(Let me preface this by mentioning that I am not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to cosmology and physics; I just happen to have read about this theory and found it interesting. I welcome anyone who is more knowledgeable about the subject to comment on it.)

In short, plasma cosmology argues that electromagnetism is the main force shaping the universe rather than gravity. The reason for this is that most of the universe that we know of consists of plasma, rather than regular matter. The stars are plasmas, auroras are plasmas, nebulas are plasmas, and on and on.

One of the most baffling things about the universe is its filamentary structure. However, novelty plasma globes also exhibit this type of behavior. When electrons flow through a plasma, magnetic fields form around it and compress it more closely together, resulting in filaments of plasma forming.

Another interesting fact is that electromagnetic force is much more powerful when acting on plasmas than gravity is. While the force of gravity is the inverse of the square of the distance between two objects, electromagnetism is only inverse to the distance. Therefore gravity tapers off far sooner than magnetic force does, meaning that at the macro-cosmic scale electromagnetism should be dominant rather than gravity.

Among some of the interesting implications of this theory is that the Sun is actually powered from external electrical currents rather than from within. As the theory goes, the filaments of plasma that streak the universe act as conductors for massive flows of electrons that cause the stars to burn, rather than internal nuclear reactions.

Oh, and it also holds that the universe has no beginning or end.

Here are some relevant links on the subject:

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

Plasma Cosmology videos

So, what do you guys think?

More »

I was watching this documentary and thinking about the arguments Dawkin’s was using and the various computer simulations he designed to emulate how evolution works in nature. The arguments he made were sound and even intellectually poetic to me. But I realized that some of these arguments were not easy to understand always. Don’t get me wrong, they were simple enough, but I could see some people (can we say religious?) not really analyzing the evidence he presented.

God is easy to understand; there’s not much to it. A supreme, invisible being, created the universe and loves us and made everything happen using his supernatural powers. You only have one book that describes, in basic terms, how existence came about. Saying that reality was created with “magic” (or equivalent thereof) is not hard to understand, even a child can figure it out. But to actually devote yourself to studying evolution, astronomy, geology and various other sciences isn’t so easy. It’s really the same phenomena as any other supernatural experience that people have. Either someone doesn’t have enough understanding of the universe, or they want to believe and will mold perception to fit their preconceived notions.

This is really easy to observe. Just watch a debate between someone pro evolution and someone pro creation. They will say something to the effect of “Oh this all happened by chance?” or “The human eye is too complex to have sprouted up magically” or “We all evolved from monkeys?”. All of these prove, without doubt, that they have never once even looked at any data on the subject. But this isn’t really what I’m getting at, we all know theists have no sense of logic or understanding of their surroundings. What I’m trying to get at is why?

Personally, I attribute this lack of critical thinking to two things: One is the fact that science doesn’t offer something that most people find comforting. I think all people wouldn’t mind living forever and knowing that if they’re good people they will live in heaven for eternity. To put it crudely “Shit in one hand, wish in the other. See which one fills up first.” Yeah, that was pretty gross but it makes a good point that desiring for something doesn’t make it true. The second thing is what I said earlier in the post: Evolution, and various other fields of science, are difficult to understand in a few, poorly phrased sentences that Christians use to explain them to their followers. If you’re a theist and have doubts about Darwinian evolution you really need to do some independent study on the subjects without the extreme bias of someone who can barely understand it. I mean, seriously, on one side you have scientists who devote their lives to study these areas of science and on the other hand you have creationists who don’t even know that evolution doesn’t say we came from apes. If you can’t even understand that apes and man have a common ancestor then you lose all respect in my eyes.

This article ended up being quite a bit longer than I had originally wanted it to be. The main point I’m driving it is towards the religious: Please, please, read about the subject you are arguing about before you try and debate someone who understands the subject much better than you.

More »

What is faith, really? Believing something without question, right? A while ago I was speaking with someone who was very much an atheist and, as they were ranting about how stupid religious people are, I realized that they were as fervent and adamant in their belief about the non-existence of god as the very people they were insulting. I got to thinking, isn’t it the very same faith? On one hand you have unbacked, unsupported belief that one thing is true. On the other, you’re making a claim that has some circumstantial evidence but no direct proof and believing that is true, often without a doubt. And often with an awful lot of contempt.

I consider myself an agnostic, and unlike most atheists I don’t consider it “fence sitting” or “being a pansy”. Being agnostic to me is simply saying “It is impossible to know whether or not God exists.” Now, I’m not talking about religion mind you. Religions can be disproved because they make claims centered in our world. The earth was created 6,000 years ago, for example. This claim, regardless of the efforts of radical Christians across America, has been proven false. All of that aside, the central claim that there is a divine entity that created the universe and governs it with its almighty will can not reasonably be proven to be false.

There’s plenty of arguments against this and all are logical fallacies. The bottom line is that the argument makes claims that are outside the bounds of our universe, and thus outside of our capacity for perception. “Haha, but Ryan,” you might say with a broad, condescending smirk, “Does that mean you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or what about Santa Claus and fairies?” Of course not, but what are you claiming? That a magical fat man flies house to house and drops presents into fireplaces? You can disprove that by finding the parents receipt. That is not the same as claiming that god created and runs the universe, a claim that cannot be either proven or disproved.

I believe that any reasonable minded person will have to admit to both possibilities, that god may or may not exist. To say with scientific certainty that God, without a doubt, does not exist means that you must have some evidence to prove that statement. And when it all comes down to it in the end, science simply is not at a point that it can provide that. When confronted with this argument, most reasonable scientists will agree (much like Dawkins), but reply with “Well, I’m 99.999999% certain god doesn’t exist.” This allows for the possibility, technically, while saying that they’re almost certainly right. That is also incorrect, or at least not logically viable. How can you come to a figure of 99%? The definition of probability is: “the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.” When coming to a figure of objective probability, you need some factual data to quantify that figure. What possible data can contribute to this assessment? Whether religions have been proven false? That some other Gods have been proven to not exist?

Probability doesn’t have a memory, my friends. It doesn’t care that no gods live at the peak of Mt. Olympus, or that the sun does not orbit the Earth. Does the Judeo-Christian God exist as the divine creator of our universe? It’s a shot in the dark folks, 50%. Yes or no.

More »

I was born in October of 1984 and raised in a Christian family. It wasn’t a very strict family and though we did goto church it wasn’t all that often. The times I did goto church and/or Sunday school I was taught about the history of creation and what was right or wrong. Though I cannot personally remember, relatives have said that I used to imitate preachers and pray when I was just a kid.

Move ahead to when I was fourteen. I started to hang out with people who for the most part were Christian but a few of my friends were either agnostic or atheist. I would lecture them on denying their creator and would feel genuine sadness over what I thought would be their ill-fate when they would finally meet their maker. I had even gone to a bible camp for a few days once and I can honestly tell you that at the time I felt like Jesus or god or something had touched me. I know now what I felt was adrenaline and the rush of being with so many like-minded individuals.

Skipping ahead to seventeen years of age, I was in high school and had taken quite a liking to science, especially astronomy. This was when the first seeds of doubt had begun to form in my mind. I don’t know what exactly separates the believer from the non-believer but I do think one personality trait really benefits: skepticism. This is not to say you need to argue over everything but if you can question what you think and what you ‘know’ then you have started your first few steps away from the shackles of ignorance.

I was that type of person. I questioned myself and what I thought in other areas, not just religion. I remember once someone had challenged my belief in god and I immediately began to refute what they had said. I realized right at that moment that I was not answering their question from any logical perspective but was doing it in almost a reflexive way. That person’s question did not even enter the logic area of my brain but instead, just like in a cartoon where the character changes the train’s destination by pulling a lever, went down the emotional track and was answered in a purely emotional fashion.

I had to come to grips with my new found revelation later that day. I had literally almost felt my brain being retarded. Couple that with my new appreciation of science and I had a problem that I felt I needed to come to terms with.

I started to feel a sort of intangible kinship with science. Here I was questioning myself and what I believed only to realize that science behaved much in the same way. Science is set up to question itself, to challenge itself and it’s understanding of the universe. You have an innumerable amount of people that do nothing but dedicate themselves to the pursuit of knowledge. They question themselves, they question current theories, they question past theories. Many times they are right but many times they are wrong. And that ability to re-factor, rethink and re-examine concepts and ideas you have held true, regardless if it meant you were wrong, drew me to it like nothing before.

This left me at odds with myself, and prompted what was probably the most difficult step. I couldn’t believe in science and believe in god. No matter how the religious try to swing it, the two are incompatible. But I wasn’t ready to become atheist. I even felt real fear at calling myself agnostic. All the years of believing with every fiber in my being that god would strike me down and send me to hell affected me. Indoctrinating children at a young age will brainwash a child’s mind and to say otherwise is sheer and utter ignorance.

By the time I was eighteen I was a full fledged agnostic. Still not ready to go at it 100% and call myself atheist but I was on the band wagon and loving it. There were two main reasons why I couldn’t go all the way. One was what I said earlier: Afraid that if I was wrong god would punish me. But secondly, and this is why I have this site, I had no community. There wasn’t an “atheist church”. No place to meet with fellow skeptics and share our knowledge and experiences, or at least none that I knew of. Plus I was afraid of how my family would feel about me. Would they judge me? Would they disown me? (They didn’t by the way, much to my satisfaction)

When I was about twenty-one I read a book: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I was immediately changed. I mean, here was a guy that understood me. It was ok to be atheist, it was ok to doubt myself and question what I believed and there were plenty of other people who felt the same. After I read that book I went on a crusade if you will; reading anything I could get my hands on. Watching debates all day, everyday, with people like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

It wasn’t long after that I was able to call myself atheist with pride. No more feeling guilty about doubting god or challenging the Christian belief system. It was a change in me that was epic in scale and reward. I take the philosophy of science and reason and use it in all aspects of my life today. My only hope with this site is to help people in similar situations. I know what it’s like to believe in god and feel like everyone who questions that is ridiculous. I understand Christians and empathize with them. The only words of wisdom I hope I can convey to you is that you need to question. Always question yourself and your surroundings. Ask your self why? Why do you believe in what you believe. Try and step back as far away as you can from yourself, away from any emotional bias and figure it out.

Hopefully this helps answer any questions people might have of why I dedicate such a large portion of my life to this cause. And I say that without any embarrassment because this is a cause. Religion affects so many facets of our lives from individual rights to politics to how we even think as human beings that I couldn’t live with myself not trying to make some dent, however small it may be, in this world. If I only save one person from a life of ignorance then that will have made all of this worthwhile. Thanks everyone.

More »

It is a wonderful book and I recommend it to anyone religious or not. The book was made to go into more detail, topics that were raised in Dawkins “The Root of All Evil?” a documentary which I also highly recommend and is broken into two parts: “The God Delusion” and “The Virus of Faith”.

Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four “consciousness-raising” messages:

1. Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
2. Natural Selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a “God hypothesis” — the illusion of intelligent design — in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
3. Children should not be labelled by their parents’ religion. Terms like “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” should make people flinch.
4. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.

This book is quite a bit more personal with me. My next article will be about my transformation into atheism but suffice to say that this is the book that took me from a frightened agnostic to an unapologetic atheist and is so well written and put together that I wish more fledgling agnostics read it to commit themselves fully to atheism.

That’s it for now, be ready for my next article “A Reasonable Transformation” where I discuss my change from Christian to agnostic and then finally to atheist and all the inner turmoil and fear that went along with it.  And be sure to check out The God Delusion (The book) as well as the “The Root of All Evil?” documentary.

More »

What, not convinced? I mean, come on, it’s a cat that kind of has a pattern that looks like Jesus. And if that wasn’t enough, you’ve got the one and only “Cheesus”. You might recall the article posted by our Great Master recently about laminin. I thought it was ridiculous and laughed as we all surely did, but- Wait, what? People took that seriously? Uh…well, as I was saying, come on. This video is more a bash at Fox news and CNN than it is religion, but the point is that these stories were presented on mainstream TV and taken seriously. Well, by christian people anyway.

Two parts of this piss me off. First, take a look at 1:40. See the little cheeto carefully preserved in it’s display case on the right? We wouldn’t want to destroy a work of god. The second…keep watching. Hear it? 1:43 or so. It’s the guy that chimes in at the end, replying to a statement that it, in fact, ‘is not a work of god, but may bring some good’ with the educated statement of “Duhhhh!”

What is wrong with people? This doesn’t seem like blind desperation to anyone? Why aren’t these people embarrassed by claiming god has blessed them with a bite-sized crucifix?

Hey, you know, I think there might be something to this hidden message thing. I can feel it… God is speaking to the world, what could he be trying to say?

More »

According to Christians the bible teaches that god is loving and kind and that if we follow his master plan then when we die we will goto heaven.

Ok, sounds good to me. Now, what if you’re wrong? What if, when you goto heaven, nothing happens the way you expect it to? The reason I ask this is as follows: How can you know the mind of god? Seriously, think about it. Christians pretend to know the mind of god and will never admit to the possibility of their being wrong. If god is all powerful and all knowing then there’s no way you can say for sure what’s going to happen after you die. To pretend you did would mean that you have knowledge equal to that of an omniscient being. Sounds like blasphemy to me? Am I wrong? Tell me.

More »

I have to really stop saying things to the effect of “Oh man, can religious people get any more delusional?” or “Wow, can they really believe that?” because I am quite honestly running out of things to say.

Todays topic is about a little protein called laminin. Laminin is a protein that basically help “hold” our cells together. Why is this such a fascinating subject you might ask? Because religious people have once again taken something natural and given it a supernatural meaning. Let’s take a look at the text book diagram of this substance:

Yes, I’m sure you can already guess. When Christians see something resembling a cross you can always expect them to explain it with a slight bias (aka god). They believe that this is akin to the “made in Taiwan” you see printed on the bottom of man made objects. It wasn’t enough that god created us but he had to stamp us too. Sounds a tad bit vain don’t you think?

I won’t even get into the actual origins of the cross because honestly I want to write this article and leave as quickly as possible without having the utter ignorance of religion to ruin what’s left of my day.

So we saw the textbook image of what laminin looks like. Let’s look at an actual image of this god-molecule:

That’s starting to look not so much like a cross but apparently this matters little to people with faith. So, Christians believe that god must exist because one of many molecules inside our body sort of looks like a squiggly cross. This made me laugh so hard that I thought this video of Louie Giglio talking about Laminin was a joke:

There’s not much to really say as far as refuting this. All I can really do is point out that just because you see a molecule inside us that vaguely resembles a pagan symbol representing the cardinal directions doesn’t mean that your god exists.

Now I want you to take a look at this next photo. It’s a picture of a distant galaxy:

So you can see where this is going. Christians are trying to say the evidence of god exists everywhere from the outer reaches of our universe to the smallest particles in our body. This sort of reasoning is so illogical, so ridiculous that it makes me unsure if I even should continue to post on a site like this. Aren’t we past seeing mystical representations in nature? Laminin is a flexible protein and it’s arms can fold into a multitude of configurations. Not to mention the Christian cross is simply two perpendicular lines. You’re bound to find two lines in nature somewhere if you look hard enough. And thats really what this sort of logic is. Christians don’t approach science skeptically. They don’t question themselves or what they believe and already have the answer. They simply try to mold reality to fit their desires and justify their mystic beliefs.

I think the best way to finish this article is with another “Wow, can they really believe that?”

More »

That stuff really pisses me off. I hate the blind arrogance these people have towards their own stockpile of fairy tales. Acting as if that little circle of knowledge they possess should be as common as knowing your ABC’s.

I once was in a bathroom at the urinal and some guy started talking to me. He asked if I had accepted jesus in my life. Now listen guys/gals, I’m glad that you found jesus and he helps you out and everything. But when I’m urinating and/or have the drunken munchies and am trying to eat some unhealthy KFC, can you please just hold it for a second? Bother me later with your stupid questions. Thanks…

More »