Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Pensri Ching-Ching Booncharoen's booty-cheddar.

OK, obviously, the post made by a certain Pensri Ching-Ching Booncharoen (if that's "her" real name) is just one of those unsupported Christian blatant prevarication and I just wasted my time reading and answering it.

First, Intelligent Design is not biology, nor considered a science. Second, ecology is the bane of a certain religious myth - two words: Noah's Ark! 

Anyways, the science of ecology just gave us a good knock in the block in relation to the improbability of the Ark myth. Third, DNA is not "infinite complex" (whatever that means). There is only six feet of DNA inside each cell of our body. Now, six feet is far from being "infinite." Tardigrades? Now what does these cute little water bears have to do with the Ms. Booncharoen's religion and god? To think about it,  these tardigrades were not even mentioned in any holy books nor was ever considered as God's favorite, yet those water bears (whose environment is only as big as a dew drop) are almost indestructible compare to those who claim to themselves as the stewart of this world, created in the form and likeness of a god.  

Now, let's continue...

Astronomy? Good grief! With all the 8 planets in this solar system alone, only one speck of blue dot have life. The other "larger worlds" are just floating rocks and air bags - what so perfect about that? Everything is so far away - a waste of space. Planets collides, stars explodes, galaxies  collides with other galaxies and worst, a super nova explosion  can wipe out planets or an entire star systems (that may even have life!) - again, what's so perfect about that huh?

Archaeology? So what's the archeological "evidence" of the Exodus story, the Fall of Jericho or the massive Israelite invation of Canaan? None? 

Ah! So just because the bible mentioned real  places or people, that makes the bible historical right? Have  you ever read a historical fiction? King Kong mentioned New York, so that means King Kong really happened? No wonder bible  archaeology is known for the tricks of a con artist/fake archaeologist by the name of Ron Wyatt. Anyways, as Yair Zakovitch, professor of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said, "It's just not important, The Bible is for teaching. Its characters, its history are only tools for getting across ideas. The main thing in the Bible is not if there was an event, but the ideas and ideology that it represents. The authors of the Bible knew that history can be reshaped to express ideas."

History? Jesus is historical? Oh my. Now Ms. Booncharoen, can you name a Roman historian that chronicled the life of Jesus before 20-30AD? There are so many historians who lived and wrote in the suppose time of Jesus yet why the silence of historians like Dio Chrysostom, Justus of Tiberius, Hermogones,  Favorinus, Phlegon, Valerius Flaccus and Appian?   There were already historians living and writing at that time when the Christ suppose to made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. They were already there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place - when Christ himself suppose to rose  from the dead, and in the presence of 500 witnesses ascended  into heaven. All those marvelous events - the dead rising from the grave, water turning to wine, a man rising up to the clouds, earthquakes and sudden darkness,  yet not a single historian wrote about it? Strange.

Medicine… soul, afterlife?  So when did the soul and the after-life became a subject in medicine? I never recall studying anything about the after-life while taking BS Medical Technology in FEU. We have Bio chem, analytical chemistry and even anatomy, but a study about souls? 

OK, I stopped. 

The post is not worthy of a highbrow scrutiny. Frankly, what I see here is a bam and scram post, assembled to look like it was written intelligently, but further inspection will reveal nothing but booty-cheddar.  Without doubt, Ms. Booncharoen will not entertain questions and the thing I see about this Bravo Sierra is it was written just to brass off atheists - Well, WOOPIDOO!

*yawn* and I even gave it an effort - HOOREY! But it's OK. When we highlight puerility like this, I'm not the one who's going to look bad. 

Science and history deniers can always post crap like this out of their brown hole into Facebook or Twitter and obviously, the purpose is just to get noticed (as usual)  However,  these kind of posts are not written to kindle academic discussions. They are just jests, noisy rants and baseless dialect threap designed to poke the funny bone and not the thinking mind. Frankly, I’m tired of beating my fingers on kafoosters like Ms. Booncharoen's post.

Monday, March 5, 2018

Gravity Falls

No, I'm not talking about the cartoon.

There's a lot of funny ways theists defend the "invisibility" of their deity. Here's a good example.

According to a certain "Silver Heart," atheists doesn't believe in god, but they have faith in gravity. 


I''ve noticed that theists (like Silver Heart) often compare god to "invisible" things like air, love or gravity. Is it because both can't be seen? 

Is there really a good, valid reason to compare god to gravity?

Also,  does it make a big difference if Newton was a god believer? 

Anyways, let's talk about gravity. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation says that every material object attracts any other material object with a force that varies directly as the product of the masses of the objects and inversely as the square of the distance that separates the objects... Uh, let's make it simple. Gravity is an attractive force between objects that have mass. So there! In other words, when we talk about gravity, we  are not talking about an object, or a person, a sentient being.  We are talking about a force of attraction, a physical phenomenon and this physical phenomenon allowed  scientists to make valuable predictions. For example,  the law  was used to help discover the planet Neptune. 

Is god non-sentient? A physical phenomenon? If not, then why compare god to  gravity?

Faith in gravity? Did those scientists in NASA use faith and prayers to discover Neptune,? We know gravity exists because it can be justified by equations, and by observations - Apples fall. Arrows don't fly forever. Baseballs don't go flying forever after a home run hit.  You can't fly (without any machine to help you). 

The Sun’s can able to holds the planets and other objects
in the solar system in their orbits. Earth can hold the Moon in its orbit around Earth. We can do good predictions on the existence of new planets, stars, galaxies, Black Holes - Thanks to gravity. 

Now, can  we produce Silver Heart's god using any scientific equations? Can we use her bible to predict the movement of heavenly bodies? Can god hold the planets together? Hehehe! And to say that Earth hangs in nothing? Nothing and gravity are two different things - I guess god doesn't even know the difference.  

And what about Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727) being a theist? Did Newton wrote in his books and journals that "God did it." when he was trying to find out why planets move in the way they move? Did he wrote "Jesus is the answer." when he discovered that white lights are really made up of different color spectrum? 

And do I really need to have a PhD in Physics to believe that gravity exists? Oh my... If I fall on my bed because of a bad dream, that's gravity.

In addition, the best thing about gravity is that you are not condemned to go to hell if you don't believe that gravity exist. Well, you can fall to your death for believing that you can fly since ( you believe that) gravity doesn't exist, but it's not gravity's fault if you're stupid.

Whether I believe it or not, gravity doesn't care anyway. I will not fly in the sky like Superman just because I don't believe gravity. Things will just keep falling, the planets will just keep on turning and the universe will just keep on spinning. Unlike to a so-called god claiming to be benevolent and all-powerful yet hides in dark clouds - while his self-appointed attorneys forces people to believe with threats of hell-fire and death. 


PS: As an added repartee, Silver Heart claimed that, "Historically, god can be proven by the eyewitnesses involved in the bible."

Bible is an eye witness account? Really?

1. Who witness god when he created the universe?
2. Who was also the witness when Satan went to heaven to talk to god about Job?
3. Who witness god having a wrestling match with Jacob?
4. Who witness Jonah inside the big fish for 3 days?
5. Who witness when Mary was talking to an angel before being impregnated?
6. Who witness Satan and Jesus talking in the wilderness?
7. Who witness Paul talking to "Jesus" in the desert?

OK, OK... I think this will be another story.

Sunday, March 4, 2018

Evans In Wonderland

The first time I saw this post from a certain "Carlos Evans" I though it was a rebuttal against atheism. Well, I'm not expecting something new but, at least I can sink my teeth into something different for the coming weekend. So it was. 

Anyways, I am quite busy nowadays due to some comics deadlines so I just took a photo-capture of the said post. I also read some of the comments, and well as expected theists members are cheering so I assume it to be a new argument.

My jaw dropped when I read the post. My gulay! This is not a refutation, nor a new proof. It didn't even address one atheistic argument.

Hmmmm… I think I'm giving these theists too much credit. 

According to Mr. Evan's post, an atheist "don't have a will or control  on what to say or do. There is no "you." The reason for this  according to him is that an atheist is just "an organic robot,"  an intimate slave to chemistry and that it is these "chemicals"  that makes him believe due to the "harmony that programs him  to believe."

Should I just take this as a fact that Mr. Evan's is ignorant with  psychology and neurology? OK… I get it. This is Facebook. Yet then, it dawned to me. This has nothing to do with psychology, or even science. This has something to do with what Mr. Evan's believe.

Platonic Realism! 

Just for some trivia, this kind of Platonistic philosophy was developed by Plotinus (205–270 CE) in the 3rd century CE. A fellow who had been the pupil at Alexandria of a self-taught philosopher called Ammonius, who also taught the Christian Origen. This is the same philosophy that influenced Christian theology.

It was there all written in Evan's post. The belief that there is a separation between the material world and a transcendental, metaphysical, invisible world of invisible things. Where the disembodied mind float freely and merilly along together with the laws of logic, morality, numbers, geometry, angels, demons, and gods.

With this come forth the idea of substance dualism. This philosophy prosper in the medieval period. Thomas Aquinas for  example believed that the soul (mind) is separated from the  material body. Theologian John Calvin also believed this idea.  The French philosopher Rene Descartes suggested that the mind  is disconected from the material body and is not bound by the  laws of physics (and chemistry as what Mr. Evans wants us to  believe.) 

As I said, this has nothing to do with science. Ancient and medieval philosophy, yes - but science?

Thousand of scientific experiments were conducted and not a hint of a so-called "disembodied mind" were discovered to prove Mr. Evan's viewpoint. The mind as was discovered was nothing but the product of a material brain, nothing more. When the brain dies, so does the mind.

Mr. Evan's would like us to believe that there is a "metaphysical" place where the mind (without a body) resides - a mind independent from material physics and chemistry where it do your thoughts, that it has free-will, where truth and falsehood also resides. I call this Evan's Wonderland.

Sadly for Evans, he doesn't have any proof of his so-called Wonderland. So, reading his post, you will see how bitter he was to those people not believing him and his happy, happy place. He call them "mindless robot," mindless organism - just because they doubt his magical wonderland. How sad.

Anyways, the mind is not independent with our material brain. Even Evan's "YOU" is not left-out. Your identity, the "You" that Evans is talking about, can also be affected by chemical change, or physical damages of the brain. That's why we have mental asylums and Prozac. 

Mental dualist like Mr. Evans insinuate that it is impossible for thoughtless matter to give rise to thought. But to assume  "impossible" only suggest an argument from ignorance since he seek the answers from theologians and philosophers instead to those people who has better understanding with psychology and neurology.

So we are all a product of material, chemicals and physical reactions: BIG DEAL.  - there's no issue in that. The mind is a process of a material brain. It can be affected by physical and chemical reaction in its environment. That's why we  have subject like biochemistry and neuroscience. That's why psychology left philosophy and become a scientific discipline. That's why  we  have  MIR and brain scanning equipment. That's why we can  conduct  experiments to study how  our brain works. That's why  we can  objectively study the brain  and all its process  including the  mind.  It's material.  Not some theological,  magical, invisible,  blue rabbit in a philosopher's  metaphysical hat. 

As the late Carl Sagan have said, "Better a hard truth than a comforting fantasy." Reality and science doesn't conform to this  Wonderland and Evan's just can't take it.  That's why he's bitter.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018


Debating With Pigeons

Before having a "debate" with a bird, consider the following first:


It's science, bitch

I find it hilarious when Christians present a lot of so-called links from Creationists sites like The Discovery Institute and quotes of so-called creationist "scientists" like William Dembski, or Michael Behe as proof of their god. Or when they "mine quote" palaeontologist like Michael Benton and re-phrase them to sound like it approves their mythlogy.

Oh please...

Remember that science is falsifiable.

All those links and blah-blah-blah are useless if I will accept them as infallible proof. All it just say is that Benton or Behe thinks that this and that and whatever… That they have seen, or discovered proof (while ignoring legitimate scientific findings)that will "scientifically" prove god.

Then what?

Then it all boils down to, "My god magically created life. Accept it or go to hell." No evidence of this god presented. Just a tons of word play, a lot of apologetics and some 5-cent philosophy ( or may I just say excuses.)