I think this video by BionicDance represents my position well enough.
Oh. Just something random I want to post today.
Who gets a nice strange cuddly feeling looking at this picture?
That's PZ Myers of the Pharyngula blog.
If you have the time, watch this playlist of videos of an interview between Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.
Here's a compilation of the my more lengthy entries that discusses specific topics. This page is linked on the shortcuts at the top of my blog and will be updated when I have more essays to add.
About Me
Stuff pertaining to me or my blog
My Route to Atheism
The story of my not-particularly-interesting route (since I was never really religious) to finding my atheism.
Youtube Channel - Atheozoa
This page lists the various playlists I've managed to compile on Youtube relating to matters of religion, atheism, science, evolution and etc.
My Atheism
Essays about my atheism - Why I don't believe in god
Scripture as poor evidence
Discusses some reasons for not accepting scripture as evidence (particularly the bible).
Ugarit and the Abrahamic Faiths
A look at the origins of Yahweh, the god behind the abrahamic faiths, and how that cast doubts on them.
Yahweh, the morally inferior god
This article takes a look specifically at Yahweh and why is cannot be the moral authority that he is said to be.
Abiogenesis, Life and Gods
Here's a short essay of the issue between abiogenesis and creationism.
Science and the Incredulous
Another short article about the problem science has with the general public and the religious.
Evolution and its denial
Putting forth some of the evidence for evolution, its predictions & applications and its denial by some of the theistic factions.
Human Morality
The objections to the Argument from Morality.
Universe Vs God
Pointing out the special pleading in the First Cause Argument.
Fine Tuned Universe
A discussion of some of the objections to the fine-tuning argument and anthropic principle.
Other Stuff
Some things that don't have a category just yet.
Atheism and Agnosticism
The distinction between Atheism/Theism and Agnosticism/Gnosticism. Plus a brief clarification of some common misconceptions of what Atheism/Atheist is.
Evidence Vs Creationism
Here's 4 groups of evidence that doesn't quite mesh with Creationism: Atavism, Pseudogenes, ERVs and the Geological Record.
On Existence
My thoughts on Existence, Manifestation and Evidence. This is representative of my stance on what it means to me to say that "X exist" - This is also related to my atheism.
Last updated: 10 May 2009
For the record, I'm lumping Intelligent Design with Creationism in this entry - Same shit, different guise so I'm not going to differentiate them.
Evolution explains. Creationism doesn't do much of that. In light of the evidence, the explanation Creationism offers is simply odd if not completely absent.
Atavism
An atavism is an evolutionary throwback - traits that reappear after disappearing in the lineage's evolutionary history. They occur because the genes for these ancestral phenotypical features are still present in the genome though no longer normally expressed.
Hind flippers in dolphins is an atavism - Evidence of the mammal's terrestrial ancestors. Another example would be teeth in birds. Tails in humans is also one such example.
Creationists make up excuses to account for such evidence. For example, same god, same genes - god may have just put the same genes in animals who don't need them. The excuse falls apart upon scrutiny.
If that was the case, why don't mammals display atavisms of bird traits? Why don't ray-finned fish have atavisms where legs appear? Why don't amphibians have "evolutionary throwbacks" of fur? Why are atavisms so nicely limited to organisms who can display them according to the theory of evolution?
Notice that atavisms are indicative of evolutionary history. These evolutionary throwbacks are limited by the organism's ancestral past. Mammals cannot have atavisms of bird traits because they diverged millions of years ago before their unique traits evolved. The same for ray-finned fish and tetrapods. The same for amphibians and mammals.
The first half of the following video touches on Atavism:
Here's NonStampCollector latest video - The Great Debate. And it's nice coincidence. The video is related to the Fine Tuning Argument and it points out to a leap of faith that is typically made by theists. This one is not related to the entry title though.
The Fine Tuning Argument. The argument that argues that the universe's physical constants must have been "fine tuned" for the existence of life and, in particular, humanity.
I'm going to lump the religious version of the Anthropic Principle into this argument because the basic concept is the same - Everything in the universe is the way it is because it's fine tuned specifically for our existence.
Fine tuned by who/what? God, they argue.
I reject this notion on the grounds that the concept is based on a biased premise which is basically an egocentric idea.
Disgustingly Anthropocentric
The fine tuning argument is bursting at its seams with anthropocentrism.
On the basis that the combination of physical constants is too improbable and other combination is alleged to render human existence impossible, the Fine Tuning argument concludes that a god must have had fine tuned the constants for life and humanity to exist.
As for the anthropic principle, it puts forth that numerous variables that must be the way they are in the current universe we live in order for us to exist and persist. A frequently used example is the fact that our planet Earth sits in the habitable zone which enables life to exist and flourish.
In all examples, there is an unstated assumption - humanity is the intended result.
To illustrate the point, we'll use a deck of cards as an example. We will draw four cards. Also, we also want to note that certain combinations are significantly special to us - 4 Aces, Sequential cards of the same colour, etc. When we draw 4 Aces, we might feel "Wow, I'm so lucky." If we were to draw a Two of Clubs, a Five of Spades, Six of Diamonds and a Queen of Hearts, we don't find that it is of any significance except of bad luck.
Here's the point. However insignificant the combo we had, it is still as improbable as the combo of, say, 4 Aces. Mathematically, it can shown that the probablilities is the same. The difference being which combo do we assign significance to.
However improbable our combination of physical constants or variables in our world is, it is as improbable as any other possible universes. The improbability is not an argument for the necessity of god.
The argument was made because of the significance we placed on ourselves. It's a good thing to value our existence but it is not an argument for god.
The Improbability and Fine Tuning
To an extent, the improbability is a non-issue. Basically, the point is: Improbable ≠ Impossible.
To account for the improbability of, say, the emergence of life, simply invoking large numbers solves the problem. Given that we know some criteria that a planet must fulfill before life can arise, for example, lying in the habitable zone of the star. We know that the universe is huge, with lots of stars where planets orbit, of which some will undoubtedly lie within the habitable zone. However improbable the event, it will occur given the chance and luck.
For people who accepted the theory of evolution, the idea of fine-tuning/design seems out of place completely. The environment need not be fine tuned for the existence and persistence of life - the reverse is true, life adapted itself to fit the environment.
Videos with related content:
Why do people laugh at creationists? - Part 8
Why do people laugh at creationists? - Part 9
Evident in Religions
Understanding the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution, in my opinion, does do some severe damage to the credibility of religions in general.
The anthropocentrism in religion is extremely obvious - Jesus died for you; God made the heavens and the earth for his creation; Humans are the pinnacle of god's creation, etc.
Ancient Man were so egocentric about humanity in general that even the gods they invented had to have humanity on the pedestal of creation - it always boils down to the idea that everything was made with humanity in mind one way or the other.
Shoving God into the Gaps
As humanity utilize Science to understand the universe better, god is frequently relegated to the gaps of our knowledge.
I was in discussion with christian who thinks that the bible "did not make a mistake on the issue" about the solar system being heliocentric/geocentric.
So, I replied with the following [Post #106]
But of course! The bible cannot be wrong - It's the big book of multiple choice.
You want geocentric universe? Supported by the bible.
You want heliocentric universe? Supported by the bible.
It's the reason behind why modern christians can say that the bible wasn't wrong but their predecessors are wrong.
[I quoted Wikipedia where it mentions that the Church was against Copernicus and Galileo because their theories were against the "Holy Scripture".]
The Power of the Holy Book of MCQ - It supports anything you want as long you search hard enough.
Hehe... and did you even wonder why Bible is infallible like what you said, it supports anything as long as you search hard enough. Can ordinary men even come up with such a book???
