All general questions, comments and requests for post topics can be sent to...
FoxholeAtheistBlog@yahoo.com
And visit the Facebook fan page at...
Facebook Fan Club

Quote:

"Faith is not a good reason to believe in any one thing. It's a bad reason to believe in everything. Faith is not synonymous with any one idea; it is synonymous with any strongly held idea, true or not. But one thing faith is not synonymous with is a logically justified idea."

Science!

Perspective of this Atheist

Look up at the sky tonight. There are only about 6,000 stars that can be seen with the naked human eye. Beyond that there are over 100,000 stars that you can't see, and that's only on the narrow view of the night sky you can see from your vantage point. Within our own Galaxy there are more than 100,000,000,000 stars. Half of those (roughly 50,000,000,000) have planetary systems of their own. Some of these planets are still forming out of the vast nebula clouds surrounding them; while others are far older then our own. Our own galaxy is over 100,000 light years in diameter and the closest galaxy to ours is about 3,500,000 light years from us.


It's called the Andromeda galaxy, and in about 3,000,000,000 years the Andromeda galaxy will close distance with our own and we will collide. Entire planets, stars, and nebulas will strike one another in violent collisions vastly superior to anything you can imagine. Beyond these two galaxies exist another 50,000,000,000 galaxies and counting. We are still discovering these galaxies because their faint light is just now reaching us. Many of these galaxies are young and their stars and planets are still forming from the immense nebula clouds that forms their boundaries. Although, many of these galaxies are also much older than our own. Galaxies formed billions of years before our own and are now in their death throws. The super mass black hole in their center, with masses more then 6,500,000,000 times that of our own sun, are swallowing the planets and stars of their galaxy whole.
The aging stars of these galaxies exploding in massive super nova events that destroy entire star systems and more. The radiation of these events span the entire galaxy and roast near by planets in deadly radiation that can even blast the atmosphere off the crust! As we know it thus far, the universe has no end and no borders. There is no end to existence, only and end to life.

And throughout all this, the character who many consider to be the all-knowing, all-powerful, creator of the universe wrote a book and decided to leave all of this out. Instead the alleged creator of everything spends page after page expressing his dislike of homosexuals; his hatred of people who practice magic; the definition of a woman's place in society; how to keep slaves, mark them, and even who can be enslaved. He even explains how he prefers the smell of burning goat flesh and how it would appease him and bring good fortune to his followers. He tells us time and time again how his jealousy of false idols brings his wrath. How he intends for a man's penis to be shaped, even though he deliberately shaped it differently.

This character cannot be the creator of the universe. I've brought up all the things this God has failed to include in his greatest work of literature, but what about all the things he got wrong? He said our Earth was flat when it was not. He told us the Earth was the center of our solar system when it was not. His point of view is perfectly in line with that of the men who claimed to be his high priests. His scope is so narrow and simple minded that he reflects the values and ideals of men who could only have lived 3,000 years ago, and not those of the all-knowing being he is claimed to be.

I cannot honestly say that a God does not exist. Obviously, no one can prove something does not exist, but one can fail to prove it does exist. Theists have failed to provide evidence sufficient to support their conclusion, or even evidence sufficient to warrant studying this further. I can say with great confidence that this specific God most certainly does not exist. If there is a God he is extremely absent and does not interact with the universe in any significant way. The only logical conclusion is that there is no God worth believing in. There is no good reason to believe that a God might exist. There is no benefit that can come from religion that cannot also come from secular means since without a God to interact with religion has no advantage over any other forum.




Contrasting the Scientific System and Religion

Science:
-Starts with a problem or a question.
(Why do men have nipples?)

-Goes to an observation.
(Men definitely do have nipples, I see mine now!)

-The scientist constructs an educated guess called a hypothesis.
(I suppose men have nipples since they all begin life inside the womb as a female embryo till the “Y” chromosome comes into play.)

-The hypothesis and the problem are tested rigorously.
(Let’s see if a man’s nipples can lactate. And then if it does we’ll try not to vomit.)

-After the tests are complete they are debated. This way the scientist and his peers can go over his findings and decide if he covered all the bases.
(If anything is left out it goes back to testing.)

-If the science is there, the tests are justified and the scientist is lucky then the answer he got from his testing is turned into a theory.

-Over time the theory is put to the test. If the theory withstand all the trials of testing and it’s proven to hold up under every circumstance then it becomes a law.

Religion:

-Religion mostly starts with works of fiction. Either in written form (bible) or in verbal form. (stories of the Greek gods.)

-Then it moves on to asserting.
(Can’t be a real God if you don’t fully believe the bullshit, so stress it like you mean it.)

-Then comes insisting.
(If you want to make them believe then you need to insist they convert. Like Cortez and the Aztecs. If this doesn’t work then kill them all. It’s God’s will.)

-Then comes the twisting facts. This is used whenever a religious belief structure is challenged. Twist historical facts so they fit your understanding. Twist scientific facts so that they don’t challenge your views.
(Make the bible say Mary was a whore instead of telling people Jesus had sex! Say God made the Earth the center of all his creation to make people feel special even though science can disprove this. Kill all the scientists that disproved this.)

-Torture is next. When your efforts fail to convince others that your God is real it might help to scare them with the possibility of torture and death. After all, it can’t be genocide if it’s the will of God, right?


Doctor Assisted Suicide

This is going to be a tough one. Everyone has the right to life but when does someone have the right to end it, even their own? I personally believe that it's the right of the person to do what they want with their own body, so why not end their own life? Suicide isn't really against the law, but we do imprison those who attempt it. We put them in the crazy house because they are a danger to themselves. In most cases this is justified, but what about someone who is suffering?

Someone dying of a terminal illness? Who are we to say they're not in their right mind? If anything, they are the only one's thinking clearly because they are the only one in the terminal situation. And if a patient should have the right to end their own life but cannot, should a doctor be able to assist? We already deem it acceptable for a person to donate their organs, and in doing so, end their own life in most cases. We accept this because we allow the person to judge his quality of life and whether that is worth continuing. Why not the same for a terminally ill patient? He can more accurately judge his own suffering and quality of life than the organ donor. The organ donor has to predict his state, where as the terminal patient can experience it first hand. A doctor's main responsibility is to relieve suffering... Why not in this case? Why not with his patient's consent? Why do we condemn a doctor for following the wishes of his patient?


Religious Impediment of Science

This life should be spent attempting to progress human advancement in all forums in order to ease human suffering for future generations. The impediment of progress via science by the religious is the greatest of moral crimes because it will affect their children and future generations of humanity, forever. It is easy to underestimate the effect that religious hindrance upon humanity when you believe that no matter how great this world becomes, it will never compare to the world awaiting you in the afterlife. A world whose existence for which there is no evidence.

Why should humanity spend its time here pandering for a stake in a world we can make ourselves? We humans exist for but a moment in time and a fraction of space. Do not count yourself so significant that anyone would give you stake in paradise, especially when you fail to even allow the best and brightest of your species to help you. Fundamental religious dogmatism is the lowest of moral pretensions. Persist in your delusions if you must, but stand aside and allow those who would see humanity progress do so without interruption. Please, those of us who would not care to follow you to paradise need you to step aside for the brief moment that is your life, so that we can create our own paradise here and now.


The Evolution VS Creationism Debate

The very title of this topic is too ironic. There really is no debate between evolution and creationism. Just as there is no debate between NASA and the people who believe we never landed on the moon. Evolution is a fact, as much of a fact as anything can be. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and the scientific advancements brought on by this realization cannot be ignored. Without the evolutionary theory set forth originally by Darwin we simply wouldn’t have biology. We wouldn’t have most of the medicine we now take for granted. Biology and its main load bearing theory, evolution, are responsible for the largest beneficial change in scientific thinking ever!

It changed the way we see the world, even those parts that aren’t biological. Instead of going over creationist claims I will simply clear up two of the major misconceptions regarding evolution. One, evolution does not say where life came from or how the universe began. The origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory and a few other possibilities. The origin of life on Earth is based within the Abiogenesis theory, which is almost a fact on its own. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, only how life adapts and evolves over time to more complex and capable organisms. Two, evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys. What evolution does say is that both monkeys and humans evolved over time from a distant relative we both share. Like a monkey is your cousin and you share a grandfather who is half and half. The injection of creationism/intelligent design into the public school science classes is ridiculous and an obvious breach of the separation of church and state. Intelligent design is a theory that tried to disprove a fact by using arguments from ignorance. It is not what we need to teach school children, if not for the separation issue, then for the fact that it’s wrong to teach kids logical fallacies and arguments about ignorance is an intelligent position.

On another note, I have never met a single supporter of Intelligent Design/Creationism who properly understood the main idea of Evolution, Abiogenesis or the Big Bang. On the other hand, I have never met a single supporter of Evolution, Abiogenesis and/or the Big Bang who did NOT fully understand the main idea of Intelligent Design/Creationism. Just a thought.


Attacks Against Evolution: Gills?

Theist: If evolution were true then that means we came from monkeys, which came from something else, which came from something else, which eventually leads to fish or some other waterborne prehistoric animal. If this were fact then wouldn't we have gills?


Rational Response: This isn't a stupid question and the answer might surprise you. In fact, I have two answers. First, just because one modern animal evolved from another prehistoric animal does not mean that the modern one will share all or any of the prominent traits of its ancestor.
(Just because animal-B evolved from animal-A, and animal-A had wings, does not mean animal-B will also have wings.) Often, unused traits are lost and new more useful traits are gained. For instance, if a creature moves from outdoors into a cave system to find food then over hundreds of years that species will go blind but learn to use its sense of hearing and smell to a greater extent. Give it thousands or even millions of years and the species will evolve to the point where it no longer even has eyes! One good example of this sort of evolution is the deep ocean snake. This snake lives deep under the ocean where light from the surface cannot penetrate. Since there is no light in the snake's habitat it is completely blind, using only sonar and its sense of touch to feel water currents to hunt. But even still, it has eyes. Why would any animal that was blind by default need eyes? This is not an intelligent design, if anything, it's wasteful design. This is, however, great evidence for evolution. My second answer is this; humans actually do have gills! (Told you that you'd be surprised) When a human is conceived in the womb of its mother it is far too small to be connected to an umbilical cord. (Scale wise, that would be like feeding a new born baby through a tube the size of a New York subway tunnel ) Thankfully, the amniotic fluid found in the mother's womb is rich with oxygen and nutrients. (Everything a growing human needs) The embryo uses gills which form on the sides of the throat, just under what would be the jaw line, and breathes in the amniotic fluid to survive. Soon, the fetus has developed to the correct size and the umbilical cord forms and the gills retract under the skin and form into tendons. Sometimes, in rare cases, the cells of the gills might not transfer over to tendons completely. This is caused by a problem with the replication of the cell's DNA. This causes the would-be tendons to become benign tumors in the early years of puberty. The child could be around age 10 to 13 and start to form a fleshy bump under the skin on their neck. Luckily, the old gill tissue is easily removed by surgical means. Life finds a way, natural or otherwise.


Attacks Against Evolution: 
Missing Rib?

Theist: If evolution is true and the Bible's creation story is wrong, then why do men have one less rib than women? Eve sprung from one of Adam's ribs after all. Isn't the fact that men have one less rib proof that creationism could be true?

Rational Response: Simple answer… Men do not have one less rib than women.
Complicated Answer… You're a moron if you use this argument because it obviously shows that you read the Bible passage that upholds your claim but never once checked the science side of the claim that would've solidified your argument! If you had you would know you were wrong and would never have mentioned it. The very fact that you're arguing this claim proves you didn't look beyond your own personal religious assumptions and came to the table with nothing more then foolish myths and superstitions.


Attacks Against Evolution: 
The Banana?

Theist: Look at a banana some time. Isn't it amazing? Look at it... It fits inside your hand, it peels easily and it's easily eatable with the human mouth. Given these characteristics of the banana, doesn't it seem as though the banana is designed especially for us; especially for our consumption? Perhaps by some benevolent designer?

Rational Response: This argument is so ridiculous that it's hard to argue against it, for I know that anyone so stupid to believe it would be far to stupid to understand my rebuttal.
The banana, as we know it today, is not the banana as it existed 1,000 years ago. Over many years, through agricultural advancements and hybrid growing the banana has gone from a hard to peel, tough skinned, green colored, strange tasting fruit to the delicious yellow creation we now know. The banana was not designed by God to be user friendly. It was genetically altered over time and grown in order to be more pleasant and profitable to the farmer. Ever see a documentary on gorillas on television? Ever see one of them eating a banana? I'll bet you it's not a yellow one. It would be a green one because the banana a wild gorilla would have would be a wild growing banana. A green banana. Also, if God designed fruits to be easily eatable then what the hell is with the damned coconut?!? Is that a treat designed by Satan to frustrate mankind?


Attacks Against Evolution: Homosexuality?

Theist: Theists have argued that if evolution is a natural biological process where an organism evolves specific traits over long periods of time that are beneficial to its overall survival under specific environmental pressures then there is absolutely no reason for there to be a "Gay Gene." After all, the introduction of homosexuals into an organisms population would prevent those individuals from reproducing, setting aside present day medical advances that allow homosexuals to have children. On a genetic biological level these homosexual members of a species population should not be expected to reproduce.
Having members of a population consume food, water, take up living space and other resources and yet never reproduce any offspring is not a beneficial evolutionary trait on any level. Of course some specific traits that were at one time beneficial can become a threat to an organism's survival if the environment changes faster then their evolution can keep up. Those traits were at one time beneficial to the organism, yet homosexuality in a population is not and could never be a beneficial trait to any species. If evolution is true then why is homosexuality present?

Rational Response: First, when confronted with this argument you should point out that it only makes sense if homosexuality is in fact a genetic trait. (A now scientific fact but one that was widely refused by theists before) Second, point out that not all genetic traits and evolutionary mutations are beneficial. Like a sophisticated computer file being copied over and over, some mutations to the code can be made that are a threat to the natural workings of the machine. Finally, science has pondered this question before the theist brought it up. The answer is this...
Whenever a genetic trait is no longer necessary for the survival of a species there are two main ways for evolution to dispose of it. One way is for the trait to naturally evolve away; such as a fin to an arm or the disappearance of a tail. The second way is used when the trait is deemed harmful to the creature and must be expelled relatively faster than the first process would allow. The second way restricts the reproduction of the gene by limiting the sexual involvement of its host. If the host cannot reproduce then the gene cannot spread to the next generation. The overall beneficial genes will continue to be spread by other members of the population, but the member with the exiled gene will be unable to reproduce naturally. If you were to take every homosexual person in the world and map out their entire genome you would find either one or more genes, or even combination of genes they all have in common. This gene might not represent a physical trait, such as blonde hair or blue eyes. But it does represent an underline trait or traits that is no longer necessary in the species. This does not mean that homosexuals are inferior in any way, or that they are less evolved. Every person in the world has some traits that are other than beneficial to their ultimate survival. Think of every trait you dislike in a person, physical and mental. Now assume one or more of those traits were exactly what activated the dormant "gay gene." There are far too many genetic variables to do this for real. Who knows what combination of genes activate the gay gene?!? But the theory is supported by observation and fits within the margins allowed by the evolutionary process. Luckily, in today's world we have many different ways for people who are homosexual, infertile and sterile to have children of their own. Parenthood has become a wonder of science and is no longer a mandate of religion.

4 comments:

Kurian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kurian said...

I don't think the rational explanation for homosexuality is true. It's possible that it's a result of evolution, but the chances of that are so low that it seems just ever so slightly more logical that some retarded religious explanation.

The human brain is so complex and there are unimaginable combinations of chemical reactions and balances and the physical structure of the cells themselves that ultimately culminate in the decisions we make and what we feel.

Any small abnormality in the above could turn someone into an unempathetic stone hearted bastard like me.....or turn them gay. There can't possibly be a separate gene for every condition. It's just a result of various variables. I doubt they could converge to a sharp distinct result such as homosexuality to eliminate them from the gene pool, within a span of just one generation (their parents needn't be gay). It's more likely just random.

Omar said...

I actually disagreed with the tone of the article. It seemed to be premised on the perspective that homosexuality and behaviour is non-beneficial evolutionary mutation. It also seems to suggest that reproduction is the only valuable characteristic that a species need have to survive and thrive. This is a grave fallacy if I ever saw one.

Sexual behaviour that humans display is not isolated to the human species but echoes of which are found throughout the animal kingdom.

Would you say that homosexual behaviour that bonobos demonstrate are a positive or negative evolutionary social advantage?

Anonymous said...

Yeah... this article has some incorrect facts and bad presuppositions.

Sorry, one---yes this question about homosexuality does presuppose that genetics play a fact in it from a theists perspective, but where you're wrong is that in the 13 year study of the Human Genome Project(a secular study)--not a drop of evidence was found that it's in any way genetic.

The issue still remains, because most homosexuals argue they're "born that way"(you may not hold this position)--but this still leads to the same issue, if one is born that way... how has it not been rooted out in millions of years? Better question... how did it even ARISE in the first place being that it's such a detriment and cannot reproduce AT ALL? Would you rather argue that homosexuals only acted as heterosexuals to continue their kind(meaning they got married/had relationships as a heterosexual, which would in turn also deprive that homosexual drive and it would be depleted)? Or that they're really heterosexuals who've grown unnaturally attracted to someone of the same sex? Which seems more likely?

I find it better to ask you questions, because I know you won't be convinced by argumentation(very few are)---but it's coming from a former skeptic(I used to be a nihilist, now I'm a biblical fundamentalist Christian). Question question question, but don't forget to clamp down on the truth one day or you'll just take anything in... God bless!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on the Foxhole Atheist Blog do not necessarily represent those of Atheism or all Atheists, seeing as how Atheism has no tenets, dogma or doctrines. So Suck it!