Atheism is not a Worldview!

I made another video, this time discussing one of the most idiotic theistic misconceptions about atheism.

Chewing Gum is Disgusting

It’s not often that I write rants (of sorts) but this is one of those things that makes me lose faith in humanity. No, even worse than that, it makes me ashamed to be a part of the human race. In my opinion this is one of the most detrimental inventions to the progress of civilised culture and etiquette. Humanity would be much better off if we abandoned this unnecessary glob.
I’m talking about chewing gum, the thing you masticate with that doesn’t provide any nutrition, doesn’t break down easily and is actually banned in a few cities. What purpose does it serve? To satisfy compulsive fidgeters? To clog drainage systems? To make an obscene mess on any surface it comes into contact with? It is one of the most useless items that is sold on the shelves of our stores.

Why am I writing this post? I’ll tell you why, today I stood on a piece of gum that was on the ground, that wasn’t even 2 metres from a rubbish bin! What kind of inconsiderate, uncultured, uncivilised buffoon would do such a thing? Did the thought even cross their pathetic little mind to place their disgusting oral faeces into a place where it couldn’t cause this kind of response? They are probably the kind of person who doesn’t bother to place ordinary rubbish in the bin, perhaps they even go to the effort to place wrappers down storm water drains, spit on the sidewalk, piss on the seat, talk on the phone in the library, and in general are just a poster-child for abortion.
We do not need chewing gum, in fact, the world would be a much more pleasant place if every country adopted Singapore’s policy on the matter. Chewing gum is illegal there, and possession of it will reward you with a hefty fine. In Singapore, you don’t have to worry about grabbing the under-side of a seat in a public place to move it forward, nor do you have to worry about your knees touching the under-side of a table for fear of getting gum on your pants. You don’t have to worry about sitting on gum, and you sure don’t have to worry about standing in it!

So far I’ve only really discussed the detriment of gum once it has been expelled from the mouth and become attached to a surface it isn’t welcome on. The actual act of chewing the gum itself is almost just as bad. When I see someone chewing gum, it brings forth images of the aforementioned pestilences that the final product can bring forth, but when I HEAR someone chewing gum, with their mouth open, it boils my blood. I absolutely cannot stand that sound. I can tolerate the slurping of a hot drink, or noodles. I can tolerate burping in fact I even partake in festive burping whilst consuming carbonated beverages and beer. But I simply cannot stand the *sslurrack* (my best attempt at a phonetic rendition of the chewing sound) sound that people make when they chew gum with their mouth open.

The Infinite Regress of Gods

An infinite regress occurs when the solution to a proposition re-introduces the same problem the initial proposition had that required an answer in the first place. It can be explained by the analogy of two mirrors facing one another with an object placed in between, if you look into either one of the mirrors, there appears to be an endless number of images going back into the mirrors.

A classic example of an infinite regress is when asked the question 'Where did the universe come from?' one answers with 'a god created the universe', because then it must be asked 'who/what then created god?', and then 'who/what created the thing that created god?' ad infinitum.
Theists have been arguing for a long time that their respective gods were 'uncaused' or were 'without cause'. They use this as an attempt to avoid the infinite regress. Thomas Aquinas is one of the most prominent figures in antiquity that argued for this position, he put forward the 'Argument from Contingency', which suggests that something must exist to explain the existence of the universe. It basically comes straight back to the 'Prime Mover' or 'Uncaused Cause' of Aristotle. This argument fails before it even reaches the starting blocks, because it is not based on any evidence at all. This entire argument is just speculation about beings which have never had any evidence to even mildly verify their mere existence. How can I take an argument seriously if it seems only to be rooted in the wild imaginations of Theists?
Our knowledge about the origins of the universe is growing all the time, and with every new discovery we make, we are pointed towards the idea that nothing created the universe. But even if we were no closer to solving the problem today than we were 20 years ago, there would still be no reason to make the god assumption. The god hypothesis is stale, no evidence for the Prime Mover or Uncaused Cause has been discovered since the first incarnations of the argument, which date all the way back to Aristotle. Several millennia should have been ample time. It's time to let go of our antiquated fantasies.

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"
-Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257
See Carl Sagan himself say it in this video.

Here is a lecture given by Lawrence Krauss called 'A Universe from Nothing', which he explains some mechanisms by which the universe itself could be uncaused. Unlike the theistic speculations, these are actually based on observation, and testable science.

Growing up with Christianity

I decided to do something different, so I started a YouTube channel, and made a video.

Hope you enjoy it.

Doomsday Cults in 2011

I was walking between lectures the other day, and on the corner of Symonds and Alfred street, there was a man handing out fliers. I grabbed one, just in case there might have been some free food involved (I'm a poor student you see). My first impression of the piece of paper was "HOLY CRAP WALL OF TEXT". The title at the top is 'THE END OF THE WORLD IS ALMOST HERE! HOLY GOD WILL BRING JUDGMENT DAY ON MAY 21, 2011'. I laughed, and then put the paper in my bag to deal with later.

It is now later, and it is time to take a look at their claims. In the first paragraph, they claim that the Bible gives "correct and accurate information about [Judgment Day]". So right off the bat, I can tell that whoever set the Doomsday Date, didn't read the Bible very carefully.
What the New Testament has to say about when Judgment day comes:
Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24:36).
Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.
Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is (Mark 13:32-33).
for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.(1 Thessalonians 5:2-4)
Anyway, it shouldn't really be any surprise that delusional cultists don't even know their way around their own book, and this is evidenced well by the very next paragraph!

They claim that "in its original languages [The Bible] has never been changed, and every word in the original languages is from the mouth of God". Needless to say, this cult's leader Harold Camping does not know the original languages of the Bible, so I think I'll turn to someone who does for that information thank you.

“With the abundance of evidence, what can we say about the total number of variants known today? Scholars differ significantly in their estimates -- some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”

-Bart Ehrman

So, five sentences into the content of this poorly constructed piece of propaganda (what kind of passer-by is going to read 2 pages of solid text?) I have learned that: A) They are wholly ignorant of what the Bible actually says
B) They are genuinely deceitful and are spreading outright lies about their holy book, that anyone with an inquisitive mind will go and fact-check.
So you parasitic, gullible propaganda distributers, you're not off to a very good start in convincing me that the world actually is going to end on May 21st.

My Thoughts Exactly

The popular theologian Alister McGrath irritates me, but I've never been able to point to exactly why as well as PZ Myers did recently on Pharyngula.   

Here's what I'm talking about:

McGrath asserts that the Gnu Atheists are prisoners of "mere rationality", that we're trapped in the "dogma of the finality of reason", and even claims that we're just rehashing discredited 18th century philosophy that claims a sufficiency of logic and reason to discern the nature of the universe. It's utterly bizarre that at one point he can notice that foundation of science in reliance on empirical evidence, and then go on to complain that these Gnu Atheists, who he generally likes to accuse of scientism and overly demanding of mere evidence, are now a gang of armchair pontificators who insist on the primacy of reason alone!
It's simply not true. Gather a mob of unruly atheists to confront theologians like McGrath, and we are not chanting demands for them to expand on their logical 'proofs' for the existence of gods (those freakin' bore us), we're more likely to be chanting "evidence, evidence, evidence" and pointing out that their fantasies are built on weak to nonexistent foundations.

 He then goes on to say these two gems which sum up everything I feel about McGrath and his ilk.

McGrath reverses everything, though, and tries to argue that the scientists who constantly question their hypotheses and measure them against empirical reality are the prisoners of mere rationality, while the dogmatists who build a cage of improbable extrapolations from flawed and limited ancient texts are wandering about free. He's literally engaging in double-speak and reversal of meaning.
...
It is revealing that McGrath is willing to argue that abandoning reason is a virtue, while still failing to bring up any empirical evidence that his imaginary magical explanations actually reflect anything particularly relevant about the universe.

On top of what PZ has said about McGrath, another thing that annoys me is how he says things that I find absolutely void of any substance, yet he speaks them very eloquently. What I'm trying to say, is that he makes idiocy sound intelligent. He makes wild assertions that 'Christianity makes better sense of things', without demonstrating how it actually accomplishes this. It seems like he is only one step away from making the argument (perhaps he actually has made it without me realising) that God gives meaning to a cruel universe that would otherwise have no purpose. Needless to say, the level of comfort a belief or belief system provides its adherents has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is actually true. A father in heaven watching down on you may be comforting, while a mindless universe that is inhospitable to life might be depressing, but neither of the emotional responses to either option is any reason to believe or disbelieve them.

Fractal Wrongness

What Separates Us from Chimps? As It Turns Out, Not Much