!!JUST FOR THE RECORD!!

A small announcement

A domain registered under reasonbomb.com exists with the same default blue wordpress page design.  It has popped up during the time I was participating on the “cracker-gate” thread on PZ Myers website. To put it mildly, whoever registered that domain under the name of my blog, is not being very original.

Just for the record, let me make it absolutely clear that I am NOT the owner of the internet address mentioned in this post and I have NOTHING to do with it whatsover.

P.S – This is the original…and the only blog I work on.

 

Thats all. Have a nice day.   🙂

Pretending the atheist movement doesnt exist…

 

NOTE – I tried making this post on PZ Myers blog a while back, but  Im getting a message  that “it has been withheld for moderation”. Strangely other entries are making it to Myers blog. Lets see if this post actually gets approved on the Myers blog.

UPDATE – ( 19th July 2008 ) This post has now appeared posted on PZ Myers blog.  #415

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_thread_dont_fill_this_on.php

This is a response to comments from delusional atheists over at PZ Myers blog who feel that atheists can network, organize and work for a common cause and yet not be called a “movement” or an “organization”.  The following comments were in response to one of my comments made on this page- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_thread_dont_fill_this_on.php

 #208 Richard –
“Heaven forbid that thinking atheists should not follow like sheep everything that PZ says. We should be more like the Catholics who question nothing that their priests do to them or their members and just shut up and bleat.Non-believers”

 #218 Gunofsod-
“Get it straight PZ Meyers does not speak for me as an Atheist any more than you serious atheist circle jerks. This isn’t a club, there are no dues, no tithes and no self appointed spokesmen.”

# 191 Wowbagger –
“Atheist movement? What the fuck? Get a clue. It’s not a gang. It’s not a sewing circle. It’s not a fucking country club that you choose to join because you think the golf course has the best back nine in the tri-state area or because you’re impressed by the wine list.”

——————————————————-

Scrolling down this page will reveal the  obscene amount of approval and cheer, that Myers has been showered with by people who obviously share his beliefs. So far I see no one among the atheists questioning Myers acions.  With all the talk about atheism not being a club, is it forbidden that atheists even question Myers actions?

Its simply obvious that Myers has become a celebrity in blogs run by atheists. In addition to people here praising Myers, heres something I found… http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/pz-myers-notice-me/

We all thought this type of blindeyed fanboyism was confined to the domain of pop stars and actors. Whats even more more embarassing is that Myers actually responded…

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/this_better_not_start_a_trend.php

Then heres an excerpt from user comment #238 –

“If non believers and other freethinkers in the USA believe that their cause will be further improved without conflict and without having to provoke and chock the religious folks, they are as deluded as the religious folks.”

This is just one tiny example to illustrate the strong “us” mentality  among atheists.

This same “us” mentality is echoed

-In the repeated targeting of communities holding, lets just say, incompatible viewpoints.

-In the networking between atheists to form alliances.
This link provides a list of atheist organizations  http://richarddawkins.net/atheistResources

-In the organized campaigns to achieve common goals under the banner of atheism.
Please go to  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Atheists#Court_cases to read the legal campaigns run by just ONE atheist organization.

The fact that atheism  has now now evolved into “movement” status is pretty clear.

And for those who still insist that atheism isnt a movement…denial makes for  a warm blanket.

The professor with the jesters hat

This is in reponse to the noise about the “cracker” controversy involving PZ Myers.

 http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/i_get_email_special_cracker_ed.php

 

Myers expressing an intention to desecrate the “cracker”  does nothing but speak very poorly about himself. Its one thing to hear anti-religious trash talk from some random nameless stranger on a generic atheist forum, but to hear it from someone who is a professor at a University, gives the whole thing a new perspective.

It opens the true rational mind to the reality that Myers has caused irrepairable damage to a) the atheist movement parading under “science” and “rationality”  b)the integrity of a website that calls itself “scienceblogs.com”. Considering he uses the headline “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal” surprising no one noticed the jesters hat on the University Professors head.

Serious atheist circles (if any) now have to deal with Myers, who is merrily sawing away at the atheist tree of “science” and “rationality”.

Stretching the evidence to fit the claim…

Ok, I just thought I had to comment on this piece that I found on this web page – http://www.the-atheist.com/looking-at-both-sides-of-the-argument/

Suggest you read it to get the full article.
“On the one side we have the religious, regurgitating the same old flawed, defeated, arguments in new and badly written diatribes. On the other side we have science. Tests, experiements, results and reproducable scenarios. The absurdity of the fact that such a so-called argument even exists is clearly evident.”

– Most science has tests, experiements, results and reproducable scenarios… no doubt about it.
But the problem with evolutionary “science” is that it doesnt really meet the “quality standards” of science.
Ill illustrate with just a small example:- the report of the bacterium evolving to a “point where they have lost one of the limitations that effectively defined them as a species.” is merely evident of genetic changes taking place in living organisms…nothing more, nothing less.
This simple fact of genetic changes (that most educated religious people acknowledge as a trait of living beings)is stretched by some people, to serve as “irrefutable evidence” for their actual claim – that life forms evolved from a single cell to intelligent humans.
The fact that science can never observe the actual claim just gets swept under the carpet. All thats left is an assumption inflated with the hot air of “evolutionary science”. One can only ‘believe’ that “evolutionary science” has the final evidence to support their hopes and faith…that there really is nothing beyond what we have observed.

 

Im also commenting on another segment of the blog on the same link above.

 

“What isn’t clear is how a being so complex that they can create a universe of this complexity was created themselves. And how the being that created that being was created? if you assume that anything of any complexity must have been created, there really is no beginning. It’s one of the most flawed, illogical, self-defeating arguments I’ve ever had the misfortune of stumbling across (thank you Richard Dawkins!)”

Psuedo-intellectuals like Richard are often portrayed as torchbearers for “reason” and “logic”. I wonder if men like Dawkins realize that the scientific findings of the universe, i.e that it had a point of origin- actually work in favour of the theistic side of the debate…that once upon a time, there was nothing in existence.

Popping up the old “If God created the universe, then who created God?” argument, (which Richard Dawkins rephrases in more colorful words, based on his stunted understanding of the nature of God,) doesnt do anything to confound the theistic explanations for life or, for that matter, defend the non-theistic viewpoint.

—————————————————————————

UPDATE (July 17th 2008 )

Response to user comment.

“And while I’m not claiming that evolution within bacterium proves that we evolved from primates, it does prove the concept is sound and sets a basic acceptance that genetic mutation extreme enough to change the characteristics that define a species exists and can occur reasonably quickly”

 

The evidence pointing to “genetic mutations improving the species” is valid 100%. I will not dispute that.

But using these legitimate findings to set the “basic acceptance” that you wrote about is the very ‘stretch’ I was talking about. i.e – Frame evidence of mutation as evidence of the larger unprovable claim. That the single cell evolved into the multitude of species.

The real question is not if genetic mutations occur or not, but if millions of years of mutations caused creatures to change in the magnitude that the ToE claims happened. This is what has been concluded by evolutionary “science”, but it has never been observed by science.

For the sole reason that the concept of genetic mutations is integral to evolutionary “science”, evolutionary “scientists” derive the conclusion that it wants.

i.e –
‘if we have observed genetic changes in bacteria evolving rapidly in labs, it suggests that these same changes occuring over millions of years produced the multitude of species as the ToE teaches.’