PhotoMatt Outs Himself Saturday, Oct 7 2006 

Matt Mullenweg, founder of WordPress (the software I am using to write and publish this very post) has outed himself as a Catholic. How scandalous!

(Just to make sure, this post has my tongue firmly in cheek!)

Boy Am I Dizzy! Thursday, Aug 31 2006 

…From all the spin Agape press is putting on this, about the Bill to prevent discrimination against sexual orientation in California.

To review, class:

  • Pro-family = anti-gay
  • Religious expression = being able to discriminate if you want

This paragraph tops it off (I think; I stopped reading after it):

In signing SB 1441 into law, the governor has “trampled religious freedom to satisfy hyperactive sexual activists,” Thomasson contends. He says Schwarzenegger apparently “has two faces. He speaks at churches and says he believes in religious freedom and family values, yet he’s stabbing pro-family Californians in the back.”

On Tolerating Religion Sunday, May 7 2006 

Go over to and and read this article. Then ask yourself “Hey, should a modern 21st Century country like America tolerate irrational religious belief?”

If your answer isn’t no, perhaps you should find a country that agrees with you where you’ll feel more cormfortable. Like The Islamic Republican of Iran. We need to treat these people as what they are: irrational. If someone denies Evolution, treat them as if they were denying the Holocaust or the Kennedy Assassination. For example,

“Parents should have the choice. There are those who would say, ‘We can provide a better, healthier alternative than the vaccine, and that is to teach abstinence,’ ” Rudd said.

I take it Rudd hasn’t read this. Abstinence is not practical. Of course no amount of evidence will convince these people otherwise. Who needs evidence when you have the Bible?

I mean, after September 11th I thought America would’ve stopped pandering to religion and favouring it over no religion.

It would seem as though the exact opposite happened.

There’s Something About (the Virgin) Mary Monday, Jan 23 2006 

One thing I’ll never for the life of me understand is how when someone close to them dies they feel closer to God. I mean, if you really believe that God exists and controls everything and has a divine plan then he did that. Why didn’t God stop him from dying? Did you not pray hard enough?

Perhaps I am just not meant to understand it. Therefore I request Chris(t) J. Davis to submit and entry for the forthcoming Carnival of the Godless being held here on February 6th.

On Agnosticism Thursday, Jan 19 2006 

What do people mean when they say they are “Agnostic”? Is it a bona fide philosophical position, or just a term used to describe atheism without all the negative connotations of that word?


On “Darwinism Vs Intelligent Design” By Victoria Clark Tuesday, Jan 10 2006 

This article appeared in the Epoch Times recently, and I’m going to talk about it here. Reused without permission (it was so bad it wasn’t even worth asking).

In the last 150 years there has been no more influential theory than
Darwinism. The theory of evolution by natural selection has not just
influenced the scientific world but also, through offshoots like the
theory of Social Darwinism, affected international politics, economics
and social development across the globe.

Right off the bat we see some creationist tactics, such as calling Evolutionary Theory Darwinism and linking it to Social Darwinism. The only thing that links these two together is the notion of “survival of the fittest”, an oversimplified version of Natural Selection.

Given the influence this theory has had in our time it is not surprising that when Intelligent Design, a revised version of creationism, became popular, that we saw both scientists and politicians or social commentators jumping up and down as if they feared that the end of logic and rationality was nigh.

At least the Australians are more honest than the Americans. They admit that ID is creationism.

The question that this response should trigger is, why be so afraid of a theory in which one, or perhaps many, unknown entities aided in the development of our ecosystem, our world order, our societies and even ourselves. If we are totally secure in the correctness of Darwin’s theories then why are we now seeing a concerted campaign against those scholars who choose to utilise their scientific abilities to question evolution.

Why? Because it is plainly not science’s area. If it were, we would have to keep asking ourselves “who designed the designer?”. They are not using their scientific abilities. If they were, there would be objective evidence. Unfortunately, all they have is “If it looks designed maybe it is” and “toasters are designed. Why not humans?”.

As stated by Robert Crowther, Director of Communications for Discovery Institute’s Centre for Science and Culture on their website; “There is a disturbing trend of scientists, teachers, and students coming under attack for expressing support for the theory of intelligent design, or even just questioning evolution.” stated Mr. Crowther.

“The freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin’s theory, or to express alternative scientific hypothesis is coming under increasing attack by people that can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists,” stated Mr. Crowther.

Now, it depends on how they questioned evolution. If they questioned wether evolution actually happened, maybe they should come under attack. Come on people, it happened! Get over it! It’s a fact. Now, if they questioned how it happened, then that is slightly more understandable. How it happened is the theory of evolution (in the scientific sense, of course). THAT it happened is a fact.

So if science is the quest for knowledge and true understanding then why are we seeing, in such places as America, the discharging of Chemistry Professor Nancy Bryson from her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory to a group of honours students.

This is a problem with Nancy. No one is able to give a lecture and criticize Evolutionary Theory and still be fair. Most of the things they say are either misleading or just plain wrong. Again, she was probably fired because she question that evolution happened.

Moreover, Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota recently wrote that the only appropriate response to anyone supporting intelligent design or questioning the modern theory of evolution should be “some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and public firing and humiliation”.

He is also quoted by the Centre for Science and Culture as stating “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough.”

Ditto. I mean, if you don’t think evolution is true, one word: hantavirus.

Undoubtedly there is some sense of fear over the renewal of a different approach; some would even say a spiritual approach to life. Clearly the question that begs to be asked is why are most scientists afraid of turning their own principles on their heads and looking at things with a new light. Certainly modern genius’s like Einstein, Edison, Bell, or even Newton would never have been able to make new discoveries, additions or annotations to existing theories if they had not stepped outside of the proverbial box to look at current theories and poke at them where they looked weak.

No. None of this spiritual bullshit. If Copernicus, Bacon, and Gallileo hadn’t stepped outside their religious boundaries to see how the world really works, do you think we’d be where are now? We’d probably still think that the sun goes around the earth.

Perhaps the reason behind their reluctance is, as I mentioned in my opening paragraph, that science and all forms of social studies from anthropology, archaeology to socio-economic development are often viewed through a Darwinian mindset. Take one of evolution’s more sinister offspring, Social Darwinism, for example.

Proponents of Social Darwinism believe that as there is a struggle for existence among animals and plants which results in evolutionary change so too there is struggle among human societies and humans to make the perfect breed of human. For those who support social Darwinism, the need for progress or development means that evolutionary change should be humanly nurtured by creating an intensified prosecution of the struggle for survival which would encourage the ‘best’ out of individuals and societies.

These two paragraphs could be effectively rewritten as “EVOLUTION! IT MAKES PEOPLE KILL EACHOTHER! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!”.

The reality of Social Darwinism is however made clearer in a foreword by evolutionist Steven Jay Gould in “On the Origin of Species”, in 1859, “subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science”.

Social Darwinism’s first foray into politics was around the turn of the 19th century when German politicians and scholars utilised its concepts as a justification of Germany’s aggressive militarism. The militarist, Friederich von Bernhardi, in his book Germany and the Next War even justified the build up of military power as a “biological necessity” and that peaceful resolution was wrong mainly because it was a “presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development.” The theory was also utilised by such men as Adolf Hitler who appeared to be a fan of the Eugenics movement, which was developed by Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton. Galton argued that based upon Darwin’s theory the human race should seek to improve our genetic make-up by a selective breeding program. Included in this program was the belief that marriage and child bearing should be strictly controlled and limited to people with the right genetic make-up and by controlling how many children they were allowed.

Ditto for the above as well. This begs the question, What the fuck does have to do with evolutionary science?

The combination of social Darwinism and communism is no where more clearly seen than in the policy of the Chinese Communist Party which developed the 95:5 formula of class assignment. The formula basically argued that 95 per cent of the population would be classified as various classes that could be won over by the CCP, but five per cent should be designated as class enemies. As stated in the Nine Commentaries, “People within the 95 per cent were safe, but those within the 5 per cent were struggled against.”

This paragraph could also be rewritten as “People who believe evolution are dirty un-american commies!”

Not surprisingly Social Darwinism was re-examined in the 1970’s and 80’s and became regarded as a defunct theory of development. Yet while many of us today would not support such a theory and social Darwinism, or even Eugenics, we do openly believe that Darwin’s theory is the definitive hypothesis of how we became what we are today. As the debate over Intelligent Design continues to rage one can only ponder if it is not time for our great minds to ponder another theory which reconciles those among the scientific community that have both faith in a inspired being and the divinity of nature.

No, we don’t believe it. We know it to be true. Denying evolution is no different than denying the holocaust.

Was Augustine of Hippo a Science Hater? Saturday, Jan 7 2006 

The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell. De Genesi ad Litteram, II, xvii, 37

Mathematicians, eh? Like Billy Demski? The irony is almost delicious.

Quote Of The Year So Far Thursday, Jan 5 2006 

Note to Dawkins, the clear genius he is, science itself was borne out of religion. Hospitals started with religious groups, charities started with religious groups. I could go on, but only a handful of people on earth are ignorant enough to claim religion has done evil things to us and hasn’t contributed good.

Atheistic regimes in the 20th century killed more people than any religious reasons combined in the entire history of man- yet, he wants to kill religion because an atheistic science is best for the world?

This man is simply out of his mind.

My irony meter exploded. Again. I will elaborate on this later…ah, what’s the point. There’s just no getting through to some people.

By the way, what the fuck happened to “Thou shalt not lie”?

The Problem with Americans Thursday, Dec 22 2005 

In case you needed proof that Intelligent Design truly is creationist pseudo-science that has no scientific merit and is totally based in religion, I invite you to read this post on Uncommon Descent:

But there was no jury with Dover — only a single biased judge. This trial therefore wasn’t about ID. It was about what one judge thinks about ID. The success of ID has never depended on its success in the courtroom but always on the success of its scientific research. And it remains so.

I predict this decision will amount to very little in the long run. Why? Because ID is true. And in God’s world truth always wins out in the end. [Source]

(Emphasis Mine). Now tell me, does that sound like someone whose religious views in no way influence their scientific views? Right now is the eschaton of Intelligent Design, just like the late 1980s were for “Creation Science”.

Now I’ll admit that I read blogs that like because there is something deeply addicting about it. That is why I read blogs like The Blue Site and watch the 700 Club. It’s addicting. The aforementioned link goes to a site by some guy in Indiana who looks suprisingly Indian. He’s a typical conservative Christian creationist (the 3 C’s); the kind of guy who hates Michael Newdow and Evolution and all those evil secularist thingies; who even thinks that police should shoot every criminal in a car chase (read the “Rants” and “Essays” part of his site).

In short, an extremist. An example of what is wrong with Americans. They’re unwilling to admit that they might be wrong; unwilling to say, “Gee, maybe using a secular government to force schoolchildren to pray to the Christian God is wrong”, or “maybe evolutionary theory isn’t a secularist lie, seeing as how even Pope John-a Paul 2 gave it props”. They certainly won’t consider “Maybe Hitler was was so hellbent against Jews because he was taught that the Jews killed his Lord”.

People don’t need “open” minds. They need “free” minds. Free-thinking Minds.

Catholic to Atheist in 2.5 Months Friday, Oct 28 2005 

Here is my Carnival of the Godless submission:

I was born an atheist, and I’ll day an atheist. But you see, 23 days after I was born, I entered the ethereal realms of Catholicism. Born on the 4th, baptised on the 27th. So I spent 14 years of my life as a Catholic.

My mother was a catholic from Northern Ireland (yes, they *do* exist). My father grew up somewhat Catholic but became “born-again” sometime in his life.

So basically I grew up as Catholic as one can. Went to catholic school, church every sunday. I never really questioned God or JC.

That is, until one October (or maybe it was early November) night last year. I randomly googled ‘boy scouts evil’. I wound up at, wherein the author talked about the boy scouts discriminating against atheists. Then it hit me: people who called themselves Christians, like I did myself, were total assholes.

After that I got into thinking. Previously, I had always thought of atheists as a bunch of silly grumpy stuck-up idiots. Now, I saw that they could be good people. I became a “sensible Christian”; that is, a christian who sides with atheists in regards to social issues
(Separation of Church and State, abortion*, etc).

I kept seeing more examples of Christians being assholes. Kids being expelled for being gay, 10 Commandments in Government, “Intelligent Design”. My faith was fading fast. Around January 25th, 2005, I finally said to myself “adults shouldn’t believe in fairy tales”. I was an atheist. Just like that. And you know what? I’ve never looked back.

*Yes, I know there are some pro-choice atheists.

Next Page »