyone, what is this really about? It's about the catholic church trying to usurp undue influence over the political process and enforce their sense of "morality" on the rest of the public through unreasonable means. Politicians are there to represent the people, not to be bullied by stuffed up men in silly robes with delusions that they speak for god.