Blasphemous Blogging: The Blog of Edwin Kagin

Blasphemy is the crime of making fun of ridiculous beliefs others hold sacred. This blog is about satire, truth, inquiry, and critical thinking. It is about enjoying life before death. It is about how some try to control many through their notions about a make believe supernatural world and imaginary rewards and punishments after death. This blog says that blasphemy is a good thing, a healthy thing, and a good antidote to harmful superstition. This blog is about freedom. Edwin.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Setting Edwin Straight.

Here we present another commentary from someone who has heard certain of my comments, found them to be antithetical to his understanding of The Truth, and resolved to set me straight.

I do not need to respond to an authority who does not know how to spell "Atheism."

Doesn't he know the rule of spelling, "i before e except after c, or in Atheism?"

One might wonder why this fellow needs to spend so much life space putting together incorrect, hostile, misleading, and ill informed facts and conclusions rather than just accepting his truth that he is going to Heaven and that I am going to Hell and be done with it.

Readers are invited to respond in the comments section herein.



From: (Redacted)
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Comments

Afternoon Mr. Kagin:

In a recent televised special, I listened to the arguments for and against God, of which you were a member of the panel.

After listening to numerous Univ. discussions over the years, regarding this and other topics in respect to creation Vs evolution, the same question comes to mind.

In claiming to be an athesist, you have denied the existence of God as Creator, is this not correct?

If it is, why waste so much time arguing over who is or is not correct, if there is no God? Or do you sub-consciously believe their is a God, but you refuse to be accountable to anyone other than yourself?

Even Lucifer had knowledge of God, but he decided to exalt himself above God.( At least he was honest with himself )

Is that not what the Humanist is attempting to do?




noun the belief that God does not exist.

— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

— ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.


noun 1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. 2 a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

— DERIVATIVES humanist noun & adjective humanistic adjective.

Please notice the focus on human rather than divine. When the divine is ignored, and the human has elevated himself above the divine, he/she has declared himself/herself to be a god or goddess. Is this not what Lucifer did? It most certainly is.

Just a couple of quotes in closing:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." Albert Einstein (Nobel prize for Physics in 1921). Calaprice, Alice: The Quotable Einstein (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996).

"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." Francis Crick, [Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.

Just a few of many quotes from prominent individuals regarding Creation...


Paul M. Anderson Ed.D, Ph.D Eng.

Retired Professor of Quantum Theory


Anonymous monkeysuncle said...

Oh, good grief! Another stupid engineer giving our profession a bad name.

To my understanding, Edwin does not CLAIM to be an atheist--he simply states that he IS one. It is a fact supported by evidence, not a mere claim.

Dr. Anderson makes a rather more serious error in attempting to tell Edwin what it is Edwin does or does not believe, attempting to define the words "atheist" and "humanist" by selecting dictionary definitions that appeal to him -- a variation of "quote mining."

At minimum, an atheist is someone who has no belief in any god or any supernatural thing. It would be illogical to "deny the existence of God" since that may tacitly admit the existence of a thing, but simply deny that it does. Having no information on what a god is, and no clear, non-contradictory, corroborative evidence that there can be such a critter, an atheist (or anyone else for that matter) does not even need to consider the question. To put it another way, we may certainly say that gods do not exist as a default conclusion, and theists must provide evidence for their extraordinary claims of things that exist that are "beyond human comprehension."

An atheist would not need to spend so much time (life-space) arguing about this god-thingy if religionists were not so persistent in trying to use the power of government to promote the idea of their invisible friend, and to write laws based on their perception of what their invisible friend tells them -- laws that tend to make moral choices for us based on religious beliefs that are irrational or delusional or having no basis in fact.

I also think Dr. Anderson should be more cautious when quoting celebrities who are speaking on subjects out of their field of expertise--Einstein was a mathematician and physicist, and Crick is a biologist--they are not theologians. Dr. Anderson here commits a fallacious appeal to authority. Too bad. Aside from this, Einstein did not believe in the biblical god, but was more of a deist or pantheist. Dr. Anderson would be well advised that Einstein also said,

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of his children for their numerous stupidities, for which only he can be held responsible; in my opinion, only his nonexistence could excuse him."

7:50 PM EST  
Anonymous monkeysuncle said...

More Einstein, as if we need to belabor the point:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

11:06 PM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He calls himself,
"Paul M. Anderson Ed.D, Ph.D Eng.
Retired Professor of Quantum Theory." Perhaps he feels this self bestowed accolade enhances his credibility. What I see is merely another "bible thumper" attempting to torture logic to fit a prejudice that was pounded into his head when he was yet a child.

I doubt this person is or was any "credible" scientist or professor, the impetus of his message is way too self-serving and nearly devoid of any logical and responsible process.

8:58 PM EST  
Anonymous GodliestGodlyGoddess said...

Greetings from a fewllow Boone County resident.

I would like to start off by responding to a few quotes I selected from Dr. Anderson's letter.

--"why waste so much time arguing over who is or is not correct, if there is no God?"

>> Well, I believe most freethinkers/humanists/atheists, etc. would love to not argue the issue. Unlike most Christians, we do not feel the need to prove ourselves right. We do not worry about those who do not believe the same as we do, and frankly we do not care what others believe or do not believe. I could go the rest of my life never "arguing" religion if 'you' simply did not care what I do or do not believe. Yeah, it's that easy!

--"Even Lucifer had knowledge of God, but he decided to exalt himself above God.( At least he was honest with himself.")

>>Wow! This I had to pick on you for because it is just too darn funny. You are actually implying that Lucifer is of a higher moral quality than that of a fellow human being. How Christian of you! To me it is silly because I do not believe there is a scarey man in the fire down below, but it just doesn't seem to be a Christian thing to say. Hmm

--"When the divine is ignored, and the human has elevated himself above the divine, he/she has declared himself/herself to be a god or goddess."

>>Now this one just simply does not make sense. I say:
When the divine is ignored, it does not exist to the ignorer, making it impossible for the ignorer to elevate himself above the ignored.
Ok, a little sarcastic, but my point is the same. I cannot elevate myself above something I do not believe in.

And to the whole god/goddess thing. If you listen to what you have said, you can't tell me you don't laugh. C'mon... If someone does not believe in god, they declare themselves a god/goddess. I can only say that is just ridiculous, and as an educated fellow, I hope you can man up and admit that. We'll see!

In closing, I have to say the Christians sure didn't pull out the big guns when they sent this guy to spread the message. But sadly, that is all too typical.

From, self appointed
Godliest Godly Goddess (or whatever I shall declare myself!!)

3:26 AM EST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Subject: Electrons are wasted on him.

The lesson learned by a youngster is simply that you cannot prove or
disprove a non-event. Edwin's analogy, designed for children, in which
he claims no need for proof since he has faith is exactly parallel to
the claim of christians that say they do need not need proof for their
equally silly claims because they _believe_ them to be true.

If you are able to follow the logic of that simple statement then it
follows that the existence of gods or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny
cannot be proved or disproved. Unfortunately, christians do not throw
out the gods along with the other kinds of imaginary entitys as their
minds mature. To a really rational person, or as rational as humans are
capable of getting, (that capacity is definitely not as fully evolved as
some of us wish it were), it is crystal clear that a very large
percentage of the species never does grow up. This lack is so
unfortunate because of all the death and suffering it has caused.

It takes no more than an elementary world history book to discover that
blind belief in imaginary entitys has been behind many of the of the
most horrific human behaviors. So aside from the _fact_ that there is
absolutely nothing in our existence to indicate that there is anyone or
anything supernatural, just thinking that there is often results in what
can only be described as evil.

The only "reason" that religion part in human minds is that humans have
evolved with the most complex form of intelligence on this planet which
as an adaptive tool must incorporate curiosity to determine a
relationship between cause and effect in order make sense of our world.
Superstition is in all cases a faulty association between cause and
effect. Primitive and simple minded thinking along with a powerful drive
to understand events has, through all of human history, caused humans to
_invent_ a cause for events when the true cause was unavailable due to
lack of information or faulty information underlying their assumptions
as to the cause of of a given event. Progress toward our current
civilization was exceeding slow until the formulation of a systematic
method of relating cause and effect. That tool is what we call the
Scientific Method. It always angers me that the multitudes of
superstitious people castigate the Scientific Method (in comparison to
their own personal set of superstitions) of understanding our universe
but accept with open arms, the (I won't say miraculous because miracles
don't exist), truly wonderful products and benefits that Science has
provided. I have at least a little respect for groups like the Amish who
at least make some effort to live without the results of modern Science.
At least they make the effort not to be hypocrites.

Does the writer really have to have to look, "deep down", to know that
some actions are evil and some beneficial? That's an absolutely
elementary discovery.
His implied assumption that everyone holds a common element called
justice, however is absurd. What is called justice in one place can be
profoundly different from what is described as justice in another time,
place or society. Example:beheading in the public square, stoning people
to death,(very popular in the bible), etc.etc. Justice can be more
simply described as the method of handing out aversive events to those
members of a society that have difficulty following the rules of that
society. Those rules do not be handed out by a supernatural father
figure since the most common and essential are easily deducible, such as
treat other people the way you'd like to be treated which concept
obviously pre-dates the bible and was incorporated into it. It has
nothing to do with something deep down; some type of moral compass, its
simply that there have to be some ground rules for human animals if they
want to live in a group. That group simply determines a set of rules
that works for them, and those sets of rules have and still do vary
widely outside of a few essential basics. (These sets of rules are very
often not extended to outside groups or individuals).

You describe Edwin's characterization of of theism as flimsy. Your
characterization is downright ethereal. Your train of "reasoning" around
the subject of a molecule can be described as nothing other than just
plain stupid. I'd be giving you the benefit of the doubt if I said
ignorant. By your reasoning a computer simply can't exist because its
language of information processing is just dumb electrons. The old watch
without a watchmaker argument has been easily refuted by people who
actually use the tool called logic.

The beginning assumption of *rationalism *is that the world as we
experience it has a fixed set of rules. In order to understand our world
we must determine what those rules are. We must carefully define and
articulate what our question is in regard to some observed phenomonen.
Then we propose possible explanations for what we observe and test those
explanations as rigorously as we possibly can. Either the explanation of
the phenomenon predicts and _always_ results in the same outcome or the
explanation is discarded. And here is where there is a huge difference
in rationality and superstition. Rationality as represented by science
is far more humble than superstition as represented by theism because if
science cannot explain a phenomenon... we simply say, *I don't know.
*Theology, on the other hand simply extracts an explanation from their
imagination or fantasies and labels it truth.

Theologians have declared that:
The sun orbits the earth. Because that is what your kind of "good old
reasoning told them. (Untested observation)
Man will never fly because god did not design him to do so.
Faulty prophecy and faulty assumption because there aren't any gods.
And on and on ad infinitum.

After science demonstrates the falseness of their monumental errors they
often bluster and lash out at the messenger of the truth. They've
frequently tortured or killed him in the past although christians have
generally given up that practice. Their fellow theists, however, the
muslums still like to kill those who disagree with them.

Talk about straw men! Your description of "socio-biology" must have come
right out of a pulpit. I happen to have a degree in biology and I am
very comfortable in saying that virtually no person with any kind of
scientific education would ever have gone down that ridiculous sentient
or non sentient molecule thought path unless perhaps their minds were
twisted and perverted by some kind of superstitious group. Do you even
know what a molecule is? Gosh, I wonder how those nasty, death dealing
elements called sodium and chlorine manage to join up and become plain
old table salt?

Altruism? Ultimate form of morality? Why do you presume to rank this
type of behavior. Where in the heck did you dig that one up? Could you
possibly consider the taboo possibility that altruism might be
absolutely essential in an evolutionary sense for a mammal like Homo
sapiens? If fathers didn't have altruism then mothers wouldn't survive
and obviously (I hope) you can see that if mothers didn't have altruism
then babies wouldn't survive. Do you think there is altruism in a wolf
pack? Do you think that cats might have less altruism than the dog
family. Do you suppose its within the realm of possibility that an
overflow of this altruistic capacity is why humans keep dogs and cats as
pets? Do you think that I wouldn't try to save your life if you were in
eminent danger because I would hope that others might do the same for
me? Altruism is no mystery. By the way, if you knew anything about the
Theory of Evolution, you would know that evolution often does not work
only on the individual level but also on the group level.

Oh, I like that line about counter to our experience. There you go
again. Can't you understand that your experience doesn't mean didily?
That's where we get the flat earth, etc.,etc., etc. Your experience
dictates that germs can't possibly cause disease because you can't see
them. A large object will fall faster that a small one because it weighs
more. A bullet shot from a level gun will surely stay in the air longer
than one dropped to the ground beside the muzzle of that gun. Time must
pass at the same rate regardless of speed of travel. All of the elements
are earth, air, fire and water.

Its been a long time since I studied genetics and its not my specialty
so there is a lot about the subject that I don't know. But I can
personally guarantee you that
mutations are happening this very moment at an incredible rate and that
they do in fact result from rearrangement materials already in the DNA.
It only takes very tiny changes in that DNA to effect great change in an
organism. I think it has been established that 98% of *your* DNA is
identical to that of your cousin, the chimpanzee. It is evident to
anyone that observes chimps that they have altruism; and they also
practice cannibalism. Sound familiar?

This one's a beaut. This reminds me of the mental effort that was once
expended on, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
That’s because /every/ world view begins with assuming something is real
and this reality is, by definition, eternal, therefore having no cause.
Either we begin with assuming matter is eternal or God is eternal. So
there is no going further back to any other “causes.” Either “In the
beginning, Matter” or “In the beginning, God.” c Additionally, each
position is equally a starting point from which to construct a world
view. The question is which assumption is more logical, given other
things we know about the universe, life, and ourselves.

So many fake premises. My world view does not begin by assuming anything
except that* I* will decide by using the sensory systems that evolution
has fortuitously provided me with or devised extensions of those senses
such as for instance, microscopes, telescopes, x-rays, and so on. "This
reality is by definition, eternal"? Who says so?
"Either _we_ begin with assuming matter is eternal or God is eternal."

No *we* don't. The subject of a god would never even be on the table for
a discussion among rational people. When dialogging with a person who is
already known to be infected with superstition it is a given that his
statements will not be rational.

Both views are equally religious, since they answer an ultimately
“religious” question, “What about God?”

You want them to be but they are not. I wrote earlier that with the
scientific method we carefully articulate the question that we seek an
answer. We don't ask questions that can't possibly be answered by the
means that we have available or are otherwise meaningless. Such as how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How high is up?

Bottom line. Very simple. God concept is able to predict NOTHING.
Therefore trash it.

9:52 PM EST  

Post a Comment

<< Home