Talking Bible Babble

Tower of Babel. Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1563)

Continuing the theme in my blog yesterday on the Bible's disconnect from reality, here's an amusing tale from Hebrew mythology tucked away in the Bible, telling of an act of their tribal god:

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Genesis 11:1-9

So, if this happened in the real world and the god described was an omniscient god, what would we expect to find? The god's clear intent was that people should not be able to understand one another, so we should see language groups rubbing shoulders on their borders with people who speak an entirely unrelated language. We would expect people speaking similar languages to be separated by great distances so that the chance of them coming up against people who could make a reasonable guess at what they were saying was virtually zero. We would expect to find people speaking a language similar to English to live in, say, South-east Asia or South America, and people who speak a language like Swedish to be found in Africa or Siberia. And of course, we would expect to find people speaking a Bantu language as far away from South Africa as possible, say in Canada, Norway or Australia.

Is this what we find?

Of course not. That's what the Bible predicts we should find so we can be fairly sure reality isn't going to be anything like that.

What we find is a reality about as far away from that as it's possible to get. We find precisely the opposite of what the Bible forecasts, of course.

I'll illustrate this with a few language maps I found with a few clicks on Google.

Well, that's the reality which, as we can see is a very different thing to the one we would expect if the myth of the Tower of Babel in the Bible was correct.

What we see in reality is exactly what we would expect to see if language is an evolving cultural thing which we inherit from our cultures and our parent generation along with our other memes. We see diversification occurring due to isolation for various reasons like political borders, isolating valleys and mountain ranges, different religions or religious sects, etc. We also see remnant populations of earlier language groups isolated within larger populations like the Basques of North-eastern Spain and South-western France.

Some years ago on a night shift, I had been reading Beowulf, the earliest known work in Early English, with translation, obviously. One of my assistants, who is Anglo-Norwegian and speaks both languages fluently as well as Danish, Swedish and German, picked it up with a half-dismissive, "what's this you're reading now?", then she said, "Hey! I can read this, almost! Why are you reading old Danish?" Of course she was right. Beowulf is no more English than it is Danish or Dutch. It was written in a language ancestral to, or at least close to one which was ancestral to Dutch and Danish and close to Swedish and Norwegian.

"Beowulf methelode, bearn Ecgtheowes; 'Hwaet, thu worn fela, wine win Unferth, beorne druncen, ymb Breccan spreace, suaegdest from his sithe. Soth ic talige thaet ic merestrengo maran ahte, aerfetho on ythum, thonne aenig other man.

[Beowulf spoke, the son of Ecgtheow: "Well, Unferth my friend, drunk with beer you have talked a great deal about Brecca, told of his adventures. I claim for a fact that I have greater strength in the sea, hardship of the waves, than any other man.]

One of my favourite language groups is the so-called Celtic groups found in the extreme edge of Western Europe. This group is split into two main groups: the Goedelic and Brythonic groups, also called p-Celtic and q-Celtic. They are the Irish and Scots Gaelic, and Welsh languages. They also include Manx (close to Irish Gaelic with some Welsh), Cornish, Breton from France and Galician from Spain (all close to Welsh). They are ancient languages, possibly related to the language spoken in Western Europe before the Roman conquest and maybe even to Cythian, though it's not at all certain that the modern Celts are the same people as the Keltoi, as the Greeks called them or the people the Romans called Gauls.

The terms p-Celtic and q-Celtic come from the ancient words for 'son of' or more precisely, 'of the clan of', map and maq in Welsh and Gaelic respectively. These have become the modern Ap (or Ab) in Welsh and Mac in Scots and Irish Gaelic. How many people today have the name Bevan (Ab Evan), Pritchard (Ap Richard) or Probert (Ap Robert) and how many millions of Macs and Mcs are there? So we can trace these family names back to early origins in earlier languages and to the culturally related device of using a clan name as a surname.

The Celtic word for king is also interesting. Forms of it appear in other related modern languages. It is words like this which show how languages are related. The Gaelic for king is rí. This word takes the form rex in Latin, roi in French and raj in Hindi and Urdu, so showing, along with many other words, how Gaelic, Latin and Hindi are all members of the Indo-European family of languages. From this word, (via medieval French) we get the English words Royal, Regal and Reign. Yes. We still speak a local dialect of Indo-European.

The distribution, differences and similarities of human languages is precisely what we would expect of something which evolved and is still evolving. It is exactly the opposite of what we would see it they had been been spontaneously created by an intelligent god, especially if the intention was to make it so people from neighbouring countries couldn't understand one another. Had the god of the Bible forgotten that people can learn to speak different languages?

Again, the disconnect between the Bible and reality is exposed with a brief look at reality.

---

You'd Never Believe The Things Some People Believe

I Thought I'd share this with you.

In the Bible we find a strange world... And it is indeed strange to us today - very strange.

We find a world where a snake and a donkey talked, where giants lived in the land, where people could live to nine-hundred-plus years old, where a woman was turned into a pillar of salt, where a pillar of fire could lead people by night, where the sun stopped moving across the sky or could even back up, where a star could point down to a specific home, where people could instantly speak in unlearned foreign languages, and where someone's shadow or handkerchief could heal people.

It is a world where a flood could cover the whole earth, and where a man could walk on water, calm a stormy sea, change water into wine, or be swallowed by a "great fish" and live to tell about it. It is a world populated by demons that could wreak havoc on earth and also make people very sick. It is a world of idol worship, where human and animal sacrifice pleased God. In this world we find visions, inspired dreams, prophetic utterances, miracle workers, magicians, diviners, and sorcerers. It is a world where God lived in the sky (heaven) and people who died went to live in the dark recesses of the earth (Sheol)...

The world is viewed as a three-storied structure with the earth in the centre, the heaven above, and the underworld beneath. Heaven is the abode of God and celestial beings - angels. The underworld is hell, the place of torment. Man is not in control of his life. Evil spirits may take possession of him. Satan may inspire him with evil thoughts.

It is simply the cosmology of a prescientific age.

"Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity", John W. Loftus (Kindle Edition), Prometheus Books

Bible literalists hold this book to be the best description of the real world, far surpassing for accuracy, reliability and usefulness anything modern science can produce.

---

Permitting Extremists

The problem with all the exclusive monotheist religions is that they have a ‘holy’ book which can’t be questioned or disputed. They have a book which they believe contains the holy words of their god as revealed through divinely inspired ‘prophets’.

So it must be true; all of it; without question or doubt.

There is no moderate position possible over this. All truth was revealed by an omniscient god in that book and those truths are eternal. It is not for mere mortals to dispute those truths.

To not believe the Bible, Qur'an, Talmud or The Guru Granth Sahib is to leave the 'faith'; to cease to be a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Sikh.

The best a moderate can do when confronted with something so grotesquely and obviously wrong as ordering genocide or child murder; of permitting rape; of relegating women to subservient chattel status; of encouraging racism and slavery and cultural supremacy, is to try to explain it away as situational, out of context, allegorical, justified ONLY in the special circumstances pertaining at that time (which, incidentally, merely begs the question of just why it was included in the book in the first place), etc, etc.

Moderates claim to be able to discern a message different to the one given in the holy book whilst never acknowledging that the message was wrong in the first place and could not have been the work of a loving, merciful, just and benevolent god.

By defending the inerrancy of the god which inspired the book and the inerrancy and perfection of its message; by explaining away any reason to doubt or question the basic tenets of the ‘faith’ believers derive from the book, moderates grant permission to extremists.

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

Dr William Lane Craig, Christian Apologist

Extremists read exactly the same words and see this inerrant and perfect god inerrantly telling them to kill those who disagree with them; even to heroically kill themselves to do so, sure in the certain knowledge that they will be rewarded by the inerrant and loving god which told them to do such things.

Extremists read exactly the same words and see this inerrant and perfect god inerrantly telling them that it created the universe and life on it in just seven days, and that all humans have been contaminated by 'sin' and need to spend their lives abjectly apologizing and begging for forgiveness for something they had no control over and which, if it was done at all, was done many thousands of years ago.

And so they have permission to tell their unfortunate children, and anyone else's children, that they are unworthy sinners who need to grovel in abject subservience to this god who will inflict eternal torture and torment on them for even daring to think it might not be all true.

Extremists read exactly the same words and see this inerrant and perfect god inerrantly telling them that what they can see in the physical evidence all around them is wrong and so they have permission to insist their children not be taught science but be taught a primitive mythology instead; that their understanding of the universe should never be permitted to rise above that of Bronze Age marauders whose 'science' was such that they hadn't even invented the wheel and believe the earth was flat, had a dome over it with holes in as stars, and stood at the centre of a very small universe.

Extremists read exactly the same words and see a perfect god telling them to kill their sister or daughter if she 'dishonours' the family. They read these same words and see a perfect god telling them to behead unbelievers. They see a perfect good telling them all other peoples and religions and anyone who disagrees with them are wrong and are working for Satan in the name of evil, to be vigorously opposed by all means available, including persecution, dispossession, torture and genocide.

And they have permission granted them by the moderates to do these things in the name of a religion which the moderates have told them they can't question and for a god the moderates have told them is inerrant and perfect and indeed inspired the prophets to write the book they read. The same moderates who have defended, in the name of freedom of conscience, their right to hold their beliefs and to practice their 'faith' free from the sanctions a decent society normally applies to its anti-social miscreants.

Moderates grant permission to the extremists to use their 'faith' as an excuse for their antisocial behavior and an excuse for their demands to be given control over the lives of others.

The only real difference between a moderate and an extremist is the moderates assume their god couldn’t really have meant those despicable things and so must have meant something else, whilst, of course, still being inerrant and omniscient. Extremist have no such doubts.

Tolerating the intolerant and granting them the right to try to take away our freedoms is playing into their hands. You can be sure they would quickly deny us the same tolerance and freedoms they demand for themselves if they ever form a theocracy. The evidence of history is that no unrestrained theocracy has ever been tolerant of dissenters. All unrestrained theocracies have used their power not to improve the lot of the people but to restrain and control them and reverse centuries of social, cultural and economic progress back to some assumed dream time in the Bronze Age.

The support of theocrats for the idea of freedom of religion is inversely proportional to their strength in society. Once they gain power, support for other people's freedom of religion melts away like a thief in the night.

And moderates grant them permission.

---

God The Liar Almighty

When it comes down to it, all the arguments Creationists put up against science because it disagrees with the Bible or the Qur'an are really arguments that their god only told the truth in their favourite holy book, so anything which disagrees with it must be false - including all the evidence they believe their god created in the universe.

Creationists deny the age of the universe, which requires them to believe their god lied when it placed all the photons so the universe just looks 14 billion years old, it lied again in the red shift so it just looks as though the universe has been expanding for 14 billion years and it lied again in the background microwave radiation which is just as it would be if the universe was 14billion years old and started off as a singularity of almost infinite density.

Creationists deny the age of earth, which requires them to believe their god lied in all the geological evidence which just makes the earth look 4 billion years old.

Creationist deny that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor which existed some 3.5 billion years ago, which requires them to believe their god lied in all the genetic, immunological, palaeontological and morphological evidence which shows a 'tree of life' exactly as it would appear if life evolved from a common ancestor 3.5 billion years ago.

It also requires them to believe their god lied when it provided a fossil record which appears exactly as it would do if life evolved from a common ancestor 3.5 billion years ago, including the very many detailed series showing gradual change over time.

It also requires them to believe their god lied when it arranged the distribution of related species of animals to look exactly as they would if the movement of the tectonic plates was just as it would be if the earth was 4 billion years old and life had been evolving on it for most of that time.

Of course, if you believe in an omnipotent god you have no difficulty at all in believing it COULD have arrange all that evidence, distributed throughout the universe, and especially on earth, to make it look that way just to mislead us, or to test our 'faith' in it.

The only problem is that this requires us to believe that their god is an almighty liar.

Given the choice between believing their favourite book or believing the evidence they believe their god created in the physical evidence, Creationists believe their god lied in the physical evidence. They are sure of this because it wrote a book it which it said it was telling the truth.

Creationists can be sure their god is a liar because it said it tells the truth in a book!

There's logic there Jim, but not as we know it.

It seems that Creationists would rather you believed their god is a deceitful liar than that their favourite book is not really a simple shortcut to pseudo-knowledge which saves a great deal of learning.

It really makes you wonder if Creationist believe what they try to persuade others to believe. I wonder what their god would think of them is it was real. This certainly doesn't seem to enter into their calculations...

---

Advertisement

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

Unintelligent Design - Forming Alliances

The following is based on a post on Compuserve Science & Maths Forum in about 1995 by the late Marijke Van Ganz.  I paraphrase from memory and have certainly not done justice to Marijke whose succinct and poetic use of language enthralled those privileged to read her contributions to on-line debates.

Getting Milk.

Who says humans are the most intelligent species?

Down in the valley the Homo sapiens are busy capturing wild cattle, rounding them up into herds, taming them, erecting stout fences, building the milking parlours, making buckets and earthenware pots to collect and keep the milk....

Meanwhile, Felis catus rouses herself under the tree on the hill where she had been dozing in the warm sunshine, stretches, yawns, surveys her estate then wanders over to see how the work is progressing, says "Meow!" and gets milk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural selection ensures the most utilitarian method works.  Maybe we humans are fortunate our genes didn't form the same alliance with those of another species the way domestic cat genes did with ours.

Or are we?  Have we been tamed by cats?

Cats Vs Dogs

Not sure where this came from but it's been around for years. I first saw it on a Compuserve forum in about 1995.  If anyone recognises it please let me know so that I can give due credit.

FROM A DOG'S DIARY

Day number 180

8:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
9:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
9:40 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE!
10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
1:00 PM - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE!
4:00 PM - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE!

Day number 181

8:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
9:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
9:40 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE!
10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
1:00 PM - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE !
4:00 PM - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE!

Day number 182

8:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
9:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE !
9:40 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE!
10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
1:00 PM - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE!
1:30 PM - ooooooo. bath. bummer.
4:00 PM - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM A CAT'S DIARY

DAY 752

My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape and the mild satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another houseplant.



DAY 761

Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded, must try this at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair ... must try this on their bed.

DAY 765

Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little cat I was ... Hmmm. Not working according to plan.

DAY 768

I am finally aware of how sadistic they are. For no good reason I was chosen for the water torture. This time however it included a burning foamy chemical called "shampoo." What sick minds could invent such a liquid. My only consolation is the piece of thumb still stuck between my teeth.

DAY 771

There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in solitary throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the foul odor of the glass tubes they call "beer ..." More importantly I overheard that my confinement was due to MY power of "allergies." Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage.

DAY 774

I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The bird on the other hand has got to be an informant, and speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his current placement in the metal room his safety is assured. But I can wait, it is only a matter of time ...

Francis Bacon Rebutted

Francis Bacon (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626)

Francis Bacon (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was a leading thinker of his day and pioneer of the scientific method. His essay "Of Atheism" is frequently cited, usually uncritically, by theologian and Christian apologists.

Let's examine it, especially to see how a leading thinker and advocate of scientific methodology, was nonetheless a child of the times, and was constrained by the limitations of knowledge and understanding of the times, not to mention the political realities within which he operated.

I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it.

Easy Task For Christians.

Just a simple little "Put your money where your mouth is" challenge to Christians.

Very many Christians, even some highly respected ones, often cite "all the fulfilled prophesies" in the Bible as their main reason for believing in their god and why they accept the Bible as its authentic word.

However, there are also very many failed prophecies in the Bible.

Would you explain all these, please or explain why you believe the words of prophets you know to be false and ignore Matthew's advice to beware of false prophets?

Alternatively, please explain any SUCCESSFUL prophesies in the Bible and give the historical evidence that they indeed occurred and occurred AFTER the prophesies were written.

That shouldn't be too difficult, should it?  After all, you just need to give the evidence you found convincing.

Favourite Fallacies - Pascal's Blunder

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, inventor and writer.

Also known as Pascal's Gambit, Pascal's Wager is the suggestion that, because the existence of God (and by that he meant the Christian god of course) can't be determined by pure reason, a person should 'wager' that one existed. He reasoned that if it turns out (i.e. is 'discovered' after death) that there is no god, then one has lost nothing. If it turns out that there is one, then one has gained everything. So, in effect, one is betting nothing against infinity.

Apart from its abject, and frankly disgraceful, abandonment of reason, in the implicit assumption that reality can be determined by a wager, where else does Pascal's Wager fail?

Well, as many people have pointed out, and as many apologists for other gods have shown, Pascal's Wager can be just as easily used for ANY deity, whether actually believe by anyone or merely hypothetical, whose supporters claim promises eternal life to believers and eternal suffering for non-believers. Indeed, it is frequently used for the Abrahamic god.


But apart from that damaging error, there are several unstated and fatal assumptions in Pascal's Wager which show that it only 'works' if you assume a priori the following:

1. There is an after-life - requiring a priori belief in the existence of a god and a soul.
2. The Abrahamic belief in Heaven and Hell is valid - requiring a priori belief in the existence of the Abrahamic god.
3. That the Abrahamic god is the only god, requiring a priori belief in the existence of the Abrahamic god.

What if we exclude these assumptions?

1. The wager fails since there is no difference in outcome no matter which we opt to bet on.
2. The wager fails because what happens, even if there is an after-life, may not depend on which option you bet on.
3. The wager fails because you will have almost certainly lost everything by opting to believe in the wrong god. With an infinite array of all possible gods being bet against just one, the bet to believe becomes indistinguishable from the bet not to belive.

So, without these a priori assumptions, where does that leave Pascal's Wager? It leaves it as a gamble in which you opt either to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, independence of thought and action and responsibility for your own beliefs and actions, against a life of freedom, personal integrity, self-reliance and personal responsibility.

You surrender freedom and self-respect in favour of abject, cringing, voluntary slavery.

And what benign, benevolent, loving god could respect a person who did that?

And this is the final nail in the coffin of Pascal's Wager: as any god with an IQ above that of a cucumber should be able to work out, it assumes the god it purports to promote is too stupid to notice that it's 'believers' don't have any real reason to believe in it but are just pretending to believe in case it's true.

In fact, Pascal's Wager, far from being the trump card many apologists like to keep up their sleeve for when they look like losing, actually shows what poor, tenuous things religious faiths, especially the Abrahamic faiths, are that they need to depend on such weak and hypocritical fallacies and implied threats to maintain themselves.

Pascal's Wager is an attempt to fool an omniscient god.

Or is it an attempt to fool a gullible people by those who know they're pushing a lie?

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Fooling The People All Of The Time

Surely you've heard the story of the Emperor's new clothes, haven't you? Well, skip the next few paragraphs if you have then.

A conman went to the Emperor and told him he could make him a suit of clothes so fine, with such minute stitching, that only the most discerning; the most refined of people could see them in all their finery. He showed the Emperor an empty package which he said contained a sample of his handiwork. The Emperor, not wanting to appear coarse and unrefined, agreed that the sample was indeed the finest work he had ever seen, and ordered the conman to make him a full suit and to spare no expense. He would show the courtiers and nobility in his empire how refined he was. No one would doubt his refinement ever again. Not that they ever had, mind you.

The conman went away and dutifully delivered an empty package, and a very large bill, a few days later. The Emperor called all his courtiers together to see him in his new clothes after telling them they would only see them if they could appreciate their true finery. Not wanting to appear coarse and uncouth either, they all agreed that the clothes were the finest and most beautiful they had ever seen and complimented the Emperor on his good taste and discerning character.

It was agreed that they would hold a parade in the town so the Emperor could impress the townsfolk with his refinement and great taste in clothes. All the citizens were told the story of the new clothes and how only the most intelligent; the most refined of people could appreciate their wondrous beauty and the great skill of the tailor.

All that is apart from a young boy.

Yep. You've guessed it. The young boy noticed that the Emperor was starkers and said so.

He had scarcely got out the words, "Is that a ferret, Dad?" when a hand was clamped over his mouth and he was rounded on by all the townspeople and accused of blasphemy; of being possessed by evil demons who had blinded him to the truth, and the Emperor rode on and the people all went home, none of them daring to mention that they hadn't actually seen any clothes either in case they were treated like the little boy. Some of them even believed they may really be possessed by demons or had something wrong with them.

This is called peer pressure.

Patriot Bible University, Colorado, USA

The conman? Oh, he got away with it and set up a tailor's shop in the town and became very rich pulling the same trick time after time and even being admired for his great skill at tailoring. Later he set up a college to teach Tailor studies from which you could buy degrees in Tailoring. Graduate conmen went to other towns and countries and set up shops everywhere. Pretty soon you could see lots of people proudly showing off their new clothes and still no one had the courage to admit they couldn't see them because they thought they must have the wrong faith in tailoring.

Have you noticed how religious theologians come up with all manner of obscure philosophical arguments and tell us only the most intelligent; the most discerning; those possessed of the necessary refinements and understanding can see the obvious logic in them?

The Emperor's new tailor.

Have you noticed how few people have the courage to stand up and say, "Er... well... actually, that didn't make any sense at all", and so how everyone is left thinking they may be the only ones who can't understand the argument and that they may be the ones with the problem? And of course, those who haven't followed the argument at all will often be loudest in their praise of it, hoping to convince others that they have understood it.

Go to a meeting addressed by William Lane Craig or any of the many religious apologists currently plying their trade to appreciative audiences across the world for very large sums of money. Or just go to a church on a Sunday and watch the audience enthusiastically agreeing with the preacher, making large donations and never raising a voice in doubt.

This is called peer pressure.

Conforming with peer-pressure it's the most important human characteristic which theologians and other religious conmen and snake-oil salesmen exploit.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Christian Logic. No! Really!

Believe it or not, this is a theological argument used by the Christian apologist, Norman Geisler. I have taken it from "Why I became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity" by John W. Loftus.

Supposedly, each step leads inexorably to the next in a 'logical' progression towards a therefore irrefutable conclusion:

1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. Opposites cannot both be true.
3. The theistic God exists.
4. Miracles are possible.
5. Miracles performed in connection with a truth claim are acts of God to confirm the truth of Gods through a messenger of God.
6. The New Testament documents are reliable.
7. As Witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus' claim do divinity was proven by a unique convergence of miracles.
9. Therefore, Jesus was God in human flesh.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) affirmed as truth, is true.
11. Jesus affirmed that the Bible is the word of God and whatever is opposed to any biblical truth is false.

Can anyone discern a logical progression leading inexorably and irrefutably to the conclusion here? Apart from maybe the first two points, is there anything which is more than just an assertion or a statement of faith, with no connection with the preceding statement?

Let's see if it works with some other proposition. Let's see if we can use this method to 'prove' that the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky.

1. Truth about Whisky is knowable.
2. Opposites cannot both be true.
3. The Pacific Ocean is compose of Scotch Whisky.
4. Scotch Whisky is possible.
5. Scotch Whisky made in connection with the claim that the Pacific Ocean is made of Scotch Whisky is an act of people who distil Scotch Whisky to confirm the truth of the claim.
6. This blog is reliable.
7. As witnessed in this blog, the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky.
8. The claim that the Pacific Ocean is made of Scotch Whisky has been proven by the miracle of sea water turning into Scotch Whisky in the Pacific Ocean.
9. Therefore the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky.
10. Whatever is affirmed in this blog is true.
11. This blog affirms that the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky and whatever opposes the truth in this blog is false.

YAYHEY! It works!

Pacific Ocean, Made of Scotch Whisky

So, using Christian 'logic', we have 'proved' beyond any possible shadow of doubt that the Pacific Ocean is composed of Scotch Whisky. And, anything which opposes that, including scientific analysis, is false. So that proves it, then!

Given that devastating demonstration of the wondrous power of this theological reasoning, how can anyone now seriously doubt the existence of the Christian god and the truth of the Bible?

Well, that, folks, is the standard of 'logic' which convinces religious people and so gives them the self-confidence to dispense 'truth' to the rest of us and to pontificate on and interfere in all aspects of our lives, the education of our children, our laws and our legal system.

Or is it just the clever-sounding hogwash they use to bamboozle the people they fleece for a living and to gain a power and trust they could never earn on merit?

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

So Creationists, A Universe From Nothing?

Hardly an hour goes by without some Christian or Muslim fundamentalist posting a message on Twitter to the effect that Atheism/Evolution is the belief that nothing went bang and magically created everything, or some such infantile parody of science.

Of course, a few minutes on Google, or reading a book on Big Bang cosmology would dispel that cherished myth and I have dealt with this several times in this blog, here and here and here, so I'm not going to rehearse the science yet again.

Instead, let's look at what Christians and Muslims believe.

Um... well, strangely enough, they believe the universe was magically created out of nothing.

How odd that they believe the very thing they wrongly ridicule Atheists for believing. How odd that the infantile parody they accuse Atheists of believing is the very thing they believe themselves.

Anyone would think Creationists no more know what they believe than they know what Atheists believe.

So, Christians and Muslims, instead of showing your ignorance by being wrong about Atheism, how about showing us your knowledge by answering the following simple question:

Parenting for Christians.

Nicolas Poussin - Battle of Joshua with Amalekites

Christians! What ARE you teaching your children?

Are you REALLY telling you children to look to the god of the Bible for moral guidance?

Are you REALLY telling them to follow the example of a god who:

• Intended to destroy all life on earth save a few randomly chosen lucky ones as in the Flood story.
• Killed every firstborn Egyptian just to soften Pharaoh's 'heart' which he had deliberately hardened in the first place.
• Told Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of the Promised Land.
• Told Saul to obliterate the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3).
• Is please with anyone who dashes Babylonian babies against rocks (Psalms 137:9).
• Was going to destroy the people of Nineveh.
• Destroyed and scattered the tribes of northern Israel because he was displeased with them.
• Allowed Satan to destroy Job's family and health to win a bet.
• Will destroy all unbelievers in the lake of fire.
• Decreed that any man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath should be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36).
• Commanded that anyone who cursed his mother or father was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17).
• Ordered that witches and anyone with a differing religion were to be killed (Exodus 22:18).
• Declared that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21).
• Said that female captive in war were to be forced to be Israelite men's wives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).
• Decreed that if a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped she was to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
• Decreed that if a virgin who was not pledged to be married was raped she must marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
• Ordered Israelite men to divorce their wives if they were not themselves Israelite (Ezra 9).
• Told Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son.
• Sent his own son to confirm these laws (Matthew 5:17).
• Had his own son killed to appease himself.

Are you REALLY telling your children to follow this bloodthirsty, barbaric, vindictive, misogynistic, genocidal, psychopath who apparently believes the blood sacrifice of an innocent person can absolve other people of the wrongs they've done?

If so, just how do you expect your children to turn out? With this role model, is it remotely likely to be kind, caring and compassionate people who value all people for who they are, not what they are, what they think, where they were born or how much they own?

Wouldn't you rather teach them to be decent human beings?

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Science vs Religion - Speeding Neutrinos

You may recall back in September how a group of scientists working at CERN had appeared to show that neutrinos can travel faster than light - something which Einstein's Theory of Relativity was thought to have shown to be impossible and which has been a basic principle of physics for a century.

I wrote a short blog on the lessons we can draw from this and the approach these scientists were taking  when comparing science with religion.

It has now been reported that an attempt to validate the CERN data has not only confirmed the findings but has added support to them by analysing the results of 20 more specific neutrino events where the speed of individual neutrinos has been measured and which all support the findings by arriving at the detector some 60 nanoseconds BEFORE they should have done if travelling at the speed of light.

Now, what will we expect to see in the scientific community?  Will we see scientists looking gloomy and crestfallen, feeling their entire life has been wasted believing a lie?  Will we see creative denialism as scientists find ways to ignore the findings, including name-calling, character assassination of the CERN scientists and impugning their motives?  Will we even see them accused of heresy with demands that they be excommunicated from the scientific community?

Or will we see a buzz of excitement and lots of new hypotheses being proposed and tested as this area of science is re-examined and re-assessed and it's implications worked through into other branches of science?

Could these findings lead us closer even to the elusive 'Grand Unifying Theory' which is assumed will bring together Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which currently don't quite join up. One thing we can be sure of is that science will incorporate this new knowledge if it turns out to be fully vindicated.  It will not be ignored and dismissed as some ineffable mystery too deep for mere mortals to understand.

What do you think would happen if a bunch of theologians came up with some research findings which showed that an especially cherished religious principle, say original sin, or the existence of souls, was fundamentally wrong and the entire field of religion needed to be revised, reassessed and adjusted to take into account these new, verified, findings?

Couldn't happen, you say?

Of course it couldn't happen.  No theologians or even Creation 'scientists' are actively looking for reasons to think their fundamental principles are wrong.  Indeed, many of them have even sworn an oath never to 'discover' anything which isn't in full accord with their paymasters' religious dogma.

Religion isn't about discovering truth; it's about enforcing dogma.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Favourite Oxymorons - Religious Logic

One of the more absurd arguments for religion (in this case Christianity) I've seen today is:

"If God doesn't exist then there would be no Atheists so the existence of Atheists proves God exists".

No. Honestly!

By the same 'logic' if football didn't exist there would be no such thing as not playing football. Therefore it follows everyone would be playing football... if there was no such thing as football!

Yes, folks. People who think that makes any sense can readily fall for religions.

Let's see if we can get away with telling them that if there were no such thing as Atheism, everyone would be Atheist. We may even be able to get them to campaign for more Atheism so there would be fewer Atheists.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

And Let Them Have Dominion... Again

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (KJV Bible)

Photograph Kim Cheung/AP

Seized rhino horns in Hong Kong

Customs officers seized a total of 33 unmanifested rhino horns, 758 ivory chopsticks and 127 ivory bracelets, worth about HK$17m ($2.23m), inside a container shipped from Cape Town, South Africa

Source: The week in wildlife – in pictures (Guardian)

The Evolutionary Tree of Life | Unreasonable Faith

A stunning diagram of life on earth tracing all species back to their common origin

The Evolutionary Tree of Life | Unreasonable Faith:

'via Blog this'

Posted on Unreasonable Faith by Daniel Florien.

Imagine - New Hampshirite Liberation Organization

Just imagine.

Imagine a tribe of Native Americans who previously lived in New Hampshire, the Abenaki for example, had as part of their traditional origin myths a story of how what we now call New Hampshire had been granted to them for ever by one of their gods some 4000 years ago. This belief was central to their sense of identity, to their very idea of nationhood and ownership of this part of North America.

Imagine now that history had turned out differently; that this tribe's land had been occupied by other people with superior technology and that they had been scattered across the world to be a minority people in other nations, but always staying loyal to the tribal myth of rightful ownership of New Hampshire; indeed, clinging to this myth was the one thing which kept them together as a people but always a minority wherever they settled.

Meanwhile, back in New Hampshire history moved on and new people arrived, set up home and developed a new state; the state we now call New Hampshire. These people who called themselves New Hapshirites had built homes, created towns and farms, and set up industries and prospered. They had their own religion and knew little and cared less for the old religions of people who used to live there. These people were justifiably proud of the state they had created and were determine to defend it at all costs and to keep the freedoms they had won for themselves.

Roll on a couple of thousand years to a time when the displaced, dispossessed people had lived through periods of repression and persecution and of determined attempts to wipe them out entirely in genocides and pogroms and denials of basic civil liberties. Now they were enjoying a revival in more enlightened times and earning a new respect as progressive bankers, scientists, artists, craftsmen and lawyers and had become influential within the ruling class of a new world powers; a world power that had found itself to be the political and military power in New Hampshire, to the general irritation of the New Hampshirites.

Imagine if this new power had been persuaded that the original people of New Hampshire had a case; that they had a right to live in their former homeland of New Hampshire; that there was actually something in their claim to be the rightful owners because their god had said so several thousand years earlier.

And this new power allowed them to flood into New Hampshire under their protection until they were strong enough and powerful enough to launch a bid for independence; a bid for independence which included expelling the New Hampshirites from their homes; from the towns, villages and farms, and herding them into refugee camps to be treated as lesser people whose land could be taken at will and a people now subjected to the strange laws and customs of these invaders.

Now, imagine the New Hampshirites are trying to gain their state back; to return to live in their former homes, and are engaged in a guerilla war with the occupiers.

Whose side would you be on? Would the New Hampshirite Liberation Organization be terrorists or freedom fighters?

Would the traditional legend of a Native American tribe be a good enough reason to ignore the basic human rights of New Hampshirites?

---

The Probability Of Being

What was the probability of you existing at all?

For it to happen, for as many generations are their have been human generations, and for as many generations as there has been life, every single one of your ancestors needed to meet exactly the right mate at exactly the right time and to produce one of your ancestors with exactly the right combination of genes. In each generation the right sperm needed to fertilise the right ovum.

And if any one of these had been different, you would not exist.

So how to calculate the probability of you existing? Don't bother to do the math; the result is so small that it would have more zeros after the decimal point than there are elementary particles in the universe.

And yet you exist.

Isn't this evidence of a controlling force; some intelligence running things? How can something so hugely improbable happen at all? Well no. That view only makes any sense if you assume the purpose of everything was to produce you.

Favourite Fallacies - The Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument was invented by Anselm, an 10th century Archbishop of Canterbury who was later made a saint. Anselm 'reasoned' that you can conceive of a perfect god and an essential element of perfection is existence, so a god must exist.

Er... and that's it.

No. Really!

Of course, it went without question that the only perfect god was the Judeo-Christian one, so the Ontological Argument could only be an argument for the Judeo-Christian god, and no other.

Anselm has been féted through the centuries by Christian apologists for this 'proof' of their god. You still see and hear them trotting out this 'killer proof' at regular intervals and then sitting back in smug contentment as their opponent struggles. What they don't seem to grasp though is that the thing their opponent is struggling with is to understand just how they imagine they've proved anything with it.

And of course, there is always the blissful ignorance, feigned or genuine, that, if it were true, it would apply to any god which would be conditioned on the cultural ideas of perfection being used, one of which might even be non-existence.

So, if you're tempted to believe there might be something in this argument, put it to the test. Go to your window and 'conceive of' (i.e. think about) a perfect car outside.

Did one appear?

Maybe it takes a day or two to work, so if you want to wait a while and check later, please feel free...

Well, okay! Let's put these practical considerations to one side and enter the fantasy world of philosophers and religious apologists for a moment. Let's play with the Ontological Argument to see what we can do with it.

Try conceiving of any perfect thing you like, no matter how ludicrous. Does it exist? According to the Ontological Argument it must do. All you need is to conceive of something and it shall be yours...

I can conceive of a perfect universe. To me, a perfect universe is one where everything about it is amenable to reason; one in which, given the right tools, the right technology and the right understanding, everything can be understood in materialist terms. A perfect universe to me is fully understandable without the need for supernatural explanations. A perfect universe is one in which there is no need for gods or mysteries. A perfect universe is a god-free universe. Exactly like the one we live in, in fact.

According to Anselm of Canterbury, such a universe must exist.

Oops! St Anselm has now proven there is no god.

So, how can Christianity's favourite 'proof' of god prove gods don't exist? How can the same logic lead to two mutually exclusive conclusions?

Because, by simple logic, using a simple mind experiment, we've now proved the Ontological Argument to be the nonsense it always was. The Ontological Argument is like a conjuring trick where even the rabbit is imaginary, or, to put it another way, The Emperor's New Clothes. Who in their right mind was going to put their hand up and say, "Er... rihthámsócn, úre Ár, ðu bist gemaðel sceallan!" ("Er... actually, your Grace, you are talking bollocks!", as a 10th century Englishman would have said it). And who would have listened to them before they went to the stake?

Anselm's Ontological Argument is nothing more than our old friend, anthropocentric arrogance. It's nothing more than the idiotically arrogant argument that a god must exist because I believe it does; that somehow human imagination controls reality in an obedient universe which exists merely to serve the needs of humanity, so 'faith' is enough.

And that of course was exactly the universe which Anselm imagined he lived in and why he and others who shared his arrogant ignorance found his argument so convincing.

I wonder why modern theologians have never managed to update their view of the universe from that of a 10th century cleric who thought the earth was flat, the centre of it all, and all made especially for him.

---

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.