WHAT A DAMNED LIAR AND COWARD!

First, read this from P Z Myers:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/how_not_to_run_a_blog.php

A strange little blog has been carping at various atheists blogs for a while now. Called “You’re Not Helping”, it pretended to have the goal of keeping internet atheists honest and holding them to a higher standard. It wasn’t very interesting — it’s main claim to fame was a tone that combined self-righteousness with whining — but it has just flamed out spectacularly. The author has admitted to committing flagrant sockpuppetry, with four identities (“yourenothelping”, “Polly-O”, “Brandon”, and “Patricia”) who were active commenters there, all reinforcing the same views and sometimes congratulating each other on their cleverness.

So much for honesty and a higher standard.

Indeed, not only has the liar been caught out, he has hidden his blog! If you try to access it now, you get:

http://yourenothelping.wordpress.com/

This blog is protected; to view it, you must log in

Well, this is what should happen to it:

This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.

Because if sockpuppetry is not a violation of WordPress Terms of service, IT SHOULD BE!

Update: Now the place where that blog used to be says:

The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.

Atheism is a DOGMA! Get over it!

I recently had a long argument with an atheist who not only openly disagreed with all religions, but insisted that all religious people were delusional, stupid, even insane, while totally denying that he was himself promoting an unproven belief of his own.

What is atheism? There appear to be two kinds:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

By the first definition, I am indeed an atheist, but I reject that term for myself because I know that people assume that atheism is about outright denial of God’s existence (the second definition) and nothing else. By contrast, I question God’s existence and do not deny it at all. My position is a neutral one regarding that specific issue.

And that is why Thomas Huxley in the 19th Century coined the term agnostic to describe himself and his beliefs, or lack thereof.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Thus by the first definition one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, though most people only know of the first kind (because that is consistent with the second definition) . What one cannot be is lumping all people who are religious into the same category of irrationality, delusion, and stupidity and then be nondogmatic at the same time. Not only are you being dogmatic, you are being a BIGOT.
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
And any atheist who does that is no better than someone who is a religious bigot.
Atheists say that the burden of proof should be on the religious person to support the claim that God exists. But producing such proof is exactly what the religious person does when he produces the Bible, the Quran, or some other religious text that is the basis for a God-centered religion. You can say that the proof is insufficent to establish belief in God beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is still a proof. And religion by definition requires faith, not absolute proof. If belief in God could be established beyond a reasonable doubt, it wouldn’t be part of religion. Conversely, atheism also cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, because there is no way to disprove the existence of God. Atheism is a dogma, not an objective point of view.
When an atheist says that the Bible is no more credible than the Harry Potter books, he is not making an objective statement at all, but giving a subjective opinion. That’s exactly what a DOGMA is!
Does this mean atheism is also a religion? It depends on your definition of religion. I say no, because you don’t need faith to be an athiest or agnostic. Faith involves belief in something that cannot be directly detected. But you do have to make a choice to be an atheist, agnostic, or theist. Belief in the non-existence of God is as much a religion as not playing chess is a form of gaming. But one still makes a choice if one refuses to learn how to play chess.

Floods cause canyons? Yeah, but…..

Check out this science news article:

http://www.physorg.com/news196255219.html

Geologist investigates canyon carved in just three days in Texas flood

June 20, 2010

In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake — the reservoir of the Canyon Dam — to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.

According to a new analysis of the and its aftermath—performed by Michael Lamb, assistant professor of geology at the California Institute of Technology, and Mark Fonstad of Texas State University—the formed in just three days.

A paper about the research appears in the June 20 advance online edition of the journal Nature Geoscience.

Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years.

Such is not always the case, however. “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history,” Lamb says.

Unfortunately, these catastrophic megafloods — which also may have chiseled out spectacular canyons on Mars—generally leave few telltale signs to distinguish them from slower events. “There are very few modern examples of megafloods,” Lamb says, “and these events are not normally witnessed, so the process by which such erosion happens is not well understood.” Nevertheless, he adds, “the evidence that is left behind, like boulders and streamlined sediment islands, suggests the presence of fast water”—although it reveals nothing about the time frame over which the water flowed.

Shrewd commenters noticed the irony of that article:

yyz – Jun 20, 2010

I wonder how long before the Texas Board of Education and Young Earth Creationists (same thing, really) point to legitimate research such as this as further proof that Earth “might be” 6,000 years old? We’ll know soon enough.
Andragogue – 23 hours ago
Young Earth Creationists will not doubt cherry pick bits of data from this study thereby adding to the volume of their pseudoscientific books and pamplets sold in gift shops around the Grand Canyon. (At 7 meters in 3 days, that’s about 230 days to carve out the Grand Canyon.)
GaryB – 22 hours ago
> Unfortunately, these catastrophic megafloods — which also may have chiseled out spectacular canyons on Mars—generally leave few telltale signs to distinguish them from slower events.
 Is Lamb a young earth creationist?? There are plenty of signs: Slow erosion such as formed the Grand canyon leaves a meandering canyon when the earth rises under a meandering stream. Fast floods tend to leave straight paths.
Caliban – 21 hours ago
Unfortunately for the YEC crowd, the total volume of material excision that is represented by the Grand Canyon will defy all but the most idiotic or foolhardy among them.
I don’t have exact figures, but the discharge flow/volume rate of moving water required to carve out the canyon, on young earth timescales simply doesn’t exist, and there is no documented megaflood precedent that could even come close to camparing- and even at that at least a couple orders of magnitude too small.
The Grand Canyon simply dwarfs any of the other megaflood sites- Washington state’s Channeled Scab Lands, the English Channel, and the McKenzie River megaflood features, after repeated episodes, are HUGE- but still tiny in comparison to the Grand Canyon.
 
Ethelred – 18 hours ago
There is a simple way to show that the Grand Canyon was not created by a single great flood.
The North Rim of the Grand Canyon is 2000 feet higher than the South Rim. The Colorado River flows mostly west with a little bit of south. Across the slope. Not along it.
As single great flood would have flowed SOUTH towards the Gulf of Mexico instead of west towards the Gulf of California. Pointing this out has invariably stopped YEC in their tracks for me. Some have even bothered to ask why the Colorado flows the way it does. Thus showing signs that they might have actually begun to think.

 
Indeed, I highly commend these people for recognizing how Young Earth Creationists (YECs) can misuse data to support their absurd dogmas and knowing how to debunk the Creationist claims before they are even made. The problem is that Creationists use two methods to make their claims:
  1. Taking real phenomenon out of context to support something that is only distantly related to it (There is a HUGE difference between a local flood like what was referred to in the science article above and the mythical flood of Noah).
  2. Ignoring details about something to make a Creationist claim about it plausible when in fact it is not (Have you ever seen flood waters carve out a meandering river course? Also, how could a single flood both make the layers of rock that make up the sides of the Grand Canyon and carve out the canyon itself?)

YECs are deluded liars, of course. And since one of the Ten Commandments of the Bible forbids bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, that must mean Young Earth Creationism is actually unbiblical, right?

Was Lawrence Solomon insane in 2008?

If you want to see what a deranged lunatic Lawrence Solomon really is (or at least was in 2008), read this hilarious joke of an op-ed piece that he wrote and published for a Canadian right-wing rag:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/07/12/abundant-energy-will-power-future-growth.aspx

Up! Up! Up! The world is consuming more and more energy and, as if by miracle, the amount left to consume grows ever higher. Never before in human history has energy been accessible in greater abundance and in more regions, never before has mankind had more energy options and faced a brighter energy future. Take oil, the scarcest of the major energy commodities. In the Americas, proven oil reserves have increased from 170 billion barrels to 180 billion barrels over the last two decades, according to the 2008 Statistical World Review from British Petroleum. In Europe and Eurasia, proven oil reserves almost doubled, from 76 billion barrels to 144. Africa’s proven oil reserves did double, from 58 billion barrels to 117. Even the Asia Pacific region, where China and India are reputed to be sucking up everything in sight, has increased its proven reserves. And the Middle East, the gas tank of the world, shows no sign of slowing down — its reserves soared by almost 200 billion barrels, from a whopping 567 billion barrels to a super-whopping 756. Bottom line for the world: an incredible 36% increase in oil reserves during the two decades that saw the greatest globalization-spurred oil consumption in the history of mankind. And that doesn’t include the 152 billion barrels in proven oil reserves obtainable from Canada’s tar sands. Is there any reason to doubt that the next two decades won’t build on the steady growth of the last two? These oil reserves aren’t the end of it. These figures — for the year ending December 2006 — represent oil that’s not only known to be available, but also economic at 2006 prices using 2006 technology. Since prices have soared in the last year, and technology has improved too, BP’s annual assessment for the 2007 year will show greater proven oil reserves still. But this is still not the end of it. Unconventional oil reserves are now in play. In 2005, the Rand Corporation estimated that the oil shale in America’s Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, contains 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, with as much as 1.1 trillion barrels of oil recoverable, an amount comparable to the reserves of four Saudi Arabias. Oil shale becomes recoverable at $95 a barrel, it determined. With oil now trading at $140 a barrel, oil shale exploitation is now very much economic. Then there’s Canada’s tar sands, with its even greater potential–estimates of the total reserves that may be available top two trillion barrels, or eight Saudi Arabias. This is still not the end to it. Most of the oil we know about lies in the well travelled portions of the globe. But most of the world remains unexplored — the interiors of Africa, Asia and South America have seen relatively little oil exploration. Oil exploration in the oceans, too, is in its infancy. For all practical purposes, mankind has limitless oil supplies available to it. The story is similar for natural gas and coal, the other major nonrenewable sources of energy. And for nuclear power. And for the renewables. The amount of solar power landing on Earth could supply our current needs 10,000 times over. This potential will soon start to be realized on a large scale thanks to breakthroughs in the U. S. and Israel that have dramatically brought down the cost of solar technology. Wind also represents an inexhaustible resource, as seen in a 2005 NASA-funded study at Stanford University of viable wind sites worldwide. It found that wind power could satisfy global demand seven times over, assuming a realistic capture rate of 20%. Some European countries already meet a significant portion of their power needs with wind. The world is awash with exploitable energy, both renewable and non-renewable. Availability is not at issue and never has been. The only issue is the cost –both economic and environmental –at which it can be exploited. Nuclear currently fails on economic grounds. But most fossil fuel technologies don’t need subsidies and soon, neither will most renewable technologies. That leaves the environment as the chief determinant of what energy we use, and where we use it. Thanks to environmental awareness and the high energy prices we now face, energy production has become ever cleaner, safer, and more efficient, giving us more meaningful options than ever before. Whatever the outcome, whatever energy forms we ultimately rely on, the table is diverse and bountiful, allowing the world economy to grow large and to grow cleanly. And it will have been largely set by environmentalists.

If that is not insanity, what would be? How can anyone seriously claim that nonrenewable resources can suddenly appear in greater abundance without a shred of proof or an explanation for his obviously absurd conclusions? I hope the oil companies pay this shill well enough; he may someday need a lawyer to defend him against charges of FRAUD. Hey, he could always plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and a judge and jury just might buy that!

There is still hope even for those who are brainwashed

Check out this blog:

http://nolongerquivering.com/

It is a protest against men using religion to train women to be little more than breeding machines.

http://nolongerquivering.com/about/

by Vyckie

I am a single mother of 7 wonderful kids. I am a former “Quiverfull” mother who dedicated my life to bearing and raising up “Arrows for God’s army.”

My pregnancies nearly killed me on several occasions, but I was so dedicated to the ideal that I continued to risk my life. I left the movement and my Christian faith, so that’s led to learning a whole new way of thinking and living. My kids and I are really having a blast and enjoying the freedom to be ourselves rather than ordering our lives according to some predefined roles based upon an ancient patriarchal society.

I am a former Christian homeschooling mother of seven who finally walked away from fundamentalism after our radical extremism drove my oldest daughter to attempt suicide. I was so convinced of, and committed to, the Biblical family ideals espoused by what has been termed the “Quiverfull” or “Biblical Patriarchy” movement.

Mine is a candid story of one who was seriously sucked into a hate-filled worldview and was so committed that I was willing to die for the cause – and now I am equally bold in speaking up to say that the Quiverfull worldview and lifestyle overburdens women, enslaves the daughters and destroys families.

Of course, this is the sort of evil that trapped Andrea Yates and killed her five children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates