The Atheist Blogger

This month’s book club discussion will take place tomorrow (Sunday 27th July) at Midnight UTC+1. For people who want to figure out what time that is where you live, use the handy world clock. UTC+1 corresponds to the current time of London on the site, so simply work out the differences with your nearest city.

As always, use our guide to the IRC server to get connected to the chat, and I hope to see some of you there!

John Barrowman, the popular Scottish-American actor from Doctor Who, Torchwood, and various TV Quiz shows has tried to figure out why he is gay. The BBC filmed a documentary about his journey back to America where he visits various scientific institutes trying to prove that homosexuality is something you are born with, not a lifestyle choice.

Barrowmans journey, which is available on the BBC iplayer (non-UK residents may have to use a proxy to view it) first goes to Chicagos Northwestern University, where he went through a Penile plethysmograph, and also a FMRI. Both tests conclusively came up with a “gay” verdict.

He then visited his parents to question them about his growing up and whether there was any influence in his childhood that could have caused his homosexuality. Ranging from playing with dolls to having a best friend who was a girl, to dressing up in a bikini for a fancy dress competition, Johns childhood was anything but normal for a boy.

However, John travels back to Chicago to meet an expert in early childhood behaviour. The expert looks at various videos of children from their childhood, and compares their actions with their sexual orientation today. One film is of a young girl playing with a toy truck, smashing it off a table, and generally breaking things. Another shows a boy who has dressed up and is dancing. Both children grew up and are openly homosexual today. The studies show that 75% of boys who exhibit female behaviour traits whilst very young tend to be homosexual.

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

Comedy website Something Awful have a load of photoshopped reverse magazines that PZ Myers pointed out. A “reverse magazine” is the process of taking a well known magazine (New Scientist etc) and rewording the title / front cover so it covers exactly the opposite of what it should. There are quite a few religion / belief based ones which I found amusing.

1. New Scientist to Old Scientist, with the great science behind Flat Earth. Alas the last gathering of online Flat Earthers (or FE’rs as they liked to be called) have abandoned ship, but their website and forums can still be viewed in the Wayback Machine.

Read the rest of this entry »

A couple of days ago, DisComforting Ignorance started a 7 part debunk of the Living Waters “Atheist Test“. The test is a rather silly way of converting atheists into theists. It uses quite a few irrational arguments, including the “buildings have a builder” argument, and of course the standard “banana argument“. It was this banana argument that DisComforting Ignorance addressed in the first part.

The article did the standard debunk of the banana, and added what he supposed was the “theists nightmare”

The coconut — the theist’s nightmare.

Although the meat and water is pleasing to our taste buds, note that the coconut:

1. Is not shaped for human hand
2. When it has ripened, it doesn’t detach for a few months, at which point the coconut water has become bitter. If you want coconut water, you have to get it while it’s still unripened.
3. When it detaches, it falls from tall palms, injuring people.
4. Has no tab for removal of wrapper
5. Has no perforation on wrapper.
6. You have to whack it many times about its circumference with a tool.
7. It is not shaped for human mouth
8. Has no point at top for ease of entry
9. Removing the meat from the shell is a laborious process, even with a tool.
10. Is not curved towards the face to make eating process easy

I posted a comment saying that the coconut does fit nicely in the human hand, and that atheist author Nick Gisburne had already suggested the Pineapple as the theists nightmare. The full video is below:

Read the rest of this entry »