« Join the Church of Holy Fuck! | Main | Churchlessness is more godly than religion »

September 16, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

That old "God" doesn't exist, not to mention being terribly boring, and uptight...

But happily, I have wonderful and irrefutable proof that GODDESSES do:




My pc has filters for Sexual content. What is in the videos, other than a cute gal?

Well I have read a lot of sites explaining why God does not exist I can tell you that all the sites i have read are wrong. There are tons of reasons and explaing i can say but instead I'll say two things 1 read the Book of Mormon and you'll absolutely know god exists, 2 when Jesus Christ comes again you will know witch is soon read 3 Nephi we are living 3 Nephi right now The Church of Jesus Christ Of Ladder Day Saints is the True Church Read the Book Of Mormon and You will understand I promise you can disagree with me all you want but until you read the Book Of Mormon only after that if you still think God does not exist then all i can say is wow.

Jon, thanks for the satirical comment. You can't be serious, right?

If you are, please start saying "wow!" Mormonism is one of the craziest and least believable religions on earth, and that's quite a non-honor, because every religion is unbelievable.

who made you anyway that makes you say God does not exist. i could hardly believe people like you do exist.

read some more so you will get to know God. what a pity, you haven't encountered him. no wonder 911 happened because you people think you can exist without God.

and after that..you still have the nerve to deny His existence.

You realize, I'm sure, that 9-11 was the fault of people who strongly believed in God, and believed that they were doing God's will.

To the recent blank un-named commenter who posted immediately above Brian (Posted by: | September 29, 2008 at 05:04 AM):

Hey you fucking jackass, for your information, it is our freedom of thought and freedom of speech to "say God does not exist".

And it's obviously "people like you" who think that they can force their beliefs upon others. Belief (or non-belief) in God is a matter of personal choice. So you had better get used to the fact that not everyone believes just as religious fanatic bastards like YOU do.

And to think that merely "read(ing) some more" will make one "get to know God" is about as dumb as you can get.

And it's also really "a pity" that YOU presume that YOU and YOUR belief is somehow superior to others who don't believe as you do about "God".

However... for YOU to also say that "911 happened because you people think you can exist without God", is extreme to say the least.

It's sick motherfuckers like YOU who like to justify and condone mass murder and destruction because of your religion.

It's wicked bastards like YOU who justify terrorism because of your religious beliefs.

And it's sick motherfuckers and wicked bastards like YOU who are the kind who are religious terrorists that commit terrorism against innocent people just because they don't believe in YOUR "God".

And after all THAT... YOU "still have the nerve" to tout your sick "God" bullshit?

GO TO HELL you insane religious fanatic, you sick wicked piece of inhuman roach-shit.


Im not an atheist - but i DONT believe in what some ignorant people call god.

Whats with you lot - church of the chruchless? W.T.F.

God was created by man - someone that could drive fear into people. Another way to make some money... Not bad they have made BILLIONS - but the truth is that everybody believes in something - even if its something that nobody else believes in.

You lot believe that there is no God... Fair enough.. Go hard.

Church of the churchless? Preaching the gospel of spirutal independance?

Surely that can't work can it. If you're "preaching" to someone, about what they should do, then you're not respecting their independance, thus throwing the whole idea out the window!

As for the guy who said 9/11 happened because there is a god, that is the biggest load of rubbish ever. 9/11 happened because you have a bunch of maniacs pretending they are greater than the rest of the world and think they have something to prove. They're insane, but because they claim its god talking to them, people say its their religion.

I am not saying there is no god, but as Stephen Hawking said, if there is a god, his role is now useless. Men create things, men destroy thing, men fix things. If there is a god, he doesn't need to do anything because its all done for him, so the whole notion of praying to him week in week out just strikes me as something that is a bit odd.

People are entitled to their own opinion, and I have nothing against religious people. I am against organised religion. The belief that some humans are greater than others because they claim to be closed to god, the belief that because an old textbook tells you how to live, we should all follow it, that is what annoys me.

People don't respect my independance when they choose to come to my house, trying to give me religions pamphlets.

Also apologies to any feminists.. I used the terms "men" and "him" as completely genderless words.

yah i agree with the guy who posted at September 29, 2008 at 06:59 AM. lets pretend for a moment that god did exist. if that fucker who you seem to belive lives upstairs is so good, so forgiving, all that bull shit, than how can you blame 9/11 on us for something that as you just said, was done with out him. if it was done with out him, than this omipotent, omniesnt bastard could have just snaped his fingures and evey one that died in 9/11 would just come back. hell while hes at it he could bring back my dad. he died a year and a half ago on a motorcycle (ps dont ride motorcycles, they are death traps, and a helmet nor "god" can save you if you get in an accident) oh, and bye the way ass whole i turned 14 15 days ago. what kind of a sick fuck would kill off a good man, a father of 2 children, a good husband, and one hell of a good bartender? not one i would worship. good thing he doesnt exist, cus id have to kick his all powerful ass. and on the seventh day, i said "let their be ASS KICKING!"
suck a cock douche bag. your usless defence for killing, persicuting and intollorence is one word. GOD.

I am a weak atheist. The only reason i don't TOTALLY believe in God is because there is NOT enough evidence to prove his existance. People say Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth. Guess what? It's a proven fact that people existed before them. But here is my main reason that I don't totally believe in him: people create gods to explain the unexplainable. Some people don't know how to explain something, oh they create a god to explain it. Come on, that goes back to the first civilization of Sumer! THEY MADE MAKE-BELIEVE PEOPLE WITH ALL POWER TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW!! Not only that, a lot of people would say that God is perfect. Don't you ALWAYS hear people say that "no one is perfect"? Not only that, some of the things in the Bible that people are forced to think is true is proven wrong. I am sorry, but i go with tAo on this. It is VERY possible that God was created by man. Think about what i said about the ancient people of Sumer and so on. They created gods, so why can't we? You go tAo.

I don't know what this word "God" means.

The main fault in your argument is that you say, "However, there's no need for God to be that point. The universe serves just as well. So we can just as well say, "The cosmos simply is. Always has been, always will be." the fault that resides within this is the lack of purpose in your reasoning. Its okay reasoning, one for who has experienced things by living their life and getting by, but not though research, or by pondering outside the culture’s own regulations. You've come to this conclusion through what? When you speak of "cosmos" your referencing to something much larger, and literally, above yourself, so why only subject your logic to what you've experienced? as for your reasoning against churches is that they're human organizations. The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose, juxtaposing that against churches in general seemingly goes against what a Christina supposedly should believe, but churches only express the basic of guidelines.


Your comment/s don't make sense at all. Its actually rather difficult to tell what it is that you are trying to say here.

These statements of yours are lacking clarity and logic and seem confused and/or contradictory:

"the fault that resides within this is the lack of purpose in your reasoning."

-- A "lack of purpose" for what? What are you refering to?

"Its okay reasoning, [...] but not though research, or by pondering outside the culture’s own regulations."

-- Research about what? And what does "pondering" prove? - nothing. And what is meant by "pondering outside" cultural "regulations"? Are you saying that a mere "pondering" somehow provides ample evidence of God? If so, then that is an absurd and unreasonable assertion.

"You've come to this conclusion through what?"

-- I assume that you are speaking to Brian. Apparently you haven't read much if any of this site if you don't already know how Brian came to his conclusions. Why don't you do that before you go jumping to ignorant conclusions such as this. At this point, your vague meaningless comments are not convincing at all.

"When you speak of "cosmos" your referencing to something much larger, and literally, above yourself, so why only subject your logic to what you've experienced?"

-- I would say because it is impossible to "subject logic" to things beyond and unknown to one's experience. Your statement here is too irrational and illogical. What are you trying to say?

"as for your reasoning against churches is that they're human organizations."

-- Fyi, churches ARE human organizations.

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose, juxtaposing that against churches in general"

-- This is just nonsense. "The devil" you say? This is obviously religious dogma. It severly weakens whatever it is that you are trying to say.

If you wish to debate Brian in this forum with any degree of seriouslness, then you are going to have to be a lot more specific and more reasonable and sensible, and not so vague and confused and contradictory.

It kind of sounds like you are trying to defend religious belief, but whatever your communication and argument is, at this point it definitely lacks clarity and doesn't make much, if any sense whatsoever. Perhaps you should try again.

"In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on Earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the Ninth Configuration. But, given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would take for just one of these protein molecules to appear by chance? Roughly 10 to the 243rd power, billions of years; and I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in a God."

Johanna, the "culture's regulations," given how religious the United States is, basically are Christian. So I'm the one who is thinking for myself, not you.

I don't totally understand your comment. But you seem to be saying that I should take God on faith, because religion and churches say that God exists.

There's also a Church of Elvis. I'm also confident that somewhere there is a Church of the Easter Bunny. Should I worship Elvis and the Easter Bunny along with God?

Where do I stop, given the many, many religions on Earth, each claiming to know the nature of God or ultimate reality?

Yes Brian, that is the point exactly. Johanna did seem to be implying that we should take God on faith because religion and the church says so, and because they say that God exists.

Nothing new there.

9th Configurations,

So what are the 1st through 8th configurations? I need to know, before I ask what the 9th is. Be careful, I just might want to know, the 10th and beyond.

You stated,

"But, given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would take for just one of these protein molecules to appear by chance? Roughly 10 to the 243rd power, billions of years; and I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in a God."

---So what, "roughly 10 to the 243rd power" belief system are you working from?

I personally, belong to, "10 to the 255th power" church group.

Thanks for any replies,

It's a quote from "The Ninth Configuration", a film made in 1980 by William Peter Blatty of Exorcist fame. I don't know how scientifically factual it is, but no one knows for sure yet how life started on Earth.

9th config.

Thanks for your reply.

I wonder, how important it is, for One to know how life started on Earth? Let's say that One has scientifically found the answer, then what would One do with such knowledge? Would this knowledge be testable?

Your statements pose some interesting possibilities.

u guys are fucking idiots..911 didnt happen bc we as people did not believe in god..it happened bc of terrorism and government funding ..grow the fuck up..god doesnt exist

(Keep in mind that this post isn't meant to be in conjunction with the withstanding argument.)

I, for one, find that disproving god isn't necessary in asserting my disbelief of said god. How I see it is this:

1) God does in fact exist, and my disbelief in "him" will have a negative effect on my life and death/"afterlife". (A dictatorial god figure)

2) God does in fact exist, and my disbelief in "him" will have no effect on my life and death/"afterlife". (An "understanding" god figure)

3) God does not exist, in which case my disbelief in "him" isn't applicable.

Clearly these few assumptions, based on my perceptions and experiences, mind you, cause me to sway towards disbelief for reasons involving a "safety net" for my "judgment" after death. This of course being negated in the scenario involving no god.

There are two kinds of people who don't believe in god. The kind that make other "Atheists" (used as a blanket label, no offense to those who don't prefer this term) look like logic-less dipshits, and the "Athiests" that use logic a reason to dispute their opinion.

To tAo,

I applaud your views, and while I probably wouldn't have used as much profanity as you did, what you said needed to be said. Thank you.

To be honest, I really don't like people that have a one sided view on things. How can you ever say "God is real, end of story."
How can you ever say "God is not real, end of story."
You have absolutly no idea how you came around right?
I mean, at the end of the day, I would go for atheism, because the bible does contradict itself alot.
There are millions of religeons out there, so what makes anyone so sure the THEIR God is real?
It could have been a flying tree as a God, & you still would insist on it being the one true god.
It all makes no sense to me.
Arguing for Christian sides though, the world does seem extremely complex, & extraordainarily complicated to have just come around by itself.

I understand what you mean about complexity, but you have to look at the bigger picture. With carbon dating putting the earth's age at around 4.5 Billion years old, one would assume that the complexity you speak of could be easily managed. Think about how long you have lived. It feels like forever to you, right? Now think about 4.5 billion years.

Your Age:4,500,000,000

The earth is old.

Catherine who commented Feb 09, 2009 at 8.16am was not me! There are three Catherines commenting, Catherine from before, Catherine Mueller and the new Catherine mentioned above. To make things easier, I will change my name for future comments.

Brian, Thanks for an interesting and entertaining Blog-site. It really is a great deal of fun!

Catherine from before.

If the observable universe were the size of a quarter(90-fuck-billion light-shit-years), the rest of the universe would be the size of the earth. I wonder if god existed what the hell he was thinking when he made so much space for one species. Too bad god doesn't exist things would have been nicer. Oh well!

3.1: The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from previous life. Therefore, the idea of an origin of life from nonliving molecules contradicts a major law of science. REPLY: When one pays attention to the context in which biologists speak about the law of biogenesis, one can see that the law is intended merely as a denial of the old doctrine of spontaneous generation, according to which "smaller organisms could arise spontaneously from mud or organic matter" (Strickberger 1990:10). Consider this now amusing example, by the seventeenth-century physician J. B. Van Helmont, as quoted by Monroe Strickberger:

If you press a piece of underwear soiled with sweat together with some wheat in an open mouth jar, after about 21 days the odor changes and the ferment, coming out of the underwear and penetrating through the husks of wheat into mice. But what is more remarkable is that mice of both sexes emerge, and these mice successfully reproduce with mice born naturally from parents...But what is even more remarkable is that the mice which come out of the wheat are not small mice, not even miniature adults or aborted mice, but adult mice emerge! (Strickberger 1990:11)

It is this kind of thing that the law of biogenesis is meant to contradict. The gulf between adult mice somehow being generated from wheat and soiled underwear on the one hand, and origin-of-life hypotheses like the RNA world on the other, should be readily apparent.

Ultimately, after origin-of-life researchers have explored every avenue, it may turn out that the law of biogenesis should in fact be taken to be universal. But to take the law to have such a scope now, when origin-of-life studies are still relatively new and progressing just fine, would be premature.

3.2: Amino acids in living organisms are all left-handed, but in nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids form, so one would expect them to occur in equal proportions in living organisms if abiogenesis were true. REPLY: There is no consensus on how this problem is to be resolved, but there are several possibilities that continue to be explored. According to chemist Andre Brack, there are two classes of proposals: "those which call for a chance mechanism and those which call for a determinate mechanism resulting from an asymmetrical environment originating from the universe or from the Earth." (Brack 1998:5).

Chance proposals call for a random fluctuation in small samples of molecules, which is amplified until the basic chemical processes come to favor one enantiomer (one of the two kinds of "handed" molecules) over the other. Brack describes one example:

In a rather simple kinetic model proposed by Franck, an open flow reactor, run in far-from equilibrium conditions, is fed by achiral compounds and form two enantiomers reversibly and autocatalytically. If the two enantiomers can react to form an irreversible combination flowing out of the reactor, by precipitation for instance, and if certain conditions of the fluxes and concentrations are reached, the racemic production may become metastable and the system may switch permanently toward the production of either one or the other enantiomer, depending on a small excess in one enantiomer (Brack 1998:5-6)

Proposals for a determinate mechanism include parity nonconservation (though Brack thinks the effect is too weak), asymmetry in the weak force (also thought by many to have too small and effect; but see Service 2000), circularly polarized light acting on the Earth's surface (which Brack discounts), and circularly polarized synchrotron radiation from neutron stars acting on interstellar clouds (which Brack thinks is plausible).

Three extra points are worth making: (i) the proposals involving determinate mechanisms typically do not propose that these mechanisms are themselves sufficient to establish one enantiomer over the other; rather, they propose that determinate mechanisms create small excesses of one enantiomer, which are then (just as in the random fluctuation models) amplified into dominance by normal chemical processes. (ii) The weak force proposal not only predicts left-handed amino acids, but right-handed sugars as well, so it is suggestive that the two sugar components of nucleotides are in fact right-handed. (iii) The molecules on the Murchison meteorite generally occur more often in right-handed form (Cronin 1998:135); while this does not, of course, explain why life on Earth uses left-handed amino acids (while earlier studies revealed an excess of left-handed amino acids on the Murchison meteorite, these findings appear to be in dispute, so the meteorite does not yet indicate an unequivocal solution to the problem), it also demonstrates that nature does not prefer equal proportions of both enantiomers for all molecules in all inorganic situations. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a natural origin of life would result in organisms using molecules of both handedness.

3.3: Nucleic acids cannot replicate without the help of specific proteins, but the needed proteins cannot form unless specified by nucleic acid sequences. Therefore, it is not possible for a genetic system to have formed naturally. REPLY: The fact that modern genetic systems require both nucleic acids and proteins to function does not mean that a stepwise evolution of such systems is impossible. Proposals for the origin of modern genetic systems typically fall into one of two categories:

1. Proposals that invoke simpler genetic systems (not necessarily based on nucleic acids) which do not require proteins to function (either because the genetic components are self-catalyzing or else because catalysis is mineral-based). The prime example of a genetics-first proposal is the "RNA world" hypothesis, according to which,

when life emerged, RNA performed two major enzymatic activities. First, it functioned as a replicating enzyme and replicated itself without a protein. Second, at a later stage, RNA started to catalyze the different processes involved in protein synthesis. Gradually, following processes of natural selection, the proteins synthesized in this manner became the efficient enzymes known to us today and could replace the RNA enzymes. Later, the change from RNA to DNA took place. (Fry 2000:136)

A few other proposals that invoke simpler genetic systems include:

* Albert Eschenmoser's pyranosyl-RNA hypothesis (Eschenmoser 1994).
* Stanley Miller's urazol-substituted RNA hypothesis (Kolb et al. 1994).
* Peter E. Nielsen's peptide-nucleic acid (PNA) hypothesis (Nielsen 1993).
* Graham Cairns-Smith's clay mineral precursor hypothesis (Cairns-Smith 1982 and 1985).

2. Proposals that invoke free-standing metabolisms (not necessarily based on proteins) with very rudimentary non-nucleic acid hereditary mechanisms. Some current "metabolism-first" proposals include:

* Freeman Dyson's "double-origin" hypothesis (Dyson 1985)
* Stuart Kauffman's autocatalytic theory (Kauffman 1993; see also Chapter 3 of Kauffman 1995)
* G�nter W�chtersh�user's pyrite hypothesis (W�chtersh�user 1992)

None of these hypotheses, or any of the many other hypotheses and variations on hypotheses, have yet gained a consensus, and in fact some of these hypotheses suffer from serious and well-known problems, which may or may not be patched up in the future. But it should be clear that it is simply not possible to stipulate in advance, as the creationists do, that the interdependence of modern proteins and nucleic acids demonstrates that genetic systems could not have come into existence naturally. The question of whether or not a natural origin of life is possible can only be settled by waiting for the researchers to exhaust their hypotheses. (Much of the information for the response to this criticism was gathered from Chapters 11 and 12 of Fry 2000; interested parties are strongly encouraged to read the book for more details.)

3.4: Meteorite bombardment of the early Earth would have destroyed any new life, and there is too little time between the bombardment and the first signs of life for life to have come into existence naturally. REPLY: (i) Life may have evolved in areas which were protected from the worst of the bombardment, for instance, near deep-sea vents (Fry 2000:119). Some prebiotic synthesis may also have been accomplished in space, and then delivered to the Earth by meteorites, shortening the time needed for the origin of life.

(ii) Even assuming we knew that life came into existence comparatively rapidly, nothing about this would contradict the idea of a naturalistic origin of life; all it would mean is that researchers must evaluate mechanisms that operate appropriately fast. And, in fact, we find that many proposals for the origin of life do involve rapid mechanisms. Stanley L Miller even opines that "a period of perhaps 10,000 years for [the origin of life] is not impossible" (Miller 1992:3).

3.5: Cells are too complex to have come into existence all at once by pure chance. REPLY: This is true, but irrelevant to origin-of-life research, since no origin-of-life researcher supposes that cells came into existence all at once or by chance. The origin of the first cell is supposed by all researchers to have been a stepwise process, far from the creationist caricature of a sudden organization of loose proteins into a fully functioning prokaryotic cell with all of its complexity. Nor is the origin of the first cell supposed to have been a chance occurrence. As Iris Fry explains, "origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of prebiotic chemical possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged" (Fry 2000:196).

3.6: There are too many different combinations of amino acids and nucleic acids for a given enzyme or DNA sequence to come into existence without the guidance of a Creator. REPLY: Although these kinds of arguments do demonstrate that a particular enzyme or DNA strand surely could not have come into existence all at once by pure chance, such demonstrations are irrelevant to origin-of-life research, since no origin-of-life researcher supposes that modern enzymes and DNA strands came into existence by chance. As Iris Fry explains, "origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of prebiotic chemical possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged" (Fry 2000:196). It is also worth pointing out, of course, that enzymes with many different configurations can have identical or similar effects, meaning that no one particular enzyme must necessarily be generated in order to carry out a specific function.

3.7: The second law of thermodynamics rules out abiogenesis. For life to come into existence spontaneously would be like a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard assembling the loose parts into a functioning pickup truck. REPLY: (i) The second law of thermodynamics poses no barrier to abiogenesis, since all of the various environments in which abiogenesis has been hypothesized to occur are open systems, receiving a constant influx of energy from outside sources (e.g. from the sun, from electric discharge in the atmosphere, from deep sea vents). Some creationists respond that the second law of thermodynamics requires an already existing complex system to catalyze reactions even in open systems; however, there is in fact no stipulation in the second law of thermodynamics about such complex systems being required. Additions such as these are pure concoctions of creationists desperate to rule out abiogenesis by any means possible, and misleadingly presented by them as though they were part of the real law.

(ii) As for the whirlwind analogy, the reactions governing chemicals at the molecular level bear absolutely no analogy to the behavior of scrap metal in the presence of wind. Many atoms and molecules spontaneously join together to form larger molecules, and many others do so in the presence of added energy. For instance, many important biochemicals, including amino acids and nucelotides, have been produced in experiments and found on meteorites. Spectroscopic data even reveals the existence of organic molecules in interstellar gas clouds; concerning these molecules, Martin Olomucki writes that

in many of the organic interstellar molecules we find compounds which are precursors of biological molecules: hydrogen cyanide, which can generate amino acids and nucleic bases; formaldehyde, the precursor of sugars; cyanoacetylene, an important condensation agent, etc. These molecules are able to form even under extreme conditions of temperature and high concentration of interstellar media. Apparently ubiquitous in the Universe, they must certainly have existed on the surface of the primitive Earth, as well as on other planets: traces of amino acids, which are already more complex chemicals, have been identified in lunar dust and meteorites. (Olomucki 1993:46; see also Miller 1992:17-20)

Research has even yielded a host of autocatalytic molecules, some of which present characteristics like imperfect replication (perfect replication would not allow the diversity necessary for evolution) and even recombination (Rebek 1994).


A. Brack (ed.). 1998. The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling Pieces of the Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

I. Fry. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

A. G. Cairns-Smith. 1982. Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A. G. Cairns-Smith. 1985. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J. R. Cronin. 1988. Clues from the origin of the Solar System: meteorites. pp. 119-146 in Brack 1998.

F. Dyson. 1985. Origins of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A. Eschenmoser. 1994. Chemistry of potentially prebiological natural products. Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 24:238-240.

S. A. Kauffman. 1993. Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

S. A. Kauffman. 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.

V. M. Kolb, J. P. Dworkin, and S. L. Miller. 1994. Urazole is a potential precursor to uracil. Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 24:107-108.

S. L. Miller. 1992. The prebiotic synthesis of organic compounds as a step toward the origin of life. pp. 1-28 in Schopf 1992.

P. E. Nielsen. 1993. Peptide nucleic acid (PNA): a model structure for the primordial genetic material? Origins Life Evol. Biosphere 23:323-327.

M. Olomucki. 1993. The Chemistry of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

J. Rebek Jr. 1994. Synthetic self-replicating molecules. Scientific American 271(1):48-55.

J. W. Schopf (ed.). 1992. Major Events in the History of Life. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

M. W. Strickberger. 2000. Evolution. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

G. W�chtersh�user. 1992. Groundwork for an evolutionary biochemistry: the iron-sulfur world. Prog. Biophys. Molec. Biol. 58:85-201.

Recommended Reading

I. Fry. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New Brunswock: Rutgers University Press.

Belief in a god is a delusion. The only reason for God's existence is man's fear and ignorance. There has never been any legitimate evidence to confirm the existence of anything supernatural - God, ghosts, or otherwise. Belief in superstition in general is a mental illness.

There is absolutely no debating any of these statements. Whether one accepts them as truths or not does not make them any less true. Truth is independent of opinion or belief.

"There is absolutely no debating any of these statements."

--We have blogs to debate any kind of statement. A particular statement can take on various interpretations. So, we can debate.

"Belief in a god is a delusion."

--Yes, it could be delusional. However, there is nothing wrong with a simple belief in God. We are not bad if we choose to beleive in our God.

"Belief in superstition in general is a mental illness."

--I can see a specific example of a mental illness, however, in general not sure that would always be the case.

J4m3z said, "Belief in a god is a delusion."

No, not really. A delusion is a belief that is false. Since we don't know what the cause of the universe is/was, that a supernatural cause is/was the cause is possible.

So, as long as a supernatural cause is possible, it's not false and hence not a delusion to believe such.

GingaRei- Your comment was way too long and technical. the end was interesting though so ill repost it for others becuase its what i personaly believe.

in many of the organic interstellar molecules we find compounds which are precursors of biological molecules: hydrogen cyanide, which can generate amino acids and nucleic bases; formaldehyde, the precursor of sugars; cyanoacetylene, an important condensation agent, etc. These molecules are able to form even under extreme conditions of temperature and high concentration of interstellar media. Apparently ubiquitous in the Universe, they must certainly have existed on the surface of the primitive Earth, as well as on other planets: traces of amino acids, which are already more complex chemicals, have been identified in lunar dust and meteorites. (Olomucki 1993:46; see also Miller 1992:17-20)

It is possible, albeit not easy, to personally verify the existence of God. It is not possible to transfer this revelation to another. It must be a personal journey. This pursuit; however, must be approached with a great deal of humility and honesty. Arrogance and contempt will not lead you to the truth. It will only lead you to the "truth" you think you want. Unfortunately the intellectualization of what is basically a spiritual exercise, will be limited by one's own imagination and comprehension. Although hard to explain and hard to achieve, the truth is always there for the truly humble and inquisitive. You can do it if that is your sincere goal...


Sure you're not a teaser? Do reread what you just wrote. Think about it. You will then agree.

there can be no evidence for god because the whole notion is nonsense.

i have mixed feelings on god however i agree that there is no logical reaon to belive in a "god" (quotation marks because there is a million of them) there is however a extreamly powerful emotional reason for a "god" i myself find myself thanking god if some small incontrolable thing goes my way in life and also i my self have 2 desires for after death either peace at last or to be able to go anywhere in any form of existence and obsere anything i want for eternity

Hello Friends,
My Name is Hannah and I have a couple questions to propose:

1. Do any of you believe in Heaven or Hell/ do you believe there is life after death?

2. In your heart of hearts, do any of you hope that there is more to life than simply getting through each day?

Hannah, your questions are easy for me to answer:

1. No. No.

2. I don't hope this. I know this. Every day is deeply meaningful to me, because I don't believe in God or an afterlife (see 1 above).

Hi Brian,

Thanks for sharing but in all respect,what if you are wrong and there really is a God who loves us, yes, but will also judge all of humankind one day on the basis of us either accepting or rejecting Christ's forgiveness that was made possible at the cross?

In the end we will either go in the ground and stay there or we will be raised again to either spend eternity in Heaven or in Hell, right?

What bad can come from living according to the Bible even if it is not true? So it tells us to love and forgive and to think of others before ourselves. Those are pretty good things. Why not obey the Bible and see what happens?

Brian, your life is so very precious. I wouldn't take the chance believing that there isn't a God, when rejecting God means an eternity spent in Hell. If there is no God and you believe there is no God, then you're fine and if there is no God and you believe there is a God, then you're fine once again. The only problem comes when you live as if there is no God when there may in fact be a God.

I'm human just like you, trying to understand this as well. Have you ever wondered at the Beauty of a baby? Or how snow falls from the sky or at the intricacy of the human eye?? I'm simply in awe of the beauty that surrounds me and deeply saddened at the bad that surrounds me as well. That's why I believe there will be true justice and truth one day.

Brian, have you ever read the Bible before? Have you ever had a good friend who called themselves a Christ follower?

If you would like to share a little about yourself, I would love to gt to know you and understand why you believe what you do.

I hope you are enjoying your day.

Brian ~
You said that your life is meaningful BECAUSE you do not believe in a God or an Afterlife.

How do you know that your life wouldn't still be meaningful if you did in fact believe in a God and an afterlife?

Are my comments disappearing? Sorry f I'm repeating myself.

Brian, thanks for sharing. I appreciate it.

You said that your life is meaningful BECAUSE you don't believe in a God or an afterlife, correct?

How do you know that your life wouldn't still be meaningful if you did in fact believe in a God and an afterlife??

Hannah: "what if you are wrong and there really is a God who loves us, yes, but will also judge all of humankind one day on the basis of us either accepting or rejecting Christ's forgiveness"

-- thats a not a god, thats a tyrant.

Hannah: "In the end we will either go in the ground and stay there or we will be raised again to either spend eternity in Heaven or in Hell, right?"

-- wrong. why is your mentality and your options, so narrow and limited? why does it have to be only either heaven or hell?

Hannah: "What bad can come from living according to the Bible even if it is not true?"

-- why do you wish to live in fantasy, rather than reality?

Hannah: "Why not obey the Bible and see what happens?"

-- why the need or demand to "obey" anything? why can't you determine your own values and meaning?

Hannah: "I wouldn't take the chance believing that there isn't a God, when rejecting God means an eternity spent in Hell."

-- how do you know that? ["rejecting God means an eternity spent in Hell"] you don't know that. frankly, your god is a cruel mean and hateful bastard. thats not my god. if i need a good, my god would be love.

Hannah: "The only problem comes when you live as if there is no God when there may in fact be a God."

-- if there is a god, then i have no doubt that god would not care whether an individual believes or does not believe. so your god seems to be a very immature and uptight god.

Hannah: "That's why I believe there will be true justice and truth one day."

-- "one day" you say?? there is justice and truth in every moment.

Hannah: "have you ever read the Bible before?"

-- yes, i have.

Hannah: "How do you know that your life wouldn't still be meaningful if you did in fact believe in a God and an afterlife?"

-- fyi, life doesn't care what you believe. you still go on living, no matter what you may think or believe or not believe. and 'meaning' is different and unique for each individual. so find your own meaning.

why would you insult someone else's beliefs? You of all people know not everyone shares the same beliefs. Im personally monothiestic, now I may not have all the answers to the traditional view of God but I think I can establish his existence. Regardless of the fact, would you not think it wiser to explain your beliefs and ultimately have the other person learn to share those beliefs as well? Just because you can think that God doesn't exist doesn't give you the ability to ignore courtesy and patience. If athiesm represents and endorses vulgar like behavior that you have displayed then I wouldn't want anything to do with it. You should be acknowledged for your knowledge yes, but how you choose to use it, not so much. You don't try to prove a point by making the other person feel like shit, even if they may be wrong, otherwise they'll never even want to listen to what you have to say. You have information, but I think you can work on delivery a bit more.

Zeeshan, I'll throw your question back at you: why would you insult someone else's beliefs?

Like you said, not everybody shares the same beliefs. So why cant' I share my beliefs, or the lack thereof, on this blog?

In your comment above you criticize what I say on this blog, along with how I say it. That's fine. I'm also free to criticize what religions say, and how they say it.

Free speech is great. It just needs to be allowed for everybody, not just religious believers.

Brian! Are you making people feel like shit again? Shame on you.

Zeeshan -- I have read a lot of Brian's essays, and have never felt like " shit " afterards. Might add here, I do not always agree with Brian....nevertheless I think he is pretty much a gentle person with a great talent for pointing out religious absurdities.

i feel sorry for people that dont believe in God, but its a personal choice and how you feel in your heart and im not going try and make you believe in him
but just think christians i know and the kindest people in this earth they are loving and none of you languge you guys use would ever come out of their mouths because it discusting what you have been saying
also i rather die and find out there is no God Then Die and find out there is a God, id much rather be a better person and have God on my side
Obvisously none of you have had an encouter with God and i encourage you do i know that he is real because his presence is think and tangible
i hope that one day you guys will find God
because the truth is that if dont dont know God, believe in him and love him with all your heart
then you will spent an eternity in hell
so i pray for all of you that dont know God everynight that you will come to know him and love him
† = ♥

Dear Chloe,

Just recently I sent a response note to the wife of a friend. I copy it here (slightly edited) for your consideration:

Dear [friend's wife],

Thanks for your "testimony." As a student of people - and particularly of their "religions" - I've run into many such affirmations from a wide variety of folks/persuasions ("orthodox" Xians, "heterodox" Xians [Mormons, Xian Scientists, members of the Worldwide Church of God, etc.], non-Xians [Jewish, Muslim, Hindu] - and even a few (nearly all, if not totally, Xian-connected) who have told me that "God" has personally "spoken" to them. I'll add this introductory knowledge of yours into my examples. It is another among many that I have received.

FYI, my background is Xian (of the Methodist "denomination") which I learned from my mother's words, professions, and examples. Although I am certainly no longer a Christian, many would contend (and I actually agree with them) that I yet remain quite "Methodist" in my "spiritual" orientation. Coming, thus, from about as middle-of-the-road, mainstream, a point in the Protestant spectrum, my basic "morality" (so to speak) is (American-)"Christian" in its overall tenets. I try to act "morally" and be patient and understanding with all "sinners" - but basically I wish all who have specifically injured me in some way to "go to hell" (i.e., suffer punishment appropriate to the degree they have gotten away with injuring me [or others]). I contend that this attitude is quite "mainstream Xian" in its overall form. I see it evinced among vast numbers of the Christian spectrum.

But: because I have dared to disagree with their theological contentions, I have had many fine "good Christians" (e.g., Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc., etc.) tell me that I would/will surely "go to hell" because I don't "think right" (i.e., agree with their religious assertions/contentions). From my point of view I consider them to be deluded fools, promoting their own egotistic presumptiousness, and worshiping a god that is more like the images referred to as "Satanic" than of some truly "good" deity. Jehovah's Witnesses, members of the (old time) Worldwide Church of God, and a few other ("heterodox") groups, on the other hand, just tell me that I will become "ashes under their feet" (a la Malachi) after their expected "Judgment." They, at least, do display a bit of consistency with their contention that their (supposed) "God" is "good," rather than being a sadistically demonic power.

Particularly because I knew [a person] (a "hard-shell" Southern Baptist, the son of a "lay preacher" in their church group) through 7th-12th grades in school - and because he imitated/promoted the style of condemning judgmentalism which was what his cult evinced - I as a teenager gained an interest in the question as to whether [he] actually did "know" something that I was unaware of. Hence my ensuing interest in, and serious study of, the Bible, Christianity (in its multiply diverse forms), and other religions around the world (as well as human psychology, history, politics, cultural differentiations, etc., etc.). Basically I learned/realized that [he] was an ignorant and deluded fool (among many), and that most all "religious" contentions/activities were/are just powerful ways to teach error and lead individuals/me away from what actually was "true." In overall terms, I tend to go along with the generalities that: good people will generally act in "good" ways; bad people will often act in "bad" ways; but to get good people to act in bad ways, it frequently takes religion to achieve that. I do believe that knowing the "truth" (so far as I do) about the nature of the "world" which I experience does aid in making me "free" --> particularly: free from religion.

I have studied the "Catholic Christ," the "Baptist Christ," the "Christ" of various other Protestant denominations, and the "Christ" of what are typically regarded to be various different Xian "cults" (e.g., the Assemblies of Yahweh, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, etc., etc.). I suspect that (if he has kept possession of the bulk of my letters, papers, etc., that I have sent him) [your husband] has a copy of my 66 pp. treatment of ~"Garner Ted Armstrong's _The Real Jesus_"~. You might ask him to let you have a look at it. It is a fairly substantive example of the kind of effort I have engaged in while exercising myself in this pursuit.

Therefore, I have "met Christ" many times over - and I have frequently met many others who have affirmed that they, too, have "met Christ" as a guiding factor in their own lives. Their understandings/conceptions of precisely who/what this "Christ" was/is - as well as what he demanded of them - have, however, frequently differed one from another. The "Baptist Christ" is rather different from the "Catholic Christ" in the way his respective followers depict/understand him. The topic is not one with which I am unfamiliar.

When I considered the fundamental nature of the foundational "power(s)"/"element(s)" that constituted the world I knew (what some refer to as "Creator"), I concluded that the all of it came forth (despite its great diversity in appearance) from one basic source. Unlike many Xians, who see the devil/Satan/Lucifer as effectively active in the world they envision, I considered such a "division" of power ("good" vs. "bad/evil") to deny the ultimate "sovereignty" of the initial point/source of "creative" power. I contend(ed) that "all" has come from the ~"One"~ - despite its seemingly contradictory and sometimes conflicting nature, i.e., its "diversity." Thus I have long referred to myself as a "pantheist" in my worldview. Adolph Hitler, AIDS, child-molesting perverts, murderers, pain, injustice, etc., etc., have all come from the ~"One"~ every bit as much as have pleasure, contentment, joy - all we humans generally consider to be "good" - and even including "faith, hope, and charity." Denying the "evil" to/from the ~"One"~ is simply limiting its "sovereignty" over the "all." I do not do that. I have been "pantheist" (with emphasis on the "pan-" part, not on the "-theist" part) for over forty years.

Whereas I had previously been also quite "materialist" in my style of "pantheism" up to about fifteen-ten years ago, I have (thanks partly to [your husband's] having me consider the validity of the "theory of evolution" [which, generally speaking, I do agree with] as a mode of our biological world's coming into being) become very much more open to the possibility/probability that (something like, or kindred to) "mind"/"thought" might be a characteristic of the ~"One"~ in its essential nature. The structured nature (in spite of the quite apparent "conflicts," "pain," "injustice," etc.) of the universe I see/am informed of does suggest (to me) the likelihood of a quality like that being inherent in the very nature of that which has brought about the "all." (That, however, does not mean that it has "personhood" [i.e., like YHWH, the mythological "Creator" in the Bible, or "Allah" in the Qu'ran], which characteristic I see as arising through [biological] evolution in its characteristics/complexity ......... over quite a long period of time [and with a "history" we can only suggest].) So, while I remain a "pantheist," the style of my "pantheism" is no longer as "materialist" as it once was. I don't have good metaphors (like "mind," "reason," "awareness," and so on) that I feel comfortable/confident in using for this aspect/characteristic of the nature of the ~"One"~, but I am much more open to considering their existence than I once was. (But, of course, I still deny the validity of the "supernatural" spook-god[s] of all corpuses of "holy scripture" that I have ever encountered.)

Also (I hope) among my other sendings to [your husband] was(/is[?]) another paper dealing with William James. A portion of its last several pages dealt with the distinctions I drew/draw between different understandings of the terms "god," "God," and "GOD." Were you to perhaps have a look at it, it might further shed light on my understanding of the true nature of the world. (Actually, I haven't looked at that paper for quite a long while, but I recall that I was quite pleased with my expressing the distinctions I made at that time. Such a notion still informs my understanding of much I encounter in the world of "religion" among my fellow humans.)

As for "faith," I have met many who have gloried in the "sweetness" of their own - yet who differed from others in accounting for its content and nature. I accept what they say, but I generally evaluate it rather differently from their own understanding of it. While I don't presume to act as a "spiritual counselor" to any (particularly when I have different viewpoints from theirs), I yet decline to follow them on a road not consistent with my own reasoning. I have thus declined becoming Muslim, Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, mainstream Protestant Xian, Baptist, Catholic, and Hare Krishna. Neither do I agree with any of the old-time paganisms, or with Wicca, or Scientology. To co-opt (and Anglicize) words attributed to Luther, "Here I stand. I can do no other." And I make no apology for it. (And this is despite several sisters-in-law, my dentist [and his aide], and some various others that I occasionally encounter telling me that I, therefore, shall spend all eternity in "the lake of fire." It seems that when there is no reason at hand, threats and fear are often resorted to as if that constituted some valid sort of "argument." I disagree with that opinion just as well.)

You may, of course, regard my words however you may so choose. But I stand by them.

I hope this fills you in a bit more on what sort of fellow I am. Bob


And you too, Chloe, may regard my words however you may so choose. But I stand by them.

Robert Paul Howard

Thanks Robert for taking the time to encapsulate everything necessary to prove our point. Any Christian who takes the time to read ALL of the above will surely come to understand why the concept of god is total bullshit.

"Christians i know are the kindest people in this earth"

"(Don't) believe in Jesus .................
then you will spent an eternity in hell"

quote Chloe

I would argue atheists are the kindest people
on earth. Because they don't demand you go to
hell if your not an atheist.

Jon I tried Mormonism, I'll explain in '92 I was involved in a car accident I was in a coma for 6 months(do to an automobile accident), when I woke up I said that God had spoken to me, I was confused for a while, while I was going to the Mormon chuurch I got baptised, I kept going until I learned what they where about & in my opinion they are nuts, I was going to a Cristian church with a friend for a while & those are the craziest people ever, so I've decided to follo what I see & understand, not looking for a fairy in the sky(who's not there, or a demon underground who's not there either)now I beleive in what I can see/touch, look into realism, now I only beleive in what's real, what I can see & touch. Why do you thinks Philosophy is no more? Gods do not exist, some people swear Saints do exisst but that is also nonsense, think about things that have happened in your life which you thought where miracles, if you think about it there was something going on that caused what appeared to be a 'miracle' to happen, exampl: you like watching sports your favorite team is loosing by a lot there's little time left on the game, no one thinks that team can win, all of a sudden they get theyr act together & start winning, some might see it as a miracle but all that happened was that the team got their act together & won

im 11 years old and i know that god doesnt exist because apparently adam and eve were the first people on earth right? ?? well have u seen pictures of them they have belly buttons were the umbilical cord must have beem were some one has given birth to them so there must have been people before them witch gave birth to adam and eve witch proves god didnt make them also adam and eve were not the first people on earth

I'm going to take the opportunity to respond to the "why risk that god does exist and will judge harshly your disbelief" argument. You may assume that I'm an athiest and factor that into your assessment.

The above stated argument has a counter-argument that many don't consider. Let's assume there is a god and he (generic pronouns, folks) actually has a bigger plan for us. His plan is that we mature and shed superstition and develop a collective intelligence that discovers the many constructs that make the universe work. This knowledge would allow us to find other species and begin building a universal intelligence that might help solve one of god's big problems. In effect god has seeded the universe with beings (or the components of beings, including chemical/biological frameworks) that explore and seek to understand.

This god would be highly disappointed that despite his "gift" of life, we as a species chose instead to poison our environment and hold on viciously to superstition and completely fail to evolve the necessary intelligence to fulfill his expectations. In other words, this equally plausible god perhaps expects that in the normal evolution of an intelligent species it will hold beliefs that had some evolutionary value, but it will need to shed those beliefs to ultimately survive.

The scenario that some believers should concern themselves with goes like this:

St. Peter: So, you believe in God do you?

Newly Deceased: Why of course. I prayed, tithed, worshiped, and spread the word of God.

St. Peter: Hmmm. Yes, perhaps you did. We didn't really pay that much attention. Besides, there is no word of god. He's never spoken as far as I know. So, let's try this question: What is the most important force that guides humanity?

Newly Deceased: Well, God, of course.

St. Peter: Wrong. Reason is the most important force. Without it a species cannot progress. Intelligence grows from reason. There are 29,476 other higher order beings than humans. God has been observing the top 100 of those. Humans have been a big disappointment so far, I've kept you off the reports, but one of these millenniums he's going to want to know (quick point here: an earth millenium for god is about one of his days). At some point we'll have to rate humans a failure and it's because of people like you who could not grow beyond your juvenile fears.

Newly Deceased: You mean I did all that crap for nothing?

St. Peter: I'm afraid so. Now go see Lucy. She'll give you instructions. Crap. Some idiot just blew up himself and 200 others in your middle east. Going to have to work overtime today. Shit, St. Germaine had the good sense to pick the Rigelians, they're a fun group. I'm stuck with you Earthlings for another 500 millenia until shift change.

To summarize my point, we as a species are on a trajectory that has a wide range of possibilities. It is most likely that we will progress to accomplish many great things. That likelihood is threatened by human nature that continues to embrace superstition and fear through religious dogma and practice even if only to provide a necessary (though transient) social structure. The argument that we could be judged for not believing in a god (supposedly a risk-free endeavor that ignores opportunity cost) stands as weak in the face of a counter argument that a god exists that bears no relationship to human perceptions of him and may actually judge these errant beliefs harshly (on top of us not fulfilling our natural mission).

JackL, great comment. Your Reasonable God is more believable (to me) than the other varieties of God favored by the world's religions. I travelled some similar territory in a couple of other posts:



I'm an atheist who is open to the possibility of God. I'd love to live forever in some happy heavenly realm. Problem is, there's no evidence that such exists, and religions have lots of conflicting ideas about the nature of God, soul, spirit, life after death, salvation, and such.

So I'm a "here I am... show me" sort of devotee when it comes to God. I figure that any elevated/advanced being is going to have to reach out and communicate with me, rather than me with him/her/it/other. Still waiting...

bible says Adam was the first creation...wtf what happened to the T-rex and all the dinos?...nuff said

As far as "god" goes, I think EVERYBODY here would agree murder is wrong wright? (look at what happened in Colorado) well according to the bible, god killed every person on earth except for Noah and his little family. Another flaw in the bible, it says incest is wrong right? Well if Adam and eve were the 1st people on earth, their children would be the 2nd generation. And to continue life, the 1st set of children would have to reproduce within the same set. (all of this happening in one place) and lets assume adam and eve's family lived in a single place (let's say Africa) how would they have migrated to regions such as north/south america??? The ice shelves connecting northern Asia and north America haven't been frozen for over 30,000 years (before "god created the universe") back to Noah however, we can trace the DNA of living organisms to determine about how long ago the 1st ancestor of the species originated. And somehow, Noah made a boat that contained the millions of species we have today and rescued them. But some of the earliest ancestors of something as simple as a cockroach can be traced back over 20 MILLION YEARS. Thus, rendering the "teaches" of the bible inadequate. And if "god" really was in total control of EVERYTHING, why would he allow us to kill each other (aka the holocaust, 9/11, the list goes on forever) and if you think about life itself, what makes more sense.... Simple bacteria changed and evolved over millions of years of adaptations and physical changes, or mr magic man in the sky created every living thing in the world out of his imagination and allowed all of these creations to go around killing each other, having sex before marriage, having excessive pride, and other things "he" considers wrong. And something else about "pride" in the bible. "god" basically says "you all obey me and do exactly what i say, or I damn you to hell!" this is just my falsification of the bible. Science can further disprove any other "god" ideas such as creating an entire center of mass (earth) from nothing

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.