The Atheist Blogger

I help run a general atheist forum which has recently been increasing in activity. The topic of Evolution comes up now and then, and the creationists always bring up all the misconceptions again and again. Sometimes you wish you had an hour or so to write an massively long response to them, citing all their mistakes, providing lots of evidence, and backing it all up with research. This rarely happens since it takes far too much effort for simple online forums, and often people are left simply pointing out simple mistakes and telling the creationists to “go do some proper research”.

When it does happen however, it completely blows everyone away.

The member, solidsquid, a self proclaimed “Dioist“, wrote an epic post complete with images, research, links, and references. It must have taken ages to put together, and I applaud him for his efforts. The question is, will any creationists actually read it?

Ray Comfort tried very hard to show that atheists are unreasonable but inadvertently highlighted the same method Creationists use to try and disprove Evolution. Ray claimed that atheists simply do not like the idea of Hell and therefore do not believe in it. He then goes on to say that we use this kind of logic on God as well. We (apparently) don’t like the idea of God and so choose not to believe in it.

You could carry this further if you didn’t like gravity, history, the wind or love. Those things can’t be seen, and therefore wouldn’t exist if you didn’t believe in them either. Anything that you don’t like will not exist if you just say that you don’t believe in it.

Before I continue it should be stated quite clearly that the reason atheists do not believe in God or Hell has nothing to do with not liking either. In fact, my disbelief in Hell came as a direct consequence of my disbelief in God. I do not believe in God for multiple reasons, none of which are simply because I “don’t like the idea”.

Secondly, whilst Ray is quite correct that gravity, history, wind, and love cannot be seen (although given his past allusions about sight I have no idea how he came to this correct conclusion), he fails to mention that such things can be observed and tested based on their interactions with the rest of the universe. History is the one exception because it is simply the human expression for what has happened in the past, but this can too be observed by its affect on the present.

What is really striking is Ray’s last sentence. Anything that you don’t like will not exist if you just say that you don’t believe in it. Ray reckons this is exactly how atheists live their life. I wasn’t too concerned with his ridiculous argument though. I was more wrapped up in the obvious irony of such a statement.

As a Creationist, Ray Comfort subscribes to the same idiotic idea that he is trying to oppose above. Namely, that they do not like Evolution (it goes against the Bible) so they say they don’t believe it in, and they reckon that is a good enough argument to refute it. They don’t look at the evidence, and simply use the same arguments over and over, even though they have been refuted so many times by science.

The subject of existence, belief, and reality can be summed up very easily.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. ~ Philip K. Dick

This is a general response to the “Debunking Atheists” blog post entitled “Evolution is a fraud!“. As with all posts made by Creationists, it contains a gross misunderstanding of basic Evolutionary theory, and whilst I’m no Evolutionary Biologist, I know the basics enough to correct Dan on it.

From the article:

1. It’s not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

WRONG. It certainly is science, and it has been observed^[1] and is being experimented on^[2] as we speak. In fact, Richard Lenskis experiment^[3] has frozen instances of E-coli every 500 generations, meaning he can replay the Evolution of past generations to see if the same things happen. If anything, the “ever-changing ideas” prove it is a science. since science is always updated with new evidence coming in. Evolutionary theory has changed much since the days of Darwin, but the core observation that species have evolved has remained and is unchallenged (successfully) to this day. If you really think ever-changing ideas cannot be science, then the theory of gravity is not a science, neither is our understanding of particle physics, or any chemistry subject. We can never really know everything about any subject since the infinite variations we could test under are just too many.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don’t have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

WRONG. Firstly it should be pointed out that Evolution is a part of biology, so you are contradicting yourself by saying that biology is a real science and Evolution is not. As I have explained in the previous paragraph, Evolution is a real science and if you actually looked for the evidence you would find it. There are no so-called “problems of legitimacy” in Evolution. Everything we can explain has been explained, and if something comes along that isn’t compatible with current Evolutionary theory, the reason will be found and the theory changed to fit the evidence. Likewise, if evidence is found that contradicts Evolution and can be proved, Evolution would be finished. Unfortunately, this would leave us stuck because we would have to explain all the evidence we currently have for Evolution and change / variation using another theory. No current alternatives have even come close.

Read the rest of this entry »

It seems that the Creationist organisation Discovery Institute is attacking Richard Dawkins over his involvement in the Louisiana “academic freedom bill” which allows teachers to discuss theories that oppose Evolution. Simply put, it is allowing Intelligent Design into the classrooms.

The Discovery Institute reported that Barbara Forrest, leader of LA Coalition for Science has written an article on the Richard Dawkins website, pleading people to contact the Louisiana Governor and stop this bill being passed. The Institute rather snobbishly remarked:

Newsflash for Richard, we’re not a British colony anymore.

Well pointed out, but of course they forget that Richard Dawkins runs The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, a charity registered in both the UK and the USA. They also seemed to overlook the fact that his website isn’t tied to any specific country and as such has a large majority of American visitors. Forgetting as well that the article in question wasn’t even written by Dawkins but by a citizen of the United States, and their accusation that Richard Dawkins is somehow trying to “dictate education policy” to the U.S falls completely apart.

Read the rest of this entry »

A copy of Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” fell off my shelf today, and opened on page 83 which contains a rather humorous “proof” of the non existence of God based on the qualities of a creator. It was written by Douglas Gasking, and is really a joke / parody of similar theist arguments FOR God. However I think it is a perfect example of how atheists view the beauty of the world without resorting to any form of god.

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because and even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

   Ergo:

7. God does not exist.

Now perhaps theists can understand our stance on the beauty and complex nature of the world we live in. Sure, they have a God who made it all, but we believe that all this beauty and complexity came into being without a designer, which makes it all the more wondrous and inspiring.

Our non-existent “creator” is way better than yours…