Who the fuck is Kony?

This exact time yesterday I had never heard of Joseph Kony.

Now I'l admit, when I watched that video, it moved me at first. more than I expected. I damn near teared up but given Africa's track record with tyrants, dictators and child soldiers there came a point where I asked myself - why him? why now?

What makes this asshole so damn special the US is actually committing troops to Africa?

And why are we supporting this?

The LRA has been operational for over 20 years and before last year, the US would've probably cared more about mice infestations in their paddy fields than another murderous tyrant in Africa. Since Iraq, or even Afghanistan, it isn't wrong to be at least a tad suspicious of US foreign policy.

When has the US ever cared about a country for "humanitarian" reasons? US aid to earthquake zones such as Haiti were dependant on the country's willingness to ensure that minimum wage did not increase allowing corporations to benefit. Iraq and Afghanistan were total disasters and Libya was an outright lie. And now - Sub Saharan Africa. Over the last few decades there have been dozens of tyrants and dictators. Are we really to believe the US government has suddenly grown a heart? Highly unlikely. The US already has a presence in the middle east. it was only a matter of time before they'd pounce on Africa. With China having already achieved footholds in a number of African countries, it's now or never for the US.

Gambia, Burundi, Ivory coast, Somalia, Sudan. These are just a few other examples of countries where children have been forced to be soldiers in the last 10 years and the US government hasn't lost any sleep in any of these cases.

• In Somalia over 200,000 children carried arms between 1991 - 2004.
• Zimbabwe's youth brigade arms and trains children as young as 10.
• Uganda People's Defence Force trains children as young as 13.

But back to the LRA. The height of their activities was over a decade ago. Hell, they aren't even operational in Uganda anymore, not since 2006 when the UPDF beat their sorry little asses. Troop estimates in 2007 were below the thousand and as of late, the LRA isn't expected to have more than 400 soldiers. Hardly seems like a problem for Uganda's 40,000 strong UPDF who (since 2002) were given permission to launch attacks on LRA bases in Sudan after the LRA couldn't hold their ground in Uganda.

What remains of the LRA have been in hiding in the Jungles of Congo since 2006 while an organization in 2012 tries to make money off you by exaggerating the situation.

Where exactly does the money YOU donate go to? IC's profits have increased dramatically since the start of the Kony campaign and last year they spent over 8 million dollars. Out of 8.8 million dollars, only 2.8 million went to "direct services" which they claim is the direct help of children and people . what they fail to mention is most of these funds are used to support the UPDF in matters such as weapons purchases. The remainder is naturally whittled down by government officials and local management so exactly how much is channelled towards a children? Just to give you some perspective, by their own account only 31% (although it is clear that it is much less than that) is channelled to the children. Other charities ensure between 80-99%.

Why am I against this campaign? It's propaganda at its finest. What is the goal of IC? To ensure continued US military presence in Uganda. The first reaction every person had after watching the video was outrage and a demand for justice. That´s where it gets tricky. Too many people getting influenced by a single video without doing fact checking. IC ignores the fact that the UPDF is not all that different when it comes to rape, looting and child soldiers. It´s Libya all over again. Blind support for a side when we know near nothing about the entire situation. This is dangerous. It was dangerous when the world turned against Libya and supported the NATO´s indiscriminate bombing and it is still dangerous now. Why do we feel the need to pick sides when the UPDF is not much different from the LRA.

KONY 2012 It's a fundraising campaign, where people will continue to buy t-shirts and posters and the money raised will be used for weapons purchases to fund an army that is also littered with accusations of looting and rape and the use of child soldiers. and the best part? for the better part of the last 7 years the UPDF and LRA have been involved in peace talks. Now, these are going slow (naturally) but ANY action you take in support if this campaign is an act that either directly or indirectly influences the peace process and US military presence in Uganda.

Should Kony be brought to justice? hell yeah. Do we ignore every other tyrant and fund a shady organization plus an army that isn't much better than the LRA to bring Kony to justice? I think I'l pass, thanks.

God, your ego

I’ve been meaning to write on this topic for quite a while now but as usual, procrastination got the better of me. With Christmas coming up and all these Jesus posts popping up on Facebook reminding me that religious nuts are still out there , now seems a good of a time as ever.

During the summer I visited my family. My mother, a devout Catholic and a Sunday school teacher, naturally began the annual dinner-table discussion about my atheism. The conversation slowly turned to what I felt were the evils in the bible and it ended with me asking her, bluntly, if she believed that death penalties as ordered by God were warranted. I don’t remember what her reply was but my next two questions were; should I be stoned for being a disobedient child and should her gay friend be stoned for being homosexual? Her reply was no, because those laws didn’t fit with today’s society. While I agree with that statement, it was interesting what she had done. She had decided which part of the religion she wanted to follow and through the process of verse elimination had created her own personalized God.

In the last few years I’ve debated, argued and discussed the topics ‘religion’ and ‘God’ countless of times and one thing I’ve noticed is that the perception of God and religion is much like snowflakes, no two are exactly the same. What I mean is, each person has a different perception of what they believe God is, what God wants and what God stands for. Just like every preacher can somehow have an entirely different perspective of a verse in a holy book and yet somehow, every one of them can claim that is how God intended the verses to be interpreted.

My mother isn’t an isolated case of someone creating their own God. I have a number of friends (whom I mean no disrespect to) that have their own perceptions of God. I recall a conversation that I had not too long ago with a Muslim friend of mine who stated that he tries to refrain from sinful activities “at least during Ramadan”. Clearly the logic behind this was that his personal God does not mind if he indulges in activities specifically outlawed in the Quran, as long as he refrains during Ramadan (and he plans to continue with them right after).

It is through the countless cases like these that I’ve come to the conclusion that God does exist, as you. More specifically, your ego is God. God is what you want him to be, how you shape him to be. You have created your own bearded man in the sky based on your likes and dislikes. Haven’t you ever wondered why someone’s personal God always seems to be a reflection of that person’s specific beliefs and character? How their God always has the same opinions as they do?

A quick look at any discussion/argument/debate on the internet regarding God vs. no God will show hundreds of people of faith, each attempting to prove the atheist wrong with a different story of what they believe God is. It is all too common that religious people of the same faith can agree with “God”, but not with each other. A great example is homosexuality. Scrolling down a pointless online argument, a Muslim man and two other Christians hold the belief that homosexuality is an abomination according to God. A further two Christians have presented the argument that God loves homosexuals but they should not start same-sex families. A number of others have stated that they do not believe their God would create homosexuals and it is entirely about choice, not nature. The popular opinion is that God hates the act, not the person. A lesbian who is presenting her arguments seems to have a very forgiving personal God who loves her nonetheless because her sexual orientation is not “her choice”. Each perception of how a person’s God views this topic is directly related to the opinion and personality of the person themselves. It's likely you could trace a person's background from the details surrounding their God.

I could go on and on. A few examples;

• - The friend of mine who mentioned in a conversation about religion that he believes his God has given him the wisdom to choose what he wants to practice from the teachings in the Quran.
• - Christian friends of mine who come up with a variety of reasons as to why they do not have to follow the teachings of the Old Testament.
• -Jewish people who find a variety of loopholes in the "no working on Sundays" law.
• - The relative of mine who loudly stated that “God is great” because the family has food on the table, while ignoring the millions of starving children across the planet.
• - Numerous friends of mine of both faiths who would aggressively (verbally) defend their religion and proclaim the greatness of their God, while drinking, smoking and being sexually active.
• - The rich churchgoer who feels God is happy with him because he donated a large sum of money for the decorations put in the church, which he mainly did because he wanted to be more comfortable there, instead of to the numerous charities available.

In each scenario the person possesses a certain behavioral trait, cultural upbringing or even simple desires. The characteristics of their God is directly related to these factors. No matter what is said in their religious texts, the follower of the religion adapts the traits of their God to suit their desires. The fact is, there is no deity up in the sky, merely your ego and a fictional creation that you have shaped based on your mental abilities and in an effort to reduce cognitive dissonance, you have made it an alter-ego of yourself thereby ensuring that you and your ‘god’ will never differ in opinion.

If I were a Muslim...

I would have to believe that God decided to wait tens of thousands of years after he had created man before deciding that it was time to make his laws known. That God chose specific time periods where man's ability to pass information was still in its infantile stages.

I would have to believe that although there were hundreds if not thousands of different languages and dialects, God felt the best way to get his message across would be with a single book, in a single nondescript region of the world, in a single language which was not, and still isn't understood by most. In a language that cannot be accurately translated into other languages, a dialect that would become less understood over time. In words so ambiguous, any number of interpretations could be possible.

I would have to believe that the almighty creator of the universe would not make the book himself, and instead decided that just a single one of his flawed creations should be given all the information. And instead of passing this information to his creation himself, he sent an angel down to earth to do it for him.

I would have to believe that instead of telling large groups of people, God intentionally instructed the angel to tell only one man. And out of all the men to be chosen from, God picked an illiterate man so that the man would not be able to write the information down for others to see.

I would have to believe that it is just pure coincidence that most of the information God wants the angel to tell the man is information that has already been widely available for hundreds of years.

I would have to believe that God did not want his laws to be all known at once and that he wanted some laws to only be known years and years later.

I would have to believe that it is more coincidence that God's messiah spent much of his time as a merchant on trade routes in the middle east where Greek knowledge was widely available. And that close followers of God's messiah were well versed with the same Greek knowledge that is included in the messiah's revelations.

I would have to believe that God had no qualms about letting his messiah live a lifestyle that would later become a main reason for many rejecting the faith.

I would have to believe that God had no objections to the revelations being in such vague nature that it would later be subject to many different interpretations which would cause separation, distrust, hatred and even violence among different sects of Muslims.

I would have to believe that God's earlier chosen messiah's failed at their tasks to spread the true message of God, and therefore God failed in his quest to spread his word.

I would have to believe that the preachings of the messiah are the truth. I would have to believe that semen originates from between my backbones and my ribs, that mountains stabilize the earth, that seawater and freshwater never mix, that the moon was once split in half, that the universe and earth were created at the same time.

I would have to believe that God's final messiah, who acted out the symptoms of schizophrenic paranoia, who used his position to commit polygamy, talked to an angel.

an imperfect god?

- Copied & slightly edited. Im not sure who the original author is.

God as it seems has existed for all eternity, he is the 'cause'. God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else.Therefore there would be an equilibrium. If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium? We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist, it would not create. A perfect creator God is impossible.

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe and humans. Neither however, are perfect.

If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Yet this "perfect" God created a universe with imperfect humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

The Creationist's objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

Thus, the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

Analyzing Tisdall

here is a clip from a debate between Laurence Tisdall (creation scientist) and Jason Wiles (evolutionary biologist).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKzr270FeNA

Now in this debate, Tisdall supposedly "disproves" evolution. He has even written a book "how to debate an evolutionist and never lose". I use the terms 'creationist scientist' and 'evolutionary biologist' because it is important when trying to understand their arguments. Tisdall, doing the complete opposite of normal scientists, only accepts theories that suit his ideologies and agenda while dismissing all others. This will become apparent soon in this article.

In the words of sarah marshall, "bu'shit bu'shit bu'shit bu'shit bu'shit"

Tisdall's entire argument rests on abiogenesis. He feels that if there is a problem in abiogenesis, then evolution would not be possible. In the video he identifies the minimal gene set to be at 397 (this was 2006, to date scientists have managed to reduce it to 250) genes and claims that evolution is dead because for evolution to be feasible, you must be able to start at 0 genes all the way to human genes.

There are a number of issues with Tisdall and his work. At the moment, the minimal gene set is indeed at 250 but noone is saying that the first form of life was a fully functioning cell that is exactlysimilar to the cells as we see today. Tisdall makes the assumption that the first form of life MUST be exactly the same as cells today. Without evidence or thought he readily accepts and preaches this (mis?)information. The minimal gene set only pertains to a cell. There were precursors to the cell even though we only associate 'life' with minor metabolic functions and the ability to replicate. Tisdall uses the analogy "you can take a bumper out of a car but not the engine". It is true that a car cannot function without an engine, but a bicycle can. Also he often compares life to a computer - "we know the computer is created". This again is absurd, comparing an ever evolving life matter to a man-made machine. Considering the latest discoveries of how there are organisms that don't require phosphorus (previously thought to be one of the 6 only building blocks of life), it is very possible that 'life' millions/billions of years ago was very different from what we observe.

Also, Tisdall's entire argument is based on his opinion which is that a jump from 0 to 397 (250) cannot happen. This is another assumption (and one that he uses only because it suits him). If this jump actually happened, it is of course very unlikely, but then again so is getting struck by lightning.

Secondly, evolution is NOT dependent on abiogenesis. Even if somehow abiogenesis is proven to be wrong (which Tisdall failed to do), it would in no way disprove macro-evolution. Even if buddha, or shiva or krishna or zeus, allah, god, jesus, yahweh or whoever else created the first gene or the first cell, it would not refute evolution.

It is difficult to take Tisdall seriously as a scientist. He is clearly biased towards the side of creation. His first sentence in the video was "Im here to tell you today that evolution is dead, long live the creator". His credibility is immediately shot down as it becomes clear that he is more interested in proving creation than disproving evolution. This can easily be seen as throughout the debate he uses psuedo-science to get his false message across - "If theory A is wrong, theory B is automatically right by default".

Tisdall ignores the fact that creationism doesn't have a shred of evidence itself. He adopts the 'god of the gaps' mentality, that is "if science does not have an answer yet, it MUST be God".

This coming from a "scientist" who claims that dinosaurs found in fossils are still alive today and we have yet to find them (and who believes that the PROVEN hoaxes of footprints in fossils are real)

Tisdall in this case seems to be more of a debater than a scientist, very much like a lobbyist. Anyone who has seen the movie 'thank you for smoking' may remember this quote, "I don't have to prove I'm right, I only have to prove you're wrong". This is the strategy that Tisdall adopts. He fires off question after question rapidly, some which require entire lectures to answer. When Wiles is unable to give an immediate short answer, Tisdall immediately concludes that there is no answer and proclaims that creation is the only answer. Another thing to note is that although Tisdall continuously proclaims that evolution is dead and creation is the answer, he does not offer a single shred of evidence to back that claim and avoids dwelling on this topic.

Tisdall fails at science.

I'd like to see him debate PZ meyers.

Jesus, virgin mary and Christmas

There has always been speculation on the existence of Jesus. Was he real, Who did he claim to be,What did he do, are just a few of the countless questions posed.

The fact of the matter is, we don't know. When we take a deeper look into the character of Jesus, it's a carbon copy of Mithras, the ancient God of the Persians, known as the ruler of the universe and sometimes referred to as the sun, born roughly 600 years before Christ.

Lets examine Mithras on a deeper scale. Mithras:

- was born 25th December

- had 12 companions who traveled with him

- was known as the good shepherd, the 'way, truth and light', the redeemer and the saviour

- commonly performed baptisms to remove sins

- practiced sacred meals which included bread and water while consecrated was believed to hold great spiritual power

Most importantly, Mithras was born of a virgin and was buried in a tomb only to be resurrected three days later.

This sounds awfully familiar.

Jesus by all accounts was NOT born 25th of December. It is generally accepted that his birthday would have been sometime in May. The date of 25th December was established by the Catholic Church in the year 349 AD. It is likely that this was done to stop the celebration of Mithras' birthday.

Considering the fact that the new testament was not written until decades after Jesus died, we have to consider the very likely possibility that much of what is contained in the bible was written to mirror age-old pagan beliefs. If this man was indeed real, there is no proof that the stories written about him are anything more than an attempt to immortalize Jesus as something as something much more than he really was, just a man.

Mary and the virgin birth

A virgin/non-sexual birth was in no way an original story. It is understood that Mithras was also born of a virgin. Horus and Krishna are also speculated to have been born either from a virgin or conceived through non-sexual means.

Aside from this, there is no proof that Mary was a virgin. It is just as likely, if not more, that this came about through exaggerations or translation errors. the word used to describe Mary is 'alma' which was originally translated as 'virgin'. The correct meaning of this word however is a woman who hasnt had a child yet. If they specifically meant 'virgin', the word used would have been 'betulah'.

So, who was Jesus, really?

refuting arguments part 1

I've heard these arguments time and time again. The interesting thing is that when it comes to some of these arguments (the ones about science), creationists actually don't understand what they'r saying. A good example is when they argue about the existence of God using the law of thermodynamics (without understanding it themselves), which I feel is used to try and confuse atheists that don't study science.

Argument no. 1: The Evolution concept

Humans could not have evolved from apes/monkeys because then there wouldn't be any apes/monkeys left and there is also no evidence whatsoever of evolution because it is 'just a theory'

I always have to hold my tongue here out of annoyance because it shows just how uneducated they are when they use this. Its a classic argument, passed on and repeated over and over and over again like a broken record.

The Theory of evolution is NOT that humans evolved from apes, but rather that humans, apes, monkeys, chimpanzees and so on have a common ancestor. This is the basic fundamental idea behind the theory and to get it wrong is just embarrassing.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts

Also, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I wont go into it at the moment, perhaps a separate blog post. The evidence consists not only of what the fossil records show, but what the understanding of DNA shows.

Just to quickly list some interesting ones - evolution in the human body

- goosebumps (we lost the excess hair that could be manipulated to make us look bigger and more threatening, but not the ability to manipulate them)

- coccyx (remnants of what used to be tails)

- muscles in our ears (as primates we were able to move em, now they'v gotten so weak, the most we can do is wiggle them)

- wisdom teeth (as the earlier humans were herbivores, they needed to ingest more plants in a day and the extra teeth helped. Now many of us do not even produce them anymore)

I recommend all books by richard dawkins as these are the easiest ones to get, but the most important would probably be 'the selfish gene', 'the extended phenotype' and my favorite when it comes to evolution - "The greatest show on earth" which highlights all the evidence for evolution. I also strongly recommend a thorough read of Charles Darwin's "the origin of species" as this would not only help you understand evolution, but the process of natural selection.

Argument no.2: Archeological proof

I remember sitting in sunday school, years and years back. Our teacher was a pretty charismatic person. We were discussing all the religions and I remember what he said, "Christianity has been proven right by archeological findings". I took it all in, didn't question any of it until much much later.

Archeological proof. It is such a powerful phrase, but where is this proof? Before writing this post I watched a few documentaries on archeological findings relating to religion and I have yet to see anything conclusive. What most of these findings are, are merely proof of events that you would expect to be right anyway, in terms of history.

For example, the existence of pontius pilate and crucifixion as a method of execution. These are found to be true based on findings. This doesn't surprise me at all. The scriptures are based on events that happened in that timeline and those who wrote it had to base it on current events.

Findings such as these in no way proof the accuracy of scripture or the existence of god anymore than an archeological dig 2,000 years from now uncovering the lost vatican city would prove the accuracy of Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' as a historical event.

If religious texts are truly accurate, would we not have found more evidence, such as of noah's ark, or perhaps the stones where the 10 commandments are written (which in my opinion would still be around if God wanted them to be)? Sure, one may argue that Noah's ark would probably have been taken apart due to lack of wood but there is no evidence whatsoever, at all. there were no breaks in other civilizations such as the babylon societies, the egyptian eleventh dynasty or any of the chinese dynasties.

Argument no.3: Scientific proof

The argument of scientific proof. The argument that religious scripture hold scientific facts that could not have been known at the time the scriptures were written.

Again, where? This applies mainly to the Quran and muslims who claim that their religious scripture is full of scientific facts that prove the existence of God. I have highlighted a number of them in a previous post (http://nealjordan.blogspot.com/2010/10/scientific-miracles-in-quran-where.html) and there are "miracles" that even prove the Quran to be wrong.

Argument no.4: The growth of the human population

The current growth rate is roughly 2%. If we take an even smaller number (0.2%), the calculations would eventually show that there were only 700 people in 6000 BC, which roughly fits with creation.

The idea of a constant growth rate is comical to say the least. This argument doesn't account for food/water sustainability, environmental disasters, mortality rates, technology and so on. I see a serious lack of common sense in this argument. Life would be extremely different 10,000 - 100,000 years ago. Imagine a small group of humans, maybe around 50. Given what we know, their average lifespan would be around 20-40 years tops. Lack of food or disease could easily reduce their numbers to the single digits, not to mention natural disasters and other predators. In a world of 6.8 billion people, 100 people dying in a flood doesn't make a dent in the total population, but it would have a significant impact on a population of 200.

Argument no.5: The 'different time' concept.

Very commonly during discussions, usually about the morality of certain things in scripture such as murder, incest or anything else, I'l get the standard response of "those were different times".

This is a ridiculous sentence.

Your holy scriptures are either eternal, or they are not. You cannot claim that they came about through divine intervention and that they are meant for all time, and then argue that 'some' of what is written isn't applicable today. It is self contradictory.

Argument no.6: The morality issue

Creationists believe that the only possible way a person can have morals is to be religious. Many creationists I'v had discussions with always bring up hitler and Stalin when the topic of religious violence comes up.

It is true that Stalin was an atheist (Hitler's religious views are questionable), but to link what they did to atheism is absurd. They did not do what they did in the name of atheism, unlike the crusades, jihads and so on which were/are done in the name of different Gods. As Dawkins points out, Hitler was also a vegetarian, so are we to believe that all vegetarians are out to commit moral atrocities?

I've also discussed this topic in a slightly deeper sense in an earlier post (http://nealjordan.blogspot.com/2010/11/religion-and-morality.html)

Argument no.7: Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics (as written by Henry Morris) states that "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or a state of randomness or disorder, of the system".

Creationists often quote this text because according to them, it disproves evolution as evolution states that entropy decreases whereas complexity and order increase (which is the opposite of the law of thermodynamics).

entropy is 'disorder'

The problem here is that they do not quote the full text. Morris' conclusion was incorrect. While all processes do not exhibit a tendency towards decay and disintegration, it is only the overall entropy of the universe that increases. It is possible for entropy on earth to decrease. For example, the formation of snowflakes and formation of crystal salts.

Argument no.8: The uncaused-cause argument

The first time I came across this argument I had absolutely no response to it, cause much like the thermodynamics argument, all the rapid fancy talk pretty much confused me.

The idea behind this argument is that all things that exist were brought into existence because it is impossible to have an infinite regression of causes unless an infinity was crossed.

In simple terms, everything that happens has a "cause" but if this was the case, to get to where we are now, there would have to have been an infinite number of causes. This supposedly "proves" the existence of god because there has to have been something, somewhere that was not caused by something (God), which then caused everything else.

It is, no doubt an interesting argument but a flawed one. You cannot argue that everything has to be created and has to have a cause, and then argue that it must have started by something that did not have a cause. It is self-contradictory. Even so, if you argue this case, then you accept the idea that something could have been caused without a cause and this in no way proves the existence of a god because you would have to consider the possibility then that the big bang could have happened without a cause.

Argument no.9: You cannot explain/understand it, therefore it is proof that God created it.

Worst argument I have ever heard, but unfortunately a common one, though not always in this exact wording.

As Dawkins put it - This argument is equivalent to having to sides to an argument, theory A and theory B. If theory A has some difficulty explaining phenomenon X, or it is too complicated to understand, then theory B must be right.

theory B being creationism. Dawkins termed this as "God of the gaps".

The question here is why is creationism/religion the default answer to everything. If another theory fails, religion automatically claims credit, without even attempting to understand the other 50 theories laying around. I have yet to see a shred of solid evidence that would prove creationism.

I love this quote from another blog - "Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It's not - it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an 'I dunno' dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to god, what it usually means is that they haven't got a clue, so they'r attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from and odd are you'l get is a vague, psuedo-philosophical rely about always having existed, or being outside nature. Which of course, explains nothing."