Anonymous Prayer

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on September 16, 2009 by Anthony Pham

Anonymous;

Hallowed be your name;

Your Legion come;

Your Will be done;

in earth as it is in *Mind*.

Give us this day our daily Freedom.

You do not forgive;

You do not forget.

And lead us not into temptation;

but deliver us from Ignorance.

For yours is the People,

the Power, and the Glory,

for ever and ever.

Expect us.

—————————————————————————————————

P.S.  Why did Christians use “thy” and “thine” for their deity?  Is that not disrespectful?  A Lord is usually addressed with the V pronoun, not the T.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thou

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord’s_Prayer

WordPress does not autoformat urls wut

Advertisements

Debunking Accomodationism: Francis Collins UC Berkeley 08

Posted in Accomodationism on July 29, 2009 by Anthony Pham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

[posted] 3:55 “Collins was home-schooled on a farm” That explains alot actually. I hope he recovers from his indoctrination soon.

5:00 “Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007” 2007–>awarded by President G.W. Bush. This is not a credential I would want on my record.

10:30 and yet we have machines that can read it in far less time. Astonishment is relative Francis.  Just because something has big numbers doesn’t make it impossible, as you yourself should know.

12:00 “exactly 50 years” Pareidolia. There is nothing particularly interesting about the number fifty.

[posted]21:30 Why can’t you just say “I’ve lived a good life, treated my fellow Man with kindness, and feel secure in the fact that my descendants will likely live a life several times more affluent and fulfilling as my own”?

32:40 “you cannot say this is just a coincidence” well it is. “It is too unimaginably unlikely to be just a coincidence” I am sorry that your imagination fails you in this quite abstract realm far removed from humanity’s daily life, but reality does not depend on your feeble opinions to be true.

33:00 “or you have to say they were set on purpose” by whom?  And who created this entity that gave purpose to your universe? And if this entity does not need a purpose than why should we not assume that the universe does not have a purpose.  On a side note, the infinite universes paradox is a strawman, because we cannot assume that other realms of existence are 1) relevant to our own existence 2) remotely similar to our own immediate environment.

33:05 “which of these requires more faith” Yours.  I am truly sorry that you grew up in an environment that may have led you to believing that an omnipotent being can be assumed to exist without evidence.

  • The Moral Law

33:40  Moral Lawfulness is in direct contradiction with zoological evolutionary biology .  Therefore I would seriously question whether you could really be called a biologist.

33:50 “Universal Human behavior” This would only indicate that all humans appear to be biologically similar to some extent.

35:00 “What about Radical Altruism”  This argument is logically identical to the Creationist argument over Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution.  You must remember, Francis, that basic Evolutionary reasoning is the observation of trends.  Therefore variation abounds.  How you cannot see something as trivial as the actions of Oscar Schindler as within normal variation is puzzling to a fellow biological expert.

35:30 “We find this the most noble of actions that a human being can take” Because there is no genetic/chemical/cultural advantage to saving large quantities of lives.

35:30 “Mother Theresa” Refer to Christopher Hitchens.

36:08 “where does that come from?” chemical evolution. Now GTFO.

36:25 “[questions that can make an atheist] really wonder, ‘what’s going on here?’”  Please do not generalize and assume that every atheist displays as much a lack of intelligence as you do.

36:30 “[Moral law] does seem to be perhaps a sign post”  You mean like the illusion that Life was designed?

37:00 “ call to be good and holy”  Good…yeah I can agree with that….HOLY?  What does that even mean?  It’s a rather rhetorical and platitudinous word that has no relevance in a rational discussion (e.i. a discussion that does not assume things based off of unobservable evidence and unverifiable statements).

38:00 [man saves pursuer from freezing to death] this can all be explained in much better terms with a game theoretical analysis and rationality.

38:30 “[gets executed]”  OK so I assume this kind of behavior is a sustainable action since all those who are executed for generosity produce successful offspring amirite? Basic tit for tat reasoning is all you need.  The prison guard did not recognize the generosity and thus will be less likely to receive that kind of assistance in the future.  I am sure that rumors spread throughout the prison facility about the events that took place and any escapee would take these events into consideration if they were fleeing from guards in the future.

38:35 “[admire his idealism]”  And I see you following his example Francis. I really do.

39:30 “in my mid 20’s”  Than you weren’t an atheist for very long were you?

40:00 “Jesus Christ, who not only claimed to know God, but to be God.”  And if I told you I was the one and only true God, would you believe me?

41:15 “Unable in any way to communicate with that God” Maybe because he does not exist?  Just putting it out there.

41:45 “suddenly became the solution to a profound personal problem.”  DO NOT BURDEN SCIENCE WITH YOUR PERSONAL ISSUES IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO USE SCIENTIFIC REASONING TO SOLVE THEM.

46:37 “[Creation] would still give you the same pattern.”  No engineer would ever use such a flawed mechanism for designing anything useful.  Also you have to provide a reason as to why this idea that it was created is useful if the exact same thing can be demonstrated without a creator.

52:40 “Dawkins, in very strong language, ridicules religion”  Lier.  The God Delusion does not ridicule religion with overzealous hostility.  Did you actually read the book?

53:15 “Universal Negative” *Universal neutrality.

53:18 “ With all of these pointers pointing to God”  None of them point to god.  They point to natural causes.

53:50 “How you could exclude something outside of nature”  Because anything outside of “nature” is irrelevant to human interests and does not, by definition, affect our universe in any way.

54:20 “Well that’s the god I’m talking about” you forgot to mention the retort that such an intelligent being would have to evolve via the same natural processes as did life on earth.

54:30 “ I don’t recognize the kind of faith that Richard Dawkins talks about” Arms raceà infinite regress.  Your faith is fundamentally the same because it requires the belief in something without evidence.

55:00 “Most people are agnostics because they don’t want to think about it”  And they have every right to not have to think about something without positive evidence.

57:00 “reaction”  It has been a reaction only because science had finally reached a point where it could actually prove with positive and accurate evidence that the charlatans running the society were wrong.

58:00 [saint Augustine]  This is assuming there is any grain of truth within the bible whatsoever.  Which there is not; the bible is a piece of quite mediocre fiction.

1:04:40 “[Intelligent Design] is a God-of-the-gaps theory”  And all of your arguments for the existence of god are also very very minor god-of-the-gaps theories.

1:05:00 [Theistic Evolution] Occam’s Razor zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

1:06:10 “Free will, which is not an illusion”  Your definition of Free Will is most certainly an illusion. Soz

1:06:15 (I am just wondering as you are talking; how exactly are you substantiating any of these assertions? Positive evidence much needed).

1:06:30 “That’s it. That is a simple way”  Yes very simple. And also not substantiated with physical evidence; nor relevant to life.

1:07:10 “[With the evolutionary prespective] Then there is no such thing as right or wrong”  No, this does not mean that there is no right or wrong, it just means that there are certain things that are better than others and have differing values to our existence.  Your failure to understand your own morality in an evolutionary perspective does not prove or even suggest the existence of your god.  The only thing this achieves is demonstrating your ignorance.  There is such a thing as morality in the context of our evolved interests.

1:07:25 “Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”  This world view is not held actually held by anyone relevant to the discussion, and is something you made up yourself without considering more complex possibitities.

1:07:30  “If what Richard Dawkins says is true, then there is no such thing as evil”  Classic example of a Strawman argument.  First you set the premise that Dawkins does not believe anything is “evil” or “good”, and then you go on to imply that atheism is immoral in its very nature. None of these are actually true.  Dawkins can speak for himself, and obviously has a sense of moral obligation, and can legitimately criticize religion as being EVIL.

1:07:38  “We have all been talked into something and we should rise above it”  Talked into what?  Religion? Than yes we should definitely rise above unquestioning Faith.

1:07:40 “I think this is a profound consequence of the atheistic world view” a profound consequence  of a world view that is not actually held by anyone.  Profound indeed.

1:08:33 “I  like how this makes everything fall together”  What you like is fairly irrelevant to the realities of the universe.

1:08:40 “God’s language”  Pareidolia.  The DNA sequences can exist perfectly well without postulating a supreme being.

1:09:55— God. Of. The. Gaps.

1:10:30—There is no “choice” between anything.  There is only the ability to seek the truth and the ability to deny the truth.

Jerry Coyne’s blag on Francis Colloid: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/francis-collins-pollutes-science-with-religion/

P.Z. Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/monday_must_be_pick_on_francis.php

Biologists are Servants of the Devil

Posted in Uncategorized on May 9, 2009 by Anthony Pham

Proof!

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

Biolojee is EVIL!