The Leap of Faith Out of Reality into Delusional Fantasy of Faith and Belief Stricken God Based Mythologies
, Dec 10th, 2008
Over at his constant diatribe against Richard Dawkins blog writer and faith based delusional Mariano produces what he calls articles against
"Atheist Richard Dawkins"
. What he achieves is simply to demonstate the depth of his faith stricken delusions in the many nothings that his religious notions deliver. A number of times I've commented on this blog and had a dialog. Here is one such dialog of note since it's clear in a number of places where Mariano, like many of his faith stricken ilk, break from their tenious grasp on objective reality and dive head first into the deep end of their delusional fantasies.
"You made the positive affirmation that "Dead bodies don't rise from the dead" -- please provide evidence for your assertion. Merely asserting a "faith" based atheist dogma that a mere assertion "is proof" is very far from evidential demonstrations." - Mariano
You've got to be kidding right? It's basic biology. You really are far gone if you don't get this crucial point. Oh, right your mythology REQUIRES you to ignore the facts of life. It's the test of how controllable and gullable you are by those in control of you with religion. It's how they know you can be manipulated for their own gain. Or you're just delusional on your own. Take your pick. See [detailed] explaination [in the full article]. There is no faith in this fact of life. Ask any biologist. Test it yourself. Take a chicken or turkey that is alive and have it killed in front of you. Take it home. Put it into a bucket and leave it on the floor of your kitchen for two weeks with a video camera pointed at it to record how biological systems decay. Now that is what happens to you, only more so since human bodies are bigger than chickes and turkeys but not very different from the biological perspective. We are made of the same stuff and many of the same genes!
Full article thread
The "Magic Gravity Elves" Theory Of Gravity
, Dec 27th, 2004
I Think We Should Teach The "Magic Gravity Elves" Theory Alongside The Theory Of Gravity
is an excellent article. It takes Mark Landsbaum and his article, "Darwinism fails true tests", to task for glaring mistakes in critical thinking, not that Mark's
article has any in it.
Things are scientific or they aren't.
There is no sliding scale of "more scientific" or "less scientific".
[Intelligent Design] ID is not scientific. Evolutionary biology is scientific.
It is also not called "Darwinian Evolution" except by creationist godwhacks like Mark.
Darwin was undeniably the father of the science of evolutionary biology, but his
theory is not the only theory out there and it's about 150 years out of date.
Another thing; Only creationists say things like "unproven theory".
Read this very carefully Mark: No theory can EVER be "proved" or "disproved".
Proof only exists is mathematics because we create and know every,
single part of the "universe" that our mathematics systems exist within.
Because we do not know every part of our own physical universe, we cannot
"prove" anything. What we can do, however, is support a theory with enough
evidence so that it can be considered to be true.
Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved
, Nov 1st, 2004
When Darwin's skeptics attack his theory of evolution,
they often focus on the eye. Darwin himself confessed
that it was "absurd" to propose that the human eye,
an "organ of extreme perfection and complication"
evolved through spontaneous mutation and natural
selection. But he also reasoned that "if numerous
gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one
complex and perfect can be shown to exist" then
this difficulty should be overcome. Scientists at
the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL]
have now tackled Darwin's major challenge in an
evolutionary study published this week in the journal
Science. They have elucidated the evolutionary origin
of the human eye.
The mystery of eye evolution
Simple Systems Influence in the Evolution of Life
, July 11th, 2004
The origins of biological complexity have been debated since antiquity.
For a long time it was assumed that the magnitude of the complexity was so great that
it could never have arisen from any ordinary natural process, and therefore must have
been inserted from outside through some kind of divine plan. However, with the publication
of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 it became clear that there were natural processes
that could in fact shape features of biological organisms.
- Stephen Wolfram.
"The very simplest rules will just give simple behavior...
But what the Principle of Computational Equivalence says is that
if one looks at just a few more rules, one will suddenly cross a threshold -
and end up with maximal computational sophistication."
Intelligent Design advocates say that a tree or a person are too complex to have naturally evolved
and therefor that there must be a designer, namely their God. With simple systems proven to be able to generate complexity
with maximal sophistication the Intelligent Design argument crumbles into the dust heap of history.
It looks like the Intelligent Design folks are out of luck and must face the beautiful music of a Godless Accident.
- Stephen Wolfram.
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals
a Universe Without Design
, July 11th, 2004
One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the universe is the eighteenth-century
theologian William Paley's: Just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung
into existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity,
be purposefully designed. But as Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford University,
demonstrates in this brilliant and eloquent riposte to the Argument from Design, the analogy is false.
Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin
discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature,
it is the blind watchmaker.
The Blind Watchmater
by Richard Dawkins
I look forward to reading this book.
Ugliness is in the Eye of the Beholder!
, July 9th, 2004
In "The Gods Must Be Tidy"
Jonathan Witt states his view that:
“The Scouring of the Shire” near the
end of J. R. R. Tolkien’s "The Lord of the Rings" is a "shabby bit of evil".
It's obvious that Witt is the one seeing the evil.
What I see in Tolkien's message is that even when
we prevail in larger battles against organized "evil" such as the Nazis the war and death can and often does
continue elsewhere. There are many wars preceeding on our Real Earth right now. When we get caught up in other
things, such as victory, others who could use our help can suffer. The fictional Hobbits could have used the help of men
in their battle to save the Shire. To me Tolkien's message is clear, don't let your guard down for those who
wish to control the masses and cause death and destruction are not stopping. Just look what many Governments are currently
doing in the "name of good and god" to see the "evil" that men do in the world.
Inspired Act of Godless Creation
, July 9th, 2004
GodlessAccident.com was inspired by the article
"What but design of darkness to apall?"
from "The Panda's Thumb". In particular it was inspired by the follownig
comment by Intelligent Design advocate Jonathan Witt who seems to view the universe without God as ugly.
"... I want to suggest that Darwinism-in
which I include its DNA-inspired mutation, neo-Darwinism-has contributed to this will to ugliness not
merely by underwriting a vision of the world as a godless accident, but also in the very way it
critiques and thereby dismisses the idea of an Author and Designer of life."
- The Gods Must Be Tidy
Site content is copyright 2004 - 2008 by GodlessAccident.com unless otherwise attributed
or used under fair use copyright provisions.
Written permission is required for use.
All Rights Reserved.
GodlessAccident.com is a trademark licensed to GodlessAccident.com.