Oops
29 January 2006 by Bob
Police: Dead children laid side by side
Inside the home, the officers found the bodies of the children, ages 6 to 8, lying side by side on a bed, said Chris Brackett, an investigator with the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office. [...] A family priest who visited Mendez in a hospital Saturday night described a woman experiencing profound sorrow. “She has tremendous remorse. She is deeply sorry,” the Rev. Salvador Marquez-Munoz said Sunday before entering St. Barbara Catholic Church for Mass. “She asked for our prayers and forgiveness because she is realizing how much she has hurt the community, as well.” [...] He described her as a quiet, devout woman concerned about her children’s welfare. She was not working, and her husband was supporting the family with a job in New York, he said. She and the children never missed Sunday services and attended religious education classes.
Seeing these stories always makes me ask: “Hey, we’re really just skewing the data, right? I mean, there are just as many atheists going around killing kids in America, and we’re purposely not posting those stories — right?”
Yes, I’m sure that must be right. I’ll stop ignoring all of those other atheist-killing-kids stories, and make my postings balanced.
29 January 2006, on 10:37 pm
I remember reading that we make up 14% of the population of the USA but only 1% of the prison population. I’m gonna take a stab at guessing what we’re in prison for; mind altering drug use to escape the insanity of this xtian nation which is smothering us to death.
30 January 2006, on 12:34 am
Don’t you know that they are all devout xtians until they kill, at which point they were never true xtians after all?
You silly critical thinker!
30 January 2006, on 10:00 am
Manxome: Yes, you’re absolutely right. What was I thinking?
30 January 2006, on 10:17 am
So,I’ve been reading your site,and basically,all you do is mindlessly slam President Bush and God.So let me ask you something,you don’t belive in God,Therefore your an atheist,now,if theres no God then there’s no moral code,correct?and theres no room for criticism,right?because(within the atheistic worldview), President Bush and his southern accent is no less than retarded than you and your “God is 4 suckers” blog.You cant say anything about anyone,because (in your worldview) everything is equal,no one can criticize,no can even take praise for anything…how is one thing anymore praiseworthy than anything else?how is anything any more worth critisizing?…
30 January 2006, on 10:41 am
Trevor,
You are obviously not intelligent enough to play here. Get back in the sandbox where you belong.
Furthermore, what’s with all the fucking commas? Did you learn composition from a six-year old?
30 January 2006, on 11:01 am
Ok,then refute it Marcus…show me why/how I’m so unintelligent…
Furthermore,You’re still critisizing..
30 January 2006, on 11:09 am
Trevor,
Of course I’m critical, you are not worth rational conversation. Your prior post is proof enough that I need not “refute” you lack of intelligence. I know that you are blinded by your ego, but once you let go and embrace your imbecility, you may find your life is more bearable. Let go and know your place in this world. Be one with your foolishness. It is only then that you can be happy.
*snicker*
30 January 2006, on 1:04 pm
“So,I’ve been reading your site,and basically,all you do is mindlessly slam President Bush and God.”
So, you haven’t read the site at all then.
“So let me ask you something,you don’t belive in God,Therefore your an atheist,now,if theres no God then there’s no moral code,correct?”
goodness you’re a dipshit. You didn’t read shit on this site. If god is all that keeps you from breaking the law, your parents should have raised you better.
“because(within the atheistic worldview),”
There is not atheistic worldview. You clearly haven’t read a word of this site.
This is clearly over your head. Now, go sit in the corner and learn some proper grammar.
30 January 2006, on 1:05 pm
I think what Trevor is trying to say is basically that if humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference. Is there any I left out? What is the best standard?
30 January 2006, on 1:09 pm
I’m gald Dan speaks Stupid Theist. I’m glad I don’t.
The “morality” laid out in the bible is man made. If you follow it, you already follow the rules man made for himself. It’s just that those men attached a pretend divine influence to it knowing the shallow-minded and easily-led would be too scared or to uneducated to disagree. You know, “in case” there’s a hell to burn in.
Man is more educated now, but still not ready to put down the fairy tales. He already follows his own rules.
30 January 2006, on 1:44 pm
Me-“So,I’ve been reading your site,and basically,all you do is mindlessly slam President Bush and God.”
Lya-So, you haven’t read the site at all then.
Me responding-The name of the site is “God is for suckers,every single post demeans God”…what are you talking about?
Me-“So let me ask you something,you don’t belive in God,Therefore your an atheist,now,if theres no God then there’s no moral code,correct?”
Lya Kahlo-”goodness you’re a dipshit. You didn’t read shit on this site. If god is all that keeps you from breaking the law, your parents should have raised you better.”
Me-From what you’re saying,you haven’t thought much about the subject.If there is no God,then there is NOTHING that defines what is right and what is wrong;what is good, what is bad;what is praise-worthy,what is to be criticised.It’s not that God “keeps” me from breaking the law,its that God has set down laws and therefore there is such a thing as right and wrong.I choose to obey those laws of moral conduct because I am a christian.
Lya-”The “morality” laid out in the bible is man made. If you follow it, you already follow the rules man made for himself. It’s just that those men attached a pretend divine influence to it knowing the shallow-minded and easily-led would be too scared or to uneducated to disagree. You know, “in case” there’s a hell to burn in.
Man is more educated now, but still not ready to put down the fairy tales. He already follows his own rules.”
Me-You are borrowing from my christian worldview to justify your own.I believe in the bible and in God.I believe that the bible is God inspired,and that God used men to write it.Therefore, within my worldview the morality laid out in the bible is acceptable,justifiable,and laid down by God.
Now,within your worldview(which,by the way,there is such thing as an athiestic worldview,everyone has a worldview,if you want we can discuss that also)there is no God, so there is not even the possibility of God.In order for your above statement to have any validity for yourself,you have to presuppose God…
30 January 2006, on 1:47 pm
Lya and Marcus …how do you have patience for these morons over and over and over and over. C’mon look at this guy’s gibberish …could it possibly be worth 5 minutes of typing to throw and pebble and this brick wall. They wonder why we’re angry… I would love to see how much patience these people have. They can’t even handle it when the Wal-Mart greeter says, “Happy Holidays” instead of, “Merry xmas”.
Hey Trevor …here’s 2 seconds for you: Fuck off, get back to your job of mopping the bathrooms at McDonalds.
30 January 2006, on 1:53 pm
Humans are intelligent (most are anyway) and sentient beings who can understand the concept of right and wrong. Morality and ethics comes from this understanding and choosing to do right instead of wrong, this doesn’t need any stupid fairy tales beliefs. If the only reason someone does right is that they are afraid of some afterlife reprisal then they don’t have true morals to begin with. Also I’ve noticed that religious kooks tend to be amongst the most immoral and unethical hypocrites on the planet.
Also here are a couple of questions:
- you religious fools believe in a “soul” right ? What proof do you have for such a thing ?
- also you religious fools are always babbling on about hell (which of course doesn’t exist), how can something that is insubstantial (a soul) possibly burn ?? You do realize that fire is a chemical reaction, or don’t you ??
Remember religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.
30 January 2006, on 2:01 pm
Lya, out of curiousity, in your 7 years (or more) of studying religion (or theology, or whatever, I forget what exactly), didn’t any of the language ever rub off on you? Was you like a skeptic trying to understand, or was you a believer that became skeptical. Or none of the above?
30 January 2006, on 2:14 pm
EoR
As you know, I have no physical proof of having a soul, if you want to know what convinces me personally (I doubt you do) it is the very fact that I am sentient. I exist and am aware of that fact. Not good enough for you perhaps, but it wholly satisfies millions of people.
As far as Hell goes, well there is no eternal Hell mentioned in the original greek manuscripts of the old and new testaments. The flame is not literal to begin with, but simply a metaphor for purification. If you recall, the ancients used sulpher in their incense to purify, hence the analogy to fire and brimstone.
http://georgiagulfsulfur.com/history.htm
30 January 2006, on 2:15 pm
Trevor, what makes you certain that the Bible is “God”’s moral code? Why don’t you believe that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Satanism or any other religion constitutes the true path to “Heaven”?
30 January 2006, on 2:33 pm
In response to-
“Humans are intelligent (most are anyway) and sentient beings who can understand the concept of right and wrong. Morality and ethics comes from this understanding and choosing to do right instead of wrong, this doesn’t need any stupid fairy tales beliefs. If the only reason someone does right is that they are afraid of some afterlife reprisal then they don’t have true morals to begin with. Also I’ve noticed that religious kooks tend to be amongst the most immoral and unethical hypocrites on the planet.”
You obviously havent read anything I’ve said,I’m not saying “the only reason someone does right is that they are afraid of some afterlife reprisal”.I’m saying(and I hope everyone will get it this time)if there is no God then there is nothing that defines a moral code.There is nothing that says whether me raping and killing an 8 year old girl is wrong or right(within your worldview).Maybe its wrong for you but its not wrong for the person who doesnt want to spend 20 years in the pen for it.
Your questions are irrelevant to the subject but I will answer them.In regard to the soul:first of all,the soul fits in my worldview,and I believe that there’s a body and a soul.If I was an atheist then I wouldn’t have an answer for the soul either,but,being a christian I can easily explain it thru the bible(since I believe that everything in the bible is true).Now,how do you explain emotions,logic,and(bringing it back to subject) morals??I believe that God set these things in place at the beginning of time.In regard to “babbling on about hell”,the bible is not talking about a physical burn,its talking about a spiritual concept of punishment.Your soul isn’t going to float in a flame for eternity.It’s more like the most powerful feeling of guilt and shame,for eternity.
30 January 2006, on 2:38 pm
I’m saying(and I hope everyone will get it this time)if there is no God then there is nothing that defines a moral code.There is nothing that says whether me raping and killing an 8 year old girl is wrong or right(within your worldview).
Why, exactly? What’s the argument here, and where are the reasons? Further, if the gap for values is that much of a problem if there is no god, then how exactly does the appeal to god solve that problem? If the gap’s that bad, it would seem that bad for anything, including god.
Just wondering…
30 January 2006, on 2:39 pm
“good”, then you are shallow and have a frighten lack of ethical fiber.
“It’s not that God “keeps” me from breaking the law,its that God has set down laws and therefore there is such a thing as right and wrong.I choose to obey those laws of moral conduct because I am a christian.”
No, you chose to obey them because someone convinced you that if you don’t, you’ll be torture forever. Or because you’ve been brainwashed with it since birth. God didn’t set down shit. God doesn’t exist.
Dipshit: “You are borrowing from my christian worldview to justify your own.”
Bullshit, you flat out liar. This very basic concept existed long before xianity.
“I believe in the bible and in God. “I believe that the bible is God inspired,and that God used men to write it.”
I’m sorry.
“Therefore, within my worldview the morality laid out in the bible is acceptable,justifiable,and laid down by God.”
And there’s absolutely NOTHING in the xian worldview that wasn’t stolen from older civilizations and older gods.
“Now,within your worldview(which,by the way,there is such thing as an athiestic worldview,everyone has a worldview,if you want we can discuss that also)”
Strawman. I didn’t say I don’t have a worldview. I said there’s not atheist worldview.
“there is no God, so there is not even the possibility of God.”
Lie. Can you do anything but lie?
“In order for your above statement to have any validity for yourself,you have to presuppose God…”
This makes absolutely no sense at all.
30 January 2006, on 2:40 pm
“Lya Kahlo-”goodness you’re a dipshit. You didn’t read shit on this site. If god is all that keeps you from breaking the law, your parents should have raised you better.”
Dipshit-From what you’re saying,you haven’t thought much about the subject.”
Seven years of religious study and you dipshits still tell me I haven’t thought much on the subject. Once again, you clearly haven’t read a word of this site. Or is it that just don’t comprehend it?
“If there is no God,then there is NOTHING that defines what is right and what is wrong;what is good, what is bad;what is praise-worthy,what is to be criticised.”
This is obviously bullshit. Man created god, therefore man created the rules. Man already decided what is right, wrong, etc. This knowledge existed before god and it will exist after. So, if the threat of hell or the promise of heaven is all that keeps you “good”, then you are shallow and have a frighten lack of ethical fiber.
30 January 2006, on 2:40 pm
ok,I just read Dan’s comments and totally agree,I’m kind of tired(its late here),but I’ll try to respond tommorow to whoever bashes me during the night…i’m only 14..so maybe that is an explanation for my lack of knowledge in regard to everything,but Dan seems to have it…ok,so long,it was fun!
Trev
30 January 2006, on 2:41 pm
“Dipshit responding-The name of the site is “God is for suckers,every single post demeans God”…what are you talking about?”
My point, Dipshit, is that none of it is mindless. Which you’d know if you’d actually read the site.
We know you’re only 14. Your “arguments” are flaccid, uninformed and pedantic.
30 January 2006, on 2:44 pm
lya-I’m not scared of afterlife because im going to heaven…
Man created the laws of morality,correct?so which man was this?voltaire?rousseau?hitler?billy graham?dali lama?…how could man have created the moral code…everyone disagrees(this argument proves that fact)…if man created morals…there would be too many,i would understand you more if you thought there was no morals at all..but to say that man created them????????
30 January 2006, on 2:45 pm
“Lya, out of curiousity, in your 7 years (or more) of studying religion (or theology, or whatever, I forget what exactly), didn’t any of the language ever rub off on you?”
Seven years of studing religion under the supervision of a preist and a rabbi - both times with the original intention of converting. I speak (or spoke, rather) Hebrew, if that’s what you’re asking.
” Was you like a skeptic trying to understand, or was you a believer that became skeptical. Or none of the above? ”
I was a waning believer trying to hold on to my faith. I started off a non-believer (as a child), came to believe (as a teenager/early 20’s), and then regained my sanity. I wanted to believe. I tried to believe.
30 January 2006, on 2:52 pm
“lya-I’m not scared of afterlife because im going to heaven…”
*sighs* Poor deluded and lied to child.
“Man created the laws of morality,correct?so which man was this?voltaire?rousseau?hitler?billy graham?dali lama?”
Strawman. Nowhere did I say it was one specific man. To clarify: HUMANS created the laws.
“how could man have created the moral code”
How could he not? Humans are social creatures. We need (or needed) each other to survive. If you do things to harm the group you are potentially ending the possibility to survive. That which was not conducive to survival of the group is now “immoral” or better yet “illegal”.
“…if man created morals…there would be too many,”
Aside from the fact that is a moronic statement - “god” has 600+ laws. Is that not “too many”?
“i would understand you more if you thought there was no morals at all..but to say that man created them????????”
I fail to see how this is so confusing.
And your asinine statement about raping the child is there were no god. Don’t priests do this all the time? The bible is stuffed full of god murdering whole groups of people - which includes children. Your fake god is the biggest pyschopath of all.
30 January 2006, on 3:02 pm
“…if man created morals…there would be too many,”
Aside from the fact that is a moronic statement - “god” has 600+ laws. Is that not “too many”?
maybe i should have said “If man created a moral code…”.Yes God does have 600+ laws but they all fit in to the moral code that he set in place.
Ok,if “humans set the moral code in place” when and where did we all agree what was right and what was wrong??
30 January 2006, on 3:06 pm
whats right for Bin laden isnt whats right for me…whats right for the Rwandian government to massacre 40,000 people isnt whats right in America..however if the humanist and atheistic thought continues to grow at this rate it might soon be the case…
30 January 2006, on 3:06 pm
Poor little Trevor, only 14 and already completely brainwashed. If you really believe everything in the bible is correct then I suggest you read this site VERY careful - http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm
Then explain how you reconcile of all the internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with known science and all of the sick twisted evil crap in there.
“the bible is not talking about a physical burn,its talking about a spiritual concept of punishment”
For crying out loud, you don’t believe that and you know it. Burning means fire not “Spiritual punishment”, if it didn’t then hell wouldn’t always be depicted as a fiery place with the horned red guy and the pitchfork. When faced with an obvious inconsistency in your beliefs you try to change stuff. Now of course none of this crap is real, sentience is a result of biology and evolution NOTHING more and when you die you’re dead, gone, finished, just like a burnt out light bulb. These are the cold hard facts. Most living beings which are at all self-aware don’t want to die because that’s a complete loss of self but that’s life and not facing the facts is stupid and changes absolutely nothing.
30 January 2006, on 3:08 pm
I have a moral code(the bible) that tells me whats right and whats wrong…for you theres nothing conlcusive that tells you what is morally acceptable
30 January 2006, on 3:10 pm
these are facts eh?evolution is a fact?have you ever heard of iredusably complexity if you can explain that..i rest my case(truly)…since when did things that “were always depicted” become truth and fact???
30 January 2006, on 3:11 pm
“whats right for Bin laden isnt whats right for me…whats right for the Rwandian government to massacre 40,000 people isnt whats right in America..however if the humanist and atheistic thought continues to grow at this rate it might soon be the case…”
So you would advocate murdering people who don’t agree with your deluded dumbass world view ?? YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE !! Atheists generally don’t advocate violence at all so you just helped to show that we atheists have the true morals and you religious bastards do not.
30 January 2006, on 3:12 pm
Hey hypocrite trevor,
Have you ever heard of a spellchecker ? Have you ever heard of grammar ?
30 January 2006, on 3:14 pm
This is addciting…
“Then explain how you reconcile of all the internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with known science and all of the sick twisted evil crap in there.”
Back to my orginal statement,YOU CANT SAY THAT ITS EVIL…how is it evil?if its evil for you how is it any more or less evil for the next guy?WIthin the athiestic worldview you cannnot,i say again, cannot define what is evil…nothing can define it except a metephysical,supreme being
30 January 2006, on 3:18 pm
maybe i should have said “If man created a moral code…”.Yes God does have 600+ laws but they all fit in to the moral code that he set in place.”
Man did create a moral code. Plenty of them. And of course the laws all fit moral code. What would be the point otherwise?
“Ok,if “humans set the moral code in place” when and where did we all agree what was right and what was wrong?? ”
We don’t agree what is right and what is wrong - ESPECIALLY when religion factors into it. For some Muslims it’s perfectly okay to murder a female relative that has been raped, because she’s injured the family’s honor. For some, murder is perfectly acceptable during wartime. For some a couple of cells in a uterus deserves rights, but not the woman in whose uterus the cells reside. For some a 2 millennia old book full of mythologies cannabilized from older civilizations and full of little more than murder, mayhem and preaching is a great guide to life in the 21st century. For others, it’s an entirely different book of mythologies - with different rules.
“whats right for Bin laden isnt whats right for me…whats right for the Rwandian government to massacre 40,000 people isnt whats right in America..however if the humanist and atheistic thought continues to grow at this rate it might soon be the case…”
What the fuck does Bin Laden and Rwanda have to do with atheists? Please dazzle us with the depths of your ignorance and bigotry.
“I have a moral code(the bible) that tells me whats right and whats wrong…for you theres nothing conlcusive that tells you what is morally acceptable”
How many times do you need to be proven wrong, little boy?
“Back to my orginal statement,YOU CANT SAY THAT ITS EVIL…how is it evil?”
Ah so murder, rape, slavery, mysogyny - these are all not evil to you? Sick.
“WIthin the athiestic worldview you cannnot,i say again,”
And I say again THERE IS NO FUCKING ATHEIST WORLDVIEW. Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it.
“nothing can define it except a metephysical,supreme being ”
SO nothing can define good and evil except a being that doesn’t exist. What lovely logic.
30 January 2006, on 3:21 pm
“…since when did things that ‘were always depicted’ become truth and fact???”
Isn’t this the exact opposite of what you’re arguing, Trevor? The Bible has always beend depicted as the word of God, and therefore it is believed to be a holy scripture containing a moral compass.
30 January 2006, on 3:26 pm
“Back to my orginal statement,YOU CANT SAY THAT ITS EVIL…how is it evil?”
Ah so murder, rape, slavery, mysogyny - these are all not evil to you? Sick.
You’re not understanding what im saying…when i said “how is it evil?”i meant”how can it be evil from an athestic point of view??”.You just admitted to all of us that “We don’t agree what is right and what is wrong” so “muder rape mayhem etc.” might me be bad for you but fine with someone else..you said it yourself!!I totally agree that murder and rape is evil…I have a moral code…you don’t…
30 January 2006, on 3:34 pm
“these are facts eh?evolution is a fact?have you ever heard of iredusably complexity if you can explain that..i rest my case(truly)…”
Wow. You really are young and clueless. Irreducibly Complexity is routinely refuted by real scientists. And yes, evolution is fact.
“since when did things that “were always depicted” become truth and fact??? ”
Since all those paintings of a white jesus, I would think.
30 January 2006, on 3:37 pm
Hypocrite trevor,
“I totally agree that murder and rape is evil…I have a moral code…you don’t…”
That’s a lie, you just suggested that massacre would be right for you if the “humanist and atheistic thought continues to grow” (message #26). You do not understand the concept of morality and your only code is that which is written in some primitive tome of garbage and that definitely is NOT a moral one. I suspect that within no more than a decade you will be involved and some sort of criminal behavior considering your insane and highly corrupt extremist views.
30 January 2006, on 3:40 pm
Your exactly right,Jesus was most likely of a middle-eastern complexion,not white.So the depictions are untrue…Do you even know what irreducible complexity is?I can happily explain it to you.Also,where are your real scientists reports that refute it..?
30 January 2006, on 3:41 pm
Actually, little boy, it’s you who doesn’t understand. I have already explained this. If you head is that far up your ass, that’s not my problem.
How about a little story from my Torah study days:
A man and his rabbi are discussing atheists. The two see another man struggling to load up a cart. The rabbi says: “Take that man there, a religious man says ‘look at that poor man struggling, I will pray for him.” An atheist says, “look at that poor man struggling, I must help him.”
“You just admitted to all of us that “We don’t agree what is right and what is wrong” so “muder rape mayhem etc.” might me be bad for you but fine with someone else..you said it yourself!!”
That’s absolutely right. Religions in particular do not agree - which is why they spend so much time killing each other, and any one else they feel like.
“I totally agree that murder and rape is evil…I have a moral code…you don’t… ”
No, you have a book and your delusions. And since you don’t know jack shit about me, you’re also a liar.
If this is the future of this country, I’m moving now.
30 January 2006, on 3:42 pm
This may be hard for you to understand but the fact that we do not have a moral code does not mean that we do not have morals. For atheists to have a moral code, we would need to have an atheistic worldview, which we don’t. Unlike religions, atheism is not a uniting belief. We do not come together because we think homosexuality is wrong, human sacrifice is acceptable, or that we can do no wrong that cannot be reversed simply by believing in a man that supposedly died 2,000 years ago. Atheism is simply the opinion that there is no invisible man waiting to punish us.
I have morals because I know that this what I see is all that I have. I have no chance to make amends while my body stiffens and decomposes in a coffin. If I want to have a good life, I have to make this place the best that I can. My only moral is this: Do as little harm as possible.
30 January 2006, on 3:43 pm
“Do you even know what irreducible complexity is?I can happily explain it to you.Also,where are your real scientists reports that refute it..? ”
*LOL* Oh this is the funniest shit I’ve seen yet. A 14 year old having the gall to assume he knows more than anyone else. It’s not my job to do your research for you. Behe, Demski, Hovind and all those other morons are routinely refuted by real scientists.
Start with talkorigins.org. And read a book not written xian loonies.
30 January 2006, on 3:44 pm
EoR-what is your code?what defines it?your twisting what im saying(or i’m not communicating cleary,which im sorry if thats the case) I never said it would be right for me if atheistic thought continues to grow.
What im saying is if athiestic thought,which says(from your very own lya kalah) “we dont agree on what is right and what is wrong”, continues there will be nothing to say stop massacres,rape,muder etc.
30 January 2006, on 3:46 pm
LOL…you obviously dont know what irredubly complexity is…or you would explain it to me…AHAH…
30 January 2006, on 3:47 pm
“What im saying is if athiestic thought,which says(from your very own lya kalah) “we dont agree on what is right and what is wrong”, continues there will be nothing to say stop massacres,rape,muder etc. ”
Lya Kahlo, dipshit. First, I didn’t say atheistic thought says anything. You’re lying YET AGAIN. And there isn’t anything to stop those things. In fact, religion supports, excuses and justifies massacre, rape etc.
30 January 2006, on 3:47 pm
“I totally agree that murder and rape is evil…I have a moral code…you don’t…”
You don’t have a moral code, you have deeply indoctrinated brainwashing. You absorb nothing of what is said to you and continue to spout tired lines like “there is no morality without gawd” or that “you atheists share a worldview without morality.” How much more simply can we explain this to your stunted intellect? As atheists, what defines us can best be summarized as the lack of a unified worldview. Conversely, members of religion can be defined by their unified worldview. That’s why Pastor Hank has his denomintation and Reverend Jim-Bob has his, etc. The point is, by freeing ourselves of this imaginary shackle, we are free to explore the riches of life and create a sense of meaning for ourselves. Most atheists I know have a deeply developed sense of morality because it is one they had to arrive at through personal reflection and life experience. They didn’t arrive at through regurgitating tired religious dogma.
30 January 2006, on 3:47 pm
*irreducible complexity
30 January 2006, on 3:48 pm
“LOL…you obviously dont know what irredubly complexity is…or you would explain it to me…AHAH… ”
If you knew how to read, you’d see I gave you a link that both explains and refutes it. This is like talking to a retarded brick wall. Why is it so entertaining?
30 January 2006, on 3:54 pm
Little hypocrite trevor,
Your statement in message 26 says that you feel if “humanist and atheistic thought continues to grow” that massacre would become right in America. This is a hateful and intolerant statement which suggests that if your beliefs start to decline then fanatics will kill atheists in order to preserve their delude beliefs. Also you are a christian fanatic whether you think so or not, if you weren’t you wouldn’t promote such an extremist view.
P.S. you should be more concerned about learning the rules of the English language than you are with backward-assed primitive beliefs then maybe you would communicate better.
30 January 2006, on 3:55 pm
King Retard - excellently put
30 January 2006, on 4:25 pm
“whats right for Bin laden isnt whats right for me…whats right for the Rwandian government to massacre 40,000 people isnt whats right in America..however if the humanist and atheistic thought continues to grow at this rate it might soon be the case…”
So you obviously have not seen the pictures of the Christian PRIESTS wielding machetes and cutting down innocent refugees. I thought not…
The fact that you cling to the idea of “irreducible complexity” as evidence against the theory of evolution shows that you yourself have no concept of what it entails or how micro/macro evolution occurs. Heck, you can’t even spell it. Since you seem incapable of following the links to information on the subject given, I’ll give you a short disproof of irreducible complexity.
Claim: The eye is a perfect organ. It is so complex that it is impossible that it could have resulted through the gradual process of mutation and natural selection. What good is “half of an eye” anyway?
The Truth:
First off, the eye is far from perfect. It is indeed a wonder to behold, but far from perfect (the blood vessels in your eye are placed in front of the retina, thus casting shadows and degrading vision quality).
Secondly, a “half of an eye” is very useful indeed. The most primitive sort of eye, such as the type found on the paramecium that you study in high school biology, is simply a cluster of light sensitive cells. This allows an organism to avoid light or dark places, or to detect the shadow cast by a predator.
So, what happens if by a happy mutation that little patch of light-sensing cells is deformed into, say, a concave shape? Well now the organism is possession of this novel new trait is able to roughly detect the direction in which a light source located, increasing its ability to seek more favorable surroundings.
From this point, you should be able to see how we get from this primitive “cup” eye to what we have today.
Oh, and hello everyone. Great blog, I loved reading it.
30 January 2006, on 4:25 pm
I’ve been reading the comments and am struck by one thing. Nobody has really answered the question of moral absolutes. Was Hitlers Germany wrong? If so why? If not why not? Trevor (however roughly stated) has raised some very legitimate questions.
30 January 2006, on 4:34 pm
I,have,to,get,ready,for,work,but,will,definitely,be,back,to,catch,up.
Forgive,my,comma-tose,state.
30 January 2006, on 5:02 pm
I was going to say that I was somewhat like trevor at his age (just a few years ago), but then I read further into what he says and damn, I was much smarter at that age. What the fuck trevor?? You’re playing the stereotypical teenage idiot role. Be a little more fucking self aware and aware of the world around you, people like you are the reason people of our age group are automatically assumed to be immature idiots. This guy is the fucking reason I can’t get a damn ounce of respect unless through the anonymity of the internet. Bastard.
“LOL…you obviously dont know what irredubly complexity is…or you would explain it to me…AHAH…”
Trevor… kill yourself please. Since you won’t apparently click on the fucking link Lya provided I’ll go a few more steps and provide you with a more direct link, note that if you don’t click the fucking link and post another LOL.. you don’t know what “irrudubly” complexity post you will be ignored.
THE LINK FOR “IRREDUBLY” COMPLEXITY: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
30 January 2006, on 5:10 pm
Not to evoke godwins law, but that whole “we gotta massacre the atheists” shit sounds a bit hitlerish doesn’t it?
30 January 2006, on 5:11 pm
“I remember reading that we make up 14% of the population of the USA but only 1% of the prison population.”
I researched this very thing, and found the data to be skewed and unusable. This is why:
First, the amount of people that consider themselves atheist in the US is a mere 0.4%. 5% of the US population feel that God does not exist, but not all are atheists. Granted, this article discusses the problem categorizing atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Atheism_in_the_United_States
As for prison stats in the US, the data does not reflect religious views before incarceration. It reflects it after incarceration. As has already been asserted on this blog, there is a lot of evangelizing going on behind prison doors. Couple this with the fact that in order to make early parole, an inmate must show they have changed. What is the easiest way to change? Become “saved”.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Another example of why these figures are skewed, before analysis of these numbers is examined, all of this has to be broken down by many other factors first. Race, education, affluence etc. I have noticed that atheists tend to claim more intellect than theists. If this is true, one must assume that they are better educated. This leads one to believe that affluence is on the atheist’s side. So let’s take a look at the stats for the demographics in our prisons.
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/prisons/pris97.txt
These are not the educated or the affluent incarcerated, but quite the opposite. Being an atheist is correlated to socio-economic qualities — high education, affluence, professional success — that make one less likely to end up in prison, NOT a higher sense of “morality”. This is a fallacy that if you choose to believe, you are deluding yourself and others whom would think you to be rational.
30 January 2006, on 5:19 pm
Dan, we don’t agree on certain things, but I love the way you argue.
Trevor, model dan’s behavior NOW!!
30 January 2006, on 5:25 pm
Dan-”These are not the educated or the affluent incarcerated, but quite the opposite. Being an atheist is correlated to socio-economic qualities — high education, affluence, professional success — that make one less likely to end up in prison, NOT a higher sense of “morality”. This is a fallacy that if you choose to believe, you are deluding yourself and others whom would think you to be rational.”
I would think that it is not socio-economic qualities that correlate to incarceration ratios in prisons (though it is generally accepted that white, rich individuals are more likely to “get off” easily) but rather it is the choices that individuals make. These choices result from each individual’s sense of morality. If a person is moral (ie doesn’t commit homicide) then that person is not going to prison and is free to become a successful, contributing member of society. Socio-economic status is a result of morality, not the other way around.
In other words the relationship can be given as this: Atheists are underrepresented in prisons because they are more moral that your average Joe. Because they are more moral (and not locked up behind bars for 10 years) they are able to become more educated and wealthy.
30 January 2006, on 5:36 pm
How about this, at least 14% of Americans don’t believe in religious fairy tales. It’s probably higher but many people don’t want to admit this because it’s still not a popular belief (and who’s fault is that ? Theists, primarily christians).
“Being an atheist is correlated to socio-economic qualities — high education, affluence, professional success — that make one less likely to end up in prison, NOT a higher sense of “morality””.
A higher sense of morality (real morality not religious crap) doesn’t make on less likely to commits crimes and end up in prison ?? That doesn’t make a damn bit sense and sounds like a lame excuse for religion. Also how do you explain corporate and political crooks most of whom have high education, affluence and professional success ??
Also saying that being an atheist is correlated to these qualities suggests that atheists are generally smarter that theists and I won’t argue with that.
30 January 2006, on 5:39 pm
“Burning means fire not “Spiritual punishment”, if it didn’t then hell wouldn’t always be depicted as a fiery place with the horned red guy and the pitchfork.”
OK, if you do the exhaustive study on the greek septugant (incidentally, the “original Hebrew” texts were translated FROM the septugant in 900 AD) and the in depth study into the quetion of hell that I did, you can discuss this issue. However, I know you don’t have a clue what you are talking. Hell as the catholics and fundies know it today was developed in the 5th century. I didn’t change it, they did.
30 January 2006, on 5:42 pm
“How about this, at least 14% of Americans don’t believe in religious fairy tales.”
How about 100% of Dan don’t believe your 14% fairy tale. Show me the data please.
30 January 2006, on 5:46 pm
As for prison stats in the US, the data does not reflect religious views before incarceration. It reflects it after incarceration.
Just wanted to say good job on the heads-up, Dan. You’re absolutely right to worry about just these things. But you also might want to take a look at the World Christian Encyclopedia (and some other source that I can’t remember at the moment). To my knowledge, there actually have been stats that do adjust for inside-conversion (and when you think about it, it wouldn’t take all that much to do it), and the numbers are still higher inside than outside.
But, regardless, the claims made by these stats aren’t supposed to mean that atheists are somehow saints or anything. (I don’t know what exactly would show that.) It’s just supposed to show that the claims of believers (”with no god, you’re more likely to do bad shit”) are just false. Anything other than those claims, I leave as open.
Another example of why these figures are skewed, before analysis of these numbers is examined, all of this has to be broken down by many other factors first. Race, education, affluence etc. [...] Being an atheist is correlated to socio-economic qualities — high education, affluence, professional success — that make one less likely to end up in prison, NOT a higher sense of “morality”.
I think one could grant a lot of this here. But I’d also add something important — i.e., that, given these comments, it seems to undermine much, if not all, of what theists worry about when it comes to what makes a person “moral.” If these explanations make any sense, then the specific notion of god “securing” some kind of moral motivation doesn’t really factor-in as important any longer. Other stuff can take care of whatever variables seem to be on the table for the claims.
30 January 2006, on 5:49 pm
Who cares how it was depicted in 900 CE ? This is certainly how it’s depicted *now* by fundies. Are the people who made the statements about it not being burning but “spiritual punishment” in the 10th century or the 21st ? Another damned theist diversionary tactic.
Also religion has changed a lot for something that so many fools claim to be the inspired words of their fantasy god. Heck back in Galileo’s time the craplic church advocated that the earth was the center of the universe and burned Galileo’s books so they wouldn’t hear otherwise. Obviously that belief hasn’t been held for a while now, why ? Because of scientific progress that’s why. Some things are too much for even the fundies to argue in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
30 January 2006, on 6:15 pm
I say we start a collection and higher a deprogrammer for this kid. I kind of feel sorry for him.
30 January 2006, on 6:20 pm
“It’s just supposed to show that the claims of believers (”with no god, you’re more likely to do bad shit”) are just false.”
Believe it or not, I would tend to agree with that notion to a point. My scource for that statement is none other than the text of the New Testament, where Paul is arguing to the Jews that “when Gentiles who have no Law obey by natural instinct the commands of the Law, they, without having a Law, are a Law to themselves; since they exhibit proof that a knowledge of the conduct which the Law requires is engraven on their heart…”. I don’t usually like to quote here, but it agrees with your point. I won’t argue with you from these quotes, but I will agree with you with them.
30 January 2006, on 6:59 pm
Perhaps I’m wasting my time, but here’s my take on morality in a world without gods:
There is some truth to the notion that there is no natural, individual concept of right or wrong in a godless world. If I was a self-sustaining individual living in a remote forest all by myself, without any human contact whatsoever, what would be good for me are those items which helped me to survive, and what would be evil would be those things which harmed my chances of survival. However, NO ONE LIVES THIS WAY. We are a social species - outside of the extremely few people that live as solitary hunter-gatherers in the wild, the rest of humanity needs other people to survive. And of course, to reproduce, since it is unlikely that you will survive by yourself into old age without someone else to look after you.
If you doubt that we are all dependent on others to survive, think of your daily life. Who provides the electricity that powers the machines (refrigerator, light bulbs, computer etc) that make your life easier? Who provides/maintains the public plumbing system that keeps your environment free of waste-born diseases? Who grows the food that you buy at the supermarket? Who makes the clothes that you wear? The rest of society, that’s who. We are totally dependent on other people, on society at large, to live and survive. And thus it becomes very simple — if we wish to take advantage of what others in our society has to offer, we agree to relinquish a few of our freedoms so that EVERYONE can prosper.
Morals are an outgrowth of living together with others. The Golden Rule (which predates the Christian religion btw) is a useful moral compass to use when dealing with others in a community/society of people. It’s very simple (I don’t murder Dan because I would not want him to do the same to me, etc). Granted, the golden rule itself has faults, i.e. we wouldn’t want someone who enjoys inflicting pain upon himself to follow the golden rule. Thus there are other rules, such as the principle of non-coercion, which may apply better in certain situations. To a large degree, the bulk of man-made laws are derived from these two principles and derivatives thereof.
Now, you might ask, wouldn’t it be in MY best interests if everyone else followed the golden rule and I did not? It probably would. Luckily for you, I am endowed with the ability to empathize. That is, I recognize that other human beings have the same or similar desires to my own, and I can place myself in the other person’s shoes - I know what it would feel like to be taken advantage of by me, so I choose not to act in such a fashion. I would argue that a lack of empathy, as I have described it, is the greatest cause of actions harmful to other human beings, but that is a topic for another discussion.
Thus, in my opinion, the notion of “morality” as something that exists in and of itself, independent of society, is meaningless. However, I think you can also agree, that NO ONE truly lives independent of any society. Every person, no matter how self-sufficient, ultimately depends on someone else. Thus social morality naturally and NECESSARILY emerges, through oral tradition or codified laws, as a means to ensure that a society’s members can co-exist to the maximum benefit and minimun detriment to all of its members.
30 January 2006, on 7:01 pm
Ah, ignore the occasional errors in possessives (has/have) and spelling errors above
30 January 2006, on 9:02 pm
im sorry you feel this way. i don’t know what i would do without God in my life.
30 January 2006, on 9:20 pm
Bekarras,
Your smugly delivered sympathy is both condescending and an insult.
30 January 2006, on 9:22 pm
Hey, maybe the numbers are skewed. The research was from 97. Atheist were .209 (or less than 1%) and Catholics took the lead at 39.0164 (followed by Protestants) out of about 200K prisoners. Point is, if we’re so “lost” without jeebus, then why aren’t more of us in prison for horrible crimes like the one above? I’ll wait for gawds reply on that.
30 January 2006, on 9:33 pm
“I say we start a collection and higher a deprogrammer for this kid. I kind of feel sorry for him.”
It’s called university campus life. I see it alot, some kid comes in, only half aware of his own faith, and his professors and peers systematically pick what little belief they have apart. Next thing ya know, they are off deprogramming some other unfortunate youth, unaware how to fight back. I’m just thankful I entered the system the first time as a rowdy agnostic. I didn’t have much of a program left to eradicate.
30 January 2006, on 9:56 pm
I’ve been reading the comments and am struck by one thing. Nobody has really answered the question of moral absolutes. Was Hitlers Germany wrong? If so why? If not why not? Trevor (however roughly stated) has raised some very legitimate questions.
We haven’t? I thought that we either answered it, or at least pointed in the direction of an answer.
For the record, problems of morality and value exist for anybody, not just atheists. I think previous comments pointed to a direction of both naturalism and rationalism to answer these questions (and to why genocide is wrong).
But I think it’s important to point something out throughout all this discussion: either atheism is going to be able to answer this problem, or it isn’t. If it can answer this problem (and I think it can), then fine, we’re done. But if it can’t, that doesn’t automatically mean that theism can, and the theist is going to be left with a burden that I don’t think it can handle — i.e., she is going to make the problem (and gap) of value so difficult through her skepticism that she’s not going to be able to fix it, even with the concept of god.
What the theist needs to do is phrase the problem of value and morality in such a way that atheism can’t solve it, but the introduction of god can. And I haven’t heard anything close to that, at least not yet.
30 January 2006, on 10:09 pm
Heh Marcus, I wouldn’t worry about the “condescending” remark. The statement “I don’t know what I would do without God in my life” proves my point, about empathy and the lack thereof. You see, I used to be Christian (for 32 of my 37 years), so I know what it’s like to feel what Bekarras feels whe he made that statement. The problem is, he cannot step into MY shoes and feel what I feel, that my life is not empty and meaningless. He truly cannot comprehend that I can be happy without a god, and thus has no empathy for me. Once you lack empathy for you fellow human beings … well, your moral codes towards them tend to suffer too, don’t they
And Dan, I’m sorry but comment #7 was pure bull****. It depends on what classes you take, and what university you go to. To say that all institutions of higher learning are places of deprogramming is inaccurate at best, deceitful and hateful at worst. I went to a Jesuit university. If anything, my faith was stronger when I left than when I entered. Unfortunately, 9/11 happened over four years ago, and I was working 5 blocks from the World Trade Center the morning it happened. Needless to say, that was one of the major events that catapulted my deconversion.
30 January 2006, on 10:49 pm
“It depends on what classes you take, and what university you go to. To say that all institutions of higher learning are places of deprogramming is inaccurate”
You are correct. But to clarify, I am speaking from my personal experience. I have not been to all college or university campuses, nor have I seen a study on it. This is a personal observation, not a purposefully decietful or hateful remark. However, I think I shall research this now that you bring it up.
It’s funny how things affect different people. My Cousin worked in the world trade center complex and it has made him more God fearing. Of course, he was a janitor, so what do ya expect? I suppose it is purely individuation at work.
I can’t believe how much time I devoted to this blog today, I’m rambling now, thinking out loud.
30 January 2006, on 11:16 pm
Well, for me, 9/11 is what triggered the question of what exactly I believed in. After that I had to ask, is god omniscient? omnipotent? omnibenevolent? etc. What god could be compatible with what I had just witnessed? What is Christianity’s explanation for this event, and did it make sense? etc etc. I didn’t become an atheist overnight, I questioned for almost 12 months. There was no “eureka” moment, if anything, it was a huge letdown. I *wanted* there to be a god, I really did. I desperately didn’t want to see a world where there was no god … but as the months of questioning went by, I was logically left with no choice. Looking back I realize, I did it with no support system, no one to deconvert me, I did this all by myself. I don’t know how many other people deconverted themselves. I wish I knew about the atheist blogosphere back then!
30 January 2006, on 11:23 pm
I don’t really care what stupid people think about me, but a serious problem arises when they actually start trying to follow through to the next logical conclusion of their faith. “I think you atheists is e-vile, therefore I conclude you should all be massacred” Trevor is a perfect model of this way of thinking. It is a terrible way of thinking.
I don’t give a shit that he’s too stupid (or perhaps too stubborn, maybe even both) to change anything im his shoddy model of the world despite new evidence or knowledge that is presented to him, but when he says shit that is basically the equivalent of “if y’all atheists keep growin’ in numbers we might have to have ourselves a big lynch-fest” I honestly think that he should be considered mentally unstable and put into a nuthouse like every other psycho who is a danger to themselves and others.
I do remember when I still had faith like Sobex described and had trouble understanding what a life without god could ever be like, but I could still empathize with basic human emotion and understand someones feelings towards a subject even though I didn’t understand why they had the feelings toward the subject. I understand Trevor, not in a forgiving way, no, but I understand him. His head is so loaded with bullshit that conflicts with his everyday observations of the world that it causes such cognitive dissonance that it requires him to be paranoid in a way to keep his belief real in his mind. So terrified is he of losing his safety blanket of a belief system that he has actually begun to formulate a sort of “atheist question” in his mind and talking to us about our eventual genocide using illogical arguments to justify it.
I don’t fault him for being afraid, it takes a bit of a leap for each person to go from faithful to non-faithful, there are no real baby steps for most, unless faith was already somewhat meaningless to you. But where I do fault Trevor is for being extremely selfish. He would actually contemplate our demise and come here to insult us about how evil we are just so he can hold on to his bullshit religion. Fuck you Trevor, stop being a coward, being afraid of making the leap is natural, but threatening and insulting people who aren’t even forcing you to make the leap in the first place to make you feel better about being on the crumbling cliff you remain clinging to is selfish and cowardly.
31 January 2006, on 2:46 am
I definetly see my weaknesess now as far as communicating efictively…
I never said anything about massacring atheists!i said(or what i meant to say) is that please read this carefully–
Within the atheistic community there is nothing that defines what is right and what is wrong,THEREFORE mainstream atheists(that agree with their philosophy) could potentially change america’s way of thinking in regard to morals, until there are no morals(or everyones morals are different) and there would be nothing(like the bible) to say what is wrong and what is right,things like massacre.I understand that you have morals, I know you have morals,but there is nothing to say(within the atheistic/humanistic community)that one persons morals are any better than anothers. I have 3 questions(if anyone is still even reading this)
Is gay marriage wrong?
Is Murder wrong?
How is murder any less or more wrong than gay marriage,and what defines it?(im just using gay marriage as an example something more accepted.i’m not wanting to start a discussion on it)
31 January 2006, on 2:54 am
And i don’t mind the crtitsism(althought i think most of you just misunderstood what i was saying).although one comment struck me…
“His head is so loaded with bullshit that conflicts with his everyday observations of the world that it causes such cognitive dissonance that it requires him to be paranoid in a way to keep his belief real in his mind”
My everyday observations affirm and reaffirm my belief.If you want to name some “bullsh**” that conflicts with my quotidien experience thats fine,but don’t just sit there critisizing me…and you say i’m one minded?…
31 January 2006, on 3:34 am
and excuse all the typos please,i can type correctly…
was going to say that I was somewhat like trevor at his age (just a few years ago), but then I read further into what he says and damn, I was much smarter at that age. What the fuck trevor?? You’re playing the stereotypical teenage idiot role. Be a little more fucking self aware and aware of the world around you, people like you are the reason people of our age group are automatically assumed to be immature idiots. This guy is the fucking reason I can’t get a damn ounce of respect unless through the anonymity of the internet. Bastard.
“LOL…you obviously dont know what irredubly complexity is…or you would explain it to me…AHAH…”
“Trevor… kill yourself please. Since you won’t apparently click on the fucking link Lya provided I’ll go a few more steps and provide you with a more direct link, note that if you don’t click the fucking link and post another LOL.. you don’t know what “irrudubly” complexity post you will be ignored.”
That was a typo…i had gone to the link from the beggining,but anyone can post a link…that didnt prove that she knew what she it was…thats why i was laughing.
Ford-”Fuck you Trevor, stop being a coward, being afraid of making the leap is natural, but threatening and insulting people who aren’t even forcing you to make the leap in the first place to make you feel better about being on the crumbling cliff you remain clinging to is selfish and cowardly.”
I never threatenend nor insulted one person on this forum…
“Fuck you Trevor…Threatening and insulting people is selfish and cowardly”
31 January 2006, on 3:36 am
Wow. All I can say is Wow.
I think Bob said something that struck a chord with me.
“What the theist needs to do is phrase the problem of value and morality in such a way that atheism can’t solve it, but the introduction of god can. And I haven’t heard anything close to that, at least not yet.”
Hopefully Bob, one day I will be able to respond to that. I want to respond, but dammit–I don’t even know how to begin.
I must give kudos to the 14-year-old. If, in fact he’s really 14.
Stick around kid.
There’s a reason you fell upon this place.
31 January 2006, on 3:37 am
Paragraph 5,line 2-**she knew what it was
31 January 2006, on 3:49 am
Holy shit, Bob. Speed record! 80 responses in a little over one day!
I haven’t even had a chance to read any of this yet. I have my work cut out for me.
31 January 2006, on 5:38 am
Zach-”The fact that you cling to the idea of “irreducible complexity” as evidence against the theory of evolution shows that you yourself have no concept of what it entails or how micro/macro evolution occurs. Heck, you can’t even spell it. Since you seem incapable of following the links to information on the subject given, I’ll give you a short disproof of irreducible complexity.
Claim: The eye is a perfect organ. It is so complex that it is impossible that it could have resulted through the gradual process of mutation and natural selection. What good is “half of an eye” anyway?
The Truth:
First off, the eye is far from perfect. It is indeed a wonder to behold, but far from perfect (the blood vessels in your eye are placed in front of the retina, thus casting shadows and degrading vision quality).
Secondly, a “half of an eye” is very useful indeed. The most primitive sort of eye, such as the type found on the paramecium that you study in high school biology, is simply a cluster of light sensitive cells. This allows an organism to avoid light or dark places, or to detect the shadow cast by a predator.
So, what happens if by a happy mutation that little patch of light-sensing cells is deformed into, say, a concave shape? Well now the organism is possession of this novel new trait is able to roughly detect the direction in which a light source located, increasing its ability to seek more favorable surroundings.
From this point, you should be able to see how we get from this primitive “cup” eye to what we have today.”
Trevor-what does any of that have to do with ireducible complexity??the eye being or not being perfect is beside the point(although the eye is an extremly complex organism which i dont understand how anyone could say it came about by chance…).A good example of ireducible complexity is the flagellum.
Quoted from Michael Behe-The structure of a flagellum is quite different from that of a cilium. The flagellum is a long, hairlike filament embedded in the cell membrane. The external filament consists of a single type of protein, called “flagellin.” The flagellin filament is the paddle surface that contacts the the liquid during swimming. At the end of the flagellin filament near the surface of the cell, there is a bulge in the thickness of the flagellum. It is here that the filament attaches to the rotor drive. The attachment material is comprised of something called “hook protein.” The filament of a bacterial flagellum, unlike a cilium, contains no motor protein; if it is broken off, the filament just floats stiffly in the water. Therefore the motor that rotates the filament-propellor must be located somewhere else. Experiments have demonstrated that it is located at the base of the flagellum, where electron microscopy shows several ring structures occur. The rotary nature of the flagellum has clear, unavoidable consequences … (pp. 70-72)
So you see…
31 January 2006, on 7:17 am
You quoted BEHE? You expect us to take anything that ignorant jackass has to say? My goodness you are you. Look at Talkorigins- they refute behe from start to finish.
31 January 2006, on 7:41 am
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
THis is quoted from talkdesign.org and although they express all the parts and the evolutionary model in regard to the flagellum in detail they miss one thing and they admit it(however hiden within the huge article”.check it out-
“The role that various evolutionary processes played in the model can now be roughly quantified. Only one major shift of function occurred at the system level, the transition from a pilus to a protoflagellum. All of the other changes in system function can be seen as minor modifications of a basic function”
The major shift from the pilus to the protoflagellum is nowhere accounted for…
31 January 2006, on 7:46 am
they admit it again in the conclusion,
“In each of these cases, cooption occurred by the mutation of one protein to link two preexisting systems (Figure 7), followed by the duplication and integration of the new subsystem proteins into the major system. Except for the major transition between pilus and motility, subsystem cooption was associated with improvements of system function rather than major changes in system function”
NOWHERE DO THEY EXPLAIN THE MAJOR TRANSITION!!
31 January 2006, on 7:55 am
Trevor, one thing you need to learn about science is that nothing is even absolutely proven. We can only disprove things. Read further down the article:
“The previously accepted homologies between flagellar components and nonflagellar systems (such as for FliI and MotAB) are not the strange anomalies they appear to be when viewed in isolation, rather they fit well into a gradual model of flagellar evolution, and give clues as to where further homologies may be discovered. Cooption of preexisting subsystems are the key events of interest in the model. Gene duplications within the system primarily add complexity after the origin of the protoflagellum, and other processes, such as domain swapping and the loss of “scaffolding” components, are relatively minor players. Finally, in light of the organized complexity and apparent “design” of the flagellum, the very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations might be required.”
They have shown that a step-by-step