Thursday, October 08, 2009

Bible Correction

What if the Bible had happened to be written this way. . .

From Genesis

In the beginning God built a wondrous framework whereby more complicated creatures could naturally emerge from less complicated ones. Yea did he arrange it so that that which did not work so well did not make so many progeny and verily did the best of best go forth and multiply to the immense joy of God. It worked! What joy when after eons and eons his thoughtful and reasonable children emerged from the ooze and gave praise to him.

From Job
It also came to pass that Job asked God, "why Lord do I stick so mysteriously to thy earth"? And God said, "Lo, I say unto you, I have made the earth sticky whereby all the plants and animals may understand which way is up".

Now, a few thousand years after the bible first came out would it be heresy to teach Newton's law of gravitation? Or Einstein's expansion of that theory? Would the devout accept evolution because it was outlined in the bible AND verified by experiment and the preponderance of the evidence and decry evil gravity as the work of the devil even though it could stand the test of experimentation but defied the teachings of the Bible?

hmmm...I wonder? Of course the devote will miss my point entirely and just say, 'Well, it wasn't written that way so end of story'. But, since the Bible was written by people who didn't know shit from Shine-0-La it actually COULD have been written any way at all! Now we have idiots in Iowa and elsewhere who want 'creation science' (I just threw up in my mouth a little) ruining our educational system and pretty much making America the laughing stock of the rest of the educated world.

One more thing...How about a creation scientist asking the nobel committee if he has any chance of winning a nobel prize in Biology?

'Nuff said!

Saturday, September 19, 2009


Hey looks like Hickabee (sorry) is getting press again. Less we forget, here's his answer to whether or not he 'believes' in evolution. Actually seems like an ok answer for a bit and then he goes off on ridiculing the idea that we descended from primates.

WE ARE PRIMATES YOU MORON! AND we didn't descend from 'monkeys'. We descended from earlier versions of us like all of the other billions of life forms have done over the eons.

Here's an idea...Read a damn science book for a change you dumb ass!

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Big Foot?

Here's a typical piece from the national news media (CNN).

Big foot? If this wasn't already an urban myth of sorts no one would even consider 'big foot' as a possible explanation of the grainy (isn't it alway?) photograph. A true skeptic looks at something like this but does not consider magic as possible explanation of what is being seen. Why? Because to date there have been zero provable, repeatable instances of 'magic' happening!

The guy seems reasonable and doubts a Big Foot but of course the reporters put that 'explanation' high on their list. Let's face it a garbage bag (my top explanation) blowing through and being caught in a frame is not news worthy. A Big Foot sighting of course is. . . even though THERE IS NO SUCH THING!

Monday, August 31, 2009

"virgin" Mary. . . MY ASS!

The virgin birth of one, Jesus H. Christ, is a corner stone of the religion that bears his name. A little research shows that the word 'virgin' used to mean other things than it does today! Here's a good link that discusses this problem of semantics.

The short version. . . One ancient definition of the word 'alma or almah' is that of simply 'young girl'. Also remember that the whole bible is a translation subject to the whims and beliefs of the translator. By the time we get to the modern age the word 'virgin' has only one meaning. This coupled with the fact that the idea of virgin birth was quite common in Greek mythology and other places.

People need Jesus to be a god and one way to get there is to be conceived by God himself. The evidence that this actually happened though is tenuous at best and probably better understood in terms of etymology and the evolution of language. There is contention among biblical scholars about the proper translation of the word 'alma or almah' which may or may not connote 'virgin' as we think of it today. It may simply mean 'young woman'. I imagine like a lot of words it is the context that tells you what it means. Suffice it to say that the 'FACT' that the bible predicts (in Isaiah I think) the virgin birth of a son of God is NOT a slam dunk by any means.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Cult Mom Pleads Guilty In Son's Starvation Death

This just in...Take a look at this story.

Yeah, She starved her 16 month old son because he refused to say amen and had a rebellious spirit. I hope I'm not the only one to see that without crazy ass religion this kind of crap does not happen. There is no reasonable person that would starve a 16 month old. The list of evil committed in the name of religion is WAY longer than any perceived good religion has done.

This just sickens me and I don't get why people keep turning to magic instead of trusting their own good reasoning skills.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Faith Based Programs

White House panel will guide faith-based programs

Well this is an interesting twist. Apparently the government gives money (500 million) to faith based programs such as church groups that feed the hungry. While that may seem noble on the surface of it to me it smacks of a violation of separation of church and state. While feeding the hungry is noble, the government has its own programs for that so why not let the churches get their own damn money.

The twisted part is that to qualify for federal money you may not discriminate who gets to be in your club based on race nor religion! Get it? That means that Jewish groups MUST allow Muslim members. Catholics must allow Jews. And Baptists, well, they’ll take anyone (but NO IRISH!) Funny how these typically self-righteous groups may find themselves in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

This is why a reasonable government cannot get itself wrapped up in funding faith based programs. Reason and faith simply do not go together and a collision will happen somewhere along the way. Churches already get HUGE tax breaks. I’m for that because I don’t want them having a say on policy based on how much they’ve invested. Those tax breaks and tax breaks given to those who contribute to their faith will just have to be enough to sustain whatever programs they have going.