Sorry, Benjamin.

     I'm terribly sorry Benjamin the Sower. But to get the five points you would need to post your answer on my blog, not Ray's. Okay, let's recap. The unwarranted assumption is that Ray is telling the truth. Ray has certainly heard about hackers (not the original definition I prefer) in the news. Some systems tell you when there have been unsuccessful attempts to access your account. Blogger is not one of them (unless Ray is talking about some other account I don't know about.) I know this because I sometimes get my passwords mixed up and enter the password for the wrong thing.
     Now, I don't know for certain that Ray is lying. He may be talking about an attempt to break into some other account that does notify him. But there is no way to verify his claims. And I just don't trust him.

Challenge time!

     There is an unwarranted assumption being made over at The Raytractors under the post "Poor Martyr". Can anyone guess what that assumption is? This is an easy one; so it's only worth 5 points.

Does "Patrick" exist?

     On his blog, Ray Comfort talks about an alleged atheist named Patrick who threatened to sue over his nonsensical "National Atheist Day" bumper stickers. Ray claims that 40 atheists contacted Patrick, telling him to drop the suit. Really? How? Seriously, if there was someone threatening a lawsuit, there was no information to let anyone know whom to contact. That sort of story is only fitting where Tattoo says, "de plane, boss, de plane." (I do not mean this to be derogatory to any potentially sensitive group. That only describes the character.)

Interesting discussion over at the Raytractors

     There is an interesting discussion over at The Raytractors. They are talking about Ray quote-mining Anthony Flew. This, of course, comes as no surprise. Quote-mining seems to be one of Ray's limited talents.
     One of the people said that he thought that Ray didn't care that Flew wasn't referring to the biblical god because Ray believes that belief in any god will lead to the biblical god. I disagree. I have come to the conclusion that Ray is not interested in the biblical god and has no real concern for "spreading the word." (He's spreading something, all right.) Ray worships (shh, don't tell anyone now) money. His followers will eat this stuff up and send him cash. He knows this. The relative scarcity of dissenting comments is probably hurting his income.

Well it looks like the fundie christian posing as an atheist...

     Well, it looks like the fundie christian posing as an atheist has blocked me so that I cannot respond to his accusation. To add insult to injury, he put up a video claiming that the accounts he accused would be able to defend themselves. BALONEY!! The lying sack of garbage is just trying to create an image around him. It wouldn't surprise me if the guy he accused me of being a "sock puppet" for was one of his own accounts. I'm not going to give his ID because 1> I have no desire to give such a low-life, lying, manipulative scumbag any publicity, and 2> I'm sure there are thousands more just like him. It is unlikely that anyone reading this will run into the specific individual; but there is a decent chance that someone here will run into a clone.

Yes, I am PvblivsAelivs on YouTube:

     This post is as a verification. Someone accused me of being a sock puppet for "AtheistRCult" or some such on YouTube. I do not appreciate the accusation. Yes, my account on YouTube is new. In fact, I only set it up to post comments. I have no intention of making any videos.

Some people seem to be unsure of the proper way to handle sacred cows.

     Personally, I prefer quick removal of the head, chopping into nice thick slices, slather in barbecue sauce and roast for about half an hour. If anyone else has different recommendations, I would like to hear them.

I am reposting a comment here.

     The original comes from Debunking Atheists. I am reposting here in case the administrator of the blog decides it was a Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins job.

If I showed you evidence that would that prove God to you would your presuppositions prevent a belief again?

There is plenty of evidence for knowing God. Evidence of impossible things that are in the Bible, such as, eye witnesses with dedication to truth, 40 people penned a cohesive message of salvation over 1600 year period, etc.

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. There is even scientific truths in the Bible that would be impossible to know back when it was written a brief list of Atoms (Hebrews 11:3, written 2000 years ago), Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11), Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6), round earth (Isaiah 40:22) , Second Law of Thermodynamics the Law of Increasing Entropy (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25,26; and Hebrews 1:11), Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41), Light moves (Job 38:19,20),Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6), Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16).

Job 38:35 written 3,500 years ago said that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech but did you know that radio waves move at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn't discover this until 1864 when "the British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia, Vol. 12), Dinosaurs (Job 40:15-24), Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? (Genesis 17:12) Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is at the highest levels.(source)

On and on, a handful more things that can be pointed out but you get the point.

My point is that man doesn't/hasn't always known the truth that's in the Bible. Look Doctors/scientists used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died. Over 3000 years ago in Leviticus 17:14 it has always said that blood is life.

Are all of these points made acceptable to you, is another question. Obviously, the evidence presented so far doesn't allow atheists to believe so why should this be any different. I am sure your presuppositions are still in place.

     FAIL

     Hebrews is talking about an unseen spiritual realm. Indeed, atoms are not invisible.
     Blood, while needed to keep us alive, is not the source of life. If it were, tranfusions should be able to raise the dead. Blood only helps to keep life from slipping away. Similarly with air.
     Jonah 2:6-7 seems to be talking about the abyss as the end of life or the afterlife. The phrase "the roots of mountains" (New American Bible) seems to suggest that the people thought mountains were distinct forms that had roots under the earth. My reading of 2 Samuel speaks of "wellsprings of the sea" and "foundations of the earth" (both fictitious) but no valleys or mountains.
     My translation doesn't even render it "circle" of the earth. I presume yours does. In any event, it would still be referring to a flat disk.
     Your references to things wearing down was not unknown at the time. People observes that things wore down.
     "One differs from another in brightness" (New American Bible) The people could see that. (Now if it had said that they were really balls of gas -- but I digress.)
     Job 38:19, 20 is claiming that light and darkness are beings with dwelling places. That would be a scientific falsehood.
     Winds blowing in cyclones were not unknown at the time. (I'm not even going to look up that biblical text. It was something known to the people the way you stated it.)
     My copy only talks about "sources" of the sea. People could guess that there would be some source.
     Job38:35 talks about lightning (not light) and how only the biblical god can control it.
     Job 40:15-24 talks about a "behemoth." It has only recently been re-interpreted to be talking of a dinosaur. Further, the wording suggests that it should be an animal with which the people were familiar, which rules out dinosaurs.
     The choice of the eighth day was likely based on trial and error and then codified in their sacred book.
     Yes, I'm sure you could on with things equally impressive. Your "evidence" is mostly a re-interpretation of ancient texts to fit modern knowledge. If someone did that with any other religious book, I'm sure you would cry foul.

Note to readers:

     If you have a reply to one of posts, and you want me to see that reply, it would be a good idea to comment directly on the post. My comments are open. I say this because I have actually found replies addressed to me on another blog buried within 50 to 100 comments. There may be others I did not find. It is not hard to post on my blog and your preferred blog.
     If, on the other hand, you are not speaking directly to me, but only venting about my post, you can do that how you like. Although if you are simply talking to your fellows about one of my posts, it's probably a good idea not to begin the post with "Pvblivs:"

Hitler was a christian, not an atheist.

     I bring this not to condemn christianity for the actions of a madman. However, I have seen quite a few people trying to lay Nazi Germany's actions at the foot of atheism. There are varying degrees to this. Some say that rejecting christianity left them open to perversion. Some are trying to say that that is the "true face" of atheism.
     I don't whether these people are just unaware of the reality or if they are "lying for Jesus." There is probably a bit of both. Hitler was a christian. In his warped, twisted little mind, he thought what he was doing was for Jesus. Now, I'm sure that a lot of people will tell me that "most christians aren't like that." I quite agree. Hitler was a madman and not representative of anything but Hitler. (He was a charismatic madman. That is always a dangerous combination.) That is why I don't bring him up in my objections to christianity. (I consider the Inquisition and the "witch burnings" to be more representative.) However, I want to set facts straight.
     I am also not interested in claims that he was not a True Christian™. That is a cop-out given as "answer" to that which is inconvenient to christianity. He was as "true" as any other christian.

My thoughts to Ethan's post on "Where did the atheists go?"

     I saw a post by Ethan on the thread Potential Law Suit timestamped 6:49 pm on 23 Jul on "Atheist Central" "Where did the atheists go?" I thought I would supply my own thoughts on it.

     (knock on door)

     Pvblivs: (opens door a crack with latch) Yes.

     Christian: I see that you're taking a nap on train tracks. Aren't you worried that a train might come?

     Pvblivs: What are you talking about? I'm taking a nap inside my own home. There are no train tracks here.

     Christian: So how do you explain the tracks?

     Pvblivs: I told you. There aren't any here. Railroads do not run tracks through private residences. Are you crazy or something?

     Christian: I'm really concerned for you. Won't you at least consider your situation? Soon a massive train is going to come this way and I don't want to see your head chopped off. It's crazy to stay where you are.

     Pvblivs: I have lived here for several years. I can assure you that trains do not run through my home. Right now, I only see one threat and that's the demented person claiming a train is coming.

What?! NO takers?

     Christians are always big on saying how their god is good, holy, just, and righteous. I gave them an opportunity to explain just what they mean when they say their god is good. I have seen the biblical accounts. The terms "good," "holy," "just," and "righteous" are not what I would use to describe such a being. I know I have some christians reading. They insisted that Sye was not a troll. Do they really believe in and worship an evil god? Is that why they are afraid to tell me what they mean when they say their god is good? That's what it looks like from here.

A question for christians

     For any christians that may be reading this blog: What do you mean when you say your god is good? I am being quite serious here. Are you applying a standard of goodness that you think your god meets? Or are you just mouthing pretty words? In order for it to be meaningful to call a being good, it must also be meaningful to call the being wicked. If you have instant cop-outs like "it's not a sin when he does it," or "his ways are not our ways," you don't mean anything when you say he is good.

The results are in.

     The readers of my blog think Sye Tenb is a troll. (This is obviously not a scientific survey.) I was surprised. I got more responses than I expected (about 21 more.) Strangely, there were no "don't know"s. The final tally: 24 thought he was a troll. 2 thought he was not. And no one was undecided.

Ray has a problem with honesty.

     Ray Comfort posted a quote, supposedly from Plato. After Discomforting Ignorance asked for a source, he edited the post to a Newton quote. Of course, it is possible that his motivation was the fact that some critics were pointing out Plato's actual views and how they didn't fit the image Ray wanted to portray. What is really funny is the fact that the http address of the post testifies to Ray's duplicity. I wonder if Ray even noticed. Maybe he is relying on his fans not to notice.

Ray Comfort fails again. (I'm detecting a pattern, here)

     Today, he is trying to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to state that the universe cannot always have existed. "If a closed system is not in the equilibrium configuration, the most probable consequence is that the entropy of the system will increase monotonically in successive instants of time" Princeton Guide to Advanced Physics [Emphasis mine]
     The equations of motion (as they are understood) are time-reversible. Entropy is a statistical phenomenon. When "entropy increases" it simply means the number of possible configurations that correspond to the observed state is increasing. There are simply more disordered states than ordered ones. A common illustration of the principle is the shuffling of a deck of cards. If you shuffle a deck of cards, it is highly unlikely that they will come out Ace of hearts, 2 of hearts, 3 of hearts, ... and so one through diamonds, spades and clubs. However, the cards are just as likely to come out in that configuration as they are to come out in any other configuration specified in advance.
     Now, if you shuffle decks of cards endlessly, there will be occassions that full order is the result. Simlarly, if the physical universe is eternal in some sense, then "pockets" of low entropy are expected to occur.

... Or are we?

     One movie I rather liked was "Interstate 60." If you can find it, you should watch it. Here's one part I really liked.
     "Just remember, no matter how hot <stuff> you think you are, it's always going to be more of the same -- just another high school."
     "High school?"
     "<Heck> yeah! Ev'rthin' in life is high school! They just change the names. Take this place. Instead of a principal, you got a boss. Instead of teachers, supervisers. Instead of assignments, they give us work orders. And... if you <mess> up those work orders, you get fired, instead of expelled. Yep, the names are different. But it is the exact same <stuff>. High school!"
     Well, uncritical acceptance, hasn't really changed much either. Instead of preachers, we have scientists. Instead of scriptures, we have journals. And if you question those journals, you get labeled a nutcase, intead of a servant of Satan. Most people have never seen quarks. But we're supposed to believe in them. The scientists said that they're there. For the most part, people can't have come to the conclusion that these things are correct through critical examination. Only the people who work with it directly can possibly come to it as a conclusion. Everyone else is expected to accept it uncritically.
     While I currently see a lot of lip-service paid to skepticism, I also see that it is not appreciated when applied to certain ideas.

Good thing we're past this

     You should believe whatever the preachers say. They have extensive training and know what they are talking about. The authority found in the scriptures is completely trustworthy. You should never listen to people who dare to criticize them or question them in any way. They are servants of Satan and will only lead you away from truth.

Who was it -- Revealed

     The comment to which I refered appeared appeared under An interesting thought on 13 Jul at 8:54pm on this blog. My prediction was that, without knowing the subject matter at hand, people would guess that it was a christian. It was actually Clostridiophile responding to me asking what one would expect to find if evolution was held as a sacred belief. The actual result was that Clostridiophile recognized his own comment and no one else hazarded a guess.
     The reason I expected people to guess it was a christian is that it fits the christian methodology so well. Anything of the order "if what you are saying is true we should find X" is met with "Nothing will convince you!"

A complete list of the evils of the biblical god?

     On Ray Comfort's blog, one poster told me to provide a comprehensive list of everything I consider evil about the biblical god. Naturally, I declined the invitation to keep me busy. I see no need to attempt to compile an exhaustive list. In fact, I think it suffices to name one BIG evil act. (Well, alleged act) For that, I cite the flood. Under the biblical assumption that it was a willful action it was unspeakably evil.

Christians: Stated vs. actual beliefs

     On YouTube a person who goes by VenomfangX is allegedly closing his account. He states that it is because he has gotten death threats aimed at himself and his family. It should go without saying that I do not condone death threats, particularly in an effort to silence someone. Still, I would like make clear that that is my stance.
     Now, to my actual point: Christians claim that they will go to a better place when they die. Anyone who actually believes that should be completely unafraid of death threats. It would, I don't know, like threatening me with an all-expenses-paid vacation in a tropical paradise. Only if you believe there is nothing after death or that there is something bad after death should you be afraid.
     As a side note, I think he made up the "death threats" and was, in fact, tired of being ridiculed. He named thunderf00t as encouraging the threats; but I have seen thunderf00t's videos and he encourages only ridicule.

Fairness and my poll

     I have put up a poll asking if Sye Tenb is a troll. One christian has stated that she thinks it is unfair because she considers it unlikely that christians will stop by to cast their vote.
     It is certainly true that this is a poll of readers of my blog -- not of the population at large. I still consider it more fair than Sye's own internal survey of those who agree in advance that he is not a troll. (I still expect Sye will respond. He has visited this blog before.)

Who was it?

     Previously, I asked someone (actually several someones; but that's another matter) what would true if he and his group were shielding (that would be consciously or unconsciously even though I did not make that explicit) a belief they mutually held. I received a comment telling me that I was the one with the faith and asserting "nothing will convince you." This person has also accused me of ignoring "positive evidence." Do these tactics sound familiar? They should. We hear them all the time. I ask that anyone who knows to which comment I refer not reveal it. I want to see how effectively people know the posters and see who, if anyone, can predict who would say that.
     I have taken down the information so that I can reveal the answer and give a reference at an appropriate time. Now, trying to find the comment is cheating. You have to go by your own familiarity.

It's sad to see creativity misused.

     Don't get me wrong. Ray Comfort is creative. Well, either that or he has someone behind the scenes that provides creativity. The trait is not shared by his followers who can do little more than say "Great post, Ray!!!!!!!!" I would love to be able to come up with imaginitive analogies like he uses. But it is sad to watch him use this creativity to promote a lie. I am thouroughly convinced that he knows it's a lie. (His followers may be deceived.)
     We have far too little creativity in this world. I have heard that Einstein thought that imagination was more important than knowledge. I'm not sure I would agree with that. But it is important; and it is certainly scarcer than knowledge. I want to see what little creativity we have used to help mankind, not thrust it back into another Dark Ages.

Sometimes, it is better to sit quietly and be thought a fool...

     This next excerpt comes from someone on Ray's blog named Susan.

     "As a matter of fact, if the atheist is right and there is no God why does it matter to them that we believe in our Creator? Why do they hate, so much, someone they don't believe exists? Obviously with all the time they spend on this blog talking about Him and trying to discredit His word they must really have a huge problem with Him and us (His followers, especially Ray.) I don't understand it. Maybe they are trying to get rid of their conscience and the guilt that they feel deep down inside. Most of them seem to find real joy in trying to prove Ray wrong."

     My own thoughts are that the fact that they believe in a creator, in itself, does not matter to me. However, the fact that they wish to impose their beliefs, particularly given the history of the christian church, disturbs me greatly. I have no desire to see a return to executions for heresy. So any time that "fox" attempt to stick its nose into my tent, I will beat it off. And, no, I don't buy the line that those were "not true christians." Such a line is entirely in keeping with the history.

Some people are dedicated to making Ray look stupid

     I am talking about Ray Comfort. His blog is here. I don't spend a lot of effort trying to make him look stupid for a rather simple reason. He doesn't seem to need any help. I mean: just look at the nonsense he spouts on his blog. It's not uncommon for people to go around with "blind spots" in their worldviews. Whole societies have done this. They indoctrinate their children with their "sacred beliefs" and essentially teach them not to question those beliefs. This is the danger that people like Ray present.
     A lot of people state that the early church held back scientific advances for the purpose of maintaining its power. That might have played a part. But even revolutions in power structure continued such suppression. The church leaders seem to have been afraid for their own "sacred beliefs." Nothing could be allowed to challenge them. It took great courage on the part of free thinkers to challenge those beliefs. I am sure there were many people silenced before the ones of whom we have heard became known.
     So, sacred beliefs are problematic. And it doesn't really matter whether they are true or false. Oh, they will act so cute. They will tell you that you don't hold them as sacred beliefs. No, you came to them rationally. The belief that the original belief is rational then becomes another sacred belief. *They're breeding.* A guideline that I consider useful is to consider the implications of the belief being false. If a belief is sacred then you will be able to begin constructing scenarios, but will conjure excuses for why the belief is still true. There are also core perceptual beliefs for which you will not be able to picture contrary scenarios.
     I try to keep my beliefs from being sacred. To this end, I try to consider the implications of their falsity. This is why you see posts on my blog talking about what it would mean for the biblical god to be real. I think he's fictional. But, if I insist that disagreeing with me implies that you are stupid or that you must think me stupid because I disagree, I make my belief sacred and am shielding it from critical thought. It isn't that Ray postulates a god that makes him look stupid. It's that he insists on misrepresenting the views and twisting the words of those who disagree.

An interesting thought

     If scientists held a belief about our world religiously, would they necessarily recognize the fact? I have asserted my perception that belief in evolution is religious in nature (not scientific.) Obviously, this perception is itself not scientific. How would one go about conducting a controlled study? Still, I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong. I have even stated what would convince me. Show me a study (really, for a scientific theory there should be several) in which the evolutionary hypothesis predicts one outcome, previous observation together with the assumption that evolution is wrong predict a different outcome and that second outcome is agreed in advance that it will be recognized as a disconfirmer (a falsifier.) Conditions in which there is an "out" do not count. Evolution predicting a type of fossil cannot be used as there is always an excuse ready if no fossil is found. Declaring something a "potential falsifier" after it is confirmed not to occur (or would be considered highly unlikely to occur given previous observations) will not persuade me. For that matter, such things should not persuade scientists. Ordinarily, scientific theories go around with bullseyes on their backs. Evolution appears to have been coddled.
     People have told me that their belief in evolution is not a matter of "faith." I have little doubt that they have convinced themselves. But their actions strongly resemble those produced by religious faith. They will tell me I need to do more research. It's very similar to the question posed by christians, "is it possible there is evidence for god in what you don't know?" It is quite impossible to exhaust all studies, and telling me to "do more research" seems more an effort to keep me busy and shut me up. When do I stop looking for the purple cow and simply conclude it is not there? I have not changed what will convince me. Yet people only point me to studies that fail the criteria. (One other failure that people cite as a potential falsifier is the proof of a universal negative, e.g. a persistent trait that provides a benefit only for a species other than the one in which it is found. These are not possible results because no observation could be proven to meet the condition.)

It appears that my prediction was wrong.

     No one made the accusation. Now, the reason for the prediction -- I had referred to "Vox Veritas" by the English translation "voice of truth." Literally, it means "the sound is truth," but I go by general usage. At the time, Get_education had already made a post making the reference; it simply hadn't been approved yet. I figured someone would jump on that. I guess I was wrong. Or, maybe, no one noticed.
     Well, no one gets the fifty points. I am sure there will be other opportunities.

It seems readers tire of my blog quickly.

     Is it my breath? Maybe I need a new mouthwash. Seriously, I think much of it has to do with the fact that I don't fit in neatly with expectations of "what people think." I don't categorize well.
     I remember reading that people can model around 150 mindsets. These can be models of individuals or aggregates. So, you might be able to model the thoughts of "Uncle Bob," "Aunt Agatha," "Neighbor Dennis," and "fundamentalist christian." Fundamentalist christian are sufficiently similar in their beliefs that (unless you deal in the day-to-day life of a particular one) they may be effectively modelled as one mindset. Another mindset is "standard atheist." Many of you can probably guess, on the basis of someone being atheist, the person's views on a decent-sized range of topics. Now, to be sure, there are atheists who don't "fit the mold." They would need to be modelled separately or placed in a different group.
     I don't fit any mold. If you try to predict my beliefs based on any group, you will get a high error rate. There will generally be some error rate dealing with anyone based on the group. But most people seem to categorize well. Indeed, a lot of humor relies on this. We have all met "people like that" for many different categories.

A prediction; and a challenge

     Somebody over at Ray Comfort's blog will accuse me of being the same person as get_education. I don't know who will make the accusation; but, after looking at some of the recent comments, I think I can safely predict that someone will make it. "Why?" you may ask. I will reveal that in a few days. Right now, I will pose it as a challenge. My writing style is completely dissimilar to that of get_education. Yet I am confident in my prediction. Fifty points goes to the first person to figure out why I make this prediction -- before it is revealed,of course.

     Update: The link has been corrected.

Definitions of terms

     People have been trying to redefine the word "atheist" to suit their own agendas. Some christian groups are insisting that an atheist would have to be someone with absolute knowledge to know there is no god. Some atheist groups are insisting that it means anyone who would answer "anything other than yes" when asked if there was a god. Both sets of groups may have convinced themselves internally. In general usage, however, it means someone who believes there is no god. The word does not require absolute knowledge, nor does it include anyone who hasn't come to a (tentative, at the very least) decision.
     The claims of the christian groups on the matter are so ridiculous that I cannot imagine anyone who actually thinks about them to accept them. I shall, therefore, not deal with them here.
     The claim of the atheists groups sound reasonable until you look more closely. So, I would like to address them. They primarily come down to a claim that an atheist is someone who "doesn't believe in a god," so must include the undecideds. Well, an atheist someone who doesn't believe -- in the sense of someone coming back with a report on the results of an announcement "they don't believe us." No one, on hearing such a report, would decide that the people hadn't decided whether the announcement was true. That report conveys the sense that people believe the announcement false. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a god like I don't believe there is a Santa Claus. I believe there is no Santa Clause; and an atheist believes there is no god.

An ethical question

     Suppose I were a highly advanced extraterrestrial being and I had decided to pay your planet a little visit. Suppose further, that I had very specific expectations for my arrival. I have provided expections so that you can follow them. Some of the residents of insane asylums are providing the instructions. In order that you know that I am serious, I have also provided pictures of my craft -- in crayon. They sort of look like the drawings of 4-year-olds.
     Now, in this scenario, I decree that anyone not conforming to my expectations will be tortured. Since I have provided such convincing evidence (though none has seen me directly) all such people are "without excuse."
     Do you think that this would be morally justified? I think it is highly analogous to the biblical claims. If the biblical god actually exists, shows up, and punishes non-believers for their non-belief (let's face facts; the "it's for your sin" is simply false) he is an immoral monster.

Someone claimed the bible was a "godscope."

     Seriously, this was in comparison to a microscope, which allows us to see microorganisms. This person claims that the bible allows us to see the presumed god. Of course, this is nonsense. Everything we see in the bible is something the writer put there. Microscopes, on the other hand are something we can look through to see things the maker did not put there. If I were to draw a picture of bacteria, it would prove nothing. I could draw anything I imagined. (Well, if I had a talent for drawing, I could.)