Free will - the God way

I knew it... c.c

Your morality is 0% in line with that of the bible.

 

Damn you heathen! Your book learnin' has done warped your mind. You shall not be invited next time I sacrifice a goat.

Do You Have Biblical Morals?
Take More Quizzes

Darwin Art and Craft

I thought I'd show you guys (silly me, I think people actually read this thing XD) some of my Darwin stuff. See, proof I am an artist, really XD









The top ones a bookmark for the Darwin Day Bookmark Swap on Swapbot - the photo of Darwin himself was cut from a leaflet about various events - the rest if pretty papers I have and a lovely glittery butterfly stamp. I also added some detailing to the larger plant-swirls with a glittery gold pen.

The second one's an ATC for a private swap I'm doing with a friend on SwapBot. Her theme was Steam Punk (I got my bookmark and ATC in the post yesterday) my theme for her is obviously Darwin again. I've got to make a bookmark as well, and I'll add that to this post once I'm done.

The scan doesn't show it very well, but the ATC has a silver stamped Victorian global map on the base paper. I hand drew the Tree (copied from Darwin's original) and hand wrote the quote: 'There is grandeur in this view of life' - I also aged the yellow-card.

The third one is the matching bookmark for the Darwin ATC andBookmark private swap. Same materials as the ATC - with the addition of an eyelet and gold/red/purple thread and instead of drawing something, I cut out what I think is a chimp skeleton and aged it.

The quote I hand wrote is: 'Man is descended from a hairy, tailed, quadraped, probably arboreal in its habit.' C.Darwin.


I'm damn proud of these, and have been enjoying the Darwin craft going on ^^ I'll likely do a lot more.

Micro vs Macro

This is brilliant and is being linked to anti-evolutionists from now on, whenever they get on my nerves >>

Rated 'R'

This amuses me to no end XD

Scientologist's blame Psychiatry for 9/11

Scientologists Try to Explain how Psychiatrists caused 9/11 and the Holocaust from Chris Doyle on Vimeo.

Scientologist's.

Love to hate 'em.

Also - al-Zawahiri is NOT a psychiatrist.

Picking Apart The Arguments Of Theists

1. God didn't know that adam and eve would eat the fruit. He knows the future only if he wants to. Why would god test Abraham if he already knew that he'd pass? Why put the tree in the first place if he knew they'd fail?

2. Don't blame God for what satan did. Satan, as the serpent, was sitting on the tree. He ate the fruit. What did eve expect to happen? The snake to die, right? Well he didn't, he started talking. Eve, with her inexperience with talking animals, probably had a lot of questions to ask this creature, and the rest, as they say is history.

By doing this, satan called into question god's authority. This is not a Monarchy, so God does not immediately kill whoever questions his authority. So now the choice is ours. Be faithful to god, or be destroyed with the rebels.

3. The fruit did not actually make them like God, they only knew sin, which they would be better off not knowing.

4.Hell does not exist. This is a church teaching, not the bible's teaching

OrangeWIZARD

This seriously makes me want to head-desk >>


God didn't know that adam and eve would eat the fruit.
If God didn't know that Adam and Eve were going to eat that fruit - it proves He's not Omniscient. To be Omniscient is to 'have all knowledge' and God obviously doesn't 'have all knowledge' if He didn't know Adam and Eve were going to 'fall'.

He knows the future only if he wants to.
Apparently this guy knows how God works. Does he have a direct link, d'you think? Anyway, you either 'have all knowledge' or you don't. There's no turning it on and off like a light-switch.

Why would god test Abraham if he already knew that he'd pass?
This is an illogical question, because he already asserted that God didn't know Abraham would pass. Anyway, even if He did, if He didn't do the testing, then He would have false knowledge of the future - thus proving He's not Omniscient once again. And also, not God.

Oh - and the story of Abraham and his son is very telling by the way. God apparently was well known for asking for Blood Sacrifices - otherwise, Abraham would have said 'No - you are a False God, MY God wouldn't ask for a blood sacrifice'.

But Abraham didn't see anything wrong with his God asking him to kill his own child - so obviously, God must have done it a few times before (and in point of fact, Cain and Abel prove it - Genesis 4:4 And Abel, he also brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. And The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. God liked the animal sacrifice Abel gave him.)

Why put the tree in the first place if he knew they'd fail?
Why indeed? But then, if He knew they would eat the fruit and he DIDN'T put the tree there, He would negate the future He's supposed to know. It's all a bit circular really. That's only one of the problems with knowing the future. But again, this guy already asserted He's not Omniscient, so it's a silly question.

Don't blame God for what satan did.
Why not? God made Satan, didn't He? Satan used to be an angel - and presumably still is. Anyway, it's back to that Omniscient thing again - if God is Omniscient, (and this guy already asserted that He's not...) then He knew Satan/Lucifer would defy Him and that He would throw him from His presence. If God didn't throw Satan/Lucifer from His presence, then we'd obviously have no Satan/Lucifer/Devil to blame all the ills of the world on. Then where would we be?

Satan, as the serpent, was sitting on the tree. He ate the fruit. What did eve expect to happen? The snake to die, right? Well he didn't, he started talking.
I just checked my Bible and it doesn't say anything about the Serpent eating the fruit first and then talking. Maybe this guy has a different version - I mean, the thing's certainly been edited, re-written and edited some more, enough times that no-one really knows what the original said anyway.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

This is not a Monarchy, so God does not immediately kill whoever questions his authority.
I'll gladly dispute this one - Lot's wife, anyone? All she did was look over her shoulder and He turned her into a pillar of salt.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Very nice of Him, if you ask me.

So now the choice is ours.
The whole 'Free Will' thing again negates God's Omniscience.

If He '[has] all knowledge', then He obviously knows exactly what we're all going to do when, how and why. Which means it's all already set in stone - because you can't 'have all knowledge' and then change your mind later - and we have no choice but to do precisely what He already knows we are going to do.

So, if we have Free will, He isn't Omniscient - if He's Omniscient, we don't have Free Will. You can't both have your cake AND eat it - in cases like this, it's one or the other, not both.

However, this guy already asserted that He isn't Omniscient - and not being Omniscient means He ain't no God. Or certainly, not the God that the Bible describes. Bit contradictory, that.

The fruit did not actually make them like God, they only knew sin, which they would be better off not knowing.
Ooh, fun interpretation time! Everyone has a different one, and this guy's no exception. Let's see what the actual text says.

Nelson KJV: Genesis 3:5 ...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

That doesn't say anything about knowing 'sin'. All it says is that they will lose their innocence. My personal interpretation (and I'm allowed, because, y'know, EVERYONE has their own interpretations) is that they'll grow up if they eat the fruit.

Now, why they'd have been 'better off not knowing' the difference between 'good' and 'evil' I don't quite understand. Surely if Eve had known beforehand, she wouldn't have taken the Serpent's word at face value? Hm, but then, it's back to the circular reasoning.

Hell does not exist. This is a church teaching, not the bible's teaching
Oh now, this one amuses me to no end.

There's actually something like 160 odd references to Hell in the New Testament - 70 or so of them are by Jesus himself. So the assertions that 'Hell does not exist' (while in accordance with Atheist views!) and 'not the Bible's teaching' is false.

Hell is mentioned in the books of Mark, Matthew, Malachi, Luke, Acts and Revelation.

Hell is also mentioned in the Old Testament. In the books Deuteronomy, Samuel, Job and Psalms.

Want proof? Go to the Bible Gateway. So, yeah, actually the Bible does teach about Hell.

I've seen a few more posts by this guy - and all of them serve to make me face-palm and head-desk. Especially his wonderful posts about Noah and the Flood. If nothing else, he's good for a laugh, because as another poster in that forum said, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

The stupid - it burns!

I know this was reported in early 2008 - but I JUST saw it >>

Four Horsemen

This is a brilliant one page comic about the Four Horsemen bringing an Atheist Apocolypse XD

Subnormality: Atheist Apocolypse

Enjoy - I did XD

UK got as much woo as US

('Bliss Ninny' from 'Flame Warriors' by Mike Reed)


Found this lovely little site through Psychodiva and Pharyngula.

The Faith Of Britain

As I've said in my Twitter. Click. Read. Laugh. And then blog about it in a desparaging tone.

These women (and why is it nearly always middle aged, middle class, white women? I'm sure it must be something to do with them having too much time on thier hands, someone should look into that) actually believe that if they can convince the population of Britain to 'think' the world a better place, it will happen.

I laughed. Loudly and a lot.

Then I actually paid attention to what had been written.

(I'll gloss over the awful grammar for now - though it was a horror to behold.)

Numerologically this date is symbolic because the 3rd month, the 6th day and the 9th year are all multiples of 3 which is about balance - which is what we strive to achieve as humans. The time, 11.00am is a master number, or a powerful 2 (1 + 1) which is the duality of the inner and outer self, encouraging us to look within to find solutions.

What? Quite apart from the fact that the times are arbitrarily placed by whomever decides such things (I mean, we all know there's a reason we have a Leap Year, I assume?) I want to know who decided these numbes all mean anything and why.

Why is 3 about balance? Why is 2 about duality? And how the bloody hell does it encourage someone to find solutions? And what solutions? To what problems?

Why did they choose 11:00, when they could have chosen, oh I dunno... 12:00? Then the time would be about balance (1 + 2 = 3 = balance) - right? Or how about the 3rd day of the 6th month in the year 2009?

How about the 9th, 12th or 15th? Or the 18th? 21st? 24th? 27th? They're all multiples of 3. Why not one of them? They could even have done it in September, or December if they wanted. Why March specifically?

All comes to the same thing, right? Or is there something I'm missing here?

With over 80 million people concentrating their mental energies at the same time on the same day, we will unleash an irresistible psychic force that will, quite literally, make our dreams come true.

Not only is this a terribly presumptuous statement on their part, it's also demonstrably wrong.

For a start - 80 million people? In the UK? Where did they get that number from?

I did just a 30 second google search and found that, actually, they're about 20 million out. The population of UK is somewhere around '60,975,000' according to the National Statistics. Of course, that was around two years ago - but I sicerely doubt we've gained 20 million people since then.

And I'd like to see some peer reviewed papers on this 'irresistable psychic force' - because from all the reading I've done, nobody, anywhere, at any time, has EVER showed anything even slightly psychic to be real.

So. Proof please?

And the presumption? Do they seriously think they'll get every single person in the UK to follow this little show of time-wasting?

Have they thought that, perhaps, quite a proportion of the UK is either too young to comprehend what the hell they're going on about or too ill to comprehend what the hell they're going on about?

What about the significant proportion that thinks it's a load of old hooey? Or the proportion that's too busy doing real work towards helping the world (instead of sitting on their arses 'thinking' about it)? Or the proportion that's of a significantly different faith to their's?

Didn't really think that paragraph through, did they?

It is a proven scientific fact that thinking about something often causes it to happen. Some call this quantum physics. Others simply call it "faith." We ask that you open your mind to joining in with a unique psychic force that will change our lives through the power of thought.

This is the killer paragraph. This is the one even Pharyngula posted in his blog. Seriously. Read it. Laugh. Read it again and then try to make sense of it.

Again I'm stuck on the lack of peer reviewed papers. Who proved it? Where and when? And how did they do it? Why haven't they claimed the Nobel Prize yet? For surely proving something like this would merrit one? Right?

Also - I simply adore the way these people try to use quantum physics to back up their silly little theories. It's amusing because they quite evidently don't understand anything about the subject - and because they don't, they trip themselves up with it ALL THE TIME.


And then we come to the women behind the idea:

Amanda contracted Meningococcal Septicaemia and although she was only given an hour to live, she not only turned herself round in the hospital, she vowed she would dedicate her work to understanding this power she found and since then has been helping people to transform their lives.

So. What about the Paramedics, Doctors and Nurses who all worked tirelessly to save her life? Do they get no mention here? Or is she seriously trying to make us beleive that she sat at home, on her own, without any medication or care and 'cured herself' through some form of 'healing power'?

Hmmmm. Besides the fact that this is purely Anecdotal, it also smacks of outright lying.

Angelica is from North London. She was raised in a very harsh environment, however always knew that from a young age, she was being looked after by angels.

Again with the Anecdotal. Also - she always knew she was being looked after by angels? Makes me wonder what religion she was brought up under. I'm guessing some version of Christianity.

Angelica's powerful healing and psychic abilities came through naturally as she discovered that the power of the mind is key to changing one's life and therefore has transformed her own, as she does with others.

Nobody has yet explained what these psychic powers are or how they work. Seriously - don't the Nobel Prize winners get some sort of monetray prize as well? If they don't want to keep the money, why not give it to a charity or two? There's no excuse to not claim the prize, y'know.

Marlene knew of her deep psychic awareness as a child and her understanding of the Indigenous cultures have moved her to become more aware of her roots and her calling this year is to return to her homeland and then to build a retreat centre in neighbouring New Zealand.

'Indigenous cultures' of where? Essex (where she lives)? Australia (her home country)? Or New Zealand (where she plans to build a retreat)? I'm more than a little confused by the particular wording of this one.

Isabelle a 40 year old Scientist from South London had a fascination as a child with discovering and unearthing evidence, which propelled her into the work she does today.

'Scientist'? Of what? Evolutionary Biology? Cosmology? Particle Physics? Phrenology perhaps? I want to know what exactly it is she does as a 'scientist' and how doing that work lead her to believe in all this woo.

Likewise, her childhood intrigue into understanding her psychic experiences is what drives her passion today, to improve health and wellbeing within humanity, which is the basis of the work she's involved in.

Oh my goodness, whatever 'science' she works in, it's related to health. I fear for the lives of the people she's 'involved' with. Maybe she's actually a Homeopath?

She was driven to find ways to overcome her agonising daily migraine headaches; she'd suffered with for years.

OMG ARGH GRAMMAR *clutches throat and falls down dead*

Ahem. Sorry.

For much of her adult life, [Lisa] worked as a Scientist until she discovered there was too much evidence to show there was far more going on in the Universe than she realised. Her spiritual and psychic senses awoken, Lisa was guided to go through self development to find her path.

Oh snap. There's another 'Scientist' in the group! And once again, they don't tell us which field she actually works in. Or which particular 'spiritual and psychic senses' she apparently awoke.

Lisa now works successfully helping others to heal themselves and uses a combination of her psychic and spiritual awareness with her down to earth evidence based understanding of the consequences of our thought processes.

'Evidence based'? 'EVIDENCE BASED'? Seriously?

Marjo has become increasingly aware of the power behind the 'law of attraction' as her own world has transformed.

Pardon, what? 'Law of attraction'? May I ask specifically what the bloody hell she means by that? I have a feeling her answer would delve into the realm of quantum physics and her total lack of understanding of the subject.

Marjo, 39 from London has been honouring premonitions she has had since she was a student. ... honouring the dreams she had many years ago.

This woman has prophetic dreams! And yet again, no Nobel Prize claim? (Makes me want to go check out that Prophecies R Us website again!)





I'm looking forward to seeing these people's reactions on the 7th. I'm sure they'll come up with some excuses. What do you reckon?

1. The results will be visible over the next few years
2. We didn't get as many people as expected, but smaller results should be visible over the next decade
3. There were too many sceptics and their negative energy interfered with the positive
4. *pointing out some random good news* this is only the beginning - more results will be seen over the next few years

Or some combination of the above. Think of any that I missed? Either way, I'm goingto sit back and laugh about it.