One of my pet peeves is multigrain labels emblazoned on foods lately. Technically the food has more than one grain in it, but they are touting the product as something healthy when they have still stripped all fiber and goodness out, so the health benefits are still lacking. This is very popular in cereals, and unless you read the label you’d think you were buying something healthy, when really it’s just as junky as cocoa puffs.

The “no sugar added” label is another one I find quite vague. There are several different iterations of this one. No sugar added, sugar free, the list goes on. What do they all mean? Again, you have to carefully read the nutrition facts and ingredients to get a better picture of what you’ll be buying.

I guess it’s basically the idea that advertisers must follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of it. So for something like Airborne (which I’ve ranted about before), they can make vague claims that basically say nothing to skirt the issue that there is no science behind their product. Then, to make it worse, they strategically make sure it’s placed near the pharmacy to appeal to authority. I think in some places they have signs saying that pharmacists recommend Airborne. But really, to make that claim you only have to pay two pharmacists to say what you want to be truthful.

I find it all incredibly frustrating and discouraging. And the only solution is to be aggressively proactive about shopping and watching ads or commercials. Be skeptical!

This is part one of tackling this topic for three reasons.

• One, I don’t think we can do it justice in one post.
• Two, I really want your feedback. What are your pet peeves in advertising? What examples stand out for you? What logical fallacies do you see in advertising and marketing?
• And three, I just got the new parts for my computer and have to build my newer, better, faster computer today (with the help of my geek friend, Gary. Thanks Gary!). This is my birthday present from my sweetie. Thanks, my love!

Ok, I’m off to go fiddle with my new computer parts. Hopefully it all goes well. I look forward to hearing from you about fallacies in advertising!

Related posts

• Logical Fallacies (0)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Occam’s Razor: Part 1 of Our Critical Thinking Toolkit (1)

Of course the Mayans themselves didn’t survive till 2012, so maybe they aren’t the best group to ask about such things.

Recently a friend of mine mentioned the 2012 phenomenon as if it were true. Unfortunately I didn’t have the hard facts at my disposal so I told him it’s not going to happen and left it at that. But I thought I’d look up some more information so when your mother starts talking about the end of the world, you will have some facts to back you up.

Lucky for me, NASA and Wikipedia have pages to explain where the concept came from and what scientific basis there is for it (none, thank you very much).

Some people seem to love the idea of predicting cataclysmic events and the destruction of the world. Of course, since we’re still here, so far they have been wrong every time. That’s something in itself to consider.

NASA explains it all very succinctly in FAQ form:

Q: Are there any threats to the Earth in 2012? Many Internet websites say the world will end in December 2012.
A: Nothing bad will happen to the Earth in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.

Q: What is the origin of the prediction that the world will end in 2012?
A: The story started with claims that Nibiru, a supposed planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened the doomsday date was moved forward to December 2012. Then these two fables were linked to the end of one of the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar at the winter solstice in 2012 — hence the predicted doomsday date of December 21, 2012.

Q: Does the Mayan calendar end in December 2012?
A: Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then — just as your calendar begins again on January 1 — another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.

Q: Could a phenomena occur where planets align in a way that impacts Earth?
A: There are no planetary alignments in the next few decades, Earth will not cross the galactic plane in 2012, and even if these alignments were to occur, their effects on the Earth would be negligible. Each December the Earth and sun align with the approximate center of the Milky Way Galaxy but that is an annual event of no consequence.

Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?
A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles.

Q: What is the polar shift theory? Is it true that the earth’s crust does a 180-degree rotation around the core in a matter of days if not hours?
A: A reversal in the rotation of Earth is impossible. There are slow movements of the continents (for example Antarctica was near the equator hundreds of millions of years ago), but that is irrelevant to claims of reversal of the rotational poles. However, many of the disaster websites pull a bait-and-shift to fool people. They claim a relationship between the rotation and the magnetic polarity of Earth, which does change irregularly, with a magnetic reversal taking place every 400,000 years on average. As far as we know, such a magnetic reversal doesn’t cause any harm to life on Earth. A magnetic reversal is very unlikely to happen in the next few millennia, anyway.

Q: Is the Earth in danger of being hit by a meteor in 2012?
A: The Earth has always been subject to impacts by comets and asteroids, although big hits are very rare. The last big impact was 65 million years ago, and that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Today NASA astronomers are carrying out a survey called the Spaceguard Survey to find any large near-Earth asteroids long before they hit. We have already determined that there are no threatening asteroids as large as the one that killed the dinosaurs. All this work is done openly with the discoveries posted every day on the NASA NEO Program Office website, so you can see for yourself that nothing is predicted to hit in 2012.

Q: How do NASA scientists feel about claims of pending doomsday?
A: For any claims of disaster or dramatic changes in 2012, where is the science? Where is the evidence? There is none, and for all the fictional assertions, whether they are made in books, movies, documentaries or over the Internet, we cannot change that simple fact. There is no credible evidence for any of the assertions made in support of unusual events taking place in December 2012.

Q: Is there a danger from giant solar storms predicted for 2012?
A: Solar activity has a regular cycle, with peaks approximately every 11 years. Near these activity peaks, solar flares can cause some interruption of satellite communications, although engineers are learning how to build electronics that are protected against most solar storms. But there is no special risk associated with 2012. The next solar maximum will occur in the 2012-2014 time frame and is predicted to be an average solar cycle, no different than previous cycles throughout history.

Addition information concerning 2012 is available on the Web, at:

• NASA Astrobiology Institute: “Nibiru and Doomsday 2012“
• Bad Astronomy: “The Planet X Saga: The Scientific Arguments in a Nutshell”
• Sky and Telescope Magazine: “2012: The Great Scare“

Also see Wikipedia or more. It seems well referenced. Even Science Daily mentions the cyclical nature of the Mayan Calendar.

December 21, 2012 is a Friday. I propose a huge “Another Unfounded Prediction Has Failed” Party for Saturday December 22, 2012. How nice that we will also be able to celebrate the Winter Solstice as well!

Related posts

• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (10)
• 20 Reasons I Am godless (13)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Burden Of Proof Lies With The Claimant (11)

I thought I’d share this with you. The BBC has a page for each religion where they give a bit of information at a glance, and one for atheism too.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods.

• Atheists don’t use god to explain the existence of the universe.
• Atheists say that human beings can devise suitable moral codes to live by without the aid of Gods or scriptures.

Reasons for non-belief
People are atheist for many reasons, among them:

• They find insufficient evidence to support any religion.
• They think that religion is nonsensical.
• They once had a religion and have lost faith in it.
• They live in a non-religious culture.
• Religion doesn’t interest them.
• Religion doesn’t seem relevant to their lives.
• Religions seem to have done a lot of harm in the world.
• The world is such a bad place that there can’t be a god.

It is possible to be both atheist and religious. Virtually all Buddhists manage it, as do adherents of other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.
But many atheists are also secularist, and are hostile to any special treatment given to organised religion.

Atheists and morality
Atheists are as moral (or immoral) as religious people.
In practical terms atheists often follow the same moral code as religious people, but they arrive at the decision of what is good or bad without any help from the idea of god.

What does it mean to be human?
Atheists find their own answers to the question of what it means to be human.

What are your main reasons for being an atheist? Mine are:

• There is zero evidence of the supernatural in any shape or form. (except the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may you die an honorable death, trampled under her holy pink hooves!)
• Religion is harmful if swallowed. It survives and thrives on indoctrination/brainwashing, especially in early childhood when a person has no defense for its insanity.
• Religion has caused more death, murder, destruction, harm, repression, ignorance, destruction of knowledge, etc, than anything else.
• I live in a religious culture and I see the hypocrisy and harm it causes.
• The morality of the religious is twisted and usually extremely hypocritical. As an atheist I have my own moral code that doesn’t rely on 2,000 year old rules from desert goat herders who liked to stone people for wearing 2 different fibers at the same time.
• Life does not appear to be sacred to the religious, despite their constant braying about the issue. The religious seem desperate to control everyone’s life but their own. (More hypocrisy). The religious subjugate themselves in this life (at least they pretend on the surface, while breaking their rules in secret often) because they want eternal life that doesn’t involve roasting forever in hell (so it’s based on fear of suffering, not on being good for goodness sake).As an atheist, this the the only life I have. It is natural, amazing, awe-inspiring, and precious beyond measure. Every moment is to be treasured and lived fully.
• Religion is based on faith, which by definition, has no proof. Religion abhors such free thought. I embrace reason, critical thinking, logic, observation, experimentation, facts, science, intelligence, freethought and skepticism. Basically I believe in using your brain, and thinking for yourself.

That’s my short list. I’m sure I have other reasons for being an atheist but I can’t think of them offhand. So what are yours?

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)

I got another email from Beth! We are still on the topic of cherry-picking, but deal with a few more issues. Here you go, my friends. Your comments are always welcome.

EDIT: Johnny and GMNightmare commented below and I agreed completely with what they said. So I sent her another email a minute ago with that information as an addendum. Since I felt it was important and also sent it to Beth, I wanted to add it to the post, because it all fits right in. Thanks, guys, you’re so awesome!

This “cherry picking” issue is really starting to bug me, honestly. I always viewed cherry picking as using only certain parts of things instead of incorporating the whole for your own convinence. If that is the case, I can assure you I am not. It would only be such if I were to view the Bible as entirely true and without flaws, which I do not. If I were honestly picking and choosing for my benefit then I would be saying all of it was authentic, but then excluding parts of it that redefined the selected part. For example, saying that Jesus was a real man who lived and taught as described in the New Testament does not change anything in the Old Testament. Jesus never stated that the Old Testament laws were the laws of the God he was referring to. I do not mean to sound rude, but I study the Bible very often and it baffles me where you heard such a thing. He does speak of Moses, however that is about the only specific reference that points to the earlier books. He also reads from Isiah, but that does not deal with the law of God, it is mainly about his nature.

Cherry-Pick: Verb: to choose the best items from a selection for oneself, often in an unfair manner.

And what part of selecting choice bits of the bible that you see fit to use, and discarding the rest is not cherry-picking? It’s the very definition thereof. But no amount of definitions, or explanations or logic can budge you from your worldview, so let’s move on. It doesn’t matter why you choose choice bits and throw the rest out, the fact is that you do, at your personal discretion.

Jesus refers to the law of the old testament and the prophets:
Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
~ Jesus says he approves of the old testament laws and the prophets. He has no objection to the cruelties of the old testament, and he says those laws are binding on everyone forever.

The Bible in itself is nothing more then a bunch of documents gathered and put together to make sense. Therefore, to say I disregard them all in favor of just a few is rather silly. Examining each as individuals is how I operate. Also, there is the chance certain books were removed due to the people who edited it. It is not beneath human beings to take out what they don’t like or only put in what they do, regardless if it would significantly change anything.

Well, I don’t know about making sense. That is your opinion, certainly not mine. But I digress. I never said you disregard them all, you just disregard whatever doesn’t go along with your already predetermined idea of what is “true” and “right” to you. And yes, it is true that books were removed and added to the original codex, and that it was edited over time to become what it is today. All the more reason to disregard it as a holy book, since it most assuredly was written by men. But you agree with me there, so we don’t need to go there.

May I suggest studying The Codex Sinaiticus which is the oldest bible known to exist, and which is now available online?

My rewording of what GMN said below: This is a very interesting point. If you can determine, without being a biblical scholar with a degree in such things, what is authentic in the bible and what is not, why do you even need the bible? You’re basically saying you know more than whoever put the bible together. You’re saying that you know the “mind of god”, and what he intends and what he feels and thinks. You don’t need the bible at all.

Now to return to the mystery of Jesus issue. I will be truthful. I am still studying this subject. It seems a new challenge to his existence is presented every year and so in follows a rebuttle to the claim. As far as plagarism goes, I believe it really should be a dead argument. It has already been disproven. I did read your article and many others similar to it. Jesus was not a mythological figure that was a compilation of other ones. Most accusations are exaggerated or aren’t even dated correctly. It is never said in the Bible that Jesus was born Decemeber 25th or that he had 3 wise men attend his birth. However, considering you seem firm in the fact that he never lived I will do my best to address any problems you have with him being real. Although I do have a question, not intended to support my own side, but out of genuine curiousity: why would a history book claim Jesus lived if it is clear (from your perspective) that he hasn’t? I bring this up because I remember in the 10th grade reading from my textbook and Jesus being mentionned as if he truly was a person who walked this earth. The same as any president or dictator. Once again, just wondering.

Who has disproven what? Read the myths from the surrounding areas around the time that jesus supposedly lived and died, and a hundred years after. The early christians were definitely borrowing from the Hellenistic and Egyptian myths, Mithras, etc. Who told you that jesus was a real person? No one knows that. There is no evidence of his existence anywhere.

No, the early christians decided jesus was born on December 25th to help convert pagans to their faith, since they were already celebrating the Winter Solstice on that date. It was a way to increase their numbers by incorporating other traditions and myths into their stories, to get them to convert. It’s all myth. That’s what I’m saying. What about jesus is based in fact? Where is it corroborated anywhere outside of the bible?

Did you go to a religious school? Because talking about religion in a public school is against the separation of church and state. And simply because one person was thoughtless enough to take the bible as fact and put Jesus into a school textbook like any other person does not make him real. It just means whoever wrote that into the book blindly believed as you do. Lots of people believing a lie or a myth doesn’t make it true. And reading something in a book, even a history book, doesn’t make things necessarily true either. Information in history needs to be corroborated. Facts need to be checked and verified from different sources. Just like science needs to be peer reviewed.

I do find it interesting that you’d say jesus was mentioned as true just like any president or dictator. That’s kind of funny. But the difference is that there is lots of evidence from multiple sources about dictators and presidents. That’s how we know what we know. But even then, we must always keep in mind, history is written by the winners.

Johnny adds: Mithra was one of the main deities worshiped in the same location, and just prior to Jesus. His birthday was December 25th on the Gregorian calendar; or at the time of the winter solstice (as were several other gods). The winter solstice was often celebrated as a birth or rebirth of the sun by many cultures, since it is the shortest day of the year and afterward the days start to get longer. In about 350AD, Pope Julius I declared December 25th as Christ’s birthday in attempt to help smooth the acceptance of Christianity by cultures practicing other religions.

Matthew – [2:1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, [2:2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. … … [2:11] And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

If not the birth itself, they were there shortly after according to the Bible.

Johnny adds, regarding the history book claim: There were a couple historians who included reference to Jesus in historical documentation. They were proven to be fraudulent additions made after-the-fact. Unfortunately they are still cited though. Some history books continue to include Jesus as a historical figure (with no religious intent); but have received poor feedback for doing so.

Now there are some documents that provide hints and innuendos; and this is why even atheist scholars speculate that an “apocalyptic prophet in the Danielic apocalyptic tradition” name Yeshua probably did exist. Even some (of the intelligent) theist scholars concede that his deeds are most likely a compilation of multiple apocalyptic prophets. BUT there is no solid reliable evidence that he existed.

I think I covered everything. Oh, by the way, I checked the New Testament again. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being a sin. Also, he never specifically says the laws in the Old Testament are the ones he is talking about. If so, he would reitterate that gays are going to be punished for their lifestyle and he never does. He would also say eating shellfish is wrong, haha.

No, jesus never said anything about homosexuality or shellfish. But he did say he upheld the law (see above: Matthew 5:17-18). So why would he need to reiterate every law from the old testament? He simply had to say the law was fine the way it was, and to say everyone was to follow that law until the end of time. It’s very clear.

What do you think about the resurrected Jesus telling his disciples that he would be back before they died? And that they were to go forth and perform miracles and cures just like he did?

Johnny adds a very valid point I should have mentioned: Something so few Christians don’t seem to contemplate about Jesus (if he existed): Jesus was NOT a Christian! He was Jew!! Whether he was a rabbi, a prophet, or both; most scholars agree that (if he existed) he was probably well versed in the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament). So as Neece mentions (Matthew 5:17-18), when he says none of the laws shall be destroyed, there is no reason to doubt he is talking about all the laws of the Tanakh.

~

Ok… so that’s the newest exchange. My comments were sent to Beth at the same time I posted this, so she hasn’t had a chance to respond yet. Hopefully we’ll be done with the cherry-picking issue soon. That poor dead horse has been beaten down to nothing!

Related posts

• Conversations With Craig the christian 5 – More Interpretations (10)
• Conversations With Ash: 1 – Answering Questions (9)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy (11)
• Cherry-Picking and A bible Lesson For Atheists (11)

The guy who leads the Scientific Evaluation of Religion things for this location has done a pretty good job the two times I have gone. I really have to give him credit and say I was impressed at how he handled this meeting since IT GOT HIJACKED BY A GROUP OF YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS! That’s right, you heard me. It was pretty interesting for me to see first hand their pulling out all the old cliché arguments for Christianity. They got started when there was a chapter summary that mentioned that most religious people are skeptical of other peoples faiths but not their own, they took issue with that statement and then proceeded to confirm its accuracy with their actions.

One creationist gave everyone a four-page handout entitled “Evolution, Science or Religion?” which my friend sent me a few days later. Here it is as he sent it to me: (BEGIN LOGICAL FALLACY DRINKING GAME NOW)

Evolution, Science or Religion?

Operational Science by definition uses observable, repeatable, and verifiable experiments to try to discover truth.

Origin Science relies on presuppositions, interpretations, and theory based on artifacts and remains. Origin Science tries to determine the past. This in not real science for it is neither observable, repeatable, or verifiable. Origin Science are interpretations based on operational science.

Scientific Fact Observed- 85% of the world’s rock is sedimentary and is found all over the world.

Belief #1 – This rock took billions of years to form through wind and water erosion.

Belief #2 – This rock was formed by a worldwide flood.

Both are beliefs, interpretations of the facts. The question is: which best explains the facts?

Which of these beliefs better explains polystrate fossils? Fossilized trees that go through multiple rock layers? Did those layers form around ther trees over millions of years or was it rapid sedimentation that occurred? What belief better explains this fact?

Which of those beliefs better explain that there are fossilized clams that have been found on the top of Mount Everest?

Have you ever taken a look at Burlingame Canyon? It took 6 days for this canyon to form… it is verifyable.

Scientific Fact Observed- the moon is drifting away from the earth slowly.

Belief #1- The Universe is billions of years old.

Belief #2 – The Universe is only thousands of years old. Because if you trace the drifting of the moon back for millions of years the moon would be on top of the earth. If you trace it back even less than that the moon would be so much closer to the earth that our tides would be out of control.

Which of these beliefs best fit the Science that we observe?

Scientific Fact Observed – Neptune is a very active planet that is still producing heat, has winds that reach over 1300 MPH and it gives off over twice the amount of energy than what it receives from the sun.

Belief #1- The Universe is billions of years old.

Belief #2 – The Universe is only several thousand years old. If it were millions or billions of years old Neptune would have cooled off and become inactive by now because of its distance from the sun. But if it is only thousands of years old then it would still be cooling off.

Use your reason… Assuming man evolved over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years, using an average life span of 43 years per generation and a family producing an average of 2.5 children, accounting for natural depletion by wars, famines, and plagues, our world should be populated by trillions of people. If this is true, where are they and where are the mountains of skeletons they would have generated?

Scientific Fact Observed – Birds give birth to Birds, dogs give birth to dogs, monkeys give birth to monkeys, humans give birth to humans etc.

Belief #1- All living things have a common ancestor. Over a long period of time sea creatures mutated into reptiles, reptiles mutated into birds which eventually led to every living creature we have today. (This is oversimplified but you get the general idea.)

Belief #2- All creatures were created fully functional and give birth after their own kind.

Which belief better fits what we observe?

Scientific fact observed – There has never been a mutation that has ever produced an increase or addition of information to the genetic code.

Belief #1 – Mutations are the engine that has brought about the evolution of all living creatures from single celled organism into all the creatures we see today.

Belief #2 – Mutations do occur. Mutations occor within kinds. There is no way mutation can change a simpler organism into a more complex organism because they do not produce new genetic information. Felines change into different kinds of felines, canines into different kinds of canines, but never felines into canines or any other transition between kinds.

Scientific fact observed - Geological research shows no transitional fossils.

Belief #1 – It’s not that they never existed, it’s that the geological record isn’t complete. “The explanation lies, however, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record” – Charles Darwin

Belief #2 – Transitions between kinds has never occurred.

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, certainly I would have included it… I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument”. – Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History. Well Respected evolutionist and author, Letter to Luther D Sunderland

When talking about transitional fossils Charles Darwin said, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory”

As stated above Darwin attributed this to the incompleteness of the exploration of the fossil record at the time. But today, well over a century after that time with thousands of tons of fossils from all over the world the lack of transitional fossils is still a problem.

Evolutionist David Raup reviews the evidence from us. He has been the curator of the famous Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. That museum houses 20% of all fossil species known, so Raup is in a position to speak with considerable knowledge about fossil evidence. He says:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”

Which belief better fits the facts?

Scientific Fact observed- everything which has a beginning has a cause (Law of Cause and effect)

Belief #1- In the Beginning the universe caused itself.

Belief #2- In the Beginning God created the universe

If matter had a beginning, then belief number 1 cannot be true, the law of cause and effect shows that everything that has a beginning has a cause. Therefore one must conclude one of two things: either matter had no beginning or it had a cause.

Scientific Fact Observed – The 2nd Law of thermodynamics: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Belief #1 – Matter had no beginning. The universe caused itself.

Belief #2 – Matter had a beginning, it was created by God.

If matter had no beginning then how can the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true? If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. Therefore if the universe has a beginning, it must have a cause (Law of cause and effect)

Which belief fits the facts? The universe had no cause, or God caused the universe?

One might ask “Well what/who caused God?”. Well that’s a good question. First I would say that logic demands that there be something which had no cause, something that is eternal. Because if I would answer who/what caused God, you would say “well who/what caused that?” and it would be an endless cycle. There had to have been something which had no beginning, and had no cause. These past two scientific facts prove that matter itself cannot be that which had no beginning or cause. Logic demands there must be something eternal, Science proves matter can’t be eternal, the Bible describes God as eternal. God is outside of time/space, He is eternal.

Scientific fact observed- Nonliving matter cannot produce living creatures. (Law of Biogenisis/Pasteur’s Law)

Belief #1- Life was spontaneously generated from nonliving matter, not from a Creator.

Belief #2- Life was created by God

Which answer best explains the facts? Science says spontaneous generation can’t happen, without God the first living organism would have had to have come from nonliving matter. But this is scientifically impossible.

Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the Nobel Prize for developing penicillin said this, “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”

Nobel Prize winning evolutionist and Harvard professor Dr George Wald answered this question when he said, “There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising into evolution or the supernatural creative act of a God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, however, was scientifically disproved by Louis Pasteur and others. Therefore, that leaves only one possibility as to how life arose, that it was a supernatural creative act of a God. However, I choose not to believe this, because I do not want to believe in a God. Therefore I choose to believe that which I know is scientifically impossible.”

Why would Dr Wald, a man smart enough to win a Nobel prize, believe and teach something he considered to be scientifically impossible? Because he said he didn’t want to believe in a God. Why didn’t he want to believe in a God? Because if God is real then we will be accountable to Him one day.

If God is real you will stand in front of Him one day as well, how will you do? Here is a quick test: Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen something? Jesus said ” If you have looked with lust you’ve committed adultery in your heart” Have you looked with lust? Have you ever murdered someone? Keep in mind Jesus said if you hate your brother or call your brother a fool you will be judged as a murderer. Have you ever taken God’s name in vain? This is called blasphemy. This is like taking God’s holy name, throwing it into the mud and stomping on it. Imagine if I took your mother’s name and used it in place of a 4 letter word. You’d be very offended wouldn’t you?… So how will you do? This is only four of the Ten Commandments, which is God’s standard of righteousness. When you stand before God will you be innocent or guilty? Will you be deserving of Heaven or Hell? Listen to your conscience, God gave you His moral code and a conscience so that you would know you are in need of Him.

Psalm 53:1 “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” When you look around and see design, order, art, and creation it is axiomatic that there is a designer, an orderer, an artist, and a creator behind it. We know there is design in something like a chair or an automobile. We know because the object itself is the evidence. You would not have to convince me that someone designed an automobile, I just know. Why then do we try to postulate (based on no facts, just guesses) that there is no designer or creator to nature, plants, animals, and humans?

If your conscience is telling you that you are guilty of breaking God’s commands that is a good thing. Listen to your conscience and understand that there is something wrong. Breaking God’s law will condemn you to Hell. Once you understand this you will understand that it is not God’s will to send anyone to Hell. Jesus Christ came to this earth (a historical fact that only extreme scoffers try to deny). Jesus said, “I am th way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” You see punishment that we all deserve for breaking God’s law was poured out on Christ. God loved us so much that He chose to cruch His own Son for our sake. The Bible tells us that Jesus became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God. There is no other belief, idea, person, religion, or anything that can save us from our sins. We must repent (turn from our sins) and believe the gospel. Don’t rely on blind faith any longer. Check out the claims of Christ and the Bible for yourself. Remember this story, many people came to Jesus and had objections to His message. He replied to them and said, “Unless you repent you will likewise perish.” Please do not be the kind of person that looks for any excuse to reject the message of salvation. Repent and believe the gospel today.

If you started the Logical Fallacy Drinking Game at the top, you are totally sloshed now, so you’re probably not even able to focus on the text anymore. Go pray to the white porcelain god for a bit then come back and tell us what you think.

My friend (who I am not naming because I didn’t ask his permission) says he’s going to go through and refute each point. Honestly this kind of dreck just makes me tired. I am posting it without comment for now. Feel free to pick it apart in the comments and maybe we can tackle different parts in different posts.

EDIT: I forgot that my friend (sorry, I really should have asked him if I could use his name, sorry) wrote a little creation story in response:

It’s obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence without some preconceived idea.
I mean we know for a fact that Odin, Vili and Ve killed Ymir, and his blood flooded the world and drowned all of the jötunn, except two.
But jötnar grew again in numbers and soon there were as many as before Ymir’s death.
Then the gods created seven more worlds using Ymir’s flesh for dirt, his blood for the Oceans, rivers and lakes, his bones for stone, his brain as the clouds, his skull for the heavens.
We know this because we see that the the earth is made from only a few “elements”. Just use your logic and the wisdom that comes from the all father, Odin.
Also “seven more worlds” right? 1 + 7 = 8 and now that we got the Pluto thing settled there are 8 planets in our solar system. Or should I say “Ymir’s left over body soup system” Slam dunk! Norse creation FTW! Jesus PWNED!
Sparks from Muspelheim flew up and became stars.
Sparks, am I right? We know stars are big burny things. That’s science people!
One day when the gods were walking they found two tree trunks. They transformed them into the shape of humans. We know this for a fact! Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak.
The gods named them Ask and Embla and built the kingdom of Middle-earth for them; and, to keep out the jötnar, the gods placed a gigantic fence made of Ymir’s eyelashes around Middle-earth.
Again, that is just science. Look down at your descended from tree truck people bodies and give thanks that we still have eyelashes keeping the jötnar at bay.

All hail the magic giant eyelash fence! WOOT! This is such a brilliant response. It makes way more sense though. LOL

Back to the creationist handout bullshit: I thought about removing the blatant proselytizing at the end, but then I figured you’re big people, you can handle it. Your comments are welcome and encouraged.

What’s your favorite bit that you find totally insanely stupid? Which fallacy does it commit? Why does it drive you mad?

Related posts

• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy (11)
• Atheism at a glance- BBC Style (10)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)

I think I understand what it’s like to be lost in a world of woo thinking. Maybe even an inkling of what it’s like to believe in Jesus as your personal hero.

Butch, my awesome husband, came home Friday night and told me he felt awful. He and I both got a cold about 3 weeks ago and he shook if off in about 4 days while I suffered with a nasty chest cold, congestion and laryngitis until just the other day. I didn’t want to hear that he was sick again. It was my birthday weekend, we were supposed to go out to dinner on Sunday (last night), and I was hoping we’d both be feeling well for a change.

Alas, it was not to be. He had a fever, the chills, and was completely miserable. And here’s where I realized I felt totally helpless. I can’t stand seeing someone I love sick. When Butch or my dogs or someone I care about has a problem or is in pain, I want to fix them. I want to make them at least feel better. But sometimes there’s nothing you can do.

Butch seemed to have the flu, which is a virus, and really all I could do was make him a hot toddy, be extra nice, and send him to bed to sleep it off.

Recently my older dog, Koku went through some weird emotional thing where whenever I gave the dogs treats, he would suddenly act like there was thunder and lightning and he would practically jump in my lap and shiver. Which is also new. He just developed a dislike of thunder last year. Poor little fella is anxious like me, I guess. But again, there really wasn’t anything I could do for him, except give him some affection and make sure that he was physically alright. (I can put him on doggy prozac, I guess, but that would make him sleep all day, so it’s a last resort.)

But it’s painful to watch the ones I love suffer. I hate it. In my previous life, I was into taking vitamins and airborne. And before that I (shamefully admit) I believed in energy healing. But back then, I had solutions. I could turn to a concoction or my hands with authority and say, “this will make you feel better.” Butch didn’t believe in the energy stuff, but sometimes he’d let me do my woo woo magic. Because when you’re sick, you just want to feel better, even if it’s a long shot.

Then I figured out that energy healing was totally bogus. Which meant I lost a huge security blanket. It was all a placebo,  nothing more. Recently the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, along with other podcasts and science news, helped me to become a full fledged Skeptic. (I have a badge and everything!) I learned that taking vitamins have been found to actually shorten your lifespan (a recent study), mega doses of vitamins can be very harmful, and taking airborne as suggested is dangerous, and that it was never properly tested. So, now I have no security blankets at all. It’s just me and bare naked facts and science.

Most times that is quite liberating, not to be weighed down with lies and nonsense. But when my loved ones are sick  and there’s nothing that can really be done except fluids and bed rest, (oh, and TLC, of course), I feel really naked and frustrated.

So I guess I understand why people turn to crackpot pseudo-science. I see why they buy ridiculous remedies, books for crazy diets, books for strange magical ways to improve their lives. I guess I even understand people who pray to Jesus for a cure. It might be a long shot, but at least they’re doing something.

Of course, prayer is actually doing nothing. You’re just wasting time and energy on a god that doesn’t exist.  But I guess it makes sense, in a way, if you really believe it’s going to work. Maybe it’s just the knowing, the confidence that Jesus wouldn’t let you down, that whoever wrote that stupid book you read really does have the answer and really wants to help you achieve perfect health and happiness. Whatever it is, it’s doing something, it’s keeping you from realizing that the world is often harsh and cold.

But turning to a god that isn’t there, or a pill that doesn’t do anything useful, or a book that is full of lies isn’t doing anything. It might seem like it’s helpful, but really it’s worse than nothing. Sure, you might feel like you have a bit of control over a bad situation, but you don’t. You’ve given what little control you might have had to the invisible god, the sugar pill, or the guru who wrote the book. See? You’re less in control than ever. With no hope of ever getting any of it back when you believe in lies and let them lead you and control your life.

It sucks. I know. But reality is a harsh mistress.

So, I kissed my husband on the forehead, reminded him that a mild fever is the body’s natural way of fighting infections, and told him I loved him. He was upset about my birthday dinner, but I told him it can wait. No big deal, just feel better. Sometimes all you can do for someone is love them. So that’s what I did. Love is good medicine, at least.

Related posts

• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• Thinking Is Hard Work (0)
• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• Religulous: We’re On The Road To Nowhere (3)
• Dark Chocolate and Other Tidbits of Goodness (0)

I tried to add a question about superstition but I ran out of time. So feel free to comment on if you’re superstitious or not, and/or atheist/religious! Thanks muchly!

Click more for the results:

How Do You Reconcile Belief and Rationality?

1. What is your current religious view? Atheist 2. Regarding religion, how were you raised? religious, casual religious, strict 3. Has your religious belief system changed since childhood? Drastically different – lost religious beliefs 4. If you are an atheist, which category best describes you? Dissonant 2- grew up a believer and was torn over the incompatibility between faith and rationality. Struggled with it. 5. What do you feel about other non-religious spiritual concepts? I require scientific evidence. No evidence means it’s not real, or at least needs more testing. 6. What do you think about alternative healing modalities? They are pseudoscience. No evidence means more testing needs to be done, or it is not real. I’m skeptical.

Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by

Related posts

• Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method (24)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Here We Go Again… (125)
• Young Earth Invasion (6)
• Burden Of Proof Lies With The Claimant (11)