Advocatus Atheist

Something From Nothing Discussion: Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss

2012-02-15T01:28:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day: G.W. Foote

2012-02-14T17:59:00.000-08:00

"The Atheist and the Agnostic confess their inability to fathom the universe and profess doubts as to the ability of others. Yet they are called dogmatic, arrogant, and self-conceited. On the other hand, the theologians claim the power of seeing through nature up to nature's God. Yet they, forsooth, must be accounted modest, humble, and retiring." --G.W. Foot (Arrows of Freethought)

Quote of the Day: Robert G. Ingersoll

2012-02-13T18:50:00.000-08:00

"In his day Christ was an Infidel, and made himself unpopular by denouncing the church as it then existed. He called them liars, hypocrites, thieves, vipers, whited sepulchres and fools. From the description given of the church in that day, I am afraid that should he come again, he would be provoked into using similar language." --Robert G. Ingersoll

Earthquake Mom Chain Letter Myth Debunked!

2012-02-11T18:02:00.000-08:00

You may have seen on your Facebook feed, or elsewhere online, the above picture and following story.

This is a true story of Mother’s Sacrifice during the Japan Earthquake.

After the Earthquake had subsided, when the rescuers reached the ruins of a young woman’s house, they saw her dead body through the cracks. But her pose was somehow strange that she knelt on her knees like a person was worshiping; her body was leaning forward, and her two hands were supporting by an object. The collapsed house had crashed her back and her head.

With so many difficulties, the leader of the rescuer team put his hand through a narrow gap on the wall to reach the woman’s body. He was hoping that this woman could be still alive. However, the cold and stiff body told him that she had passed away for sure.

He and the rest of the team left this house and were going to search the next collapsed building. For some reasons, the team leader was driven by a compelling force to go back to the ruin house of the dead woman. Again, he knelt down and used his had through the narrow cracks to search the little space under the dead body. Suddenly, he screamed with excitement,” A child! There is a child! “

The whole team worked together; carefully they removed the piles of ruined objects around the dead woman. There was a 3 months old little boy wrapped in a flowery blanket under his mother’s dead body. Obviously, the woman had made an ultimate sacrifice for saving her son. When her house was falling, she used her body to make a cover to protect her son. The little boy was still sleeping peacefully when the team leader picked him up.

The medical doctor came quickly to exam the little boy. After he opened the blanket, he saw a cell phone inside the blanket. There was a text message on the screen. It said,” If you can survive, you must remember that I love you.” This cell phone was passing around from one hand to another. Every body that read the message wept. ” If you can survive, you must remember that I love you.” Such is the mother’s love for her child!!

Sentimental. Yes. Moving. Sure. But true? Not so much. As it happens, it's completely bogus. It's all bunk.

A shout out to my old college roommate Colin Rennie, a true humanitarian aid worker working in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, with his non-profit organization called the Mud Project. He is doing great things to help the people of Japan in anyway possible--but mainly by digging the mud out of people's homes, helping clean up all the rubble, rebuilding homes--and basically doing all the dirty grunt work, so to speak. Having witnessed the devastating aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami first hand, he has this to say about the chain letter:

This is a true story! Share! Once upon a time in 2008, some Chinese firefighters dug two bodies out of the debris of the earthquake in Sichuan (remember that? 68,000 people died, 4.8 Million were left homeless). Then in 2011 and again in 2012, someone made up a story about a mother dying to save her kid and everyone on the internet had a sentimental moment and shared the made up story with all their friends... then went back to checking their news feed.

There are plenty of REAL touching, heart breaking, inspirational stories here on the east coast of Japan, and in disaster afflicted areas around the world. So go ahead, love your mother, and do something to DIRECTLY help other people. Could be across the world, or they could need help next door.

At the end of the made up story, it said: "Dont forget to click the share button.."
It starts with a Share, but it doesn't end there. Don't forget to DO something.
http://www.greatdreams.com/china-chengdu-earthquake-51208.htm — at INJM Headquarters, ishinomaki, Japan.

There you have it folks, the myth of the Earthquake Mother debunked! Although the fiction is heart wrenching and emotionally touching, it's just completely untrue. Yet it managed to spread like wildfire. If a modern myth can spread so fast, what about ancient ones?

Myths which people had no means of checking, mostly because they couldn't read, but also because they didn't have the powerful tools that we do today, such as books or the Internet and the ability to fact check. Yeah, I am looking at you Jesus of Nazareth! I am pretty certain that if the Internet existed in the 1st Century, the Jesus Resurrection myth would have been debunked just as quickly as this one was.

At any rate, I found this a good example of how a myth can get mistaken for truth almost overnight. But more importantly, I wanted to recognize the great humanitarian work my friend Colin is doing here in Japan. If you feel so compelled, you can click on the link and head over to the Mud Project page to lean more about what's going on and how you might be able to help.

Conversations with Christians: All You Need is Faith?

2012-02-10T19:37:00.000-08:00

[Disclaimer: The following is a reconstruction taken from actual conversations I've had with real Christians. The names have been left out to protect the stupid... egos... of those who would be cast in a bad light. P.S. Feel free to read my part in the sophisticated voice of Brian, the atheist dog from The Family Guy. Believe me when I say, you won't regret it.]

"Just have faith in God," said the Christian. "All you need is faith."

"I thought all we needed was... love?" I replied with a hint of sarcasm.

Not getting the joke, the Christian continued on in all seriousness, "No, you're missing the point. If you believe in God with all of your heart, he will give you proof of his existence! You will begin to see Him working in your life."

"I don't think that's necessarily true," I replied (the stereotypical atheist). "Job believed in his god but, for his piety, got nothing but suffering, anguish, and turmoil encrusted with his own blood and tears in return."

"That's just it though," retorted the Christian. "Job was a man of faith! He kept his faith through the worst of it. He is the example all believers ought to emulate!"

"Really?" I asked. "Job? He's your roll model? He's the one you think all believers should aspire to?"

"Yes! Job's faith never faltered, never failed, it was true faith all the way until the end!"

"First of all, Job was a pawn in Satan's cruel game of chess. Besides this, Job's own so-called loving God threw down the wager of the game, and the two of them toyed with Job as he his life had no intrinsic value or meaning, and they literally ruined him in their little depraved chess game."

"You're just saying that because you're an atheist, and you have it out for God."

"No, I'm saying that because I have read the book of Job, and that's what happens. You'd *know this if you actually read it."

"Oh, I've read it!" said the Christian, somewhat defensively.

"Really?"

"Of course!"

"Well then, I have to admit, I am a little troubled by you trying to pry out a moral from the story of Job. It's total and utter degrading humiliation as a bumbling servant before a cruel master who wants to prove his greatness by showing that his authority has the power to keep even is most wretched subjects in line. A fine myth, but as far as weening morals from a story, there are a thousand better ones to choose from. Any of Hans Christian Anderson or the Brothers Grimm, for example."

"No, you're obviously taking the moral of the story out of context."

"Oh, yeah? How so?"

"Job was the epitome of faithfulness!"

"Yeah, I get that, and that's what you keep saying, but to me that only shows how gullible Job was."

"That's because you're an atheist, and you think all faith is stupid."

"There you go making unfounded accusations again. You don't know whether or not I actually think all faith is stupid. I am pretty okay with Jainism. I admire aspects of secular Buddhism and Taoism. I have no problem with these. It's the retarded beliefs of revealed religion that I have problems with."

"So what are you saying? That the Bible is retarded or that Job is a retarded story?"

"No! To the contrary, I love the story of Job. I just don't read Job for the 'moral' of the story as I used to, when I was a believer like yourself. But I now read it for its historical remnants of early Hebrew myth, when the religion was still a Polytheism."

"What?! The Hebrews believe in the God of Abraham and Moses, they believe in YAHWEH! They were never polytheistic."

"Actually, yeah, they were. If you recall, one of the great problems with the Old Testament is that God's rival is Baal, and he continually chastises the Hebrews for paying undue homage to Baal. Baal was obviously thought of by YAHWEH as a real God."

"But YAHWEH calls Baal a false god! So you see, YAHWEH was merely instructing his people not to worship or follow false gods."

"You may want to look at the context of those Bible verses a little bit closer. Moses states in Deuteronomy that, 'The LORD your God destroyed from among you everyone who followed the Baal of Peor, but all of you who held fast to the LORD your God are still alive today.' Moses, and apparently YAHWEH, do not merely view Baal as a imagined god, but a real threat! A real God with power over the Israelites. Those who choose Baal over the Israelite God must be vanquished. If Baal was just a false god, a pagan myth, then why is YAHWEH so bent on destroying something that doesn't even exist? Instead, in one of his exemplary shows of compassion, YAHWEH puts his own people out of their misery by sentencing them to death for the mere thought crime of believing in Baal! Mind you, this doesn't say anything as to whether or not they ceased believing in YAHWEH during that time, because, remember, they were polytheists! The Bible even says so."

"Yes, but they were worshiping false gods."

"When the early Hebrews, both Israelite and Canaan, worshiped El and Ashera, were they merely paying homage to false gods? Or did they not believe these gods to be real? I find it hard to believe that anybody would worship something they explicitly knew was imaginary. That's just not conceivable. But my point is the Bible isn't making a distinction between imaginary gods or real ones, it is talking about an allegiance to God vs. an allegiance to Baal. For all intents and purposes, the OT views Baal as real, as the opposition to YAHWEH."

"I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove here. I know that the early Israelites worshiped Baal, and other gods, and Moses admonished them for it. They were even inventing false idols such as the golden calf. But there is only one true God."

"What I am trying to say is, the belief in one true god is a later invention. But even the book of Job makes reference to Baal! In fact, it has many insights (historically speaking) as to the sorts of beliefs some of the early Hebrews held when they still held the belief in Ashera and the Leviathan as part of their pantheon of worshiped deities. The historian in me just finds it all so fascinating, partly due to the fact that it helps show how the faith has evolved. But most people don't read the story with any knowledge of ancient Hebrew mythology so they can't make the proper connections."

"Are you saying Christians are stupid?"

"No, I'm not saying that. That's merely an assumption Christians make when they feel their knowledge is inadequate when compared to that of someone with superior knowledge. But being smarter doesn't make you better. It just makes you better informed. Christians seem to take it personally because they despise the idea of other people knowing more about their religion and their bible than they do."

"Or, it could be that atheists are just stuck up and think they're better than every one else."

"I am not denying that there are many atheists like that, but then again, many of the atheists I know tend to actually know the Bible fairly well. In fact, many of them are atheist precisely because they know the Bible too well!"

"They may know some about the Bible, but they always take it too literally. They're just as bad as radical Fundamentalist Christians. Not every Christian takes every verse literally all of the time."

"I hear that a lot, and I understand Christians want to distance themselves from the bad habits and abuses of other Christians, but I don't think it's about making the case for or against Biblical liberalism so much as it is learning to understand which parts of the Bible are being literal and which parts aren't. I would argue that many of the Fundamentalist Christians are staying true to the original meaning of the Bible while more moderate or liberal Christians are going far afield, often times cherry-picking the text to death. There are certainly layers to the text of any story, but Christians often complain we atheists are taking parts out of context when in actuality we aren't. We're reading it according to how it is written, and interpreting it based on that reading alone. What many Christians seem to be doing is prying out other meanings by forcing the Bible stories into different contexts, or else superimposing interpolations onto the story, which suit the Christians need to have the Bible conform to their theological concerns."

"I think we're getting off topic."

"Yes, I was merely following the tangent you started. At any rate, getting back to Job. You may or may not find this interesting. But in ancient Hebrew lore, after YAHWEH defeats his father EL, and takes ASHERA as his wife, he then conquers the Leviathan. Once he tames his pet, according to the Hebrew myth, YAHWEH places the giant serpent in his garden, as a protector...

"If this serpent in the garden myth-theme sounds familiar, it should. The Adam and Eve fable, as a Jewish story, contains the same symbolic serpent. The apparent rivalry between the serpent and God is something due to the Kingly Adam story being grafted onto the myth--or maybe the other way around. I'm not entirely sure...

"At any rate, It's not until thousands of years later that Christians mistakenly superimpose Satan, incorrectly I might add (due to an bizarre interpolation from the book of Revelation--never mind how they managed to get away with it), onto the pre-existing serpent symbolism. I find this relevant, because being fond of the book of Job, you will recall one of Yahweh's admonishments to Job was to ask if Job had the power to defeat the mighty Leviathan? As you can tell, I really do have a deep love and passion for these stories."

"Yeah, I see that. I think I'm gonna go now."

"I'm sorry, I know this conversation has turned into a history lecture. But I think we both learned something."

"You mean, I learned something, right? Because I'm obviously too stupid to know anything. So I'm going now. Goodnight."

"You needn't to take it personally. I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm just filling you in on some very fascinating information that isn't contained in the Bible, even as there are distinct hints of what I am talking about. If you want to know the truth, you actually have to go outside of the Bible and discover it for yourself!"

"Thanks for the thought. But if you don't get it, just move along. I'm done talking. Goodbye."

[Christian logs off angry.]

See, this is why Christianity hates genuine knowledge. Knowledge brings understanding. If you knew that your religion was predicated on absurd myths, you'd likely get angry too. And if one's religion is absurd, what does that make their faith?

But then again, one might get angry enough to go back and really dig into the material, and also search outside of the material, in an attempt to gain a genuine understanding of their faith, rather than a superficial one which consists of nothing more than convictions reinforced by what you were told by others. I know, because that's what happened to me. However, learning something on your own is hard, time consuming work, and it's definitely not easy.

The way I see it, when it comes to learning, understanding, and truth there are two kinds of people in this word. Those who want to discover the truth and those who are too afraid to for fear of what they might find. The only question you need to ask yourself, is which pill do you take? The blue or the red?

Religion In My Facebook Feed! Oh, God, No!

2012-02-09T15:25:00.000-08:00

A Christian friend of mine wrote some words of wisdom today for all to see.

"The key to overcoming fear, then, is total and complete trust in God. Trusting God is a refusal to give in to fear. It is a turning to God even in the darkest times and trusting Him to make things right. This trust comes from knowing God and knowing that He is good."

I was left so speechless by these, how shall I put it, profound words, that I could not give a proper response.

Instead, I shall let G.W. Foote, the great English Freethinker, respond for me.

"Why should God help a few of his children and neglect all the others? Explosions happen in mines, and scores of honest industrious men, doing the rough work of the world and winning bread for wife and child, are blown to atoms or hurled into shapeless death. God does not help them, and tears moisten the dry bread of half-starved widows and orphans. Sailors on the mighty deep go down with uplifted hands, or slowly gaze their life away on the merciless heavens. The mother bends over her dying child, the first flower of her wedded love, the sweetest hope of her life. She is rigid with despair, and in her hot tearless eyes there dwells a dumb misery that would touch a heart of stone. But God does not help, the death-curtain falls, and darkness reigns where all was light." (Arrows of Freethought)

But... He is good.

I think, maybe, Christians are confused about what the word "good" actually means.

Granted this post was about fear, not the Problem of Evil. It just seems to me, that the greatest thing any religious person truly has to fear, is the constant and undying negligence, oversight, and indifference of their god.

If I believed, I would be more afraid of a god who simply didn't care, as appears to be the case, than whether or not God could be classified as good.

But... Oh, well.

Quote of the Day: G.W. Foote

2012-02-09T15:15:00.000-08:00

"In matters of science, after investigation and discussion, the world comes to an agreement; in matters of theology the world grows more and more at variance... And to our mind the explanation is very simple. In matters of science men deal with facts, while in those other matters they deal with fancies, and the more freedom you give them the greater will be the variety of their preferences." --G.W. Foote (Flowers of Freethought)

Faith vs. Religion (If not the same thing)

2012-02-08T16:37:00.000-08:00

Many people do not make a distinction between faith and religion. Millions of Muslims, for example, believe that Faith is the submission to the will of God. In other words, it is obedience to the religion of Islam. Other people to make a distinction. Numerous Christians, for example, claim they dislike organized religion but practice faith.

But for me faith and religion are inseparably wed together.

One might object that I have simply defined faith and religion differently than they have--and all are valid descriptions of the same sort of spiritual experience, more or less. I am going to argue that semantics, although highly important to clarify our subject matter, is besides the point in this case. Allow me to explain.

Logically speaking, faith is the byproduct of religion. It's not a semantics issue so much as a pragmatic issue. Without any religious beliefs there simply could be no faith to be had in these beliefs to begin with.

A reader recently asked me, "Faith is religion enacted? Hmmm.... I've always thought of it as the reverse. Faith is what's in the head, religion is the outward behaviours associated with it, isn't it?"

She's not wrong, mind you, but she is only seeing half of the picture.

I find this to be a really good question, because it highlights the confusion many people have with regard to faith. Lots of people are confusing generic faith, i.e. the faith that I will wake up in the morning, or that the sun will continue to rise, or that the weather forecast will be accurate with the more specialized form of religious faith.

The thing about generic faith is that, on occasion, you can be mistaken. Perhaps you will have a heart attack in your sleep, or you wake up to a rare instance of a solar eclipse, or the weather forecast turns out to be wrong--as it so often does. This sort of faith is *not the kind of Faith religious people are prescribing to when they claim to have faith in some supernatural entity, such as God, or some religious claim.

For the religious person, Faith is more of a profession of piety, the loyal unquestioning devotional acceptance of a religious proposition, ideology, creed, practice, or tenet.

Needless to say, religious Faith is not the same as every day mundane faith. I am not implying that's what our reader meant. She merely assumed that faith was the belief (or sum of beliefs) one holds, and religion is the behavior compelled by the total framework of that belief system. I would say, yes, this is accurate. But there is another aspect to faith we can't ignore. Faith based acts are predicated on religious propositions as much as holding the religious beliefs in the first place is predicated on one's willingness to accept them as true.

I guess the way I go about it is by asking the question how, in the first place, could one possibly have faith in something if there were not prior beliefs about that something to believe in?

In otherwords, what is it one is professing faith in, if not specific beliefs based on the claims of their particular religion? Basically, beliefs about one's religion equate to religious faith. But I do not think we can say that faith is simply believing; it is also doing.

For example, Christians profess faith in the belief that Jesus is the begotten Son of God, that he came to earth to atone for the sins of mankind, that he was sentenced to death upon the cross, and that three days after his death he rose again in a glorious resurrection. These are the basic beliefs one must prescribe to, and believe as true, in order to accurately call oneself a believer in Christ.

This helps paint the picture of what Christians are actually professing faith in. They are professing faith in the acceptance of the premise that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died and resurrected, and that through his sacrifice and shedding of blood he washed away the sins of mankind. Moreover, they are accepting the belief that the religion requires them to think, act, and behave in a certain way. In other words, we discover that faith is the unquestioning acceptance of these beliefs.

But then the question becomes, where do we get these beliefs from in the first place? After all, you don't start with faith and then generate beliefs. You first need the belief to have faith in.

Well, it seems to me these beliefs are found in the tenets, creeds, principles, and practices of religion. Religion is a complex human construct. It involves philosophical ideas, various traditions, and highly ritualized practices which are all inseparably tied to human culture, psychology, and experience. Many people form their very identities based on their religions. Many more choose to live their lives according to their religious beliefs. This is what I call Faith. It is religion followed out in devotional acts of faithful adherence to the aforesaid tenets, creeds, principles, and practices contained within religion.

Therefore, it stems to reason that the religion is the bedrock for faith. Religion has to exist before it can give rise to faith based beliefs and rituals. Just as you cannot have belief in Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior without the Bible, without the tenets, creeds, and established traditions of Christianity as a guideline of what to believe and what manner to conduct oneself as Christian, so too must faith come out of religion.

But to call oneself a Christian one must accept certain claims about moral conduct, follow certain practices such as baptism, and must live life according to the teachings of Christ. A person could believe in Christ all they wanted to, but believing alone isn't enough, you have to follow the teachings as well.

Genuine faith asks you to accept a specific set of beliefs derived from the religious realm. Many of these beliefs are supernatural propositions. That is, in the absence of any evidence to support the religious claim, you have to take it on faith that these supernatural claims are true.

When a believer prays to God, they are practicing a religious act based on the religious claim that God hears, and occasionally, answers their prayers. If you believed in prayer, however, but never prayed--then could you really say with honesty that you thought prayer was valid? How would you separate your faith from atheism? An atheist doesn't believe in prayer so that's why they refrain from the practice. No, I think it is rather quite clear why people pray. Life sucks. God, according to their religion, promises them a little something better if only they pray hard enough and believe deeply enough. Therefore the believer is called upon to put their religious beliefs, their faith, into practice.

So you see, faith is religion enacted.

Here we discover an important chronological order we must take into consideration when discussing the issue of religious faith. To picture it another way, religion is like a tree, and faith is like a branch on that tree. Many religions spawn numerous faiths, but the faiths might differ slightly in what religious propositions they accept as true and which religious doctrines they emphasize as most important to abide by and obey. A Calvinist believes something slightly different than a Lutheran and a Catholic believes in a slightly different variation of the religion still. But these various branches of faith all sprout from the same tree.

***

I'd like to note, as an aside, that religion, indeed all religions, are derived from the human tendency to formulate supernatural explanations/beliefs for that which we don't fully understand.

This is in part due to how human brains are wired and how our basic psychology causes us to be pattern seekers. So to be entirely pedantic, religion requires one to be prone to a certain level of supernatural thinking before religious beliefs can be properly generated and, likewise, faith can come out of the religion.

As such, I view religious faith as a type of supernatural belief, not a rational or pragmatic one. Many theologians claim that faith can be had rationally, but I do not see how this is possible, unless one relinquishes all faith in supernatural claims in the first place. But if one did this, then religion couldn't arise and there would be no faith.

Rational inquiry and skepticism seem to kill off the tendency we have to take supernatural claims for granted--because it asks us to be critical of anything that is lacking in evidence or doesn't line up with the facts. Since religion relies on the supernatural, so too faith. A supernatural claim cannot be entertained rationally apart from any valid support to establish the belief as reliable. This usually requires evidence, and supernatural claims usually fail to support themselves with evidence. So faith, in my opinion, will always suffer from a certain level of irrationality which is built into it due to its reliance on supernatural religious propositions which ask you to believe minus any trustworthy empirical understanding.

I only mention this as an aside, since it goes a long way to help explain why so many religious beliefs and practices are bat-shit insane. If religion relies on the supernatural, and the supernatural cannot be completely rational, then faith is bound to be irrational more often than not. Thus all the practices and customs derived from religious faith risk suffering from the same sort of irrationality.

It's was makes people entertain the absurd notion that God cares whether or not they masturbate, whether or not they take birth control, whether or not they eat pork, whether or not women may attend religious service when they are menstruation, whether or not one covers their head or takes of their shoes in church, whether or not one prays kneeling toward the East or with palms pressed together and heads bowed slightly, it is what makes people think Holy Communion is real and that circumcision is a good idea. It is why so many believers write horribly stupid things on Facebook--such as the endless thanks and praise of God for, you know, curing their cancer, or not getting cancer, or getting an A on a report card, or scoring the winning touch down.

Yet all of these religious practices and beliefs prove to be entirely irrational in response to events which can all be understood rationally. There is not a single shred of evidence, apart from the sheer willingness to accept these fantastic religious claims unconditionally, that they constitute any sort of supernatural intervention on the believer's behalf. They are merely the peculiar, irrational, religious beliefs leading to peculiar, often irrational, demonstrations of faith.

Although people aren't fully rational all of the time, I think the case can be made that religion often asks highly rational people to be less than rational in favor of slightly irrational supernatural propositions.

God Hates Figs

2012-02-03T16:56:00.000-08:00

I found this picture floating around the Inter-Webs and it made me lough out loud.

Also, it shows the different side of the Son of God which Christians so love to adore and worship. Christ literally did condemn a fig tree to be ever lastingly barren. In fact, he used his almighty powers to see it so. The questions Christians need to ask themselves, in light of this evidence, is why am I worshiping a bona fide lunatic?

Ironically enough, these little yellow marshmallow bunnies are not intolerant of figs, mind you. They are merely practicing their religion according to the faith. That is, they are following their faith to the letter. They may be zealot bunnies, but there is one thing you can damn well bet on, and that is every single one of them believes they are going to the big marshmallow upstairs when they die--to become one with the gooey creator.

Christians often seem to dismiss the fact that their faith is somehow part of a larger religious body. They claim to hate organized religion, but then turn around and practice their religion forgetting that faith is not mutually separate from religion--faith is the belief in the spurious religious tenets, doctrines, and principles. Belief that the religion is true. Indeed, they usually demonstrate their faith via either evangelical, fundamentalist, or dogmatic orthodox adherence to the belief in religious ideologies. I am sorry to burst their bubble of denial, but FAITH is RELIGION enacted.

The bunnies have faith that God really does hate figs, and therefore they practice this faith by following the religious creed not to suffer a fig to live, for the Lord said unto the fig tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again.

[Meanwhile, the atheistic pink marshmallow bunnies continually remind the religious yellow bunnies that the very existence of Fig Newtons today proves their God is either non-existent or impotent. Ignoring the evidence of a proliferation of Fig Newtons everywhere, the yellow bunnies claim the pink ones are merely hedonists who want to live a life of gorging themselves on Fig Netwons, to which the pink atheist bunnies remind their zealot yellow little friends that this is besides the point. If their God really didn't want anyone to ever eat figs again, and having the power to do so, then the very fact that figs exist disproves their God. The yellows then claim that the pinks have merely taken the verse out of context and misinterpreted it. Obviously, the verse only refers to that one fig tree, not all the fig trees. The pinks then fire back, stating that the yellows are then practicing a fraudulent faith, for the very admission renders their beliefs erroneous and that even if the fig tree did exist historically--it no longer does. Therefore there are not fig trees today that can possibly be expected to suffer the curse of but one fig tree. Thus their legalistic adherence to scripture is not only a patently absurd, since it unjustly continues to punish all figs for the so-called crimes of one fig, but it is also harmful to society by needlessly causing fig lovers grief, and harming innocent figs. To which the pious yellows tell the infidel pinks to go to hell.]

On Criticizing Religion: A Few Thoughts on Blasphemy

2012-01-29T21:59:00.000-08:00

"Blasphemy is only our old friend Heresy in disguise, and that, we know, is a priestly manufacture."

"[I]f the law were really impartial, and punished blasphemy only because it offends the feelings of believers, it ought also to punish such preaching as offends the feelings of unbelievers. All the more earnest and enthusiastic forms of religion are extremely offensive to those who do not believe them. Why should not people who are not Christians be protected against the rough, coarse, ignorant ferocity with which they are often told that they and theirs are on their way to hell-fire for ever and ever?

"Why charge us with hypocrisy when we dare your hate?" --G.W. Foote (Prisoner for Blasphemy)

A couples things caught my attention while reading Foote's account of his imprisonment for crimes of blasphemy. The first is evident in the first quote, where Foote makes the keen observation that blasphemy is only a type of heresy--i.e., a form of thinking differently than orthodox opinion, and that each of these are of priestly manufacture.

Blasphemy is only a crime to religious people.
Heresy is only a form of dissent within religion.

I wish more religious people would take time to realize this, especially when they talk about how atheists are so disrespectful of religion. Regardless of whether or not atheists are actually being discourteous toward the religious is besides the point. What needs to be brought to people's attention is that the perceived impiety of the atheist isn't an impiety at all. The atheist simply doesn't believe, and in their faithless existence, find nothing to revere as sacred. With perhaps but for the exception for freedom (including the freedom of thought).

Recently I was told that my words toward religion are hate filled. Actually, to be precise, I was accused of assaulting religious sensitivities with hate speech. I deny this accusation.

In fact, the post in question didn't contain any polemic in it. I have written polemics before, so I think I know the difference between a fair religious criticism and an undue attack. Even so, this person asked me why I must attack believers with such unabashed hate?

When I asked to which believers she was referring to, I did not receive reply. Apparently she was confounded in her inability to find even one example of but one person who I might have even made the slightest remark against. But since I was criticizing a religious ideology, not a person, she was at a loss. She just didn't like the fact that I didn't automatically accept a ridiculous religious concept or that I had the audacity to point this out.

Atheists are not persecuting the religious with hate whenever we talk negatively about religion, rather, it is those who cannot take criticism, and who have deemed their own feelings and opinions as sacred cows, who habitually take offense at the slightest critique of their beliefs. Attacking the belief, in the distorted mind of the religious, is like attacking their person. Yet confusing ideas and identities is a character flaw of religion, which propagates the absurd fallacy that beliefs have feelings.

Only in the bizarre world of religion can attacking a belief be akin to slighting one's feelings and causing them emotional distress. Identities incorporate beliefs, they are not the sum of their total beliefs. Like the comedian Louis C.K. says, he has beliefs, he just chooses not to live by any of them. Beliefs only play a small part in how we view the world and ourselves, but our beliefs do not define us. Beliefs are known to change. It doesn't mean we necessarily do. Although we can change, and often do, but this shouldn't impact our beliefs either, although it could.

The point is, our beliefs and emotions, although often playing off one another, are not the same things.

The second thing Foote brought to my attention is, if religion is going to expect nonbelievers to tip-toe around and continuously bite their tongues out of polite courtesy, should not the religious be obliged to follow their own advice?

The religious would say no, because all religion, don't you know, is wonderful! Again, this according only to the religious. The fact that the religious should so often ignore the opinions of others, other sects, other faiths, unbelievers, nonbelievers, etc. is bad enough. The fact that they expect everyone to accommodate them but not have to return the favor is just downright hypocritical.

Yet if they ever did own up to their own standard of what constitutes proper speech etiquette (beyond their imagined authority to preside upon the matter), they would find themselves in a world of trouble.

At once they would realize that their own pernicious doctrines would be downright impossible to whisper in public without sparking outrage. Most of what these religions teach is appalling.

I dare say that even the story of Jesus Christ, the Christian savior, would have to be shut up and kept out of the public sphere--for it is about the worship of a criminal and a blasphemer. Even if the story contains a few good morals in it, and even if it were in any way true, the problem is that to preach the story of Jesus is to teach the adoration of a radical and a blasphemer. If one is trying to squelch the blasphemous attacks on their faith, the last thing they would want to do is make a rebellious blasphemer their example to venerate.

You can't be against blasphemy and worship a blasphemer. It's just not possible.

Many Christians don't like their kids reading Harry Potter because of the witchcraft and magic the stories contain. I should say, secular families would say the same about the hocus-pocus of the miracles of Moses, the Apostles, and of Jesus himself. We don't want our kids learning that nonsense either. Except we know that they are mere stories. Harry Potter is fine for our kids--because we teach them that it's not real. But because Christians believe in that sort of stuff, for real, it becomes all the more insidious.

Of course, if we were to call them misguided for entertaining such obviously false beliefs, we would be accused of hate speech. And to remind us of our lowly position, they would, with jeering smiles, wish us to burn in hell. But like Foote, I too wonder, why charge us with hypocrisy when we dare your hate?

But fair is fair. If Christians don't want to hear all harsh things said against their most cherished beliefs, then they'd be wise to simply keep their religion to themselves and out of the public sphere. If not, well then, they can expect more criticism from those who refuse to respectfully tolerate their absurdities and accommodate their emotional insecurities.

Was America Founded As a Christian Nation: Part 1 The Founding Fathers

2012-01-27T04:28:00.000-08:00

It is often preached from the pulpit that America was founded as a "Christian Nation." Perhaps worse than the blatant fallacy behind this is that so many people buy into it. However, to anyone who has spent a little time investigating the matter, the claim that America was founded as a Christian nation is unequivocally false.

It is not really a claim which needs to be refuted since, the simple fact of the matter is, America was the first country founded on the principle that all religions deserved equal respect and none deserved unrequited favor. The Christian doctrine of exclusivity was, to the minds of the founding fathers, incompatible with their loftier principles of a united republic, a United States. The vision they had was one of an autonomous nation where your religion was just one part of what defined you--but at the end of the day--each and every citizen, man or woman, could proudly call themselves free--they could call themselves--Americans.

In the minds of Christians, however, many tend to make-believe an alternative history where America was founded as a Christian nation and the term American is just a synonym for Christian. This could no more be further from the truth than if I were to claim that a centimeter was just a synonym for an inch. Yet such falsehoods are often preached as a matter of fact within the folds of the Christian faith. Sadly, the insistence of these falsehoods as truths has persuaded many to believe it and perpetuated the myth that America is a Christian nation.

In the first part of this series I will investigate a few of the founding fathers in order to follow up on the question whether or not all of the founding fathers were Christian. It stems to reason that if America was truly founded as a "Christian Nation" then all of the founding fathers would ubiquitously subscribe to the religious and moral ideals of Christianity. If we should find exception to this rule, then it would be safe to assume that, contrary to popular opinion, the United States was not founded as a Christian nation, let alone on Christian principles. The claim would hence be refuted.

The freethinker Thomas Paine was one of the primary voices of reason in the early United States. His letters urging Thomas Jefferson to emancipate the slaves in lieu of the booming sugar trade, as well as his writing calling for equal rights for man, something Paine believed to be common sense, would greatly affect the thinking of the founding fathers. Paine's personal calls for the abolition of slavery also greatly impacted Abraham Lincoln who wrote a defense of Paine in 1835 (Lincoln by the way was, as far as anyone knows, a nonbeliever--at least after the death of his son--and claimed he did not belong to any Christian denomination and had to face charges of impious infidelity).

Spending most of the 1790's in France, Paine was deeply involved in the French Revolution. Upon being arrested and imprisoned, Paine suspected he would be executed as a revolutionary radical, and so was motivated to write his scathing attack on the Christian religion, his last hurrah so to speak. This infamous book is better known as The Age of Reason. In this influential work Paine calls for "free rational inquiry" into all subjects. Paine was a self professed Deist.

Here we shall look at some of Paine's most recognizable quotes and see whether or not he adhered to Christian principles to help us discover whether this founding father was of the mind of someone who would help forge a nation in the name of Christianity.

When asked by Dr. Manley, "Do you believe, or do you wish to believe, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?"

Thomas Paine succinctly replied, "I have no wish to believe on that subject." (As quoted by Robert G. Ingersoll in A Vindication of Thomas Paine, 1891)

Paine once stated that Christianity was merely "atheism dressed up as mannism." This scathing remark was followed by his comment that, "The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

As for the Holy Scripture, the religious text all Christians revere as divinely inspired truth, Paine had this to say:

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." (A Letter: Being an Answer to a Friend, on the publication of The Age of Reason. The Age of Reason. Boston: Josiah L. Mendum. 1797-05-12. p. 205)

These (above) quotes are telling for several reasons. It proves that Paine did not believe in Jesus Christ as anything other than a mere mortal and that he despised the teaching of the Bible, renouncing it as contemptible, cruel, and vile.

Many of Paine's quotes echo the sentiments of modern day atheist and religious critics. It should come as no surprise, for the shared belief among all freethinkers of any age has been that of free and rational inquiry, which has always, in every age, rubber religion the wrong way.

Paine once prophetically quipped:

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics." (The Age of Reason, Chapter III: Conclusion)

So clearly Paine was nothing like the Christian theists of today. In many instances Thomas Paine sounds more like the atheists, freethinkers, and skeptics of today.

The question becomes--was Thomas Paine likely to have sponsored, let alone allowed, for the United States to be founded as a "Christian Nation" knowing his sheer repugnance toward Christianity? It doesn't seem likely. With respect to Christianity, Paine was an atheist. He did not believe in its god or its message.

Before we proceed with our investigation of the founding fathers, and what they purportedly believed, I wish to share two of my favorite Thomas Paine quotes:

"It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human invention; it is only the application of them that is human. Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them." (The Age of Reason Part 1, 1793)

"The study of theology as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."
(The Age of Reason, Chapter III: Conclusion)

[Note: Clearly Paine believed [G]od could be discovered by the tools of science. A deist, in the proper sense, but one who was highly critical of Christianity none-the-less.]

If Thomas Paine, "a corsetmaker by trade, a journalist by profession, and a propagandist by inclination," was our archetypal religious critic, then Thomas Jefferson was our archetypal freethinker. What was Jefferson's mind when it came to Christianity?

Jefferson writes in his correspondence that his greatest success was in drafting the the Virginia statute, the article which would go on to provide the basis for America's Constitutional division between Church and State. This separation of Church and State is commonly referred to as: "The Wall of Separation between Church and State."

Jefferson, one of the original drafters of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, believed all Religion deserved equal respect, and that to favor one over another was one of the worst forms of bigotry. Needless to say, such an opinion is incompatible with traditional Christian orthodox thinking.

Additionally, like Paine, Jefferson was also critical of Christianity. Like Paine, he felt that Theology had no place in the University, stating in his 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper about establishing the University of Virginia that "Theology should have no place in our institution."

It is no secret that Jefferson placed a higher importance on the difference of opinion than on the orthodox conformity to a dogmatically conditioned like-mindedness.

"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves?" (From Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII)

Still, I have been privileged, if you could call it that, to meet several Christians who have told me to my face that Thomas Jefferson was a Theist in tune with Christian morals and thought. Many people have often used the following quote to prove Jefferson was a Christian:

"I am a Christian, in the only sense he [Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 12 April, 1803)

[Note: technically speaking, by his admission that Jesus was merely human and not divine, Jefferson would be deemed a "Gnostic," which by orthodox Christian standards is viewed as heretical.]

Apparently modern Christians weren't the only one who made the mistake of thinking Thomas Jefferson to be a Christian though. A reporter made the same mistake, to which Jefferson wrote a letter to set the record straight, informing, "Now this supposed that they knew what had been my religion before, taking for it the word of their priests, whom I certainly never made the confidants of my creed. My answer was "I say nothing of my religion." (Letter to John Adams, 11 January, 1817)

In his letter to Ezra Stile Ely, Jefferson stressed the point, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." (25 June 1819)

Those familiar with Jefferson's original writing will be keen to note that in his original writings Jefferson never capitalized the term god. It is always written in the lowercase. Only later did editors correct for this obvious "error" to put the proper reverence back into the term, and so too Jefferson's own writings, once again, wrongly assuming he believed in their concept of god. He did not. Luckily, the original writing, in his own hand, has survived for posterity so as to allow us this invaluable lesson.

Even so, the question becomes, to what is this self proclaimed sect to which Jefferson subscribed?

Perhaps we find clues in an unsuspecting letter of encouragement to his nephew, Peter Carr, about the young man's investigation into religious faith and of his beliefs. Jefferson writes:

"Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you." (10 August 1787)

In not so many words, Jefferson tells his very own nephew, whom he loved, that it was perfectly alright to become an atheist! This should shed some light on perhaps what Jefferson meant by this unmentioned sect he was so guarded about.

Would any decent God fearing Christian instruct their very own flesh and blood that it was perfectly acceptable to become an atheist? No. This line of reasoning is wholly at odds with the teachings and doctrines of Christianity.

Like Tom Paine, it seems that Thomas Jefferson would not have been likely to have sponsored, let alone allowed, for the United States to be founded as a "Christian Nation." Although less critical of Christianity than Paine, it is clear that Jefferson's thinking was in tune with modern religious critics and modern day atheists. Jefferson even went as far as to instruct his own nephew that it would be perfectly acceptable, even virtuous, to find a belief in no god at all--i.e., atheism.

After having given it fair consideration, I am inclined to think Jefferson was not a Christian, since he frequently denied the virgin birth, Jesus's divinity, and all the miracles of the Bible. On top of this, he instructed his nephew that atheism was a perfectly virtuous conclusion, not even a Unitarian would have said this!

As for the public claims that he was a practicing Christian, he denied them all, and simply kept his religious beliefs a closely guarded secret. As I quoted earlier, Jefferson denies being a Christian whenever that assumption was made of him.

For his denial of the miracles of the Bible, many are found in his his letters to John Adams. Additionally, he addresses the issue in his introduction to his defense of editing the Bible and writing The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

We know that Jefferson was against the idea of immaterial and transcendent beings:

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820)

Moreover, Jefferson found the idea of a virgin birth archaic and little more than fable and mythology.

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823)

If this wasn't enough to disprove Jefferson was in any way a Christian, Jefferson also denied the Christian notion of the Holy Trinity for logical reasons, equating the dogma of the Trinity with polytheism and calling it more unintelligible than paganism.

The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible. The religion of Jesus is founded in the Unity of God, and this principle chiefly, gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknowledged. (In his letter to Rev Jared Sparks; November 4, 1820)

Another instance where Jefferson denies Christian theology, comparing it to an absurd myth and calling it "hocus-pocus," is in a bold letter to James Smith.

The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822)

By Jefferson's own words we learn his exact level of disillusionment with Christianity. Although he may have found a strong sense of Platonism in the many teachings of Jesus, it is clear that Jefferson felt the majority of Christianity was founded upon absurdities and myths.

Conclusion

After closer inspection, we find that not all of the founding fathers subscribed to the religious and moral ideals of Christianity. In fact, we find two prime examples of two founding fathers being vehemently against Christianity, and therefore could not presumably have been part of any agenda to sponsor, let alone create, a "Christian Nation."

Women Atheists: An Observation

2012-01-25T20:57:00.000-08:00

As it turns out, I know about the same number of female atheists as I do male atheists. Actually, if I stopped to tally up the exact ratio I probably know more female atheists in person than I do their male counterparts.

Here's the thing though; if the numbers among nonbelievers is relatively equal, or at least it appears to me they may be, then why aren't there more books out there published by female atheists? Why aren't their more mainstream atheist female voices?

Almost all the books with regard to atheism, skepticism, and religious criticism are dominated by the male voice. As far as religious criticism goes, I know of Ayaan Hirsi Ali--and she has to have a fleet of body guards to protect her 24/7 for all the religious zealots out there waiting to lash out in hate and attack her (most of which are no doubt simple minded men). I know of Susan Jacoby and Valerie Tarico, but those are the only recognizable names that come to mind.

[Blag Hag provides a massive list of female atheists which you can be read here. I recognize less than half of the names on the list, but will continue to browse their writing with a keen interest.]

With but for the exception of some prominent scientific minded women like Marry Roach, Lisa Randall, Kayt Sukel, and other women of science, it seems there is a bias in the publishing industry favoring men toward women. I guess this isn't surprising, given the fact that men are still given the larger percentage of higher salaries and better job positions.

Maybe women are just softer spoken. Perhaps being "outspoken" or having the dire need to be vindicated in "being right" is a male trait. I suspect it may have something to do with the masculine domineering nature to argue--fight it out--and not back down from confrontation which makes men more suitable to publish something controversial.

On a similar note, it may also be the reason so many religious wars are waged--in the name of male superiority and the innate need to be right. It really does seem to be a man-made invention, all this religious business. Which may play a small part in why primarily men are so apt to criticize it. Although this is just an theory.

Another possible reason we see less female voices is perhaps because many women are involved with closely knitted social groups and networks where other women's opinions provide enough peer pressure to ensure they don't stick their necks out (too much) for fear of being ostracized.

Maybe it is because men (and not just religious patriarchs but men in all ages) have traditionally been extremely, and overly, cruel to women who do stick their necks out and voice their opinions.

I don't really know the answer here for why women nonbelievers do not share the same prolific followings as men or publish as frequently, but it certainly seems unfair.

Personally, I am growing rather more interested in the woman perspective and what women have to say. After all, it is she who has the most to gain from the emancipation of religion. In the near future I hope that women atheists, skeptics, and freethinkers start to get appreciated more, and maybe, get a few more book contracts as well.

List of Books Every Freethinker Should Read

2012-01-25T17:43:00.000-08:00

Here is a list of books (or works) which I feel every freethinker, skeptic, and person of reason should aspire to read. In no particular order, the books I would most recommend to my fellow skeptics and critical thinkers are:

1. Demon Haunted World (Carl Sagan)

2. Works of Thomas Paine (Thomas Paine)

3. Arrows/Flowers of Freethought (G.W. Foote)

4. Lectures of R.G. Ingersoll (Robert G. Ingersoll)

5. Thoughts (Meditations) of Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius)

6. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson)

7. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (David Hume)

8. Works of William James (William James)

9. The Critique of Practical Reason (Immanuel Kant)

10. Ideas That Matter (A.C. Grayling)

11. Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Daniel C. Dennett)

12. Self Comes to Mind (Antonio Damasio)

13. Religion Explained (Pascal Boyer)

14. The Power of Myth (Joseph Campbell)

15. The Great Code (Northrop Frye)

16. The Ancestor's Tale (Richard Dawkins)

17. A Brief History of Time (Stephen Hawking)

18. The Fabric of the Cosmos (Brian Greene)

19. Deconstructing Jesus (Robert M. Price)

20. On the Decay of the Art of Lying (Mark Twain)

21. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (Immanuel Kant)

22. Dirty Minds (Kayt Sukel)

23. Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle)

24.The Portable Atheist (Christopher Hitchens)

25.The Analects (Confucius)

[P.S. Inevitably someone always asks whether or not I have read all the books I recommend or not. The answer is, yes. I have read all of them. I wouldn't recommend books which I had not read and did not fully know the content of. That said, I did not read these all overnight. The newer ones like Dirty Minds by Kayt Sukel or Self Comes to Mind by Damasio I only read to completion in the past few months. They are both heavy on neuroscience and psychology. Meanwhile, if you follow this blog, you will know I recently, within the last several months, finished the works of G.W. Foote, R.G. Ingersoll, and Marcus Aurelius. The only two authors I haven't read every single work of is William James and Jefferson, but I have read, I'd estimate, eight to ninety percent of what they have written.

At any rate, I hope this list is of some benefit to those who are having a crisis of faith and want to know where to find ideas they can really latch onto, or those who just want to strengthen their critical thinking skills or understanding of philosophy and science. Happy reading!]

Religion is Neat! Why an Atheist Cares About Religion (So Much)

2012-01-23T21:56:00.000-08:00

My last blog entry was an impassioned rant about how religious people view atheists as conceited, and maybe we atheists are, but I showed that we are for good reasons. I should hope.

Now, as this blog is devoted to criticisms of Religion, you all probably are wondering why I even bother? Why attack something which is never going to go away and which, by all estimations, is probably only going to continue to be twisted and corrupted to suit the needs of selfish individuals?

As I pointed out in the last post, I am interested in religion for primarily three reasons.

1. Religion is fascinating. Not only is it psychologically appealing to me, but I love the history which is involved, and I like to think about deep philosophical questions--many of which are asked by religion.

2. I like to know what mistakes people are making--then learn from their mistakes--and avoid making the same ones.

3. I like to know what I am up against. Religion has always bred the worst kinds of tyranny in the world--and so in order to be able to defend ourselves against the corrupted ideologies and beliefs of religion, we must familiarize ourselves with it. Know one's enemy, so to speak.

Maybe people just assume that because I am atheist now, and an advocate for atheism, skeptical inquiry, freethought, and science that I would no longer be interested in religious issues. That's just not true. I have always been very interested in religious matters.

Before I graduated university, I was actually thinking about getting my masters in Theology. When that fizzled out, I thought about switching over to NT Criticism. Of course, I ultimately decided against it.

During a conversation I had with the Biblical Historian Robert M. Price, he informed me that the end of biblical studies was near. He candidly informed that I probably wouldn't get hired by any Universities even if I had a PhD in religion, and other than being able to write a few popular books on Jesus, or what not, there wasn't really anything in the way of money. Basically, Bob helped me to reconsider. I'm glad that he did.

Since my loss of faith, I have been on the path toward learning a great deal about science. Although religion is a interest of mine, I don't think its anything more than the political activist in me finding an outlet to express myself. I use this blog as a soapbox to get my ideas out there, not only to add to the mainstream opinions, but to help support causes I am passionate about, everything from women's rights to the freedom of speech to banning all forms of censorship.

It just seems that religion, more often than not, gets tied up with all the politics.

In the future I might like to go back to school. This time I will probably study behavioral psychology or enter into a branch of cutting edge neuroscience, perhaps both. It seems like things are finally settling down with the new job and all, so I have plenty of time to think about it.

That said, I'll probably keep blogging, and I have numerous books which are nearly ready to be published.

Later this year I intend to publish an anthology called Letting Go of God: Stories and Reflections About the Crisis of Losing Faith.

I have six contributing authors, half of them women, who all talk about their crisis of faith and their coming to terms with their atheism. Two of the contributors are ex-Christian ministers.

So that's something to look forward to.

It seems like I have a lot on the docket. It's a wonder I can even find time to write as much as I do. But if there are large lulls in between blog updates, at least now you'll know the reason why.

RELIGION IS F@#K3D UP!!! (On Atheist Elitism)

2012-01-22T18:47:00.000-08:00

You know the saying, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner," right?

I've never understood the logic behind this. Even when I was a believer I thought it was an illogical statement. What if the "sinner" is a sinner because they are absolutely depraved, evil, SOBs?

It's like saying, "Hate the murder, but love the murderer."

Um... no thank-you.

Here's the thing--it's the act of sin itself that defines the sinner. If they never sinned in the first place then they wouldn't be "sinners." That's why the logic is faulty. But I get what it is trying to say, "Hate the crime, but have compassion for the person."

Even though this is a fine sentiment, I have had it up to my eyeballs with religion and the idiots who practice it. Now don't mistake me, I am not saying that all people who practice religion are idiots. What I am saying is there are countless idiots within the folds of religion.

Speaking of religious buffoons, Eliot Daley is a regular contributor to the religious section of The Huffington Post. Eliot has some questions for atheists. I thought I would try to answer a few of them--being the friendly atheist I am.

I've been struck by the number of "Comments" posted in response to my articles by people who are quick and loud to proclaim their atheism and the non-existence of God -- and equally quick and loud to disdain the rest of us who don't share their perspective.

What's up with this, anyhow? I mean, really, what are you doing cruising the Religion department?

I don't know about Eliot's tone here. He says he doesn't mean to insult, that he is genuinely curious, but his question is pretty rude. An atheist interested in religion? God forbid! It couldn't be that atheists could possibly find something of interest in the psychologically complex or historically relevant depths of religion, no, there must be another (less flattering) explanation. Naturally. He goes on to speculate.

Since many atheists seem to be extremely knowledgeable about religion, his first speculation is that

[Atheists] are disaffected veterans of church or synagogue life who, for some reason or other, are now vigorously renouncing earlier foolishness and still working at putting some distance between themselves and their own (or their parents') faith.

Actually, that would account for a large number of atheists turned apostates, I should think. But this merely explains why they might be knowledgeable, it doesn't explain why they would, as atheists, still be interested in religion. Mr. Daley goes on to speculate another possible reason might be atheists are simply conceited.

They [atheists] reflect a very confident belief in their own intellectual superiority and a disdain bordering on disgust for the witlessness of those of us who experience God.

Wait... what? Atheists are interested in religion simply because we want to rub it in religious people's faces that we are smarter than they are? Really?

I hear this accusation a lot. But in all my time as a "disaffected" atheist, I have never lorded my intelligence (what little there is) over others. I have never stopped in the middle of an argument to bask in my intelligence. I have never for a moment paused to say, "Haha, I'm smarted than you--idiot. By the way... God is imaginary--poor deluded moron."

Strange that I should so often get accused of "thinking I'm better and smarter than everyone else," as one religious person put it, simply for being *knowledgeable about religion. Having spent three decades of my life as an ardent theist and believer obviously couldn't be the reason I know a thing or two about religion. Obviously.

In their defense, however, they probably only said those hurtful things because they realized that they were, in fact, intellectually inferior. Thus, in realizing, they became defensive in their horrendous embarrassment at how much MORE I knew about their own religion than they did. I mean, I would never say so myself, but their words and actions actually implied that it wasn't I who thought I was "better and smarter" than everyone else. But it was they who thought that. But then again, they may not have actually been smart enough to realize what they were doing was paying me a compliment.

At any rate, because I was a godforsaken, no good, religious hatin', atheist--they couldn't simply commend me on how much my religious knowledge impressed them. That would be tantamount to fraternizing with the enemy. Couldn't have that now, could we? So instead they had to attack my "intelligence" because... well... this would put me in my place--just another godforsaken, no good, religious hatin' atheist.

I overheard this very conversation over Christmas, where a relative of mine (through marriage) was complimenting me to my wife. Little did she know I was within earshot of the conversation. As she told my wife about how intelligent I was, she couldn't help but add that I was obviously conceited because I so often acted "better and smarter" than everybody. My wife just stared at her blankly, and then sweetly asked the only thing she could ask, "What?"

What, indeed.

Regardless of what me or anyone else thinks about my intellectual prowess (although I would stress it really doesn't matter that much), Eliot Daley is correct. Many atheists are smarter on average than your typical religious person . Even so, as one atheist reminds us:

It's not accurate to make the generalization that "religious people are stupid": the data shows that as a whole the religious are only slightly less intelligent.... In fact, I don't think religiosity relates directly to intelligence at all. Intelligent people can be religious because they compartmentalize—they don'tapply their intelligence to their religion. Religion is in a psychological category all its own, one that's perceived as incompatible with skeptical inquiry.

I like the way he phrases it. Religious people are only slightly less intelligent. We wouldn't want them to feel bad about being less than brilliant--not as if that would actually be a good reason for believing in God. But let's face it, the statistics don't lie, the fact of the matter is, whenever a study like this (this, or this) is done atheists almost always come out on the high end of the I.Q. charts worldwide.

That's not to say there aren't genuinely intelligent religious people out there too--but as our atheist friend correctly observed--religiosity doesn't necessarily relate to intelligence at all--since most intelligent people can be great at compartmentalizing and often neglect to apply their reasoning part of their intellect to their own religious beliefs.

Moreover, there may be something to note about the relationship between lack of education and supernatural/superstitious thinking, as proved by the fact that most third world populations are also, usually, the most religious and superstitious. Usually.

I don't know if being smarter is something to boast about or not. I suppose it depends on the situation. I would hope places like MIT and NASA higher genuinely intelligent people. I doubt intelligence really matters at a place like your local Church. It seems like a weird thing to get angry about though, that is, to be riled up over the fact that somebody actually pointed out that NASA scientists are on average smarter than those churchy people. Is that something to get angry about? I don't know. I wouldn't think so.

My point is, simply pointing out, as a matter of fact, that atheists are on average smarter than religious folk doesn't mean that atheists everywhere feel they are intellectually superior and all religious people are intellectually inferior.

It doesn't seem to me very likely that a genuinely intellectually robust person, who would probably be aware of the Socratic method, would make such a hubris laden mistake. I suppose it is possible. Intelligent people are often known to have huge egos. Yet their hubris actually doesn't detract from their sheer level of intelligence--so there is no real objection to be had here.

According to Eliot Daley, the majority of atheists just love to revel in the fact that we're "smarter" than religious people (although some studies dispute the claim--yet it seems weird that only the critics are up in arms about three independent researchers all finding the same results, but I digress). Really, after having reviewed the posts Eliot refers to, it's hard to tell if atheists really were being conceited or if Eliot just was whining because he found out that--in all likelihood--he's not as intelligent as he thought he was.

There are some things, however, which atheists could proudly boast about. Studies have shown we're also more loyal to our spouses and partners, and we tend to be more accepting toward other cultures (see here).

But this is besides the point. Eliot's question as to why so many atheists and nonbelievers are concerned with religion is a good one. So why are so many atheists concerned with religion?

I'd like to think it is like what the witty television persona Dr. Gregory House says when he claims to be interested in religion so as to learn about the mistakes people are making--so he won't be in danger of making the same ones.

In the real world, there is no doubt about it, religion is simply f@#k3d up.

As I was browsing the 'religious section' of the news this week, I came across several horrifying articles.

The worst of the bunch is an Indonesian man who posted an update status on his (private) Facebook page that said "God does not exist."

The next day a Muslim mob waited for him outside of his work and assaulted him. To add insult to injury the local authorities, instead of arresting the violent mob, arrested the victim of an unjust attack--no doubt for religious reasons. He now faces five years jail time for the irony of all ironies--something he doesn't believe. Indonesia, a predominantly Islamic country, has a strict anti-blasphemy law. In Indonesia it's apparently illegal to not believe in things.

If you plan on traveling to Indonesia in the near future, best to act like a moron and believe in everything! This way you'll be safe (more or less... probably less). This is why I'll never visit a country like Indonesia. I don't care how good the hookers are, I don't want to be made a fool of, let alone face the threat of imprisonment for the arbitrary things I don't believe in.

Next, we have the dick-bag Bill Donahue, of the The Catholic League, who in light of the the Catholic clergy abuse scandals called the rape victims of pedophile rapists, "professional victims" and "a pitiful bunch of malcontents."

We don't need to do a study to know that we are all more intelligent than Bill Donahue. Only a complete and utter moron would utter something so inappropriate in a public forum and then think that all those who criticize his tactless douche-bagery are being intolerant of his right to say hateful things. Seriously though, who on God's green earth (pardon my figure of speech) would say such hurtful things about rape victims? Bill Donahue, that's who.

Does Bill Donahue even realize that most of these victims were *children when they were raped? Does it even matter to him? It should. After all, he pretends to be a man of God, but I think the proof is found in the wickedness of his tongue and despicable (not to mention wholly deplorable) actions. Donahue is obviously a cohort of Satan--working toward compounding the suffering of innocent victims everywhere. He's probably a Nazi too. Why else would he say such things? A Satanist Nazi who gets his kicks terrorizing rape victims--sounds like a horrible accusation I know--but normal people would show better judgement. At least, I would hope. Which only leaves Satan worshiping Nazi douche bag.

At the same time the Catholic Church proper, not to be confused with Donahue's The Catholic League of Terrorizing Rape Victims, a totally different organization altogether, is currently complaining that they have to provide birth control to their employees as covered by the universal healthcare plan--you know--according to the law.

Apparently, the Catholic church finds birth control, such as contraceptives, to be "sinful." Never mind the amount of "theologizing" which goes into the construction of the belief that a piece of synthetic rubber used to safeguard you from life threatening diseases and other forms of disease could at all be deemed "sinful"--never mind that it is the woman who is at the highest risk when it comes to unsafe sex--never mind, the Church has spoken--and it's sinful to engage in sex in any other way than what the Church deems proper.

Never mind that what humans do in the privacy of their own beds is not the f@#king business of the Church, or anybody else for that matter.

President Obama called them on their retarded line of reasoning, and along with the Department of Health and Human Services, forced the Church to adopt the plan--you know--cuz it's the law.

Suck it religion! But make sure you use a condom. Wouldn't want to catch an STD.

Just imagine. The Church would rather hold to the theological belief that birth control is sinful, because it goes against God's commandment for his followers to be fruitful and go forth and multiply, than to protect the safety and well-being of those it employs?

The logic here baffles me. So, let's run a hypothetical. Let's pretend a massive HIV breakout infests the Catholic church. Additionally, let's assume that some clergy somewhere probably contracted it from a monkey they had raped mistaking it for an alter boy. Now those that the Church employs all face the threat of infection, but low and behold, can do nothing about it because their lives are less valuable than a creed? What? Are they serious?

Okay, fast forward several years, and due to a series of unfortunate events, everyone in the Church has "miraculously" contracted HIV--yes even the Pope himself--and are all due to die horribly and go be with Jebus in heaven-land, cuz we learned it from a kid with an overactive imagination that Heaven is for real, after all. Still--the Church has spoken. Birth control and any form of protection during sex is sinful. Whine whine whine. Until... oh no, wait... you're all dead.

What the Church can do for us... is go fly a kite. We don't want to hear your Churchianity spewed all over, the stupid, archaic, outmoded, idiotic theologies and dumbass creeds. Keep it all to yourself. If not, you better believe we will tell you what you can do with that theology. You can shove it right up your goddamn ass.

So to address Mr. Eliot Daley's question about why so many atheists seem to frequent if not downright infest the religious sections of the Internet.

Dear Mr. Eliot Daley,

The reason atheists read the religious section(s) of the news is, I think, two fold. One, we want to know exactly what evils we face as to best prepare ourselves for readying the best possible opposition to these corrupt and evil religious ideologies and institutions.

Second, it is like Dr. House says, we want to know what mistakes others are making, so as we can better avoid making the same ones.

I am willing to grant you a third possible option, one you have already guessed. Atheists may just be logging on to rub it in your face that religion, everywhere, is a failed enterprise and that we can prove it--you know--by using our intellectual superiority to force you to see reason and think more logically by throwing up objections to your beliefs and shedding some light on areas you have hitherto taken for granted because you are, regrettably, a probationer of religion. We watch you to ensure our behavior and thinking is always superior and that our mistakes are never as embarrassingly absurd. We watch you to see you fail. We learn from your mistakes.

Then, like the little geniuses we are, we skip over the pitfalls you continually fall into, we bypass all the floundering and avoid the quicksands of your uncritical footsteps, and we stop to think through the difficult philosophical puzzles you get perpetually stuck in, like a mouse trapped in a maze.

Not because we think we are "better or smarter" than you, but because we simply think better. It's one of the small privileges of being, on average, more intelligent.

Meanwhile, the religion you follow with conviction is the very same religion which is infested with the worst forms of corruption--but which you habitually fail to see--because like all good sheep--you unquestioningly follow your Shepherds into oblivion.

Just don't ask us to follow along.

Superstitious Japan: Yakudoshi

2012-01-21T19:54:00.000-08:00

Even as Japan is mainly a secular society which prides itself on its "freethinking," a term most Japanese throw around loosely, over the years I have found that Japan is infested with age old superstitions and ritualized customs which have seeped into mainstream life.

Partly this is due to the fact that the contemporary culture of Japan is fused with a 3,000 year old history. When you have had certain customs or traditions ingraned into society for so long, they aren't thought of as "superstitions" so much as they are traditional Japanese practices which reflect their ancient heritage.

One such tradition is called Yakudoshi.

Yakudoshi refers to the belief that there are certain ages in one's life where their bad luck increases and there good luck diminishes (as if good luck and bad luck were forces that were intertwined--like the yin and yang). Thinking about yakudoshi in terms of the Chinese philosophy of yin and yang makes sense considering that, in Japan, yakudoshi is part of the official religious practice of the Ommyodo school of philosophy. Ommyodo literally translates to "The Way of Yin and Yang."

One of the best online Encyclodpedias about Japan is the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii. On there page about Japanese traditions they state that

Bad luck ages are referred to as yakudoshi, with yaku meaning “calamity” or “calamitous” and doshi signifying “year(s).” These years are considered critical or dangerous because they are believed to bring bad luck or disaster.... For men, the ages 24 and 41 (or 25 and 42 in Japan) are deemed critical years, with 41 being especially critical. It is customary in these unlucky years to visit temples and shrines to provide divine protection from harm.... The equivalent yakudoshi ages for women are 18 and 32 (19 and 33 in Japan), with 32 thought to be a particularly hard, terrible or disastrous year.

My Japanese wife recently asked here friends what they thought about this tradition, and one of her friends, an American woman married to a Japanese man, had this to say about the yakudoshi ritual:

It was my Yakudoshi last year, and my mother in law and I had many disagreements about its customs. I refused to go to go to a shrine and be cleansed, because it's just creepy and unnecessary to my western mindset.

Another friend of my wife's informed that her mother-in-law waited until after her yakudoshi to buy a car. Supposedly because she didn't want to buy a new car and then have the bad luck of wrecking it.

There is even an iTunes calendar app to help you keep track of your yakudoshi! After all, you wouldn't want those unlucky years sneaking up on you!

This superstition of good-luck/bad-luck periods in one's life, however, is not so different from other long held Japanese superstitions and traditions, such as blood type determining a person's personality type, or the fertility rituals in which a giant penis is paraded around the local rural communities. Most of them are odd, even downright absurd, if not plainly bordering on the ridiculous. Many Japanese citizens--the same Japanese people who pride themselves on their status as "freethinkers"--will often blindly accept, with unquestioning ease, these age old superstitions and rituals.

Mainly, I think, they accept it without protest because they view these age old customs and rituals as an inbuilt part of the Japanese cultural identity. Strangely enough, many people seem to not only practice them out of tradition but also seem to believe in them. Those that don't believe often still practice them anyway, and when questioned on why they continue to practice useless and erroneous traditions you'll often hear the rejoined, "But it's part of Japanese life, it's part of our cultural identity, it's what we've always done."

Whether or not that excuse is good enough to pardon oneself in the practice of silly and erroneous things which, quite frankly, make a person look absurd--I don't know. For a country often concerned about saving "face" and maintaining a certain decorum, and priding itself on its strong economy, modern lifestyle, health, longevity, and slew of technological achievements, it sometimes seems that many of Japan's ancient customs and traditions are out of place in today's world. But that's Japan for you--a hybrid of the ancient and the modern, the old blended in with the new. It's one of the things which makes Japan truly fascinating for me.

Thought of the Day: Religion and Sports

2012-01-20T20:48:00.000-08:00

I have never been that much of a sports aficionado.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy sports. I love watching the Olympic games, I will attend an occasional basketball or baseball game live, and I was a fairly competitive athlete in track and field growing up. Sports has always been a part of my life--but it has never developed into an obsession.

The closest athletic activity that is borderline obsessive for me is weight training--but I do that mainly to stay fit--not because I want to become Mr. Universe or anything.

Yet the majority of my friends seem to be completely obsessed with certain sports, like American Football. Now normally I wouldn't think anything of it. While I prefer to crack open a good book and read for hours on end, they flick on the sports channel to watch a game of their favorite team, after all, we all have our hobbies.

But then I noticed something peculiar.

Almost all of my extremely religious friends, both men and women, tend to also be the most fanatical about following their favorite sports team with a loyalty that reflects the same zeal they express themselves religiously with.

I was just wondering if anyone else has noticed this, or if I am just observing a fluke here, or could it possibly be all in my imagination?

Personally, I think religion and sports reflect the same brand of fanaticism. Both require loyalty. Both require a certain level of attendance and show... after all there is no such thing as a closet sports fan... and there is no such thing as a closet religionist.

Meanwhile, believers are expected to make an appearance at church just as sports fans are expected to make an appearance at the playoffs, finals, and big games of the season. In fact, like religion, switching sides is viewed as taboo. Having more than one favorite team is almost as bad--just as most believers look down on a person who can't make up their mind about which religion they belong to. You either know or you don't, and with sports, you either are into it enough to have a favorite team or you're on the fringe.

Like religion, sports has highly specialized rituals, for both players and fans. Like religion, sports asks you to have faith. If the team didn't do so well this season, don't freak out, they promise to do better next season--just have a little bit of faith, won't you?

Both sports and religion give you the same highs and lows. When your team wins, the eruption of pure unadulterated elation is similar to the raised arm praise believers give when they sing an uplifting hymn. When there is a scandal on a sports team, for example a star player getting found out as a sex addict who frequents prostitutes and whores, fans feel betrayed, when there is a scandal in the church, usually for the same reasons, parishioners feel betrayed.

When one's church raises enough funds for the missionary service, or that new parking lot, people feel ecstatic. When one's favorite sports team wins the championship, I imagine they feel likewise.

Is is any wonder that so many sports fans kiss a cross necklace and praise God for their excellent plays? Or ask God to help them win? It seems to me that sports is, in more ways than one, similar to religion.

Now that I think about it, I know hardly any atheists who are avid sports aficionados. I know some who follow sports on television--but only casually--they don't paint their faces.

What could this mean?

*UPDATE*
My friend Bud has pointed out to me that he believes that religion and sports both provide a sense of community and kinship which people long for. I would like to add acceptance in general. This psychological trinity of community, kinship, and acceptance seems to be, perhaps, the main motivating factors with regard to why certain people are attracted to sports and religion. Even so, there is still just too much overlap to believe this is all there is. It seems to me that other psychological factors are at play here to. I'd be interested in investigating this issue further (if somebody else hasn't already).

Am I merely imagining a connection between religion and sports--or is there, perhaps, something more here. What do you think?

Quote of the Day: Bruce Gerencser

2012-01-20T20:17:00.000-08:00

"As an atheist, I don’t have a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. When I do bad (I don’t believe in the Christian concept of sin) things there is no God to excuse me so I must own my actions and, if possible, make things right. Granted, my sin list is much smaller now. Once I was set free from the shackles of God’s law, Biblical Law... I was finally able to begin living my life freely. No blood atonement needed. No catchy songs about the blood covering all my transgressions.

"Every day I make decisions in my life that affect how I live my life. Every day I have the choice to live a decent, honorable life. Every day I come up short and it is in those moments that I must say, I am sorry and, if needed, make restitution." --Bruce Gerencser

Bart D. Ehrman Quote Retouched

2012-01-20T02:56:00.001-08:00

Quote of the Day: Bart D. Ehrman

2012-01-18T15:14:00.000-08:00

“Can Historians Prove That Jesus Was Raised from the Dead?” (I always argue that, no, no one can prove it.) “Are the Gospel Accounts of Jesus Reliable?” (No, not completely.) “Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Answer to Why There Is Suffering?” (No, not really.) --Bart D. Ehrman

Well, that's what the blog would look like if S.O.P.A. ever gets passed. Here's what the blog should look like.

“Can Historians Prove That Jesus Was Raised from the Dead?” (I always argue that, no, no one can prove it.) “Are the Gospel Accounts of Jesus Reliable?” (No, not completely.) “Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Answer to Why There Is Suffering?” (No, not really.) --Bart D. Ehrman

Which do you prefer? Oppose S.O.P.A.--and keep the Internet free!

Is Fine-Tuning Evidence for God? A thought Experiment

2012-01-16T17:41:00.000-08:00

Proponents of Intelligent Design (Creationism) often argue that fine tuning, which is a rather inaccurate term for the physical constants of the universe, must have been finely tuned by a "designer" and therefore denote a higher intelligence, or in their minds, [G]od.

But to jump from physical constants to an intelligent creator being (of some sort) is a logic leap which betrays a failure in their line of reasoning. Let me explain by way of a thought experiment.

Let me give three sets of random numbers. Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume that each of these numbers represent the physical constants of three separate universes. Fair enough? Good.

Universe A 568723410048009

Universe B 334223112556778

Universe C 111111111111111

My question is this, which universe is the so called "finely tuned" universe?

You see, fine-tuning isn't something which happens to the universe. The physical constants just are--as such discovering the physical constants is merely an observation which doesn't preclude the conscious act of design. The numbers are just what they are. The fact that we can discover these physical constants and measure them means that whichever set of numbers we observe just happens to be right for life to exist.

In my thought experiment above--all three examples are right for life, because no matter which physical constant you are looking at, the fact that you can observe it means that it allows for the right conditions for life, like you, to evolve.

Yet all of these physical constants were just randomly generated. Not by me, but by an unthinking computer. So there was no sense of "tuning" these numbers to fit my expectations or desires for there to be life. They just popped out of thin air.

Suffice to say, IDers are wrong to assume that fine-tuning is evidence for God, or any transcendent intelligence of any kind. Fine-tuning is not (I repeat... not) evidence for God. The physical constants of the universe are just sets of numbers based on what we measure and observe. We just so happen to inhabit a universe with a set of physical constants which allows for the sustainable existence of life (which is why we can observe it in the first place). It's that simple.

Open Letter to Jeffy-Jeff Bethke

2012-01-15T02:59:00.000-08:00

Jefferson Bethke created a nicely executed video on YouTube about how Religion is a man-made perversion which will enslave you, but Jesus will set you free. The video is appropriately titled "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus."

I have a question for Mr. Bethke.

In your video you say something along the lines that you respect religion, and you believe in the Bible, but that none of this can match the awesomeness of Jesus. Fair enough. But I have a question for you.

My question is this: Are you a Christian?

You see, as I understand it, a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. The only place we have any information about the first century Palestinian known as Yeshua of Nazareth and his teachings is in the Synoptic gospels of the New Testament. These ancient writings are the only place people can learn about the person named Jesus, what he might have believed, and what he purportedly taught.

These texts are what contain the knowledge, information, and stories about the man millions of Christians worship. Do you not consider yourself a follower of Jesus Christ and aspire to live up to the teachings he set forth?

If so, I think you have a problem.

The religions which spring up from these ancient texts, now canonized, do so out of an attempt to understand the nuances of these deemed sacred scriptures. As someone who has studied the Christian Bible and early Christianity for over three decades now, I think I can firmly surmise the reason for the variance of Christian belief and practice. Many times the scriptural passages are vague, incoherent, esoteric, or just plain confusing. This is why many Christian denominations have varying views on what constitutes a Christian and what rights and rituals better define their faith. There are literally thousands of interpretations to be had, however, nobody (and I repeat... nobody) has the faintest clue as to what the real rhyme or reason behind them might even possibly be.

If you believe you know, if you are *certain your Christianity is the right form and all the other varieties of the faith are heretical, dare I say mistaken, then you have a different problem then I am thinking of.

So are you a person who follows Jesus on the basis that the only means to discover him and what it is he preached is through holy scripture? Because if not... well... I think you might be practicing something other than organized religion... you'd be practicing your own made up religion.

You may say you hate religion but love Jesus, yet that's analogous to saying you hate fruit but love apples.

I am tempted to ask you one final question, but the rhetorical nature of it is not so flattering, so I'll leave it at this.

I find you to be a very talented young man--but please, keep studying, keep thinking, and don't become so entrenched in your faith that you forget to ask questions. In other words, don't take your faith for granted.

Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity, yes even the icky religious side of it, are all interwoven inseparable elements of the same whole. It's just how it is. It's how it has always been. And it's how it will always be. The sooner you realize this, the sooner I feel you will come to realize the bigger picture.

Sincerely,

The Advocatus Atheist

On Early Christianity and the "Church"

2012-01-13T19:28:00.000-08:00

A Christian reader asked a good question.

"Who did Paul address his letters to the Galatians , Corinthians and Thessalonians to, except the Churches in those areas? Also Romans 16:16 all the churches of Christ greet you, Paul's journeys recorder in the book of acts were for the very purpose of Setting up individual autonomous churches in each area he traveled to."

My response is as follows:

Paul refers to the 'church ' as the "body of Christ." The clusters of early Christians that Paul is writing to are not organized institutions as we commonly think of when thinking about modern churches. Paul, as he himself states numerous times in his letters, is working diligently to unify the "body of Christ," that is the early Christian communities he is in contact with, and get them spiritually ready for the Second Coming.

It seems to me a historiographical mistake to confuse our modern concept of the church with what Paul actually meant.

My Christian friend responded:

"For the most part I agree the New Testament church is nothing like the churches we see today, but it is a local congregation or assembly of Christians in a given area, and it had certain rules and regulations to adhere to. It is nothing like today's churches in that it was always only a local congregation ruling itself from the bible, there is no head office no meeting of the elders of several churches to see whats the best plan for the church it was always meant to be just an autonomous assembly of christians serving the lord in a given area, but it was still planned, organised and defined by rules so from that stand point it was an institution."

It seems to me, from what I have read, that there wasn't any such semblance of organization in the groups of Gentile Christians as spoken about in Paul's letters--at least not to the extent you seem to be thinking.

Again, just to clarify, Paul merely only meant "church" insofar as it represented "the Body of Christ." The terms "church" and "the Body of Christ" are used synonymously throughout the NT for the early Christian community (i.e., those who have come accept Christ as the redeemer).

Perhaps I should explain further why I do not believe there was any evidence of organization, with no actualized rules, and with little in the way of agreed thought or opinion within the early Christian community.

It is well known in the ancient letters outside of the Bible that even 200 years after Christ that most people were still in the dark as to what constituted a Christian or what it is that Christians even believed. For example, in the scrolls of Octavius, written by the third-century author Minucius Felix, there are comments of locals recorded in which people are baffled as to what the practices and rights of Christians really were.

Ancient people were weary of Christians because they frequently met after dark or before dawn, and their meetings changed from home to home each week, and these *secret meetings were exclusive to *only Christians. There were rumors that "Christian love" was a metaphor for incest and sex orgies supposedly held after dark during these highly secretive meetings. One of the popular rumors in the ancient times was that Christians ate babies and drank their infant blood!

People didn't say all this because they hated Christians. They said this because early Christians were so secretive--to the point of being exclusionary. Whereas Pagan religions intermingled, Christians kept to themselves, yet shunned all other religions as false. Most early Christians didn't invite trust or encourage understanding in others. People reacted out of *fear toward Christians--the fear of not knowing.

Christian persecution under Nero was probably largely related to the same effect, since Christians refused to partake in the national religious observances, and kept to themselves, and seemingly worshiped a political radical who was criminally condemned and sentenced to death, Nero was worried that there might be an uprising and rebellion, as Tacitus wrote, and so persecuted Christians as a means to weed out their supposed plot to overthrow the empire. It is even rumored that Nero himself may have started the fires which decimated large parts of Rome in 64 A.D. as a means to drive out the Christian populace for strategic reasons, at least according to Suetonius.

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, writing in 180 A.D., went through great pains to alleviate the unjust attacks on Christians--yet he too admitted in his Meditations that he didn't know what Christians actually believed.

My point here is that although it seems there is a minuscule amount of organization within the small assemblies of Christians gathering in the second to fourth centuries--we are still completely in the dark as to their official beliefs and practices as a community--except for the nasty rumor mill which showed a weariness toward Christian custom and behavior which was both highly exclusivist and secretive.

Suffice to say, this lack of understanding of ancients with regard to Christianity compounds our contemporary lack of understanding for the same time periods. It is all shrouded in mystery, especially since nobody then knew what Christians might have believed--or how they organized themselves--or by what religious observances they gathered in secret to practice--we simply cannot assume they were well organized or structured.

At best these assemblies, and I use the term loosely, resembled rural peoples gathering for festivities more than actual planned religious meetings. As Christian orthodoxy has always been an ongoing enterprise, it seems that institutional thought couldn't have fully developed before Paul actually had written much of it down, and then it would still be hundreds of years more until orthodox thought and opinion finally congealed, long after the early church fathers and theologians had set down doctrines, regulations, agreed upon creeds, and began to build a hierarchy of institutional observances to better define the Christian faith by. Only after all this was there something for Christians to unite around. Before these events, however, Christianity is a vague hodgepodge of thoughts and opinions--almost none of them agreeing.

Now let's go back earlier, to the first century, when Paul lived and wrote.

What stands out to me, especially in Paul's letters to the "churches," was that he was addressing the social problems of individuals. In one Christian community (which is all Paul's term of "church" signifies) a guy is accused of incest, of sleeping with his step-mother, while in another an unspecified person is still practicing pagan rights alongside their newly established Christian ones. Within the all of the "churches" there is insensible bickering of what Christian beliefs, practices, and spiritual rights should be, which ones are to be deemed correct and which are not, and the only thing which is clear (at least to me) is that nobody (and I mean nobody at all!) had a firm idea of what Christianity meant.

Except for, perhaps, Paul--who was always certain. He was on a mission to right every wrong. Which is why he wrote these letters to his "churches." He wanted them to conform to his standard of Christian values, practices, and beliefs.

[I should note here that most of the Christian communities Paul wrote to were unaware of anything he said in the other letters which that he sent to the other "churches." That is, the Galatians didn't know what it is Paul wrote to the Corinthians, or vice versa. In other words, one community of Christians had no way to compare their notes with another community of Christians and discover the correct teachings (according to Paul). But this just goes to show that Paul wasn't interested in establishing a core set of tenets for everyone to abide by, but that he was trying to prepare each individual community for the Second Coming, and get them spiritually conditioned for "The Day of the Lord."]

Early Christianity is an enigma. Nobody really knows how it formed with any certainty. All we can do is create historical reconstructions which best account for all the available data. Even so, it is important that we remember Paul's version of Christianity is just the one that ultimately won out. But in his day, there were numerous strands of Christian thought all volleying for the dominant position. There was the Peter/James group, there were Gnostics, there were Simonians, there were Docetists, and many more varieties of Christianity just in Paul's day alone!

So all we really know about the early "church" was that there wasn't one.

Christians met in secretive locations--a practice which lasted up to three hundred years, they frequently changed locations, they had no leadership--which is why Paul kept writing to them demanding that they get their houses in order--so to speak, they had no unity of thought, they bickered constantly, and so on and so forth. I find it hard to see how any of this signifies an institution of cohesion of thought and opinion. Indeed, I don't believe we see strands of orthodoxy emerge until the mid to late second century--so there would be nothing for the early Christians to unify around--therefore there truly could be no Christian institutions until much later.

Meanwhile, Paul tried to wrangle in the groups he was primarily responsible for creating in the first place--his gentile Christian mission--and his letters show his struggle to unify them and prepare them spiritually for the end times. But I see no semblance of institutional thought--at least not until a time when there is a more rigid form of orthodoxy to adhere to, which begins to emerge primarily in the latter half of the second century.

Without any infrastructure or organization within the early Christian community, however, it's difficult for me to see precisely what Paul's use of "church" is meant to signify--other than to say it represented the loosely assembled, yet highly disorganized, Christian communities he wrote to.

I hope that helps to answer your initial question. Thanks for the great conversation starter!

Christianity is a Failure & Jesus Ain't Coming Back--Period

2012-01-11T16:40:00.000-08:00

The last time anyone saw Jesus alive.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:14-18 it is obvious that Paul felt he himself would be alive when Jesus returned to establish God's kingdom on Earth. Needless to say, this didn't happen.

In Corinthians 15:20 Paul calls Jesus the "first fruits of the resurrection." This agricultural metaphor is an illusion to the reaping of the harvest--typically done they day after the burgeoning of a crop. A farmer doesn't wait twenty or two-thousand years to take in the harvest, after all. The language employed by Paul makes it abundantly clear, that in his mind, the resurrection was imminent. Soon the dead would be raised for Judgement day.

Needless to say, this didn't happen either.

The very formation of the Christian Church, in retrospect, can be seen as the great failure of Christianity.

If Jesus and Paul had been right about the apocalypse--i.e., the end times--then the judgement would have already come to pass. This is the reason neither Jesus nor Paul spoke about *organizing a socialized institutions such as a church. If everything was going to end the very next day, or next week, there was no need for it.

This was Jesus's reasoning for calling all of his followers to give up their possessions and follow him (Matt. 19:21). The same for Paul, who preached that marriage was pretty much a futile endeavor and that

28 ...[T]hose who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. 29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:28-31; emphasis mine)

After all, if everything was coming fast to an end what would the purpose of marriage be? For Paul the there was no purpose--his advice, simply put, don't bother with marriage. Best get busy preparing one's spiritual self for the day of judgement.

Later Christians apparently realized that the failure of God's kingdom to be actualized, along with the failed prophecies about the end times, and the failure of judgement day to happen at all became a huge theological pain in the neck for early Christians.

Thus we see attempts to recify the situation. In 2 Peter 3:8 the author writes, "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Phew! That solves things.

Except for one small problem, modern Biblical scholars have found that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work. That is, it is a book written by someone pretending to be Peter--who actually lived in a much later time. Nobody knows when exactly. But what scholars do know is that the time is late enough that the anticipated return of Christ, along with the day of judgement, still hadn't come to pass and was a horrible embarrassment for the growing number of Christians who were keen to defend the validity of their faith.

Predictably, the anxiety of early Christians needed to be appeased and the author of 2 Peter (whoever he was) was doing his best to sooth their fears and concerns by inventing the erroneous claim that for God 1 day is like a 1,000 years, therefore, it makes sense that even if the second coming hasn't yet occurred--not to fret--it is only a matter of time before it does.

But the author of 2 Peter's message directly conflicts with what Paul and even Jesus Christ taught (*gasp! Yet another Bible contradiction). A thousand years later is clearly not within the lifetime of Christ or his Apostles.

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Matt. 24:34)

FAIL.

Well, Christianity has had 2,000 years of the utmost excellent sort of failure one could possibly imagine. Both Jesus and Paul were wrong and failed to be correct in their beliefs. What they claimed would happen in their very own lifetimes--never happened. Latter day Christians who attempted to correct for these failures ended up not doing much better, since as we 21st century denizens well know, their reformulated predictions and theories also failed.

But the Christian church remains--hanging on throughout time--like a pesky thorn painfully reminding us that everything Christianity has promised, or will ever promise, never ever has come true--and probably never will.

America: Reflections of an American Living Abroad

2012-01-08T18:00:00.000-08:00

Visiting America after having lived in Japan for over half a decade was both unusual and familiar all at the same time.

Some things have changed. For example, the medium sized drink has become freaking gigantic. The large size drink is ludicrous. And now they offer even a larger size! Barrel sized 72 oz. drinks are sold at gas stations now.

All the food has advertising that it is 99% sugar free. Or is reduced fat or less salt. But all the food is like 99 times bigger--so it really doesn't seem to matter. It all is about the same as full sugar, salt, or fat because your eating a hundred times more than you ought to.

I did enjoy all the new Vitamin Water flavors though. That was new to me. When I left the states there were no Vitamin Water drinks... let alone an entire rainbow of flavors to select from!

Some things stay the same. There are tons of fat people. Probably from the huge soda drinks and amount of pop they drink. Americans still prefer to talk out loud on their cell phones in public places (Japanese prefer to text silently) forcing you to hear how wonderful they think they are. But their conversations never change--it's always either about money, business, or relationships. Always.

Another observation I made is that there is a ton of cleavage. Breasts are hanging out everywhere. I have grown accustomed to short skirts and the occasional flirtation of panties peeking out from underneath. Not much in the way of breasts though. The fatty volume of boobs was everywhere to be found--American women's boobs are like everywhere--even my little cousin had breast implants since I had been gone (I was in shock when I found out--bajinga--hugeness abounds). I couldn't even go ten minutes in a Barnes & Noble bookstore without some girl walking up to me wanting to know if I needed anything. I'm not complaining... I like the service... but my eyes ever only raised enough from the book I was perusing to get a glimpse of boob valley.

Not to paint me as shallow or anything... it's just that I had forgotten the level of propriety is almost non-existent when it comes to women's tops.

As for my home state of Montana, I had forgotten exactly how awfully conservative it was. No offense to my family, who I had a pleasurable time with, but most of them are still trapped in the thinking of their own politically limited political views. Obama got mentioned once... and the vitriol flew like streamers at a party. It was an incoherent mess of character attacks and misdirected disdain. Apparently Obama is an idiot that just doesn't know how to run the country. He's not an Arab terrorist (luckily!) but he is corrupt. These are just some of the things I learned about Obama while I was back home.

I constantly had to bite my tongue. I don't make a habit of talking politics--for obvious reasons I should think--but much of what was spoken was bat-shit insane.

Meanwhile, I couldn't help but notice all of the churches everywhere. And I'm not just talking every street corner--which there were. But new large stadium sized churches have sprung up all over. There is such a saturation of "Christian" religion in America that no matter your beliefs... you are sure to find a group with similar beliefs. If not, then they'll probably just build you a church.

It probably sounds like I'm exaggerating--but I'm not. After having been in a totally secular environment for six years... the in your face religion... was sort of overwhelming. In passing, I commented on the number of new churches I saw. Everyone agreed--that there was a lot of "Churchianity." Their proud smiles seemed strangely sinister to me. I kept my mouth shut--even though I was deeply weirded out by the bubbling glee... as if it would overwhelm them and suddenly burst out through the cracks in their skin as they peeled their faces off to reveal themselves as evil alien overlords underneath--religion a means to an end to gain world domination.

Maybe I just have an over active imagination. But it is what gets me to think about things and ask the big questions. Maybe they aren't all aliens... but the question remains pertinent... is all this religion really necessary to be happy? And are they really that happy with it? I know I for one became a hell of a lot less miserable and a lot happier when I shed my faith. Being without religion is a hundred times nicer, in my opinion. I guess most of them could never realize this, not having been without religion their entire lives.

Their happiness seemed extremely strained to me... artificial even. Maybe if they stopped to ask the big questions they would come to realize that their happiness doesn't come from their religion, but rather, it comes from the love they have for each other. Religion is like artificial sweetener... a poor substitute.

I guess for Americans religion is sort of like their beverages--they want to overdose on it.

In my opinion, people have gotten fat on religion just like they have gotten fat on their super massive drinks. It doesn't take a genius to know that perhaps a little moderation is in order.

Anyway, I don't mean to dwell on the negative. I really did enjoy visiting home.

Of the positive things I noticed, Americans read a ton more than Japanese. My family is especially book happy. Everyday my aunt, uncle, mother, and grandmother would be silently sitting in the living room drinking coffee or tea and reading their books. Usually two or three different ones. Strangely enough, not once in the six years of living in Japan have I ever seen any of my Japanese family members or friends read a book. Not once!

Which is strange when you stop to think about it.

Prices are so cheap in America. Everything is affordable. A tank of gas cost half of what it does in Japan. That was wonderful! The pizza tastes wayyy better too. Meanwhile, it was nice to eat a hamburger without someone commenting on whether or not hamburgers actually constitute genuine "food." Apparently, the Japanese view it as a type of junk food akin to potato-chips or french fries. I can understand that if McDonals is your only hamburger experience you might make that mistake, but there are numerous hamburger restaurants in Japan; MOS Burger, Freshness Burger, Lateria, etc. Some are better than others, yet they still get deemed "junk food." Meanwhile a hot bento from Hotto Motto (delicious by the way) is thought of as "healthy." Oh well, go figure.

I do appreciate how Americans don't constantly feel the need to idolize or demonize their food. They eat it because they like it--and if they don't like it then they don't eat it. So there is never any food commentary like in Japan--where everyone feels obligated to incessantly talk about their food. It's a weird obsession.

As I came to see, most Americans appreciate having a variety of foods to choose from. In Japan, the Japanese usually try and separate their foods from other cultures... and then emphasize the health benefits of their cuisine--as if it was God's gift to mankind. I suppose they just think overly highly of their food. But to me, that's a weird thing to be proud of.

Americans are much more sociable--and generally more friendly in public. Americans are excellent at letting quaint compliments roll off their tongues. I ordered a slice of pizza at Bob's Pizza in the local mall and the cashier commented on mine and my brother's coats. Apparently they were "Awesome."

That made us feel good--because for the rest of the day we were happy with the delusion that we had good fashion sense.

In the end, there are things I like and dislike about both cultures. No one is better than the other. They're just different. Needless to say, when I am in Japan I tend to miss America, and when I am in America I tend to miss Japan.

I consider both America and Japan to be my homes. I suppose the only difference is, technically speaking, Japan is my adopted home. But as the saying goes--home is where your heart is--and I happen to love both Japan and America.

Divine Command Theory: Some Thoughts

2012-01-08T17:14:00.000-08:00

The way I see it, Divine Command Theory is just an excuse immoral religious apologists have devised in order to sanction the horrible atrocities and crimes against humanity committed by their own God--because to have to face their conscience and admit they worship an evil Devil would be to destroy their very faith that they are following the path of righteousness.

For the person of Faith only faith matters. Conviction is their idol. Professions of certitude completes their Holy trinity of corruption. Even if it means God be dammed... so be it... faith will be maintained.

Slavery in the Bible

2012-01-08T14:39:00.000-08:00

I have always had a difficult time explaining to Christians all the numerous reasons why I have come to detest the Bible and its teachings contained therein. Of the the Bible's contemptible teachings one of the worst is that of it's defense (and in many cases indifference) of slavery.

Many Christians claim that I have read or interpreted the Bible incorrectly. I usually get so frustrated by their hardheadedness and tactless comments that I preemptively end the conversation. Call me "sensitive," whatever, but I out right refuse to have a "serious" discussion with anyone who would defend something as horrible as slavery based on nothing more than the feeling that I am mistaken without giving it any further consideration.

I don't like being talked down to in such a condescending manner--as if I couldn't read or comprehend the book I studied for three long decades. As if having two college degrees has somehow made me too sophist in my philosophical inquiries. Imagine my dismay when these are the very same conflicted allegations I continue to receive today. Yeah, either I am a moron or an intellectual elitist. That clears things up.

Such slander doesn't sit well with me--and to make it worse Christians usually throw it out there as a matter of fact--either way--I'm an idiot or elitist snob--either way I am wrong because I do not prescribe to their Christian worldview. But why is the Christian worldview merely assumed to be right? This is the question I had roughly twenty-nine odd years ago, and upon investigating the matter I discovered that... contrary to the ubiquitous opinion of the unquestioning religious... Christianity is not a perfect belief system.

Perhaps, however, my self defensiveness has always had a way of getting in the way of me explaining the exact reasons why I think that the Bible is detestable, contemptible, and immoral.

In my past popular articles, like The Imperfect and Immoral Teachings of Jesus Christ, I have frequently raised several objections to the moral character of the person Christians worship by pointing out his acceptance of human bondage and slavery.

Predictably, however, the Christian defense erupts with claims that I am mistaken, wrong, and arrogant. Who would have the audacity to claim the perfect son of God is in anyway immoral or would gladly allow such a thing as lowly and despicable as slavery? Only a cold hearted atheist who is angry at God--well--that's the usual (and totally inaccurate) spiel of the Christian apologist who has entirely missed the point I was attempting to make.

In the end, however, am I really wrong?

No. I don't think so. And here is the why.

In what follows is an extensive, and highly detailed look, at Biblical slavery by the YouTube blogger Discovering Religion. In it he shows beyond a shadow of doubt that the Bible not only condones slavery (rather than condemning it) but also (in part 3) explains my very same concerns as why this destroys the "loving" God theology of Christianity utterly and totally.

Without a doubt--there is NO redemption for the Bible or its most ardent defenders. Christianity is a corrupt ideology through and through and the good bits (what little there is) are overshadowed by the predominant horrors that it condones. It doesn't matter that modern sensibilities have overridden the unjust practice of slavery--the teachings continue to exist within the Bible as a mark indicating the exact depth of its moral corruption--and taken in their proper context--there is no denying that these teachings are highly unethical, if not downright evil.

Please watch these videos. They explain my line of reasoning with a clarity I sometimes lack.

Slavery Anti-Apologetics (Introduction)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdT1uODfXbw

Slavery in the Bible: Slavery Dialogs (1 of 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-4zv1zagNE

Slavery in the Bible: Slavery Dialogs (2 of 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xml_8if0mU4

Slavery in the Bible: Slavery Dialogs (3 of 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ITcuh28JQU

Transcript:

http://discoveringreligion.net/?p=831

Over 100,000 Page Views!

2012-01-04T23:11:00.000-08:00

No kidding! The Advocatus Atheist blog has received over 100,000 page views!

Yeah, I am still a little perplexed as how I could get 100,000 page views at all let alone in just a couple of years. But I am truly grateful. Thank you one and all for caring and, perhaps more importantly, thank you for reading!

Quote of the Day: Epictetus

2012-01-04T15:51:00.000-08:00

Ubi dubium ibi libertas:Where there is doubt, there is freedom.--Ancient Latin Proverb

We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free.--Epictetus

Not Enough Faith to Be an Atheist Part 2

2012-01-02T05:57:00.000-08:00

Art by Bruno Auriema

In part two of Geisler's apologetic "masterpiece" I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist he tackles the theory of non-contradiction.

What I have a problem with is that Geisler offers up some false dichotomies. Although his examples are mainly contradictions, such as the Bible saying that Jesus rose from the dead while the Koran claims Jesus did not and stayed dead, Geisler neglects to consider the possibility that these contradictions don't matter because they aren't really contradictions.

The possibility he ignores is that the Jesus Christ figure in the NT and Koran may in fact be fictional. If true, then the stories are dealing with two different characters. For those familiar with modern comic books and graphic novels, it would be like the D.C. Universe and their multiple incarnations of famous characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and the Green Lantern. Each of them have numerous origin stories--many of which are in conflict. Indeed, many of the stories appear to "contradict" each other. This requires a lot of retconing in the D.C. Universe (i.e., retcon means retroactive continuity).

It may be that Muslims are simply writing a different story using the same character. The problem arises for the Christian apologist because instead of retconing the character back into the Christian mythos--they adamantly deny that it is the same character. Meanwhile, the Christian maintains that the NT Jesus is 100% historically accurate, then proceeds to dismiss any other interpretation that doesn't fit their orthodox views. Unlike the D.C. Universe, which fixes problematic continuity by retconing it, the Christian one selects canons of orthodox continuity which will be deemed the standard to base all other interpretations off of.

Whether or not the NT is a work of fiction or not, does not matter so much here. My point is that Geisler seems to think that anything which contradicts itself becomes invalid. This seems to only be true if absolutes are involved. Even then, there are situations where two divergent truths may be equally viable.

In my notes section I have this written:

I like the color blue but I also like the color orange. Because I can simultaneously like more than one color it is not a contradiction to say my favorite color is orange but also blue. Even as the statement that I like blue directly contradicts the statement that I like orange. Both can be colors I like and it is not a contradiction, even though it violates the theory of non-contradiction.

This is where Geisler makes his biggest mistake. He literally believes any contradiction invalidates a claim. But as with the prior example of holding various beliefs, which seemingly contradict one another, the theory of non-contradiction doesn't necessarily always falsify contradictory claims. It only falsifies contradictions in which the basic beliefs are in conflict.

For example, saying I like blue but I also like orange may sound like a contradiction if said independently, this is a different thing than saying orange is blue or that the color blue is the flavor of soy sauce.

These are incontrovertible contradictions. Unless Geisler can prove certain claims are incontrovertibly in conflict, then his application of the theory of non-contradiction seems to be incorrectly applied.

(Note: Geisler, et al. later state that "contrary beliefs are possible, but contrary truths are not possible." In my notes I have written that: our apologist(s) have confused basic beliefs with absolute truths. This is problematic since, according to their own logic, it would be impossible to prove an absolute truth unless you could know everything. But our author(s) believe absolute truths exist--which means they probably have in mind basic beliefs. On the other hand--they may be of the opinion that the person of faith has truth revealed to them via the Holy Spirit and/or God, but since this metaphysical claim isn't falsifiable, it seems to fit their definition of a self-defeating statement--which, according to them, is a statement that fails to meets its own standard.)

In a gross misconstruing of what nonbelievers believe, Geisler states:

"Agnostics and skeptics make the truth claim that truth claims cannot be made. They say that truth can't be known but then claim that their view is true. You can't have it both ways."

I don't really know where to begin, except to say this is entirely inaccurate. First off, the claim that truth claims cannot be known is not an absolute claim. Most intelligent, and educated, agnostics and skeptics would realize that there is a small chance they could be mistaken. If we should ever claim that a truth claim cannot be made, it is not the same as the statement that we absolutely know that a truth claim can never be made. Second of all, I think most agnostics and skeptics (let's not forget atheists) do know that general truth claims can be made. Up is up and down is down, after all.

Geisler here is purposely misrepresenting the agnostic, skeptic, and atheistic positions by putting words into our mouths. Basic truth claims, such as "I like the color blue but I also like orange," is different than absolute truth claims, such as "the earth revolves around the sun." Indeed, nonbelievers aren't trying to have it both ways, since we are not dealing in absolutes (unlike the theist), therefore the claim that not all truth claims can be known doesn't simply become irrelevant because Geisler says so. In fact, it stems to reason that if a truth claim could be falsified, then it wasn't really a truth claim. This is the possibility all skeptics account for, and this is why Geisler is, once again, grossly mistaken.

But all this talk of non-contradiction and truth claims is merely designed as a way for Christians to confound skeptics by pointing out their contradictions--as a short-hand way to veto any opinion that doesn't agree with the religious person's opinion.

But chapter two gets even worse than this shoddy sophistry when Geisler et al. attempts to disprove two philosophical giants.

Geisler's arrogance one again shines through when he takes a mere four paragraphs to disprove the Scottish philosopher David Hume and no more than five paragraphs to disprove the perennial philosopher Immanuel Kant, by applying the theory of non-contradiction.

It's rather a mess to read through--since his paraphrase of both philosophers positions is crude and lacks in erudition. But this crudeness is deliberate--because Geisler doesn't actually want his (mostly Christian) readers to consider what Hume and Kant are really saying--he merely wants the flock to be reassured that the true "intelligentsia" is represented by learned Christians like himself, so they need not bother doing much thinking of their own.

This is nowhere more clear than in Geisler's statement, "Kant's philosophy is bad philosophy..."

All of Kant's philosophy? Just the examples cited? My notes are littered with questions like these. I won't go into detail here except to say that Geisler pats himself on the back (more than once) for being more brilliant than Kant. Not only this, he includes an anecdotal tale in which he outsmarts his college professor and disproves the "principle of empirical verifiability" as originally outlined by Hume and later expanded upon by the philosopher A.J. Ayer.

Yes, not only is Geisler wayyyy smarter than his college professor, but he is also smarter than Kant, Hume, and Ager combined. Once again, the arrogance is unbelievable. And once again we find the same attempt of reassuring his flock that the true "intelligentsia" is represented by learned Christians like himself.

Geisler's (apparent) victory compels him to state of Hume, "If he's correct, then any book talking about God is meaningless. You might as well use all religious writings for kindling!"

Now, the above statement that if Hume is correct then all religious works are meaningless and ought to be tossed into the fireplace seems a bit sensationalist. Even if Hume is correct, and metaphysics is bogus, it doesn't mean the stories and the lessons contained in religious myth are entirely without value. It seems a defeatist position to think everything is meaningless is one small pet theory is disproved. Only the person who does not know how to re-evaluate the evidence would be stuck in the pit of despair when their worldview crumbles around them. But for those who are adequately equipped to rethink things, well, there is no such worry.

Such statements, like the above, really have me question the integrity of Geisler. Can he really be so arrogant as to think he is better than these great minds? Is he really so closed minded as to think the world would be meaningless if his magic fairy book ceased to ring true to him? In both instances the answer is yes.

Even as I consistently found Geisler's tone to be overly conceited, annoying, and sophist--even as his thinking proved extremely muddled--the thing that really bothered me what his follow up to this conclusion a few pages later, where he states:

"So instead of committing all books about God "to the flames" as Hume suggests, you may want to consider using Hume's books to get your fire going."

I can forgive Hume for wanting to burn the pernicious and vile teachings of religion, but I cannot forgive someone who without justification demands I burn books--let alone books of the kind which help to elucidate the problematic elements of our thought processes and which teach us to think more critically. The very fact that Geisler would call for anyone to burn the works of David Hume suggests to me a greater underlying fear that if anyone took the time to really familiarize themselves with Hume they might start to turn the acquired skills of critical thinking on their own beliefs.

This is why Geisler wants you to burn Hume's books. This is why Geisler wants you to take him as the authority above any philosopher (or person for that matter) which would disagree with Christianity. He doesn't want his heard of unquestioning sheep to suddenly learn to think for themselves.

By the end of chapter two I found myself despising Norman L. Geisler. Anyone who would make an unwarranted call to burn books written by men of reason earns my contempt. Anyone who would think so highly of themselves to actually entertain the delusion of grandeur that they were superior in intellect to some of the best philosophical minds who have ever lived earns my disgust. Geisler has earned both.

In fact, so far the only things I have learned about atheism is that Geisler is right--according to himself--and that he wants everyone to burn books. In other words, in two full chapters and a lengthy introduction there is still nothing to suggest why atheism might be remotely wrong or even the slightest way misguided. We have learned nothing.

Although reading Geisler's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist is a total waste of time, and I feel overly compelled to toss it into the fire for being the piece of crap it is, my curiosity drives me to discover why atheists are wrong. However, it will take a lot more than Geisler's ego to convince me that it takes more "faith" to be an atheist than a believer. Indeed, the very idea that atheists require faith at all is an ignorant one, since people don't require faith for things they don't believe in.

Please, take my word of advice, if you are thinking of picking of a Christian apologetics book in order to consider the other side--don't. You'll only be sorely disappointed--and in many cases--you may be outright offended. I, however, am too stubborn to quit. Especially since, like all men of reason, I am awaiting that deafening face-palm which will silence all ignorance and stupidity as it echoes thunderously throughout all eternity. I have a feeling that such a face-palm worthy moment may very well exist somewhere in this book.

Not Enough Faith to be an Atheist?

2012-01-01T12:30:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year everyone!

During my vacation I am currently reading several books, one of which is Norman L. Geisler's Christian apologetic book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.

Personally, I find that the tone is overly arrogant. The first chapter involves a few anecdotal stories about how when Geisler was a missionary he went door to door across America preaching the "Good News." Not surprisingly, the stories are always in his favor and depict him outwitting arrogant and ornery non-believers, all of whom later come to Jesus. Naturally.

So far, I have learned that Geisler is pretty much ignorant of what constitutes a genuine atheist. Although this should come as no surprise to us since he doesn't actually seem to care to find out what atheists actually believe. Instead he offers up bizarre and strange straw-men--depicting atheists as the stereotypes which religious demagogues love to ridicule for being rebellious and defiant of God (never mind this contradicts what an atheist technically is), or are secretly angry with God (never mind this is an illogical statement--since atheists can't be angry with something they don't believe in), or just ignorant of the truth of religion. Which as far as I can tell--hardly resemble actual atheists or nonbelievers. At least not like the ones I have come to know since my deconversion. Most of the atheists I have come to know, as it so happens, tend to know a lot (a lot!) about religion.

Geisler states, in chapter one, that "Evangelical Christians believe that they ought to obey Jesus' command to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

Right from the get go we learn that it's not about coming to terms with learning to understand or accept the atheist position, but rather is a full out attempt to convert atheists and, according to Geisler's beliefs, make disciples out of them.

I'll report more on the chapters as I make my way through the book.

In related news: Evangelical Realism also tackles Geisler et al. and gives the book a more in depth criticism--if you're interested.

I getz mailz

2011-12-31T03:37:00.000-08:00

UPDATE***

Although I am still on Holiday, I thought I would share this brief bit of excitement with you all.

On a friends blog, a person who shall remain anonymous, commented on how my friend (and atheists in general) ought to raise and educate their children. Upon finding out that this person had no kids of his own, I realized how condescending and arrogant it was to offer other parents advice on how to go about raising their own children.

So I called him condescending and arrogant (you know, since that is what he was technically being--a class A--well--you get the idea).

This is the reply he wrote:

"That Tristan D. Vick must resort to obscene name calling to lend credence to his criticism."

Yup. My criticism is all about the name calling. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that people who tell parents how to raise their own children (without ever having children of their own) are complete assholes.

Also, later on in his rant against my observation of his tactless and very much unwarranted advice, he mentioned something to the effect that my opinions didn't count because I live in Japan.

Which I thought... WTF?

Apparently, on top of being an asshole, the person is also an idiot.

Mind you, I could be mistaken, he may be a super genius. However, I somehow doubt it. If he were an official child care professional, then perhaps his opinion would carry some weight. I value the training and expertise of child care professionals, even if they haven't had children themselves. They do work with children everyday, as do I, an elementary and junior high school teacher.

Although it was never made explicit that this person was a child healthcare professional.

On top of all this, since the moderator of the blog refused to post his follow up rants, this guy decided to email me personally, just so I would know he was displeased with all my name calling. Cuz, you know... my comments are all about obscene name calling and what not.

Not that it matters though, because I live in Japan.

How is that not strange?

UPDATE***

I received a follow up letter from this anonymous know-it-all.

"As predicted, JPDtyxx did not post my follow up email, so I have forwarded it to you.

Since he states your post could not have said it better, your post needs addressing.

My initial comments were intended for The Atheist Missionary, not his blog, and not you.

I was not interested in a dialogue, nor did I pretend to be. It was the utter hypocrisy with which he writes about particular subject matter that prompted my email. I am well justified in my remarks.

I am not interested in a dialogue with you. I only write to suggest that you may want to put forth more informed posts in the future. Keep in mind that vulgarity and name calling do not often strengthen a point."

Except, I might point out, the name calling was my point. Not that it matters... since he is not interested in a dialog. He is merely interested in telling people what to do and how to raise their own children apparently.

The point being... this arrogant wanker doesn't simply get to remark on how me or anyone else should raise or educate their kids, then proceed to claim our opinions don't count, only to add that his remarks are all completely justified.

My friend commented, as mentioned in Mr. know-it-all's email, that he couldn't have put it better than I did when I stated in defense of my friend something to the tune of:

"[Mr. Know-it-all] assumes you have done bull-squat in real life to aid your community or help others (typical condescension). Among many other muddle headed misconceptions about how he can raise and educate your children better than you can (apparently). This is sheer arrogance on his part."

Since he seems to be so keen on offering advice, here is some of my own... until you actually start working toward justifying the claims you make, don't automatically assume your remarks are justified. I still haven't seen anything in terms of credentials or experience that would make me comfortable allowing this person to raise my child or anyone elses for that matter.

In the meantime...

Hope everyone has a Happy New Year!

America

2011-12-22T11:50:00.000-08:00

I am headed to the States for Christmas. I will be off the blogosphere for about three weeks.

Have a Merry Xmas and Happy New Year everyone!

--Advocatus Atheist

Why the Death Penalty is Unethical and should be Abolished

2011-12-21T19:35:00.000-08:00

I heard this quote blurted out the other day:

"If you go on a killing spree like Ted Bundy then you need to be killed."

I have also heard the more generic statement:

"If you murder someone you should be killed in return."

Here is the thing though--both of these eye for an eye sentiments are not only unjust but also immoral.

If somebody commits the heinous crime of murder, and you in turn murder them as "due punishment" for that murder, you are technically committing the *exact same crime as they have. You cannot claim you are about justice when you turn around and commit the very same crime the criminal committed as punishment against him/her.

The reason, I hope, should be obvious. By this logic you too must be killed for the murder of the murderer. The person who kills you for having killed the murderer who killed someone else will also be forced to face the same inevitable fate. The cycle only perpetuates more murder--and justice is never had.

Since many are not willing to actually take someones life against their will (which is the very definition of murder, mind you) they will usually shirk the responsibility and push the dirty deed onto the State. As long as a higher authority does the deed, then their hands are clean. No damned spot to wash clean.

This frees people up to espouse their emotional convictions, and say unethical and inane things like, "If you go on a killing spree like Ted Bundy then you need to be killed."

Aristotle called this type of emotional based reasoning "akrasia" where the person, despite their perceptions and habits concerning what they think is just and virtuous act on the basis of emotions, even though it is not what they choose. A person who would choose the virtuous option but does not follow it through, for either cowardice or lack of conviction, is sometimes called "incontinent."

It means that, although the person calling for the death penalty knows full well that killing another person against that person's will is morally wrong, instead of acting according to this moral fact, they instead call for the murder of the murderer.

Thus those who espouse that murderers should be killed are acting according to their emotions and not their reason. They are simply being incontinent--they have let their emotions get the better of them--therefore their rationale is impaired by their incontinence. Should we really let such people decide who lives and who dies?

Amnesty International, the global peace keeping organization, says this in their charter:

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.

It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.

It is no secret. I fully support the abolition of capital punishment (i.e., the eradication of the death penalty). My reasons are many, but I will briefly touch upon just a few.

1. The eye for an eye mentality of so-called "justice" is actually a form of revenge. Such vengeful attitudes are predicated on an emotional response to the feeling of having been victimized, or sympathizing with those who have, but the question becomes: where does it all end?

2. Killing others against their will denies them their universal human right to life. Since capital punishment, and giving the death penalty to murderers or other criminals, is just a legalized form of murder it is part of the problem. Taking a human life against someones will is ALWAYS immoral. As such, capital punishment also must be considered an IMMORAL act.

Although someone may have committed an evil act, such as murder, I do not believe that I (or anyone else for that matter) has a right to murder that person in return. There is no moral imperative which states I must commit a immoral act--i.e., murder--to get justice. This is not how justice is won.

3. Justice, it seems to me, is in vain if one uses immoral deeds to achieve their so-called desired justice. Justice--by it's very definition--means just behavior and treatment. That cannot be had by the eye for an eye mentality invoked by those who feel so entitled to pass judgement on behalf of some greater authority.

The goal should be to get justice for the victims, not simply punish the wrong doers. If the victim doesn't get their due justice, then no amount of punishment we could dole out even matters.

4. The death penalty doesn't necessarily work to increase the safety or well-being of a society. In fact, statistically it doesn't deter crime at all.

Rehabilitation of criminals, on the other hand, seems to work. Sweden is a good case example of this. Here's the thing to keep in mind, when criminals rehabilitate the horrendous crimes drop so much that they barely register. Of course, violent crime doesn't disappear completely, but it disappears enough that the death penalty isn't all that necessary.

Meanwhile, countries which continue to impose a death penalty rarely ever address the underlying problems which contribute to the rise of violent crime in the first place. Therefore violent crime freely persists even with the death penalty imposed. Consequently this makes the death penalty nothing more than a morbid, cruel and unusual, threat against people's lives and basic human rights but which does little to nothing to deter crime.

5. Where there is a strict death penalty there is always the chance that an innocent life will be accidentally taken instead of the actual offender.

Ruben Carter was on death row for a triple homicide which he never committed. For twenty-two years he lived with the threat that the State would terminate his life, twenty-two years he would never get back. Even though Ruben Carter was exonerated, there could potentially be countless innocent lives being terminated based on faulty information. Minus the death penalty, however, no such innocent lives would ever be taken. There would simply be no risk losing their lives due to mistaken identity or corrupt politics--which is incentive enough to abolish the death penalty.

6. In most countries where the death penalty is enforced, there is no democratic legal system in place to safeguard the person's right to a trial (or the right to remain innocent until proved guilty). In fact, many of the deaths are for crimes that do not fit the punishment. In Africa old men and women or sickly children are killed for being "witches." In Saudi Arabia women can be killed for not adhering closely enough to strict religious rituals such as Sharia law. In Pakistan there are countless victims of arbitrary "honor killings" every year, as well as in many Islamic countries throughout the Middle East as well as in numerous Latin American countries too.

7. The government may become corrupted (e.g., North Korea), and the powers that be may kill you for no reason--or starve you to death--because their war regime policies override your right to live--but then when you protest they kill you anyway. Such Orwellian nightmares are another reason the death penalty is a bad idea.

Needless to say, worldwide, capital punishment is a grotesque abuse against human rights, well-being, and life.

I will wrap this up here--but the reasons for why capital punishment (i.e., the death penalty) should be abolished far outstrip any reasons one could possibly come up with for it.

Personally, I think morality has evolved enough in modern times that we can now get beyond the primitive ideas of vengeance masquerading as justice and start actively proposing methods and models for safeguarding society and her citizens without resorting to the same evils we seek to be free from.

Atheism Impossible to Argue Against?

2011-12-19T22:34:00.000-08:00

In a formal argument, the opponent brings an objection to the proponent's position. Theists make the assertion there is a God, while Atheists make the opposite assertion. In this case, the theist is the proponent for the existence of God and the Atheist is opposed to this position for various reasons.

Yet what if the theist, or religious adherent, wishes to criticize the nonbeliever's position? I find this a horribly impossible task--because to claim the atheist is wrong the theist would first be required to validate their position that God exists. In other words, they would have to present us with God (exhibit A). Oddly, exhibit A seems to be missing. How can a theist presume to claim the atheist is wrong about the non-existence of exhibit A when the theist can't even provide physical evidence and, perhaps more importantly, any reliable evidence seems so elusive (illusive)?

Personally I find it amusing that theists would even try to argue against the atheistic position. Usually when an argument is made, the argument it is brought with evidence to justify the claims. After all, the goal is to prove the other side wrong.

But how does one go about proving something someone doesn't believe in is (somehow) incorrect? Moreover, how does the theist propose to support their claim that the atheist is mistaken about the non-existent status of God when they can't even provide trustworthy, testable, falsifiable evidence for God?

It seems a futile position, at least to me, to argue that somebody is mistaken without the evidence to prove why (or how) they are mistaken all the while realizing that you aren't actually disproving a belief--but rather trying to argue against a position which is, strangely enough, a statement of what one doesn't profess to believe. It is unreasonable to make a claim that someone else is mistaken then completely fail to provide a proper basis for that claim to be checked against. Yet this is the very thing which theists are doing when they attack atheism.

Sure, atheists may turn out to be gravely mistaken, but there is just no way to prove it. Not without the prerequisite verification of evidence and either the proof or falsification of the disputed claims. Meanwhile, atheists aren't under any particular obligation to disprove God, because minus the evidence for God, their claim that there is nothing to disprove happens to fall in line with the observable facts.

Therefore the burden is forever on the theist to provide valid evidence. Until then, their claims are without basis and without merit. For this very reason, it seems to me, atheism is an impossible position to argue against.

Quote of the Day: Dan Dennett

2011-12-18T20:08:00.000-08:00

"Most spokespeople for religion expect to be treated not just with respect but with a special deference that is supposedly their due because the cause they champion is so righteous. Then they often abuse that privilege by using their time on the stage to misrepresent both their own institutions and the criticisms of them being offered." --Dan Dennett

Quote of the Day: The Thinking Atheist

2011-12-18T03:09:00.000-08:00

This one is for you Hitch!

In a pod cast on the life of Christopher Hitchens and what he meant to us, Seth (aka The Thinking Atheist) said something about Hitch that really resonated with me.

"Christopher [Hitchens] made me feel empowered and strong... and stupid... all at the same time."

Ditto.

Christopher Hitchens will be sorely missed.

Christopher Hitchens Passes Away

2011-12-16T03:37:00.000-08:00

Christopher Hitchens passed away on Thursday, December 15. He was 62.

Of all the Gnu atheists I perhaps feel closest to Hitchens. I found his radicalism, his advocacy, and his contrarian outlook reminiscent of my own. Admittedly, however, his intellect far surpassed mine and his words were far more eloquent than anything I could ever possibly muster at a whims notice. His oration skills were second to none, in fact, I would go as far as to say he was the Ingersoll of our day. His whit was sharp, and his commentary always had a touch of that wry Anglo-American humor. Hitchens contained a sophisticated blend of cultural insights and bravado lending to a keen mind perfectly suited for his chosen profession as a journalist tackling the headline issues of his day.

Even with all this going for him, most people found Christopher Hitchens polarizing. You either loved him or hated him--strangely enough, usually for the same reasons. I for one admired the guy greatly. Perhaps what I respected most of all was the fact that he was honest--brutally honest--and never ducked a question. Even as many felt he was a tad arrogant, I felt Hitchens was confident in what he knew, but more importantly he wasn't above correcting himself, constantly taking great pains to reminds his captive audience of how little qualified he was to talk on specific matters far out of the reach of his expertise.

Hitchens's writing could be found regularly in Vanity Fair, Slate, and elsewhere. I could only dream of writing half as well as he did. But it is no secret, his books were usually poorly researched and many of his historical claims were shrouded behind the veil of his overpowering rhetorical voice. Even so, he usually knew a thing or two about what he was talking about--especially when it came to politics and history. So regardless of his erudition, or whether or not his facts all lined up, his resonant voice and slightly British accent made anything he said completely captivating. Truly, his finesse with words and lightening quick mind truly made him impressive.

Hitchens verbal skills were bar to none. Coupled with a laser-like intellect he was fully equipped to carry the dialectic better than anyone. He was truly a force to be reckoned with. Hitch could stand his ground equally against pompus talking heads on various news networks, he could face down ignorant politicians, and he never retreated from a chance to interrupt a blathering theologian or holy man and correct them on an important historical fact.

In fact, Hitchens would often keep on talking until he would be cut off by the host. Not because he loved to hear himself speak, mind you, but because he so despised allowing people who clearly knew nothing of what they were talking about the chance to pollute the world with their ignorance. If you wanted to go up against Hitchens--you had to be prepared. Something many of his debate rivals found out the hard way as they faced the onslaught of his verbal admonitions, among the most eloquent you'll ever have the pleasure of hearing, and sharp Ockham-razor like reasoning.

Hitchens was more than an just an atheist though. He was a self proclaimed anti-theist. He detested the idea of an all knowing, all watching, supreme being who would punish you for thought crimes. It should come to no surprise to us that Hitchens so despised this form of theocratic dominion, for he was a student of Orwell, and much of Orwell's voice could often be heard echoed in the words--and concerns--of his own.

The very notion of policing people's thoughts was the ultimate offense to individual freedom--and Hitch realized this as an inherent danger woven throughout the religious schema, which he so vehemently opposed.

Hitchens felt faith was the most overrated of all the virtues, and even then, he hesitated to even call it a virtue. Religion to him was a poison which slowly saturated everything and made people's lives worse off in the process. Religion was so distasteful in his eyes, that his life's preoccupation was to build up Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state.

His detractors considered him petulant, but his supporters felt they had a champion in their corner. A man who would never back down from a fight--which he proved in 2009 when he got the living shit kicked out of him by SNPN skinheads in Lebanon. Of course, true to Hitch fashion, he bounced back, with a vengeance, determined to vanquish his enemies by showing them once and for all that the pen was truly mightier than the sword.

Soon enough, Christopher Hitchens's short rhetorical jabs and sarcastic quips became known as the infamous "Hitch-slap." If you got on his bad side he would be sure to inform you that only his friends were allowed to call him "Christopher."

Like his favorite brand of scotch whiskey, Johnnie Walker Black, Christopher Hitchens had a bite to him yet was smooth and sophisticated at the same time. Whether or not you could stomach him depended on how strong of a constitution you had. Whatever you feelings were with regard to Christopher Hitchens, hearing him lecture meant you were guaranteed an unforgettable time of it, and he certainly made a lasting impression wherever he went. There is no doubt about it--Hitchens will be missed.

Does Faith make you Retarded? [Warning: Explicit Language]

2011-12-15T17:36:00.000-08:00

Around this time of year my Facebook lights up with people praising the Lord for all their blessings. Tis' the season, after all.

Over the past year I have been testing what appears to be an unabashed urge of religious people to blather whatever their beliefs are (for no apparent reason) on the web by countering it with a contrary point of view.

My prayers were answered, they will say. Prayer doesn't work, I inform.

I am an asshole, I know. But with good reason.

When someone cannot control their urge to thank God for a prayer, or feels they need to let the whole world that they are praying for you, I have taken the initiative time and again to remind people that prayer is not valid. It has been falsified. Scientifically.

I am not saying this to be offensive. There is no offense in simply holding a difference of opinion. But the reaction is always as if I have started World War III.

After gasps of pure horrified shock that somebody with a different opinion would have the audacity to share it in a forum dedicated to proclamations of faith and belief subside, I brace myself for the inevitable fallout. Like a loud buzzing, I can hear the vibrations of their wicked tongues warming up as they prepare a blitzkrieg attack aimed to sting the so-called naysayer.

(Note: Naysayer means a person who denies or opposes something. In that sense, yes, I am denying the person of faith to idly and mindlessly accept incorrect beliefs and tout these beliefs as something worthy of being shared and broadcast. By opposing their sacrosanct opinion that their faith should merely be respected--even when it is patently false--I am revealing their hypocrisy. In my defense, however, opposing a falsehood should never be viewed as wrong. If correcting our mistakes was wrong to do, we would forever be mistaken, forever ignorant of the truth. I feel that people who proclaim to have the truth cannot afford to be so naive as to deny others the right to correct their mistaken beliefs. I refuse to respect their faith for this very reason. If your faith cannot handle cordial disagreement, and you fly off the handlebars anytime someone disagrees, and feel it is somehow alright to put them in their place by viciously attacking them (simply because they think differently), then this is not alright. If you can't agree to disagree, then perhaps it would be best to simply keep your beliefs to yourself.)

Usually when I call someone on a belief I know is completely and totally invalid, I get people saying things like, "I don't attack your beliefs, why do feel that you need attack mine?"

This pisses me off to no end.

I urgently tell them I am not attacking their beliefs, merely correcting their mistaken information. After all, they wouldn't continue to believe things that are false if shown--beyond a reason of a doubt--that they were false, failed, erroneous beliefs, right?

Wrong.

They merely get defensive. They don't want to relinquish their wrong beliefs, because these beliefs make them feel good. So instead of taking the time to question their beliefs, or why they might be wrong, they instead call me "intolerant."

Yeah, the guy who shared his beliefs, because you felt you needed to share yours first, is intolerant simply because his beliefs do not agree with yours. What was I thinking? I must have forgot that only religious people have the right to share their stupid thoughts.

On the other hand, if I do happen to take the time to provide them with decades of research which show, under various conditions, that something like prayer never works... ever... not under any circumstances or conditions... I then get accused of being, not only intolerant, but also elitist. Why? Simply because I asked them to take like two minutes out of their busy schedule of going to church pot-lucks and bible study to, I don't know, read a ten page science article from a peer reviewed science journal.

Really? They guy who points out of the fact of the matter, that your beliefs are not merely wrong but they are sooo wrong that they are absurd, and in many cases borderline offensive, is the one being arrogant? Really?

The person humble enough to correct his mistaken views, who takes the time to review the evidence, and who pauses to reflect on the implications--and who doesn't make it a habit to broadcast his beliefs 24/7 is the one who is being arrogant? Because he refers to hard won evidence, and wants you to consult it too, instead of just barfing blind professions of faith based conviction everywhere, and merely asks you to take two minutes to think about what your saying and how this holds up against the evidence--is elitist? Do these people even know what the term elitist even means?

Imagine if they thanked Jesus for all the blessings in their life, and I called them a whole bunch of hate-filled names for no good reason. Instead, I may point them to a quote or snippet from a history book about the historical Jesus and the development of early Christianity--but I don't throw libelous hate and slander at them simply because we disagree. When they ask me, "Why do you feel you need to attack my beliefs, I don't attack yours..." I want to ask them, "Seriously, what's wrong with you people?"

I realize that a lot of the time I am wasting my breath on those crippled by the retarding powers of faith, but I am trying desperately to make a point.

If you can't accept someone else's opinion, and upon hearing their opinion become so enraged that you feel compelled to tell them that they are elitist, arrogant, intolerant, angry, and deserve to burn in hell, etc. then you are merely making unjustified personal attacks on someone because you don't agree with them. First off, this is immoral behavior. It's not okay. Second of all, it is bigoted.

Knock it the fuck off.

Now, some religious people might say I am being cruel by claiming their religion makes them stupid--or by saying that faith retards their mental faculties and makes them act like morons.

Actually, I am not being mean here. I am making a straight up observation. I am being honest.

If your faith compels you to do something, or say something, that is completely ABSURD... not to mention totally WRONG... and you are called on it... and your first reaction is to ATTACK that person, instead of being cordial and accepting that there are different opinions out there, then this is, in my estimation, INAPPROPRIATE behavior.

Once I gave up religion, and relinquished a three decade long faith, I realized how foolish I was acting a lot of the time. Needless to say, I felt horribly embarrassed for many of the things I said or did because of my religious beliefs. I felt like a fool for thinking my non-Christian friends would go to hell. I felt silly for believing in an imaginary place, for that matter. I felt guilty for having used small children's fear of this imaginary place against them just to blackmail them into believing the same thing I did. I felt stupid for believing this was the right thing to do, let alone at all okay. Terrifying children for no reason is NEVER okay. My faith often retarded me into a dogmatic conviction spewing moron.

Now, when I see other people doing the same, I feel the uncontrollable need to point out their mistake. I feel embarrassed for them. As an advocate for reason--I speak out. How can I not?

The thing that pisses me off, however, is the reaction I typically receive. In a backlash of hypersensitive, whiny-two-faced, religious defensiveness where I get called all sorts of horrible names--for no good reason.

I want to scream at the top of my longs--I am NOT attacking your beliefs. I am attacking BAD beliefs which are just flat out INCORRECT! Meaning: Un-fucking-true, you mindless-faithy-self righteous blowhards! Your choice to believe them is your own... but shut the fuck up about them if you don't want to fucking be called on their absurdity. For Christ's sake people.

A) nobody needs to hear your incorrect, absent-minded, and completely unjustified beliefs spewed all over the place, and B) even if (and it's a big if at that) you do have good reasons for what you believe--unless the beliefs are going toward a cause which will actively help others in the immediate future--then nobody wants to hear about it.

Just shut the fuck up about baby Jesus, why you're thankful to God, and what prayers came true this week--and go do something productive... like suck a dick. At least then you'd actually be productive and helping to make someone else happy.

If the Catholic Church really wanted to make the world a better place, they would turn their Cathedrals into elaborate brothels, where anyone could go at any time to get a good old fashioned fellatio from a priest. Yeah, stop fucking and raping children, and suck some adult cock. Christianity is full of cock-suckers anyway, why not incorporate that into the religion? Less kids would be getting raped and more people would be satisfied--sexually--everyone wins!

So am I an angry atheist? Well, not all year long. Just at the time of year when religious people think because it's the holidays and what not, they can barf out their faith based convictions all over the place for no goddamned reason other than it makes them feel good. It makes me angry when I get attacked for having different beliefs--in in the same instance get told I am being oppressive and intolerant of their beliefs. I am too nice to say, "You have it fucking backwards, mother-fuckers."

I am wayyy too nice of a person to actually tell religious people this directly. Other than the few times I have shared my differing points of view, I usually let people display their stupid all over the place like a dumb-ass peacock. I only hope that one day they will realize how horribly idiotic they were being, and in a bout of remorse for their relentless stupidity, turn about face and begin to actively seek to help correct the misinformation, the false beliefs, and set about trying to get a better hold on the truth while helping others to do so too.

[I realize not all Christians are bad people. Heck, I used to be one. My entire family is Christian. Not all Christians are loud mouthed bigots either. Although I used to be one. But before anyone gets offended and hits the unsubscribe button, just realize I am not so angry at other Christians as I am mainly angry at my own stupid behavior when I was a Christian. A retarded behavior I see reflected in other Christians daily.]

[My frustrations seem to stem more from the anger I direct at myself--but at the same time, please realize, that after getting beat down every time I share my opinion--among so-called "friends"--who proceed to verbally harangue and assault me for simply having a different opinion, this is not something I feel I should just idly sit by and tolerate. Nobody likes taking it up that ass. Having to respect other people's stupid beliefs for not good reason is just like being asked to bend over for them. No, I am afraid that's not how it works. You want my respect--you have to earn it first. And since I can't reach through my Facebook and punch the idiots in their stupid faces for attacking me without justification, I vent my frustration here. Happy holidays!]

Jesus Claus & Santa Christ

2011-12-14T20:46:00.001-08:00

Student: Did the baby Jesus grow up to be Santa Claus?

Me: Yeah, sounds about right.

True conversation I had yesterday with my second graders at Elementary school. They have no idea who Jesus is. And this was after a class where I explained who he was! I explained that Christians believe Jesus died and became God. One girl asked, "What's a Christian?"

Yup. I love Japan!

Quote of the Day: Louis C.K.

2011-12-14T18:00:00.000-08:00

"I have a lot of beliefs, and I live by none of them - that's just the way I am… they make me feel good about who I am." --Louis CK

Science and Truth: More Lisa Randall Quotes

2011-12-14T15:30:00.000-08:00

"Scientists actively approach the door to knowledge--the boundary of the domain of what we know. We question and explore and we change our views when facts and logic force us to do so. We are confident only in what we can verify through experiments or in what we can deduce from experimentally confirmed hypotheses." --Lisa Randall (Knocking on Heaven's Door)

"Although there is much we don't yet know about the evolution of the universe, we have a spectacularly successful understanding of the universe's evolution based on the so-called Big Bang theory supplemented by a period of exponential expansion of the universe known as cosmological inflation... This theory has agreed with a range of observations, including observations of the microwave radiation in the sky--the microwave radiation left over from the time of the Big Bang.

"Originally the universe was a hot dense fireball. But during the 12.75 billion years of its existence it has diluted and cooled substantially, leaving this much cooler radiation that is a mere 2.7 degrees kelvin today--only a few degrees Celsius above absolute zero. Other evidence for the Big Bang theory of expansion can be found in detailed studies of the abundances of nuclei that were made during the universe's early evolution and in measurements of the universe's expansion itself." --Lisa Randall

"In some cases, we will understand the observations sufficiently well to know what they imply about the underlying nature of matter and physical laws. In other cases, we'll spend a lot of time unraveling the implications. Regardless of what happens, the interplay between theory and data will lead us to loftier interpretations of the universe around us and expand our knowledge into currently inaccessible domains.

"Some experiments might yield results soon. Others could take many years. As data come in, theorists will be forced to revisit and sometimes even abandon suggested explanations so we can improve our theories and apply them correctly... even when new results might require abandoning old ideas.

"Our hypotheses are initially rooted in theoretical consistency and elegance, but... ultimately it is experiment--not rigid belief--that determines what is correct." --Lisa Randall

Gravity follow up Question

2011-12-12T20:29:00.000-08:00

I received a really great question concerning gravity after my previous article about Space-time, Quantum Mechanics, and the Cosmological argument for God.

The question was raised:

In addressing "why there is something rather than nothing" your article states:

"Likewise, the related question of why there is something rather than nothing (within the universe) can also be explained. The answer is gravity. Entropy x gravity = clumping. This clumping of matter is what creates stars and planets. Gravity, in other words, is why we have something rather than nothing in the universe."

Honest questions here:

*Why is there something available to be clumped? You say gravity is the reason for there being something rather than nothing, but if there was nothing for gravity to act upon, there would still be nothing.

*And isn't gravity a function of mass (mass of a something)?

Maybe you just shorthanded your treatment of this question. What am I missing in understanding this?

I don't think you're missing anything. As you correctly state, gravity is a function of mass, but let's not forget a function of energy also.

Why is there something available to be clumped? Because of the big bang. At least that's how I have come to understand it from reading physics books. All the energy in the universe (as far as I can tell) spontaneously popped into existence via the quantum fluctuation, or singularity. Next, as the MIT physicist Alan Guth has posited, inflation takes over and this hot dense plasma is spread out across a great distance via inflation. Gravity then begins to collect the gas clouds of mainly helium and hydrogen and eventually the mass of this gas gets so dense that it ignites a nuclear reaction from the sheer pressure of the mass being compressed. This chain reaction creates a stellar furnace of super giant primordial stars.

Eventually, as any astrophysicist would tell you, these super stars go super nova and explode and create new elements baked in their fiery furnaces. All the natural elements we have identified thus far are known to come from stars. Every piece of matter that exists today was baked up in a star then distributed back out into space in that stars subsequent death.

Gravity, meanwhile, continues to clump the stuff of stars together along with the other gases and dust swirling about. Soon after, gravity forms nebulae. Eventually the right type of star goes super nova and collapses in on itself forming a black hole. With enough nearby gas, dust, and debris a galaxy can form. Like our own Milky Way galaxy, eventually planetary systems are formed, and all of this spins around the massive black hole at the center.

Meanwhile, the with the recent discovery of dark energy, physicists have a good idea of what is driving the universe to expand exponentially.

At least, this is how I understand the evolution of our universe to be like from reading physics books. However, I am by no means an authority on the subject.

My point about gravity being the answer to why there is something rather than nothing is this. If there was no gravity, then there would be nothing acted upon. No effect in other words on the stuff after the big bang. Basically the hot plasma after expansion, minus gravity, would never clump and dark energy would continue to force all that energy apart while entropy would erase it from existence. Nothing would ever come to be.

This causes me to feel that theologians are asking the wrong question about the origin of something with regard to nothing. Because even with all the energy left over from the big bang, without gravity, we would still have nothing. We wouldn't even exist to ask the question.

So the answer of why there is something rather than nothing is quite clearly: because gravity.

The answer of where did this something come from is: the big bang.

How did stuff form after the big bang? Physicists suppose it has something to do with Symmetry breaking.

The answer of what caused the big bang is currently unknown. Or, perhaps I should say, not fully understood.

Most physicists think it was likely a quantum fluctuation (of some kind). Yet the field of quantum mechanics is fairly young and it is not completely understood either. Luckily this is why various branches of cosmology and physics exist--so we can continue to investigate the unknown elements of our universe perchance discover why it is the way it is and how it came to be.

I feel that I must now point out that although we don't currently understand everything about the nature of reality, scientists are making steady progress at increasing our understanding of the over all picture of reality.

Gradually they are pulling the curtain which veils reality and hides her from us further and further back revealing hitherto unforeseen truths. With each new discovery our understanding of the overall picture of reality grows ever more complete.

Although I can only speak for myself, it seems to me that if religion were true, according to the claims religion makes for itself, then it would be the vehicle to revealing all the truths of reality. Since this is not the case, it makes me highly skeptical of anything religion has to say with regard to reality--the world--the universe--or myself.

Now, it stems to reason, that if you assume something "caused" the big bang--although this assumption is illogical knowing that causation cannot exist outside of temporal space-time--even if we wish to ignore the erroneous nature of the question and simply rephrase it--the question would probably have to push back to where did that initial energy fluctuation come from?

That is still a question currently undergoing investigation. Physicists are currently working on figuring that out--from many different angles--so it is too early to tell with any certainty.

Which brings me to the second part.

Many physicists, including Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, posit that gravity exists multidemensionally. At least, the math seems to suggest it (as I am not a physicist I am inclined to take their word for it--esteemed as they are).

If so, then gravity would exist whether or not our particular universe did.

As I hopefully showed in the article, the logic behind the Cosmological argument is Newtonian. But modern physics and cosmology goes far above and beyond that type of reasoning. Especially where gravity is concerned.

Modern cosmology suggests that there is a minute vacuum energy to the quantum foam of space. This vacuum energy has recently been tested by Swedish physicists who used a virtual mirror to push a virtual particle out of the vacuum energy and it immediately formed into a tangible light particle. That is amazing. They literally tapped on vacuum energy, the closest thing to nothing there is, with a oscillating magnetic field and got a light photon out of it.

Basically they made light from nothing. That's just cool. Although it doesn't provide ready answers--it is a step in the right direction. Slowly, but surely, we are piecing together the puzzle of how the cosmos came to be.

I think I should mention that gravity is also mysterious. It may even be multi-demensional (according to several physics theories). We have only been able to measure it indirectly. But new instruments are being developed which will have the required sensitivity to measure gravitational radiation in the near future (see the Michio Kaku video below). As I understand it, its frequency will tell us a lot about the nature of gravity and how the universe functions/behaves. So I am eagerly anticipating that discovery.

It seems to me, and this gets back to my initial point, if there really were a theistic deity of a power and magnitude such as the type which theologians claim, then this power has to interact with reality (otherwise what good is such a power if it remains forever unknown? It might as well not even exist--if that's the case). If there is a God, such as the one theists posit, it can be assumed that it interacts with the universe and so should also have observable effects. The fact that we don't see any, would, it seems to me, suggest there is no such being.

Space-time, Quantum Mechanics, and the Cosmological Argument for God

2011-12-11T17:30:00.001-08:00

While watching Brian Greene's excellent NOVA series "The Fabric of the Cosmos," I went back and opened up the book (still sitting unread on my shelf) and read it with interest.

Greene talks about space-time, hence the title "The Fabric of the Cosmos," and while thinking carefully on the subject of how space and time are interwoven, as proved by Einstein's theory of special relativity, I came to a very simple realization. Theologians who invoke the Cosmological Argument for God likely don't understand the first thing about cosmology.

A Christian asked me today whether or not it takes the same amount of faith to believe that the universe arose from a quantum singularity as it does to believe a God created it.

My answer was simply: no.

He then told me I should think more about the Kalam cosmological argument, and what the first premise entails, specifically that the universe began. Thus it was caused to begin. Therefore something outside of the universe must have caused it--and for the supernatural minded--this explanation is Goddidit.

I have several objections to the first premise.

As I considered time and space being part of the same fabric of reality, I realized that theologians have the wrong impression of beginnings. Their thinking fits the Newtonian idea that things which begin have causes. But quantum mechanics has blown that rationale up showing that the classical model of physics and how it depicts reality is largely misleading. It has been discovered that fully actualized particles pop in and out of existence all the time in what are called quantum fluctuations.

Where I feel theologians are getting hung up is not on the notion that time, and so reality and thus all existence--must have a definite beginning--because this is in tune with cosmological observations, but that they feel the beginning of space-time denotes a cause because all things that begin--according to Newtonian reasoning--have causes (e.g., causality).

The problem is this theological consideration that because the universe began it must have had a cause is only true within the confines of the physical universe in which the physical laws already dictate that causes have effects. Without the fabric of the space-time continuum, beginnings and ends make little to no sense, so it would technically be incorrect to assert that everything that begins to exist has a cause before you establish causation.

The statement "anything which begins to exist has a cause" is true only within the confines of the physical laws of the universe as they are known to us. Beyond the confines of space-time, however, the statement makes no sense whatsoever.

To complicate matters even more, we must be aware that the past, present, and future all seem to be relative. As Brian Greene reminds us, "there is nothing in the laws of classical physics that says this direction is time future and that direction is time past."

This being the case, how can theologians, who abide by the strict adherence to classical reasoning, say there is a beginning or end at all?

Again, I is apparent to me that their Newtonian reasoning (which only applies to one small part of the picture) has caused them to jump to the wrong conclusions about the underlying reality of the universe (thereby causing them to miss the bigger picture).

Additionally, to answer the often asked question of why there appears to be order in the universe, this too can be explained by the the increase of entropy from a low to high state. As Greene informs, "The big bang started the universe off in a state of low entropy, and that state appears to be the source of the order we currently see."

Likewise, the related question of why there is something rather than nothing (within the universe) can also be explained. The answer is gravity. Entropy x gravity = clumping. According to physicists, this clumping of matter is what creates stars and planets. Gravity, in other words, is why we have something rather than nothing in the universe.

The Cosmological argument merely asks what sparked that initial fluctuation that caused the big bang? But see, that is, once again, the Newtonian reasoning which presumes all things that begin have causes. In other words, theologians are making a categorical mistake of attributing a metaphysical cause to a temporal effect wherein that reasoning only fits within the framework of a temporal reality.

Thus, according to the theologians reasoning, things which are acted upon (either physically or metaphysically) have effects and therefor must have causes. There are no random accidents. As Einstein lamented, "God does not play dice."

Niels Bohr, one of the early pioneers of quantum mechanics, replied to Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do."

The question theoretical physicists and cosmologists are currently investigating is: what, if anything, was there before the big bang?

Recently new theories have emerged which go a long ways toward helping to explain the conditions of the universe prior to its onset. The anthropic principle, eternal inflation, and string theory (for example) all predict a cosmic multiverse. Although it is yet unproved--the fact that three main fields of physics all stumble upon the same prediction, seems to me, to be a good sign that there might be something to this premise.

Although these cutting edge theories are not yet confirmed, they do predict the universe we see, and are based off of the cosmological pieces of the puzzle we have thus far collected and pieced together. What's more--they are testable--and so are falsifiable. Falsifiability is important--because if we are wrong--then being falsified lets us find out our mistakes so that we may correct them.

God theories, on the other hand, predict absolutely nothing (i.e., have zero utility), and in many cases cannot be adequately falsified.

Being asked to even entertain the notion of the Cosmological argument for the existence of God is the same as being asked to ignore all the current cosmological evidence we do have which leaves no room for the existence of such a being. God theories merely make the a priori assumption that God exists. That's faith--not science.

Do we know for sure what happened before the big bang? No. But that doesn't mean we can just substitute any answer we like in place of our ignorance. We aren't merely drawing straws here at what the most probable answer is.

We are in the process of looking for testable evidence. When we find it--we will know. Even if we never find out for certain how the universe came to be, then the only answer we could possibly give to the question of what caused the universe to begin to exist is: I don't know.

God never even enters the equation.

Let me turn the question around, why would anyone put their faith in God having created the universe when God fails to explain anything about the universe, but current competing model of cosmology seem to explain everything fairly well without invoking useless God theories?

My point is this, although science cannot say whether or not it is possible for God to exist or not, it does a good job of showing that any effects of his causes are so far entirely absent. That is to say we can see no noticeable signs of his interaction with the universe or his effect upon it. Meanwhile physics explains things quite well without God.

Without any evidence of God's interaction upon the universe, God becomes redundant for explanations which don't need to invoke God, and thus the God hypothesis is mainly irrelevant. Such a being might as well not even exist.

Quote of the Day x 2 Isaac Asimov x Bertrand Russell

2011-12-10T22:13:00.001-08:00

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." --Isaac Asimov

"And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence." --Bertrand Russell

Kepler 22B: Another Earth? My Thoughts

2011-12-07T02:22:00.001-08:00

"I had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision of the universe that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how ... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater than ourselves, that we are not — that none of us — are alone!" --Ellie Arroway (Contact)

How exciting is this?! We found a planet! Not just any planet either--a planet much like Earth (probably)!

Kepler 22B is the first confirmed planet that NASA has detected that is roughly a little larger than Earth's size and is orbiting its G-type star (the same class as our Sol) within the habitable zone (i.e., the "Goldilocks Zone"). This means that the planet may have water, and if so, then it is almost guaranteed that it will have life (of some kind).

Now, although astrophysicists still don't know for sure if this planet has water, it is one of 48 new potential candidates of Earth-like planets which may.

I think this news is mega-exciting and I am kind of sad to see the media attention surrounding this monumental find so mundane. Sure everyone is reporting on this find--but then nobody is talking about what could be a defining moment in human history. Here we are, staring down at potentially Another Earth. That's just mind blowing.

The only problem is that it's 600 light years away. So there is no way to travel there. But there are ways we could set up a communications relay. Although I am only practicing a bit of wishful thinking, it wouldn't be entirely implausible.

We could build giant hexagonal ring laser relay which, like a series of jump-gates, use a series of highly concentrated lasers to twist and warp space-time and there by bending space-time and artificially generating a wormhole. This technology is already available, so I don't see why we couldn't start planting relay gates such as these in space. Build our own "stargate"!

Of course these mini ring laser jump gates wouldn't be large enough for anything more than some digital data to pass through, but that would be enough to generate a phone line to whoever may be on the other side.

Yet implementing such a project would take a ton of resources, not to mention the initial problem of being able to travel fast enough to do it within a few thousand years. Warp drive technology is theoretically possible (and also see here), but again we face the challenge of finding an energy source strong enough to warp space enough so that a starship could ride the space time wave faster than light.

Regardless of whether or not we could ever make first contact with an alien race, it seems to me that Kepler 22B represents a dream which all people share--the dream of adventure, of interstellar travel, and of being a part of history. It seems to me, we may already be witnessing history in the making and not even truly be aware of it.

Introspection Series Digital Omnibus

2011-12-06T05:12:00.001-08:00

INTROSPECTION

Digital photo by Desmet Patrick

In this short series I take an introspective look at my three decades as a practicing Evangelical Christian and discuss my crisis of faith which ultimately led me to renounce my past religious beliefs and learn to live life beyond the absence of faith.

Contents:

Introduction

Part 1: Inculcation

Part 2: Indoctrination

Part 3: Spiritual Warfare

Part 4: Crisis of Faith

Part 5: Deconversion

Quote of the Day: Jesus Wings!

2011-12-05T22:21:00.001-08:00

"Any person having to Google, Did Jesus Have Wings ought never to open their mouth about the teachings of Christianity." --Bruce Gerencser (Fallen From Grace)