Atheism is...

A short poem written and read
by Richard Coughlan

Atheism offers nothing to me,
it never has and never will,
it doesn't make me feel good or comfort me,
it's not there for me when I'm sick or ill,
it won't intervene in my times of need or protect me from hate,
it doesn't care if I fail or succeed,
it won't wipe the tears from my eyes,
it does nothing when I have no where to run,
it won't give me wise words or advice,
it has no teaches for me to learn,
it can't show me what's bad or nice,
it's never inspired or excited anyone,
it won't help me fulfill all my goals,
it won't tell me to stop when I'm having fun,
it's never saved one single soul,
it doesn't take credit for everything I achieve,
it won't make me get down on bended knee,
it doesn't demand that I have to believe,
it won't torture me for eternity,
it won't teach me to hate or despise others,
it won't tell me what's right or wrong,
it can't tell nobody not to be lovers,
it's told no one they don't belong,
it won't make you think life is worth living,
it has nothing to offer me, that's true,
but the reason Atheism offers me nothing is because I've never asked it to,
Atheism offers nothing because it doesn't need to,
Religion promises everything because you want it to,
You don't need a Religion or to have faith,
You just want it because you need to feel safe,
I want to feel reality and nothing more,
Atheism offers me everything,
but Religion has stolen before.

Why Darwin Matters

Michael Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, argues Why Darwin Matters: Evolution, Intelligent Design and the Battle for Science and Religion in this talk presented by the Division of Biological Sciences and the Helen Edison Lecture Series at the University of California, San Diego. Series: Helen Edison Lecture Series [5/2009] [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 15584]

Why people believe strange things

Why do people see the Virgin Mary on cheese sandwiches or hear demonic lyrics in "Stairway to Heaven"? Using video, images and music, professional skeptic Michael Shermer explores these and other phenomena, including UFOs and alien sightings. He offers cognitive context: In the absence of sound science, incomplete information can combine with the power of suggestion (helping us hear those Satanic lyrics in Led Zeppelin). In fact, he says, humans tend to convince ourselves to believe: We overvalue the "hits" that support our beliefs, and discount the more numerous "misses."

A comparison of an atheist and a Christian Fundy Video.

An interesting comparison between two separate videos



It's up to you to decide. Fear or Knowledge?

Christopher Hitchens' thought about religion

This is the brilliant opening statement that Christopher Hitchens gave in a religion vs. atheism debate with Alister McGrath on October 11, 2007.

Ray Comfort meets the Evangelist's Nightmare

Ray Comfort's ministry hits a snag. It's all going so well, when suddenly....

From: NonStampCollector

The Bible as ƒ(x), Bijection... Mathematics proved god?

It is really quite weird that most amateur Christian apologists always use science or mathematics to prove the existence of a god. I thought they despised science? As ADParker, one of the members of the Richard Dawkin's Net Forum told me, "You know; some of these pseudoscience religious nutters are prety smart, and sometimes it is hard to find just where they "slipped the mickey" into their "scientific" or Mathematical argument. And other times the trick is pretty easy to see.This is not one of either of those times: This is a case of pointing out (and it WAS plagiarism if he did not tell you that he copied it from somewhere else) some bit of mathematics, and then making up some stupid story that didn't even use the mathematics mentioned really at all, and just claiming that he had proved something This is a blatant case of Baffling them with Bullshit!"

Anyway, here's a good example:


From a certain "Exequiel Pedro".

Now that I have effectively destroyed the core fundamental concepts underlying atheism, let us then now PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING LIVING GOD.

I don’t know if ATHEISTS are aware that in pure and applied mathematics there is such a HIGHLY TESTED mathematical foundational concept called BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE which means a function f from a set X to a set Y with the property that, for every y in Y, there is exactly one x in X such that f(x) = y. Alternatively, f is bijective if it is a one-to-one correspondence between those sets; i.e., both one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective). For example, consider the function succ, defined from the set of integers to , that to each integer x associates the integer succ(x) = x + 1. For another example, consider the function sumdif that to each pair (x,y) of real numbers associates the pair sumdif(x,y) = (x + y, x − y). A bijective function is also called a permutation. This is more commonly used when X = Y. It should be noted that one-to-one function means one-to-one correspondence (i.e., bijection) to some authors, but injection to others. The set of all bijections from X to Y is denoted as X Y. BIJECTIVE FUNCTIONS PLAY A FUNDAMENTAL ROLE IN MANY AREAS OF MATHEMATICS, for instance in the definition of isomorphism (and related concepts such as homeomorphism and diffeomorphism), permutation group, projective map, and many others.

LET US THEN NOW APPLY THIS MATHEMATICAL MODEL TO PROVE THAT A LIVING, EXISTING GOD REALLY EXISTS.

To start with, we are dealing with abstract quantities in contrast to absolute quantities like real numbers like 1, -1, 0! Being abstract quantities we need a FIXED SET OF LOGICAL STANDARD to solve the mathematical equation which we will then prove has BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE with our variables.

WHAT IS NOW THEN OUR MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACT VARIABLES?

For the sake of mathematical argument, let God be Set A which we will call SET GOD and let Crude Reality be Set B which we will call SET CRUDE REALITY.

WHAT WILL NOW BE THE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION GIVEN THE TWO SETS OF ABSTRACT VARIABLES?

Absolute quantities, constants and vectors alike, need some sort of UNIT OF MEASUREMENT for us to VALIDLY recognize the DEGREE OF MAGNITUDE of those given quantities e.g., mass in terms of grams as a constant, acceleration in terms of meter per second as a vector, etc.

God, being an abstract set variable must have some sort of a MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to identify set elements having VALID BIJECTION to Crude Reality which we already recognized here as SET GOD and SET CRUDE REALITY respectively for mathematical purposes. Let us now HEURISTICALLY consider the BIBLE as our MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to prove a MATHEMATICALLY VALID BIJECTION.

Now...that was long...but did you see the problem?

He didn't gave us a mathematical proof of God (shame on him...tsk!tsk!tsk!). All he did was put together some statements (which he shamelessly plagiarised from Wikipedia) so it will just sound something "eh" intelligent. Hmmmmm...that's not a suprise, majority of Christian readers will never know the difference.

In the Bible, which is our mathematical function, we can read a certain God saying in the book of Genesis chapter 1 verses 20 to 22;
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, Be FRUITFUL, and MULTIPLY, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl MULTIPLY IN THE EARTH.”
IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE VERSE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY REFERRING TO ORGANIC REPRODUCTION WHICH IS A CLEAR ELEMENT OF SET B OR SET CRUDE REALITY WHICH IS A VERY CLEAR SCIENTIFIC FACT AND NOT JUST A FAULTY HYPOTHETICAL THEORY JUST LIKE EVOLUTION BECAUSE ORGANIC REPRODUCTION CAN BE READILY VERIFIED SCIENTIFICALLY OR EVEN BY JUST APPLYING SIMPLE OBSERVATION, THUS, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION IS AN ELEMENT OF SET CRUDE REALITY.

Is this a joke?

Maybe Exequiel Pedro can explain what the Inverse function of the Bible is. In order to have a bijective function, both ƒ and and it's inverse ƒ-1 must be functions across the entire domain of both. For instance, some functions and their inverse do not have the same domains (sin, cos, tan, cotan, parabola, hyperbola, etc).

He just went from defining two sets and suddenly jumping to a conclusion that one element of one set corresponding to another element of another set means that he have 1:1 correspondence.

Reading Exiquiel Pedro's post, minus all those plaglirized mathematical mumbo-jumbo...the argument is as simple as:

A. In the Bible, God is said to have instructed humans to "be fruitful
and multiply".
B. We observe organic reproduction in the real world.
C. Therefore God exists.

Let see...Horses have hooves and tails and ears and lots of other horsey things
A "tikbalang" have all of those too...So that's Bijection!
Therefore "tikbalangs" are real!

So is my conclusion logical ?
Remember that one correlation does not make a Bijective function and a correlation even if it was to the extent of Bijection would not mean that therefore they are both real!

HEURISTICALLY considering the Bible as our mathematical function, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION can now be validly considered as an element of SET GOD by applying CAUSE AND EFFECT scientific principle because by using the Bible as our mathematical function, we can DIRECTLY ASSOCIATE organic reproduction to God, THUS, A VALID MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF A VALID BIJECTION OR ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE.

Capital letters won't save Mr. Exequiel Pedro's arguments.
And the Bible as a mathematical function? Apparently he thinks that just because the Bible mentions that animals gives birth to offspring (Duh...that's not a suprise!) and just asserts that God made that happen, that it's suddenly a mathematical marvel. I mean come on!

He has to prove that they ALL correspond on a one-to-one basis.

One-to-one correspondence has to apply to every single variable in the set, not just one.

In conclusion, by us using SET THEORY which is a validly recognized part of mathematical knowledge particularly in ALGEBRA and CALCULUS, WE HAVE NOW A MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF A LIVING GOD AND WE HAVE ONLY USED A MINUSCULE FRACTION OF OUR MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION WHICH IS THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE ARE MANY STATEMENTS IN THE BIBLE COMING FROM THIS CERTAIN GOD WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY PROVEN TO EXIST BY APPLYING A HIGHLY TESTED MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE!

Rambling non-sense doesn't save his argument . He just mentioned something from set theory, then rambled off some complete nonsense, and hoped readers would be too dazzled to notice.


John the Atheist

P.S.

I would like to thank those guys at Richard Dawkin's Forum from pointing out to me the errors of Mr. Exequiel Pedro's arguments. Special mentions to ADParker, arugula and Matthew Bailey.

'Hell' as an invention of the church

John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop from Newark, N.J., talks about why Christianity must change its view of hell. Spong is one of the leading spokepersons for liberal Christianity.

More Atheism in Family Guy

It's Meg vs. Brian the Dog in the issue about faith.

Meg, plagued with loneliness and self-loathing, comes upon a TV show with Kirk Cameron (who in real life is, in fact, a creationist loon) extolling the happiness to be found with coming to the Lord. This breathes new life into Meg, who becomes an instant hard core believer. The Griffins worry over Meg's transformation, but suddenly become far more concerned once Brian reveals that he is an atheist.

The clip from Season 7, Episode 11 (Not All Dogs Go To Heaven). Broadcasted on March 29, 2009.

Open-Mindnessness

Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.

Bikini

The research presented by Susan Fiske, professor of psychology at Princeton University is now being used by both Christians and Muslims to justify their abhorrence with the bikini bathing suit.

Psychologist Susan Fiske of Princeton University discourages women to wear bikinis after she discovered that men look at scantily clad ladies as objects.

According to this Christian (from a member of Ang Dating Daan) posts, "Just imagine how barely clothed women seem so cheap and unrespectable in the eyes of men; they’re nothing but hammers or any handling tools. In short, seeing women in bikinis influences men’s thoughts, words, and deeds. They easily remember barely clothed women than those fully dressed even if they have seen them for only a few seconds."

So it's all up for the ride huh?

The article continued, "On a larger perspective, this research encourages women to dress modestly, be it on beaches, malls, markets – everywhere. It also supports the Biblical wisdom that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety (1 Timothy 2:9). From the ancient times until today, it is a commandment that needs to be strictly followed so as not to cause others to sin. Modestly dressed women help build healthy minds and thoughts among men."

Well...it is quite obvious that these Christians are not putting in their articles the real issue behind the experiment. According to Dr. Charles Raison, psychiatrist and director of the Mind/Body Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, "Women should be aware of how they are perceived when wearing provocative clothing, and men shouldn't let feelings of impersonal sexual longing interfere with their more personal relationships with other women, including female friends. "Many men make foolish choices because of sexual attraction," he said.

Dr. Fiske said, "The broader purpose of the research was to explore circumstances under which people treat one another as the means to an end, Past studies have also shown that when men view images of highly sexualized women, and then interact with a woman in a separate setting, they are more likely to have sexual words on their minds, she said. They are also more likely to remember the woman's physical appearance, and sit closer to her -- for instance, at a job interview."

Taken together, the research suggests that viewing certain images is not appropriate in the workplace.

Evolutionary psychology would theorize that men view women as objects in terms of their youth and apparent fertility, while women might view men as instrumental in terms of their status and resources, Fiske said.

So the experiment is not about modesty, sin , ancient civilization and that women should only wore clothes prescribed by the Bible.

What's the fuzz with bikini-clad women? Remember that men may become sexually aroused just by looking at women with or without a bikini. Guys are more sexually sensitive in the sense of sight than touch. Men are naturally objective - He will look at an image and it registers as just that, an image, whereas women need something more than this.

And why the difference? It's evolutionary...For males, having sex with a large number of females will increase their reproductive success. That's why visual stimuli is important on the male species. Evolutionary processes “designed” men to be more visually attracted to and aroused by visual sexual stimuli (Kinsey and colleagues 1948, 1953) reported from their survey research that men were sexually aroused far more easily and more frequently by visual sexual stimuli than women were, and that pornography was produced for a male audience. Also see Koukounas & McCabe, 1997; Mosher & Maclan, 1994) . Men are also more likely to have sexual fantasies and be physically aroused by their sexual thoughts than women. They also tend to have more explicit and visual imagery in their fantasies, whereas women employ more emotional and romantic imagery (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). That's why gay men overwhelmingly become sexually aroused by images of men compare to women and notice that there are more strip bar and strippers that cater men costumers.

Females on the other hand gain no benefits in having sex with a large number of males. They gain more advantages in carefully choosing one mate who will participate in raising offspring. Women are more attracted by auditory and tactile stimulation, which is more likely to be a means of communicating a feeling and to occur with more familiar persons. That's why we have more romance pocketbooks for women.

Now let me asked these Christians who employed Dr. Fiske's study: Is this "study" has a different outcome regarding cultures where nude or topless beaches are prevalent and women are not "covered"? Oh and does a man get criticized or "looked as an object" for wearing no shirt or a Speedo at the beach?

OK! OK! I'm a fan of Sport Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. But there are more to this than pin-ups.

It's really more of a perspective. A piece of swimwear is not an invitation for sex or anything like that, you people just need to grow up and not act like total animals everywhere. The important moral here is that it's an act of respect on men's part to refuse to see a woman as a sexual object, no matter what her attire, or how he's naturally inclined to respond to that attire.

Enjoy your summer!

John the Atheist

Additional references used in this article:

The Evolution of Human Sociality - Stephen K. Sanderson

Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior - Bobbi S. Low

Mr. Know It All

Listening to some theist vs. atheist debate in Luneta, I’ve notice that some Filipino non-believers are still in the dark regarding God’s omniscience. Filipino atheists have taken the issue of divine omniscience very lightly that they have neglected vital issues which believers use to squeeze themselves out of the difficulty.

So today I will talk about this misunderstood attribute.

Omniscience is understood as an attribute that God knows everything there is to know. It is simple knowledge without limits. It is also said that God knows the past, present and future (also known as foreknowledge).

Philosophers agree that there are at least three kinds of knowledge: Propositional or knowledge by facts, procedural or knowledge of how to do things and knowledge by acquaintance. To say that God is omniscience means that he has all these three kinds of knowledge.

Limits of Divine Omniscience
Theologians have always set limits on God’s omniscience. St. Jerome for example declared that it is ridiculous to suppose that God knows the number of fleas on Earth. Today modern theologians say that God’s omniscience is limited on logical knowledge. That means God doesn’t know how to make a square circle or he doesn’t know any married bachelors.

Some even limits God’s omniscience on propositional knowledge. This idea reduces God into some kind of a CPU or a computer storage bank.

Majority of non-believers also seems to consider the attribute of divine omniscience is difficult for believers to defend...Let see.

Let us take this one as an example: Most atheists use God’s knowledge by acquaintance as an argument against divine omniscience. They say that since God is omniscient he is incapable of knowing lust or greed. But remember that God is supposed to be a spirit being with intellectual and observational capacities greater than anyone. He can perceive everything in anyone’s consciousness. He can instantly experience it without the share of blameworthy motivation associated with these feelings. So I think this example is really not a serious objection against God’s omniscience.

Modern theologians have devised new arguments to save divine omniscience. Here’s an example: According to Patrick Grim indexical expressions like “I” are essential and therefore cannot be replaced by non-indexical ones such as proper names. That means God cannot know what is known by John when John knows that “I opened the door.” (Against Omniscience: The Case from Essential Indexicals, Nous, 19, 1985. pp 151-180)

There is a way believers can escape this…yes God cannot apply the pronoun “I” as it is applied to John but it just say that God can know the same facts as John without having the delusion that he is John.

In another example: Again, Patrick Gim utilizing Cantor’s work shows that there’s no set of all truth (There Is No Set of All Truths, Analysis , 44, 1984 pp. 206-208). As Cantor has shown, the power set of all sets will be larger than the original set. That means an omniscient being that know all set of all the truth is impossible. But believers can respond to this in two ways: (1.) That they can suggest that paradoxes and other curiosity of logic and set theories nearly indicate the imperfections of existing versions of these theories and (2.) They can insist that God’s failure to know what logically cannot be known is not a serious limitation on omniscience. If God knows all events that occur, at every label of generality, then it doesn’t seem much that he doesn’t know certain facts about the membership of power sets (Atheism Explained – From Folly to Philosophy, David Ramsey Steele, p.237)

Problems of Divine Omniscience

In order to find the difficulties associated with omniscience, we have to see it as irreconcilable with other divine attributes.

First, omniscience cannot be reconciled with freewill. If God knows the future with infallible certainty, the future is already predetermined and it is impossible to change it.

Second, omniscience also contradicts the attribute of omnipotence. If God knows the future he cannot change it – thus he is not omnipotent. If he can change it, then he cannot have infallible knowledge of it prior to the actual happening – in which case he cannot be omniscient.

Then what is divine omniscience?
To possess knowledge, man needs two elements – acquisition and verification. Knowledge always comes from somewhere. If we would consider John Locke’s idea, acquisition of knowledge comes from sensation and reflection. Then the human mind combines or compare these ideas to form complex ideas, thus we verify.

So where God’s knowledge does comes from? How can an omniscient being undergo the process? Believers will insist that God’s knowledge is somewhat …an instant. So can they explain it? Well…a lot of Christian apologetics tried, but it all fell down to faith.

Then divine omniscience is a concept that is again trapped within the frameworks of the unknowable. Divine omniscience and God’s knowledge is again a senseless utter…an absurd attribute of an incoherent God.