AtyHans

You want your freedom - By Ashvin Harrison with permission In my opinion, the "abortion debate" isn't actually a debate. Some people want to give rights to fetuses that don't have cognitive abilities to exercise those rights while taking away the right of self-determination from women who do have cognitive abilities. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Is a fetus a human being? I really don't care if it is, or isn't. Does a fetus have the right to live? No, it doesn't. Human rights begin at birth according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's imagine we give a fetus the right to live. How can we determine whether a fetus wants to exercise that right? We can't. That is not a right, but an obligation. These people want to force fetuses onto the world whether these fetuses want, or not. Let's imagine we take away women's right of self-determination, a right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Hu...

I've written about this topic on a number of occasions, but this is, hopefully, the clearest post. There are basically two ways religious people look at the question of "holy" texts and science, and religious people find a way to mentally switch between these two. The first way is very fundy: The "holy" text is true. Period. The second way is more general: There is a god because reasons. Recently, I wrote a tweet I particularly like because it addresses both these views at the same time. a) The creator god of the bible is nonexistent.     Genesis makes claims about creation. Science has debunked those claims centuries ago.  b) The god of the gaps is not the god of the bible.  As I have elaborated on these two points in other blog posts, I'll just leave links to these other blog posts here. Your opinion is always welcome. Links: Interpreting the bible Formal logic Fallacies 'R Us The Kalam Cosmological Fallacies

Anybody who uses Twitter can come across flat earth proponents. I've engaged with a number of them and they seem to be really nice, misinformed, people. They generally commit the physics folly logical fallacy. That is, they don't understand physics, but talk about it anyway. This is, of course, a special case of the personal incredulity logical fallacy. Here follows a short list of concepts that can not be explained away by the flat earth "model". It's not an exhaustive list because that would be exhausting. Foucault Pendulum . The pendulum swings from one side to the other in a straight line, but the movement of the earth causes the floor to rotate with respect to it. Coriolis effect . The Coriolis effect explains the rotation of hurricanes and typhoons . Here's a cool video demonstration . Wallace's experiment . Also called the Bedford level experiment, is an experiment conducted by Alfred Russell Wallace on a straight, flat, canal. When eliminat...

Call me simple (most apologists call me simple, or worse), but I think there are three ways to look at the bible (or any other "holy" book). Either it's literally true, or it has got to be interpreted or there's an incomprehensible ontological argument I frankly don't understand. The, "it's literally true", argument is quite simplistic. It's quite wrong and it deserves all the ridicule in the world. But! It's a brave stance based on the actual historical way people looked at the bible. Once upon a time people believed that the cosmology of the bible (etc) was correct. Only after the advent of the scientific method has this view been reluctantly abandoned by most religious folks. The, "it has got to be interpreted", argument has several problems, in my opinion. For instance, nobody knows which interpretation is the correct one which explains the multiple denominations. Another problem is the cherry picking of parts of the bible t...

" Scientism " means misusing the word " science ". You can misuse it either by calling something that can't be measured "scientific", or by claiming that something without sufficient supporting evidence is "scientific". It is a word that's thrown around by people who hardly know what it means and who certainly don't know what the word "science" means or what the scientific method is. "Scientism" is also a word used in philosophy to denote an excess of confidence in science, and has legitimate uses. However, the people who accuse others of "scientism" are not at all interested in philosophy. They are solely interested in delegitimizing the scientific method. They are anti-science . Period. Why are they against science? Is it because they are not scientifically literate? Do they have economic motivations? What worries me is the number of people that are anti-science. There's a war on science g...

Genesis 1:1 * describes the following logic Informally Premise P1: God exists. Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**". Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth. Formally P1 → C1, P1        C1 This form of logic is called Modus Ponens. The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1. Lets look at the following classical example Premise P3: It rains Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet". Conclusion C2: The streets are wet There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ... However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain. Formally P3 → C2, ¬C2        ¬P3 This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens. To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens app...

The following is just my opinion . If you don't like my opinion, I have others as Groucho Marx once put it. In my opinion , there are three types of knowledge (feel free to comment with more - or less - types). Common knowledge Scientific knowledge Epistemological knowledge  Let's examine these. Common knowledge - "Everybody knows this" The problem with common knowledge is that, just because everybody knows it, doesn't make it true . Once upon a time, everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth, then, Copernicus had another idea... Common knowledge is also fraught with opinions . Everybody knows that Darwin was the greatest scientist of all time... or Newton, or ... Everybody knows you don't wear socks with sandals. Common knowledge says that there are no atheists in foxholes even though there is evidence against it . There are atheists in foxholes, and have been throughout the ages. Scientific knowledge - "Measured, time a...

I'm asking because I'm getting different opinions from different people. Feel free to comment. According to Josephus, Jesus was the brother of James . His book, "Antiquities of the Jews", was published around 94CE. The only problem with this piece of information is that the oldest preserved text is from the eleventh century [1] . This is the only piece of information about the "historical" Jesus. Absent from Josephus is his birth, his death and all events from his life. Absent from Josephus is the massacre of the infants. Absent from Josephus is the cleansing of the Temple. Absent form Josephus is an earthquake when Jesus died, and the opening of tombs in Jerusalem. The New Testament describes all kinds of events that would have been noted by independent writers, if they had happened. Both the Romans and the Jews knew how to write, yet there are no written documents of the events portrayed in the bible. You'd think there would have been l...

I have had the honor of having two memes made from the things I have said. I must thank @Sandra and @NancyDrew for both of them. [source] [source]

Creationist "scientists" try to convince people that a global flood once happened because they think their holy book is right. To do that, they ignore scientific facts and they lie about science. One example is the K-Pg boundary. The K-Pg boundary has a number of characteristics that are evidence for an asteroid impact. A huge asteroid. The K-Pg boundary layer contains: Iridium - concentration of 30-160 times higher than usual  Shocked quartz - requiring intense pressures  Tektite glass spherules - formed by re-entry of debris into the atmosphere Chromium - isotopic anomalies associated with carbonaceous chondrites The Chicxulub impact crater has been found near the Yucatan peninsula and is, on average, 180 km in diameter. The boundary layer is thicker near the impact crater More shocked quartz is found closer to the impact crater More tektite glass spherules are found closer to the impact crater Creationist "scientists" ignore most of these scient...

After seeing this Youtube video by AronRa, I was inspired to make a related tweet. You know how it is. [ link ] As you can see, it's not a very popular tweet. Still, it's what this post is about; Human taxonomy . We are classified, by scientists, according to the similarities and differences we share with other organisms. This classification is done with the help of different fields within biology: embryology, morphology, genetics, etc. Ever since Linnaeus, thousands of biologists have been working on his taxonomic framework, expanding it and improving it. Thanks to the advent of DNA sequencing, phylogenetic trees are used to improve and refine it even further. No organism has ever been found on earth which doesn't have DNA. All organisms on earth have DNA sequences in common with each other. The top most global classification of humans is Neomura. We belong to a group of organisms that have glycoproteins. This is our Superdomain. We are neomuran. We share thi...

Not long ago, I put my original post about the burden of proof on reddit.com . The comments were... surprising to me. However, as I respect the /r/Atheism crowd (they know more than I do), I feel obligated to address their criticism. Before anything else, I admit that we can construct a deity that might exist. The agnostic atheist position is correct for that reason. "If you can't even define it, discussion or belief seem pointless." In my original post, I used the dictionary definition of 'god' God     1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.     2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. I insist this definition of 'god' has evidence against it. We can accept the burden of proof and demonstrate this 'creator and ruler of the universe' doesn...

Let's explore the meaning or the word 'morality' because it's an abstract word and people tend to have strong opinions about what it is without regard to the dictionary meaning. Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Right and wrong.  Good and bad behaviour. Seems we can say things about that. For instance, I can say that slavery is 'wrong' and most people would agree with me, but for millennia, people have considered slavery to be 'right'. Then again, not everybody will agree with me that slavery is 'wrong'. This means that my 'opinion' about right and wrong isn't shared by everybody. That's a fact. This fact doesn't make me a moral relativist. Moral relativism - The view that moral judgements are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privilege...

Usually, I write these blog entries to serve as reference points I can link to when discussing with people on Twitter. Instead of having to type two-hundred tweets on my mobile phone, I can search the link and give MyOpinion™ to whomever. I've linked a number of people to this tweet by PoliticoCryzis because it's brilliant. But let me add a little extra to this goodness. Please note how these creation stories are contradictory, and what's worse, they are utterly unverifiable . Scientifically speaking, they're nonsense. All major fields of science disprove these creation stories. Astrophysics ; the universe is 13,798 billion years old. Nuclear physics ; the earth is 4,54 billion years old. Geology ; the formation of mountains takes millions of years . Palaeontology ; life started 3,9 billions of years ago. Biology ; the species we know today evolved ever since life started. Chemistry ; we're not made out of dust, mud, clay, dirt or roc...

Christopher Hitchens said it best when he said that talking about the goodness of the church was distracting from the main question whether gods exist, or not. “it's a time wasting tactic” Yet, whenever the subject of taxing the church comes up, people use it as a counter-argument. Let's look at the “good” the church actually does. Parochial support for affiliated charities. Direct financial support to affiliated charities. Giving people hope * . * IMO the hope (of heaven) the church provides is annulled by the fear (of hell) the church instills first. As atheist say; The church provides an imaginary cure for an imaginary disease. I can't estimate the amount of money parochial support translate into. Suffice to say that the churches own buildings and these would be unoccupied or under-occupied without these Christian charities. Opening these buildings, apart from maintenance costs and electricity, is free and it's publicity. More on that below....

Update: Intelligent design is a creationist' scam as shown during the Dover trial. You can check-out the legal text here and the expert witness here Calling it as it is. Creationist leaders are scam artists (liars). They deliberately concocted the ID movement to get creationism taught in schools. If you are a Christian, according to your faith, lying is a "sin". Think about the lack of ethics of these people. End update - January 3rd, 2017 The original article below: I contend that nobody knows. According to IDelists I've come across with, other IDelists are wrong. It may be that I'm constructing a Strawman logical fallacy, but I think ID is deliberately constructing a logical fallacy of confusion. Here's what I understand. ID is against the scientific theory of evolution, because evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis. ID explains abiogenesis with an unnamed designer, either supernatural or … alien. ID does not accept evol...

I've had a long convo with -a person who wants to remain anonymous-, a former Young Earth Creationist (YEC) about evolution (and religion, and abiogenesis, and morality...). This convo is ongoing with the exact same result; -S- returning to her default position of denial (of evolution) and affirmation (of creation). The latest development is that -S- is now a believer of Intelligent Design (ID); her beliefs have evolved (changed over time). She's not a Christian any more. I'm not sure if she's gone from YEC to Old Earth Creationism. It seems nearly impossible to convince -S- that evolution is possible, probable and, in fact, a scientific fact. Still, one can only try :-) and try, and try, and try again. The thing is that -S- needs to look at evolution from a different angle because she has been bombarded with creationist' propaganda that she chooses to believe over the biologists' evidence. How can you convince someone who believes the earth...

One of the recurring arguments theists use is 'We have faith'. This is a strange, seemingly unassailable position. The word 'faith' means 'to believe without evidence'. The point is that 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. This may sound convincing, to some, at first glance (and second, and third), but if examined closely, the argument fails utterly. First of all, if there is no evidence, why should one religion be chosen over any other religion? In other words, maybe a deity exists, but how can anybody claim its name is Yahweh, Jehovah , Allah or Vishnu (let alone, Zeus, Thor or Ra...). To have faith in the deity of someone’s parents, or of their own choosing, seems to be quite arbitrary. Secondly, and this is the main issue, there is evidence to the contrary. The 'holy' books (Torah, Bible, Koran or Bhagavad Gita) all contain creation stories that are in conflict with current scientific knowledge... Genesis ...

After debating with religious people on Twitter for a number of months (mostly Christians, some Muslims and a few... stray bullets), I thought to myself that all arguments for gods are based on flawed logic. A short convo confirmed that, indeed, my fellow atheists on Twitter believe the same. This is a short list with the most common logical fallacies I've encountered. This post will be updated to incorporate new fallacies when they present themselves. The Fallacy Fallacy Warning: Using flawed logic doesn't mean that your conclusion is necessarily wrong, it just means that you cannot base your conclusion on that logic. Let's think about an example to clarify this. Suppose you are going to visit your family, and they ask you at what time you'll arrive. You take into account the inevitable traffic jam and estimate an hour. Then, you step into your car and lo and behold, there is no traffic jam... but you get a flat tire. You arrive at the estimated time, bu...