Defaithed

Via Debunking Christianity comes the video Proving that the Bible is Repulsive, from website God is imaginary. It's another foray into the pages of the greatest horror story ever written:

Not much need be said about the content, other than to note that it's a great way to explain to believers why so many tenets of Abrahamic religion are not merely unbelievable to the rational mind, but are outright disgusting. Death to anyone working on the Sabbath... Death to rebellious children... Death to adulterers... Death to homosexuals... Death to followers of other gods... Eternal fiery torment... Subjugation for women... Ownership and even murder of slaves... Massacres of children... Repulsive is too kind a word for such an immoral, subhuman code.

Needless to say, over in the Debunking Christianity comments there's the predictable-as-death-and-taxes attempt to weasel out of the Bible's grotesque commandments:

The 10 commandments weren't given to people who work at Burger King or Wal-Mart. They written for and to the Israelites only.

Israelites only – true or false? It doesn't matter. Just as it doesn't matter whether God got mellow and toned down the bloodlust around 2000 years ago when He became a pappy. What matters is this: If the Bible's alleged God ever forced those inhuman laws upon anybody, then He needs to be hunted down and killed. Period.

In all of Christian apologetics, there's nothing that strikes me as repulsive as "Oh, well, God inflicted those horrors on other people, not on me. So it's OK!" As I don't want to wear out the word "repulsive", I'll just label that apologetic response as sick.

The Word Of Christ

Surprisingly indistinguishable from one’s personal opinion, actually.

(In case you don't recognize this theological genius, it's the loony child abuser from Jesus Camp.)

Source of graphic unknown. Via Pundit Kitchen.

Sure, the "atheists discredited" prediction didn't come to pass by its deadline of February this year. But fear not, for the faithful have another chance at prophetic jackpot waiting in the heavenly wings. 

I stumbled across another prediction over at The Panda's Thumb, via a 2004 post on Pharyngula. This one comes from famed Intelligent Design (née Creationism) proponent William A. Dembski, in a Touchstone Magazine interview: 

Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?

Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.

– (Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (July/August 2004).  “The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design.”  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.)

A little background for those not up on their devotional readings: Readeth thou more

From failblog.org.

Following an earlier look at a decidedly smarmy and unfunny religious comic strip, here's another peek at faith-generated yuks. (No, I don't go looking for this stuff; this one came via the now-classic route: a "you'll love this" email making the rounds of senior citizens and the related-by-family victims on their mailing lists.)

This strip doesn't seem universally awful. An example:

The following panel was also amusing:

Readeth thou more

"Gosh," you say, "isn't there a Mortal Kombat-fighting game that lets me pit silly cartoon gods against each other – especially one that gives me the panty-waist option of censoring out Mohammed's face if its depiction offends me?"

You're in luck: Faith Fighter has been pleasing humor-compatible gamers, religious or not, for some time now. I just wasted all comers as Ganesha (though on Easy level; I'm lazy that way).

Ignore the mewling "we don't want to offend anybody" disclaimer, and go whip some divine hiney. Before the U.N. takes it away from you anyway.

Play Faith Fighter

Gotta pick a bone with a fellow atheist. From Bonnie Erbe in Atheists, Christianity, Bush, Religion, and Why God Is Not Dead:

During W's presidency, I often scratched my head and asked, after the liberating '60s and '70s, how did we ever go "back to the future" and end up in the political clutches of the religious Right? The fact is, '60s and '70s atheism was a bit too uninformed about the psychological and social benefits of churchgoing. Religion answers the unanswerable. It creates powerful and important social networks among churchgoers. Unless and until atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers can somehow replace those benefits, or form their own version of same, religion will continue to be a powerful cultural force.

There's no doubt that religion is a focus of social networks. And whether secularists need to offer some replacement for that force is an interesting and ongoing matter of debate.

My quibble is with "Religion answers the unanswerable". It doesn't. Readeth thou more

Recently, US President Obama spoke to the US National Acadeny of Sciences. Against a backdrop of health and energy crises, he said:

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been. And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today. (via Genomicron)

Who the heck would argue with that? Actually, some would. Readeth thou more

Intelligent Design is warmed-over creationism says PZ Myers, and of course he's right. Once again, a nutcase is claiming "Creationism and Intelligent Design are two completely different ways of looking at the world" – when the only difference is that proponents of the latter try to make Creationist mush palatable by invoking science-y words and by being careful not to say "God" when outsiders are listening.

But alas, they keep making their private whispers public. Read the Pharyngula article for a great run-down of Intelligent Design proponents caught in the act of admitting that their Magic Designer is none other than the Abrahamic god of Bronze-Age Middle Eastern cults. It's good to keep these instances in mind, as we'll continue to hear public protests of "God? Who said God?" from the IDists.

My own take on the matter? Intelligent Design is Creationism with flame decals. Nothing more. 

Purpose of this page

Discovery Institute Discoveries: Detailed List by Year (DIDDLY) is a new resource on this site to assist in educating the public on research performed by The Discovery Institute, a US-based think tank with a voice in the public discussion of scientific, social, and educational issues.

DIDDLY will catalog all discoveries, scientific or other, which have been made directly by, or through the support of, the Discovery Institute. Readeth thou more