One of the problems of Christianity is the very thing that it is based upon, the bible itself. According to the bible the world, indeed the universe itself is only 6000 to 10,000 years old. However, science shows us that this is not possible. To understand it one needs a bit of background on light and the very cosmos that surrounds us.
Stars distances are calculated by use of what is known as parallax, basically using triangulation to determine distance. Binocular eyes in animals, human eyes for instance, do the same thing. The brain judges the parallax angle from seeing information from both eyes individually then triangulating an object’s distance by the individual views from each eye.
For more distant stars we use what is known as standard candle. Cepheid variable stars have a specific period luminosity allowing brightness to be known, some mathematics and comparison to Cepheid variables of known distance gives an accurate measure of distance.
Hubble has detected light from billions of light years away. This should not be possible according to the bible.
This means that if the bible is correct and only 6 to 10 thousand years have passed since all of creation was started then god would have had to create stars, galaxies and globular clusters in all phases of their life spans. Some near death, some being born, some in the middle of their 10+ million year lives. Not to mention that they would have have been placed in mid-motion. But perhaps the most amazing thing is that god would have had to create photon streams of light that were already showering the earth from before those created stars and galaxies even existed.
The same problem works with objects on earth. Carbon dating works well, it is quite reliable based on the fact that carbon-14 deteriorates at a set rate. Carbon-14 can date back 60,000 years accurately, but this is not possible according to the bible.
If there be a god then it would surely be logical. I understand that the bible itself states that one cannot fathom the thoughts of god, but life does conform to a body of rules, laws and probabilities. “Creation” is filled with logic. But to create the universe in mid motion and fossils, fossil fuels, and other organic remains that at their “creation” were already dead and dating as much older than they actually are does not seem logical at all.
Why would a god do that? The only thing I can think of is that god would want to seem almost non-existent. I can see where someone might bring up the point of faith but I find that sounds too much like sophistry and want for their faith to be true without question.
It’s as if god purposefully tried to cover its tracks when creating, if indeed that is what happened. God, an omnipotent being, would know that science would figure these things out, piece together that all evidence points to a much older earth and cosmos. By doing that he knowingly and willingly put his own “word” at a disadvantage leaving it no proof whatsoever other than an ancient book. This would give rise to “heretical” views, with proof. Was this to further faith in the followers? Then why create reason in the human mind?
It just seems rather evil to tear a society apart with knowledge. I can’t get past that question, why would a god not have science simply explain its own creation rather than contradict it? If Christianity were true, then god’s making a fool of us all, presumably for his own enjoyment.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Louisiana Science Education Act
Note: This is a ridiculously long post, sorry about that.
I know this is old news for many but I just read an article entitled “Louisiana Confounds the Science Thought Police” by John West and quite frankly I find Mr. West guilty of the same hypocritical nature and narrow mindedness that he seems to think everyone on the left is guilty of.
First off, if you’re not familiar with this subject it is a bill that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (an admitted creationist) has signed into law recently. Louisiana is the only state that has actually signed this into law, all other states had this bill struck down, though Michigan was still pending last I’d heard.
As this bill passed thru state legislature the name calling and propaganda around the bill seemed decidedly Christian to me, as a way to get religion in the classroom. Many of the officials repeatedly cited god in their personal statements. Nonetheless, the bill passed with ease.
West’s article seems to basically be a treatise on why conservatives are right and liberals are wrong and that we should all love this bill.
He states:
“Opponents (to the bill) allege that the Louisiana Science Education Act is “anti-science.” In reality, the opposition’s efforts to silence anyone who disagrees with them is the true affront to scientific inquiry.”
That is not what is happening, the bill allows teachers to provide supplemental material to students to provide alternative views on many scientific theories and hot button topics including stem-cell research, global warming, human cloning and evolution. That’s the way the right wing likes to word it anyway.
It’s that “alternative views” that has so many in the scientific community upset. Evolution is the key theory at this point. To my knowledge it has no competing scientific theories, there are competing philosophies yes, but not competing sciences. All the scientific community wants are for people to keep their ideology out of the science lab, ideology is for philosophy class.
West goes on to talk about how the left has prepackaged science and dares anyone to speak out against it, immediately decrying “war on science” if it happens. Does this happen? Yes. But I don’t understand why a conservative would be upset about this, isn’t copying someone supposed to be a form of flattery? (Do you love America?)
He then goes into explaining that science does not have as tight an answer as they would like for theories such as evolution. That many of the theories have problems, criticisms and questions. But he states that most conservatives already knew that, I’m still confused as to why he would need to explain what they already know though.
He talks about how “thoughtful” teachers want to acquaint students with dissenting views and conflicting evidence but couldn’t before this bill.
Look, I’m all for dissent, it’s the only way things change and get better, but again, there is no real conflicting evidence against evolution, problems yes, but not enough to abandon the theory.
I believe West mentioned global warming, stem-cell research, and human cloning just so he could put the “conflicting evidence” remarks into the story. The talk about global warming was mentioned only in short, stem-cell research was mentioned in passing, and human cloning was only mentioned by name with no other data or opinions concerning it. The bulk of the scientific discussion concerns evolution, which is really what most are talking about concerning this bill, I just don’t like that right wing Christians can’t just say this.
West goes on to state that the head of the Louisiana ACLU read the bill and due to its careful framing had to agree that it was constitutional. West seems to think that if its wording makes a thing constitutional then that makes it right.
West added that “three college professors, two biologists and one chemist, testified in favor of the bill, specifically challenging the claim that there are no legitimate scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism.”
Two things about that quote stick out like a sore thumb to me, he never mentions who these professors are or what college or university they teach at. For all I know they’re from the creation institute. Secondly, no one said there are no legitimate scientific criticisms, there are, but there are no competing theories and again those criticisms do not hold enough weight to disregard the theory of evolution.
The author begins to then talk about how every citizen has a right to question scientific findings, including the religious. Which I don’t really think any one disagrees with.
West goes on to talk about how science has continually been wrong about things it once heralded as absolute fact. Because, ya know, the right has never been wrong, we’re all so happy worshipping god on our flat earth while the sun revolves around us.
Eugenics becomes his main point here, stating that Roman Catholics are the only ones who stood up to Eugenics being pushed on the masses. Apparently the talk at the time was “we can breed better humans” and ended up sterilizing a bunch of people instead.
To be fair, I don’t remember any of this, it was before my time and I just don’t know enough to offer real commentary on it. But, I can say that the idea behind eugenics is sound, the fact that humans screwed up the implementation is no cause to praise Catholics for standing up to science.
But his main point becomes that scientist should not say that the religious have no voice in science. Scientists don’t say that, they say religion has no voice in science and that is true. Whether or not a person practices a faith has no bearing on it as long as they can separate that faith from a logical unbiased view of science.
West states:
“Whether the issue is sex education, embryonic stem-cell research, or evolution, groups claiming to speak for “science” assert that it violates the Constitution for religious citizens to speak out on science related issues.”
What group said that? What group said exactly those words? None of them did. Again, it’s religion that must be kept out of science, not the religious.
He goes on to unload a big shocker on us: “America is a deeply religious country…” what a journalist this guy is. Took him years to come to that conclusion. The quote follows:
“…and no doubt many citizens interested in certain hot-button science issues are motivated in part by their religious beliefs. So What?”
Seriously John West? Really? “So what?” I wonder if Mr. West would have that feeling if our borders were taken over by Muslims and a majority of Americans voted to instill sharia law. Would it still be “so what” if people were motivated by religion to kill your daughter if she were caught with an infidel?
Of course not, it’s only “so what” since you agree with what the majority says. Majority does not equal right and just though.
He goes on to point out opponents to slavery and supporters and leaders of the civil rights movement were motivated by religion. Yes they were, only problem is that we’re talking about science John, not social studies. Pay attention and quit passing notes in class.
He does get one part right:”So long as religious citizens offer arguments in the public square based on evidence, logic, and appeals to the moral common ground, they have every right to demand that their ideas be judged on the merits, regardless of their religious views.”
See, we can agree on that statement. But you show me a zealot who can separate his or her religious convictions from their views and I’ll show you a scientist who understands evolution and believes in ID.
He loses ground again when he tries to paint Barbara Forrest as a militant atheist, and who knows, maybe she is, I’ve never met the woman to be honest. But West doesn’t know either, his basis for this seems to be that she is a long time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Further proof? She looked for support to stop this bill on Richard Dawkins website, because, you know, Dawkins is the leader of the Atheist Panthers. I ordered my uniform last week, should be here any day, I’ll look so good in a beret.
She went with Dawkins because he’s a leading authority in the world of science, and isn’t that what this bill is supposed to be about?
The fact of the matter is that creationists were involved in pushing this bill thru the house which alone should raise a red flag. Jindal himself pushed it and the bill does give the possibility of science teachers in this nation presenting intelligent design hypotheses as though they were true scientific theories.
That’s the real point here, the bill makes it easier for children to be lied to in the future, and on that point alone it is wrong.
I know this is old news for many but I just read an article entitled “Louisiana Confounds the Science Thought Police” by John West and quite frankly I find Mr. West guilty of the same hypocritical nature and narrow mindedness that he seems to think everyone on the left is guilty of.
First off, if you’re not familiar with this subject it is a bill that Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (an admitted creationist) has signed into law recently. Louisiana is the only state that has actually signed this into law, all other states had this bill struck down, though Michigan was still pending last I’d heard.
As this bill passed thru state legislature the name calling and propaganda around the bill seemed decidedly Christian to me, as a way to get religion in the classroom. Many of the officials repeatedly cited god in their personal statements. Nonetheless, the bill passed with ease.
West’s article seems to basically be a treatise on why conservatives are right and liberals are wrong and that we should all love this bill.
He states:
“Opponents (to the bill) allege that the Louisiana Science Education Act is “anti-science.” In reality, the opposition’s efforts to silence anyone who disagrees with them is the true affront to scientific inquiry.”
That is not what is happening, the bill allows teachers to provide supplemental material to students to provide alternative views on many scientific theories and hot button topics including stem-cell research, global warming, human cloning and evolution. That’s the way the right wing likes to word it anyway.
It’s that “alternative views” that has so many in the scientific community upset. Evolution is the key theory at this point. To my knowledge it has no competing scientific theories, there are competing philosophies yes, but not competing sciences. All the scientific community wants are for people to keep their ideology out of the science lab, ideology is for philosophy class.
West goes on to talk about how the left has prepackaged science and dares anyone to speak out against it, immediately decrying “war on science” if it happens. Does this happen? Yes. But I don’t understand why a conservative would be upset about this, isn’t copying someone supposed to be a form of flattery? (Do you love America?)
He then goes into explaining that science does not have as tight an answer as they would like for theories such as evolution. That many of the theories have problems, criticisms and questions. But he states that most conservatives already knew that, I’m still confused as to why he would need to explain what they already know though.
He talks about how “thoughtful” teachers want to acquaint students with dissenting views and conflicting evidence but couldn’t before this bill.
Look, I’m all for dissent, it’s the only way things change and get better, but again, there is no real conflicting evidence against evolution, problems yes, but not enough to abandon the theory.
I believe West mentioned global warming, stem-cell research, and human cloning just so he could put the “conflicting evidence” remarks into the story. The talk about global warming was mentioned only in short, stem-cell research was mentioned in passing, and human cloning was only mentioned by name with no other data or opinions concerning it. The bulk of the scientific discussion concerns evolution, which is really what most are talking about concerning this bill, I just don’t like that right wing Christians can’t just say this.
West goes on to state that the head of the Louisiana ACLU read the bill and due to its careful framing had to agree that it was constitutional. West seems to think that if its wording makes a thing constitutional then that makes it right.
West added that “three college professors, two biologists and one chemist, testified in favor of the bill, specifically challenging the claim that there are no legitimate scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism.”
Two things about that quote stick out like a sore thumb to me, he never mentions who these professors are or what college or university they teach at. For all I know they’re from the creation institute. Secondly, no one said there are no legitimate scientific criticisms, there are, but there are no competing theories and again those criticisms do not hold enough weight to disregard the theory of evolution.
The author begins to then talk about how every citizen has a right to question scientific findings, including the religious. Which I don’t really think any one disagrees with.
West goes on to talk about how science has continually been wrong about things it once heralded as absolute fact. Because, ya know, the right has never been wrong, we’re all so happy worshipping god on our flat earth while the sun revolves around us.
Eugenics becomes his main point here, stating that Roman Catholics are the only ones who stood up to Eugenics being pushed on the masses. Apparently the talk at the time was “we can breed better humans” and ended up sterilizing a bunch of people instead.
To be fair, I don’t remember any of this, it was before my time and I just don’t know enough to offer real commentary on it. But, I can say that the idea behind eugenics is sound, the fact that humans screwed up the implementation is no cause to praise Catholics for standing up to science.
But his main point becomes that scientist should not say that the religious have no voice in science. Scientists don’t say that, they say religion has no voice in science and that is true. Whether or not a person practices a faith has no bearing on it as long as they can separate that faith from a logical unbiased view of science.
West states:
“Whether the issue is sex education, embryonic stem-cell research, or evolution, groups claiming to speak for “science” assert that it violates the Constitution for religious citizens to speak out on science related issues.”
What group said that? What group said exactly those words? None of them did. Again, it’s religion that must be kept out of science, not the religious.
He goes on to unload a big shocker on us: “America is a deeply religious country…” what a journalist this guy is. Took him years to come to that conclusion. The quote follows:
“…and no doubt many citizens interested in certain hot-button science issues are motivated in part by their religious beliefs. So What?”
Seriously John West? Really? “So what?” I wonder if Mr. West would have that feeling if our borders were taken over by Muslims and a majority of Americans voted to instill sharia law. Would it still be “so what” if people were motivated by religion to kill your daughter if she were caught with an infidel?
Of course not, it’s only “so what” since you agree with what the majority says. Majority does not equal right and just though.
He goes on to point out opponents to slavery and supporters and leaders of the civil rights movement were motivated by religion. Yes they were, only problem is that we’re talking about science John, not social studies. Pay attention and quit passing notes in class.
He does get one part right:”So long as religious citizens offer arguments in the public square based on evidence, logic, and appeals to the moral common ground, they have every right to demand that their ideas be judged on the merits, regardless of their religious views.”
See, we can agree on that statement. But you show me a zealot who can separate his or her religious convictions from their views and I’ll show you a scientist who understands evolution and believes in ID.
He loses ground again when he tries to paint Barbara Forrest as a militant atheist, and who knows, maybe she is, I’ve never met the woman to be honest. But West doesn’t know either, his basis for this seems to be that she is a long time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Further proof? She looked for support to stop this bill on Richard Dawkins website, because, you know, Dawkins is the leader of the Atheist Panthers. I ordered my uniform last week, should be here any day, I’ll look so good in a beret.
She went with Dawkins because he’s a leading authority in the world of science, and isn’t that what this bill is supposed to be about?
The fact of the matter is that creationists were involved in pushing this bill thru the house which alone should raise a red flag. Jindal himself pushed it and the bill does give the possibility of science teachers in this nation presenting intelligent design hypotheses as though they were true scientific theories.
That’s the real point here, the bill makes it easier for children to be lied to in the future, and on that point alone it is wrong.
This is Why Atheists Don't Have Ceremonies
So apparently it’s not just Christians who hurt themselves.
In Lebanon, Indiana a woman was performing a pagan ceremony to give thanks for all the good luck she’d been having. Part of the ceremony requires a sword to be thrust into the ground at night under a full moon.
Unfortunately for this Wiccan her aim was not true (because the ground is such a small target) and the sword went thru her foot instead.
Guess we can say with some authority her luck has run out.
In Lebanon, Indiana a woman was performing a pagan ceremony to give thanks for all the good luck she’d been having. Part of the ceremony requires a sword to be thrust into the ground at night under a full moon.
Unfortunately for this Wiccan her aim was not true (because the ground is such a small target) and the sword went thru her foot instead.
Guess we can say with some authority her luck has run out.
McDonald’s Under Fire for Upholding the Rights of Others
Christians in California are boycotting local McDonald’s stores because the fast food giant is giving “the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage” as quoted by the American Family Association.
McDonald’s gave a grant of $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and placed one of its executives on the board of that group. Further it has a plaque up at local restaurants and McDonald’s logo is on the NGLCC site as a sponsor and ally.
Obviously Christians are blowing this out of proportion as can easily be seen by the quote above. By the way AFA, 20k and a token seat on the board of the NGLCC is not the “full weight” of McDonald’s power. Full weight would be buying all your churches and turning them into gay bars.
McDonald’s did the right thing, not something that can be said about many corporate giants. They didn’t donate much money and a seat on the board for a high ranking executive of an international giant is not really a big move. But your name is attached to something that is “controversial” (for reasons beyond me) and that is a good thing.
I still don’t get why Christians are so up in arms about this, your kids are going to have to learn about gay people sooner or later… the kids is the only argument I’ve heard that garners any worthy attention, and it only does because people don’t seem to get that keeping your kids in cocoon does not make them be good people. More likely it predisposes them to do a lot of things you don’t want them to as soon as they’re out from under your control. But I digress.
Marriage is one of those issues that has only a personal answer. If you say it’s for a man and woman then go marry a member of the opposite sex, if you say it’s for anyone, then marry whoever you want. But no one, NO ONE, has the right to define marriage for the masses.
Gay and lesbian couples who love one another are going to live together, shop together, go to movies and restaurants together, be together. They deserve the same tax breaks and other benefits a married couple has particularly if they are tax paying citizens. There is no reason for this to be an issue at all.
This is just another example of intolerance by Christians, agree with us or we’ll hurt you because we’re right because this book says so.
McDonald’s gave a grant of $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and placed one of its executives on the board of that group. Further it has a plaque up at local restaurants and McDonald’s logo is on the NGLCC site as a sponsor and ally.
Obviously Christians are blowing this out of proportion as can easily be seen by the quote above. By the way AFA, 20k and a token seat on the board of the NGLCC is not the “full weight” of McDonald’s power. Full weight would be buying all your churches and turning them into gay bars.
McDonald’s did the right thing, not something that can be said about many corporate giants. They didn’t donate much money and a seat on the board for a high ranking executive of an international giant is not really a big move. But your name is attached to something that is “controversial” (for reasons beyond me) and that is a good thing.
I still don’t get why Christians are so up in arms about this, your kids are going to have to learn about gay people sooner or later… the kids is the only argument I’ve heard that garners any worthy attention, and it only does because people don’t seem to get that keeping your kids in cocoon does not make them be good people. More likely it predisposes them to do a lot of things you don’t want them to as soon as they’re out from under your control. But I digress.
Marriage is one of those issues that has only a personal answer. If you say it’s for a man and woman then go marry a member of the opposite sex, if you say it’s for anyone, then marry whoever you want. But no one, NO ONE, has the right to define marriage for the masses.
Gay and lesbian couples who love one another are going to live together, shop together, go to movies and restaurants together, be together. They deserve the same tax breaks and other benefits a married couple has particularly if they are tax paying citizens. There is no reason for this to be an issue at all.
This is just another example of intolerance by Christians, agree with us or we’ll hurt you because we’re right because this book says so.
Christians Need to Relax More During Service
Last week it was a man who required surgeries (yes, plural) because he prayed too hard.
This week it’s a pastor who wrecked his motorcycle… into the first pew… during service.
None of the congregation got hurt, the pastor broke only his wrist and received a laceration on his face so it wasn't bad, only funny. The pastor was going to use the bike as a prop during service but it “somehow got away from him.”
This week it’s a pastor who wrecked his motorcycle… into the first pew… during service.
None of the congregation got hurt, the pastor broke only his wrist and received a laceration on his face so it wasn't bad, only funny. The pastor was going to use the bike as a prop during service but it “somehow got away from him.”
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Discovery Institute is Stupid
What’s new though right?
In this rendition of “please believe us” the claim is made that Thomas Jefferson states that ID is not based on religious principles.
The article drones on (felt like it anyway) about how Jefferson believed in ID and that he “insisted it was based on the plain evidence of nature, not religion.”
However I don’t find this to be any different than any other religious view of ID, they point at the heart, the eye, the brain and its complexities as though this were proof. I even read one article asking me to believe that the monarch butterfly’s life cycle was proof enough for ID.
The piece then quotes a letter from Jefferson to John Adams dated April 11, 1823 in which Jefferson wrote:
“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.”
Jefferson did say that, but he was speaking in a religious context, not a natural one. (If you want to learn to quotemine kids check out the Discovery Institute, they're like quotemining ninjas) The whole letter was about god and who he believed in, and though he was saying that he saw design in nature he was always attributing it to god.
That is the real problem of ID, that to be a designer requires a godship, godship fosters religion, hence, (pay attention IDers) it can’t be taught in schools. There's still that whole pesky constitution thing in the way.
Further, Jefferson had not been exposed to the idea of evolution, Darwin had not published it yet, or even thought of it for that matter. Up to that time most of the earth’s inhabitants believed in ID simply because there was no other theory on the issue. To my knowledge the only other idea out there was simply that the earth had existed forever and would continue to exist forever.
A clear lack of scientific understanding is shown in Jefferson’s letter, not that he wasn’t intelligent, it’s just that no one knew yet at that point in time. Jefferson’s letter goes on to say:
“Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws”
the DI conveniently left that part out.
He was attributing even a star’s “disappearance” to a creator, because he simply didn’t know that stars, like most everything else, have a life span. And, much respect Tommy J, but comets are not on incalculable courses, they only seemed that way to you at the time.
They go on to quote a portion (that I will only post a part of due to length) as evidence of a creator:
“…it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things…”
One of the main points that the DI fails to notice is that Jefferson used the words “perceive” from the quote at the top and “believe” from the one just above, clearly from his own opinion “…I say...”. He was saying this as in 'it is impossible for a human mind not to perceive / believe in a creator based on the evidence at hand in my opinion.' He was a founding father, not god DI.
And I actually don’t disagree with Jefferson’s point from his standpoint. If there is no other scientific theory, and at the time the theories of the origins were all philosophical, then the most reasonable philosophical idea would be chosen by any of us. It was very hard not to think of life as created by a designer, it even followed a semblance of logic based on what was known in the day. Mankind created complex things, hence mankind must have been created.
This is just another illustration of religion sticking it’s head as far up history’s ass as possible and trying their damndest to make it look like truth.
In this rendition of “please believe us” the claim is made that Thomas Jefferson states that ID is not based on religious principles.
The article drones on (felt like it anyway) about how Jefferson believed in ID and that he “insisted it was based on the plain evidence of nature, not religion.”
However I don’t find this to be any different than any other religious view of ID, they point at the heart, the eye, the brain and its complexities as though this were proof. I even read one article asking me to believe that the monarch butterfly’s life cycle was proof enough for ID.
The piece then quotes a letter from Jefferson to John Adams dated April 11, 1823 in which Jefferson wrote:
“I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.”
Jefferson did say that, but he was speaking in a religious context, not a natural one. (If you want to learn to quotemine kids check out the Discovery Institute, they're like quotemining ninjas) The whole letter was about god and who he believed in, and though he was saying that he saw design in nature he was always attributing it to god.
That is the real problem of ID, that to be a designer requires a godship, godship fosters religion, hence, (pay attention IDers) it can’t be taught in schools. There's still that whole pesky constitution thing in the way.
Further, Jefferson had not been exposed to the idea of evolution, Darwin had not published it yet, or even thought of it for that matter. Up to that time most of the earth’s inhabitants believed in ID simply because there was no other theory on the issue. To my knowledge the only other idea out there was simply that the earth had existed forever and would continue to exist forever.
A clear lack of scientific understanding is shown in Jefferson’s letter, not that he wasn’t intelligent, it’s just that no one knew yet at that point in time. Jefferson’s letter goes on to say:
“Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws”
the DI conveniently left that part out.
He was attributing even a star’s “disappearance” to a creator, because he simply didn’t know that stars, like most everything else, have a life span. And, much respect Tommy J, but comets are not on incalculable courses, they only seemed that way to you at the time.
They go on to quote a portion (that I will only post a part of due to length) as evidence of a creator:
“…it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things…”
One of the main points that the DI fails to notice is that Jefferson used the words “perceive” from the quote at the top and “believe” from the one just above, clearly from his own opinion “…I say...”. He was saying this as in 'it is impossible for a human mind not to perceive / believe in a creator based on the evidence at hand in my opinion.' He was a founding father, not god DI.
And I actually don’t disagree with Jefferson’s point from his standpoint. If there is no other scientific theory, and at the time the theories of the origins were all philosophical, then the most reasonable philosophical idea would be chosen by any of us. It was very hard not to think of life as created by a designer, it even followed a semblance of logic based on what was known in the day. Mankind created complex things, hence mankind must have been created.
This is just another illustration of religion sticking it’s head as far up history’s ass as possible and trying their damndest to make it look like truth.
Religious Institutions Disgust Me
This is London, a guide to entertainment in Britain’s capital, published by the city’s evening newspaper, The Evening Standard is running an article about a documentary that will air on the BBC tonight.
The article states that the documentary Sex Crimes and the Vatican alleges that while the current pope was still a cardinal he was instrumental in covering up the child abuse scandals that have become far too status quo in the Catholic Church.
It states that Pope Benedict, at the time known as Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger, had issued a secret document that “recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it.”
These goddamned allegedly moral people willfully, knowingly, and purposefully allowed heinous things to happen to children with no repercussions to the perpetrators. All in the name of keeping the good name of Mother Church sacred. This is an egregious action and quite frankly I would lose no sleep if the Pope, the rapist priests and anyone involved in covering up of these child abuse cases were hung in the streets. Further, the victims and family members should get first shot to do whatever they see fit to these rapists and criminals, laws be damned. And even then it wouldn’t be enough.
The secret document issued by the Pope also threatened that if the victims repeat the allegations in public that they would be excommunicated. They are using guilt and threats against the very people that support them so that their image can remain ethical and moral.
The documentary further alleges that the Catholic Church knowingly harbored, and I’m assuming still does, pedophile clergy. Further, when priests were accused of child abuse instead of notifying authorities or even taking care of the matter themselves by removing these degenerates from the reach of children the Vatican instead simply moved the pedophilic priests to a new parish. Thereby offering them a new pool of innocents to abuse.
The pope also introduced a new principle in this matter, called “Exclusive Competence” (I can’t think of a more inappropriate term), which commanded that any child abuse cases should be dealt with directly by the Vatican.
This document that the Pope issued does nothing more than protect the church and punishes those who are victims thru guilt, coercion and even hush money.
I honestly don’t know what to say, I have had close friends who were raped, one of whom I went to see only two days after the attack. I was amazed by seeing her, she looked the same physically, same hair color, same facial structure, same height, same weight, same eye color, but my friend was not there. I have never in my life seen emptier eyes than those, it was chilling that one human had the power to take away so much from another person. To my knowledge it still haunts her to this day at times, the attack was almost 10 years ago.
And here we have an incredibly wealthy institution, who the masses freely praise and support, that harbor these vile criminals who take the same thing away from children who can’t even always comprehend what’s happening to them.
The worst part is that nothing will happen. Catholics should riot in the streets, Catholic churches should be burning, the Vatican itself should be sacked and looted with all the money and priceless antiquities going to support the victims of this institution. But the people will simply move on with their lives and continue to support and praise this evil institution, and their pews will be full on Sunday.
The article states that the documentary Sex Crimes and the Vatican alleges that while the current pope was still a cardinal he was instrumental in covering up the child abuse scandals that have become far too status quo in the Catholic Church.
It states that Pope Benedict, at the time known as Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger, had issued a secret document that “recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it.”
These goddamned allegedly moral people willfully, knowingly, and purposefully allowed heinous things to happen to children with no repercussions to the perpetrators. All in the name of keeping the good name of Mother Church sacred. This is an egregious action and quite frankly I would lose no sleep if the Pope, the rapist priests and anyone involved in covering up of these child abuse cases were hung in the streets. Further, the victims and family members should get first shot to do whatever they see fit to these rapists and criminals, laws be damned. And even then it wouldn’t be enough.
The secret document issued by the Pope also threatened that if the victims repeat the allegations in public that they would be excommunicated. They are using guilt and threats against the very people that support them so that their image can remain ethical and moral.
The documentary further alleges that the Catholic Church knowingly harbored, and I’m assuming still does, pedophile clergy. Further, when priests were accused of child abuse instead of notifying authorities or even taking care of the matter themselves by removing these degenerates from the reach of children the Vatican instead simply moved the pedophilic priests to a new parish. Thereby offering them a new pool of innocents to abuse.
The pope also introduced a new principle in this matter, called “Exclusive Competence” (I can’t think of a more inappropriate term), which commanded that any child abuse cases should be dealt with directly by the Vatican.
This document that the Pope issued does nothing more than protect the church and punishes those who are victims thru guilt, coercion and even hush money.
I honestly don’t know what to say, I have had close friends who were raped, one of whom I went to see only two days after the attack. I was amazed by seeing her, she looked the same physically, same hair color, same facial structure, same height, same weight, same eye color, but my friend was not there. I have never in my life seen emptier eyes than those, it was chilling that one human had the power to take away so much from another person. To my knowledge it still haunts her to this day at times, the attack was almost 10 years ago.
And here we have an incredibly wealthy institution, who the masses freely praise and support, that harbor these vile criminals who take the same thing away from children who can’t even always comprehend what’s happening to them.
The worst part is that nothing will happen. Catholics should riot in the streets, Catholic churches should be burning, the Vatican itself should be sacked and looted with all the money and priceless antiquities going to support the victims of this institution. But the people will simply move on with their lives and continue to support and praise this evil institution, and their pews will be full on Sunday.
Bush and Pelosi Call Each Other Names, Rubber / Glue Argument Expected Soon
I’m getting tired of this, if I wanted to see this crap I’d go to a daycare, I do not want to see this at the top levels of the US government.
According to this CNN article on Tuesday Bush criticized Congress describing their “relative inaction” during this legislative term. Bush went so far as to imply that Congress is not getting “their fundamental job done.”
Pelosi replied “Nuh-uh! You are!” though she was somewhat more eloquent.
Pelosi stated on Thursday that President Bush has been “a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject.”
In other news the sky is blue, night is black, and humans need oxygen, water, and food to survive.
Somehow they’re not getting that they’re both right, Bush is a cluster fk. The Democratic controlled congress is exactly what we all feared it would be, a pushover for the Republicans.
What good was it gaining control of the house if all the repubs have to do is threaten you as non-patriotic and you back down. Remember the funding you were going to cut for the Iraq war that many of the people were behind you on, hell proud of you for? The repubs gave some song and dance about how the troops needed the money and that to deny them that funding would be the most unpatriotic thing to do and you backed down. When has the American military ever really lacked for funding? Sure they may not be able to afford the super spy planes… oh, no I’m getting that we do have those. The military has one of the, if not the largest budget in the US, and I’m actually okay with that, but I think they could have squeaked by for a while during your argument.
And this doesn’t make me unpatriotic, the fact that I’m getting sick of this country since it no longer resembles the America of our lore makes me unpatriotic. I don’t know what this country is, but it isn’t America I was told about, and it certainly isn’t the one I’ve been promised for so long.
Both the President and the Congress are at all time lows in opinion polls and what do they do to about it? Sophistry and finger pointing, that is what America has become.
Candidates listen up, you want my vote? Stand on that podium and say “We fucked up and I’m sorry” and have the balls to say it just like that because that is what we have done. Say it with sincerity, I want to see you tear up a little and take responsibility as a member of government even if you had nothing to do with any of it.
Apologize to the American people for the lies, repeal the Patriot Act, end the war one way or another, set into place a future date of forced removal of oil from our nation, kick the lobbyists out, crucify those who abuse the powers that we gave them, and stop pandering to the religious right. In short, stop being the American government you are and do the right thing.
Create more political parties, increase education, give the people healthcare, give equal rights for all, and do the job we pay you for. For starters I think every member of the government should read the constitution, it seems all too many have forgotten its words and its purpose.
I love the ideas of America, I do, and I would fight for them, but more importantly I love justice, freedom and the basic rights of humankind regardless of what banner flies over it, those ideals I would die for.
According to this CNN article on Tuesday Bush criticized Congress describing their “relative inaction” during this legislative term. Bush went so far as to imply that Congress is not getting “their fundamental job done.”
Pelosi replied “Nuh-uh! You are!” though she was somewhat more eloquent.
Pelosi stated on Thursday that President Bush has been “a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject.”
In other news the sky is blue, night is black, and humans need oxygen, water, and food to survive.
Somehow they’re not getting that they’re both right, Bush is a cluster fk. The Democratic controlled congress is exactly what we all feared it would be, a pushover for the Republicans.
What good was it gaining control of the house if all the repubs have to do is threaten you as non-patriotic and you back down. Remember the funding you were going to cut for the Iraq war that many of the people were behind you on, hell proud of you for? The repubs gave some song and dance about how the troops needed the money and that to deny them that funding would be the most unpatriotic thing to do and you backed down. When has the American military ever really lacked for funding? Sure they may not be able to afford the super spy planes… oh, no I’m getting that we do have those. The military has one of the, if not the largest budget in the US, and I’m actually okay with that, but I think they could have squeaked by for a while during your argument.
And this doesn’t make me unpatriotic, the fact that I’m getting sick of this country since it no longer resembles the America of our lore makes me unpatriotic. I don’t know what this country is, but it isn’t America I was told about, and it certainly isn’t the one I’ve been promised for so long.
Both the President and the Congress are at all time lows in opinion polls and what do they do to about it? Sophistry and finger pointing, that is what America has become.
Candidates listen up, you want my vote? Stand on that podium and say “We fucked up and I’m sorry” and have the balls to say it just like that because that is what we have done. Say it with sincerity, I want to see you tear up a little and take responsibility as a member of government even if you had nothing to do with any of it.
Apologize to the American people for the lies, repeal the Patriot Act, end the war one way or another, set into place a future date of forced removal of oil from our nation, kick the lobbyists out, crucify those who abuse the powers that we gave them, and stop pandering to the religious right. In short, stop being the American government you are and do the right thing.
Create more political parties, increase education, give the people healthcare, give equal rights for all, and do the job we pay you for. For starters I think every member of the government should read the constitution, it seems all too many have forgotten its words and its purpose.
I love the ideas of America, I do, and I would fight for them, but more importantly I love justice, freedom and the basic rights of humankind regardless of what banner flies over it, those ideals I would die for.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
A Philosophical Argument Against God
No Christian apologetic would ever say that they can prove god’s existence. It is impossible. God cannot even be uniformly defined by person in the same congregation, much less across denomination, faction, or religion.
Hence the explanation or definition of god becomes inundated with terms and phrases like "belief”, “feeling”, “in my experience”, “metaphysical”, and so on.
The problem comes in the concept of definition itself. Once something is defined it is immediately restrained by the very words that seek to describe it. So, the more people’s definition one tries to include in a grand definition of god forces that definition to become broader and broader even though to each person it is a very personal god.
The most used general definition is an omnipotent being overseeing the universe which set all of existence in motion.
In texts however god is always described as a personality. The bible refers to god as masculine, all powerful, all knowing, just, loving, merciful, and sometimes wrathful. The Christian god has many names, Jehova Gyra, El Shaddai, El Gabor, and more. The Christian god even has nicknames like the alpha and omega, the I am, and so on. The Christian god is most definitely seen as a singular personality.
However, personalities are defined by traits that they have which implicitly states that there are traits that they do not have. If someone is known as kind that person is implicitly considered to not be mean. A funny person cannot therefore be dull, a wise person cannot be stupid. Any person can have moments of any trait, but overall definitions require many traits to be chosen one over the other.
The question becomes simple, if god be everything, how can he be defined as anything? How can everything include benevolence but not malevolence, love and not hatred? To be everything requires both sides, requires balance.
God cannot be one side, cannot be wholly pure, wholly perfect, wholly positive. Nothing in nature to my knowledge is absolutely pure. If there be a god then that god would, by definition of everything, have to be the devil too.
It’s just an idea, just a question. Just something to think about.
Hence the explanation or definition of god becomes inundated with terms and phrases like "belief”, “feeling”, “in my experience”, “metaphysical”, and so on.
The problem comes in the concept of definition itself. Once something is defined it is immediately restrained by the very words that seek to describe it. So, the more people’s definition one tries to include in a grand definition of god forces that definition to become broader and broader even though to each person it is a very personal god.
The most used general definition is an omnipotent being overseeing the universe which set all of existence in motion.
In texts however god is always described as a personality. The bible refers to god as masculine, all powerful, all knowing, just, loving, merciful, and sometimes wrathful. The Christian god has many names, Jehova Gyra, El Shaddai, El Gabor, and more. The Christian god even has nicknames like the alpha and omega, the I am, and so on. The Christian god is most definitely seen as a singular personality.
However, personalities are defined by traits that they have which implicitly states that there are traits that they do not have. If someone is known as kind that person is implicitly considered to not be mean. A funny person cannot therefore be dull, a wise person cannot be stupid. Any person can have moments of any trait, but overall definitions require many traits to be chosen one over the other.
The question becomes simple, if god be everything, how can he be defined as anything? How can everything include benevolence but not malevolence, love and not hatred? To be everything requires both sides, requires balance.
God cannot be one side, cannot be wholly pure, wholly perfect, wholly positive. Nothing in nature to my knowledge is absolutely pure. If there be a god then that god would, by definition of everything, have to be the devil too.
It’s just an idea, just a question. Just something to think about.
Christians Use Science... kind of
In this article a survey (that’s the science part… hey, you applaud a child for pooping in the potty rather than their pants, same principle here, baby steps people, baby steps) done by a “research team” (I’m picturing three assistant pastors in khakis, pressed short sleeve button downs and loafers, glasses and massive amounts of hair gel are accessories) shows that many of the “unchurched” Americans would go to church if invited.
According to the article the survey covered all 50 states and parts of Canada in wide-ranging demographic areas and included an equal amount of females and males.
Sounds promising right? Wide demographics, varying parts of the country, balanced gender questioning but wait, what’s this? The research involved precisely 308 men and women… not the biggest test group I’ve seen I’m afraid. Even if you count all of Canada as only one state that equals 6 people per state, basically 3 men and 3 women for every state in the union, plus Canada. (Remember the title of this blog does say “science… kind of”)
Pathetic.
There were “Surprises and Then Some” also found because of the study. I’d like to touch on each of those here since quite frankly I am surprised that they’re surprised:
Surprise 1: “Most of the unchurched prefer to attend church on Sunday morning if they attend.”
First off, how would they know if they’re unchurched? If they go to church even irregularly, and I think “…if they attend” implies that at least some do, then aren’t they “churched” at least slightly? Whatever the hell churched means.
And of course they prefer Sunday morning, what’d you think they’d say? Happy hour? Plus, do you really offer main services any other time? I know Wednesday and Sunday nights are offered but even your precious “churched” don’t all go to that.
Surprise #2 “Most of the unchurched feel guilty about not attending church.”
Well they can’t feel too guilty or they’d get their fat lazy asses up on Sunday morning and go.
And they feel guilty probably because a church member is sitting there asking them if they feel guilty for not going to church. That’s the same as having an amputee sitting in front of you saying “Do you want to look at my missing appendage?” To which I would reply “Well I do now that you’ve pointed it out.” You lead them to that feeling. Way to use Jesus to uplift the people guys.
Surprise #3: I love this one “96% of the unchurched are at least somewhat likely to attend church if they are invited.”
Really? 96%? Sounds a lot like Saddam Hussein’s victories in the old “free elections” in Iraq. They go on to say that they estimate 160 million people in the US are unchurcehd and “if our research is close to accurate…” (spoiler alert: it’s not) then more than 153 million people are just waiting for a friend to ask them to go to church with them. It’s the only thing holding them back people.
Surprise #4: “Very few of the unchurched had someone share with them how to become a Christian. And Christians have not been particularly influential in their lives.”
Well there’s the reason that 96% of them might go to church if asked, they don’t know any Christians. To be fair I’m supposedly surrounded by them but I don’t know any either, just hypocrites, but I digress.
And for all you unchurched out there becoming a Christian is easy, just go buy the oldest fantasy book you can, it’s called the Bible, and believe it whole heartedly. (Yet I have friends make fun of me for watching Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica)
Surprise #5: “Most of the unchurched have a positive view of pastors, ministers, and the church.”
That’s because they aren’t paying attention to you! Did you not see your own point #4? If they knew more of you their opinion would not be so high. The fact of the matter is that churches spend billions upon billions in p.r. every year to make themselves seem like an upstanding, moral, ethical, good for you type of group. If you were that good you wouldn’t need to spend a dime, wouldn’t need billboards, wouldn’t need books, wouldn’t need televangelists, wouldn’t need any of it. People would beat down the church doors just to get to be a part of it.
And just for the record, I am part of that 4% so please, please don’t ask me to go to church with you, it’ll spare us that uncomfortable moment while I explain to you that what you believe is insane, and I hate hearing Christians stammer when they inevitably can’t answer any of about 1000 questions their beloved faith doesn’t address.
According to the article the survey covered all 50 states and parts of Canada in wide-ranging demographic areas and included an equal amount of females and males.
Sounds promising right? Wide demographics, varying parts of the country, balanced gender questioning but wait, what’s this? The research involved precisely 308 men and women… not the biggest test group I’ve seen I’m afraid. Even if you count all of Canada as only one state that equals 6 people per state, basically 3 men and 3 women for every state in the union, plus Canada. (Remember the title of this blog does say “science… kind of”)
Pathetic.
There were “Surprises and Then Some” also found because of the study. I’d like to touch on each of those here since quite frankly I am surprised that they’re surprised:
Surprise 1: “Most of the unchurched prefer to attend church on Sunday morning if they attend.”
First off, how would they know if they’re unchurched? If they go to church even irregularly, and I think “…if they attend” implies that at least some do, then aren’t they “churched” at least slightly? Whatever the hell churched means.
And of course they prefer Sunday morning, what’d you think they’d say? Happy hour? Plus, do you really offer main services any other time? I know Wednesday and Sunday nights are offered but even your precious “churched” don’t all go to that.
Surprise #2 “Most of the unchurched feel guilty about not attending church.”
Well they can’t feel too guilty or they’d get their fat lazy asses up on Sunday morning and go.
And they feel guilty probably because a church member is sitting there asking them if they feel guilty for not going to church. That’s the same as having an amputee sitting in front of you saying “Do you want to look at my missing appendage?” To which I would reply “Well I do now that you’ve pointed it out.” You lead them to that feeling. Way to use Jesus to uplift the people guys.
Surprise #3: I love this one “96% of the unchurched are at least somewhat likely to attend church if they are invited.”
Really? 96%? Sounds a lot like Saddam Hussein’s victories in the old “free elections” in Iraq. They go on to say that they estimate 160 million people in the US are unchurcehd and “if our research is close to accurate…” (spoiler alert: it’s not) then more than 153 million people are just waiting for a friend to ask them to go to church with them. It’s the only thing holding them back people.
Surprise #4: “Very few of the unchurched had someone share with them how to become a Christian. And Christians have not been particularly influential in their lives.”
Well there’s the reason that 96% of them might go to church if asked, they don’t know any Christians. To be fair I’m supposedly surrounded by them but I don’t know any either, just hypocrites, but I digress.
And for all you unchurched out there becoming a Christian is easy, just go buy the oldest fantasy book you can, it’s called the Bible, and believe it whole heartedly. (Yet I have friends make fun of me for watching Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica)
Surprise #5: “Most of the unchurched have a positive view of pastors, ministers, and the church.”
That’s because they aren’t paying attention to you! Did you not see your own point #4? If they knew more of you their opinion would not be so high. The fact of the matter is that churches spend billions upon billions in p.r. every year to make themselves seem like an upstanding, moral, ethical, good for you type of group. If you were that good you wouldn’t need to spend a dime, wouldn’t need billboards, wouldn’t need books, wouldn’t need televangelists, wouldn’t need any of it. People would beat down the church doors just to get to be a part of it.
And just for the record, I am part of that 4% so please, please don’t ask me to go to church with you, it’ll spare us that uncomfortable moment while I explain to you that what you believe is insane, and I hate hearing Christians stammer when they inevitably can’t answer any of about 1000 questions their beloved faith doesn’t address.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
I don’t even know what to say…
This article is… well… just read it for yourself, it’ll take less than a minute to read.
So he was praying for a spiritual experience and fell down and hurt himself. Now he’s suing the church for 2.5 million.
The article states he’s had two surgeries since this happened and he still has pain. Where in the hell was he praying? Was he at the top of some steps? Standing on the pulpit? Handstands? Were they doing a human pyramid for JC? A basket toss perhaps?
So he was praying for a spiritual experience and fell down and hurt himself. Now he’s suing the church for 2.5 million.
The article states he’s had two surgeries since this happened and he still has pain. Where in the hell was he praying? Was he at the top of some steps? Standing on the pulpit? Handstands? Were they doing a human pyramid for JC? A basket toss perhaps?
Baseless Hope Set to Fail by End of Next Week
According to this article Mayor Dennis Donahue of Salinas, California is asking residents to “fast for peace.” Yes, you read that correctly, the mayor apparently believes that starving residents will somehow make a better city for them.
From what I can tell Mayor Donahue is basically proclaiming lent asking the citizens of Salinas to give up something next week “in order to help rid Salinas of its plagues of drug use, gang culture, and increased levels of violence.”
I wonder if this guy wears a sash like Mayor Quimby? I will be anxious to see how his reelection goes.
I've got a better idea Mr. Mayor, hire more police, get them to do things like actual police work, educate your people, do something positive, but whatever you do please don’t leave it up to mindless symbolic actions that will do absolutely nothing.
From what I can tell Mayor Donahue is basically proclaiming lent asking the citizens of Salinas to give up something next week “in order to help rid Salinas of its plagues of drug use, gang culture, and increased levels of violence.”
I wonder if this guy wears a sash like Mayor Quimby? I will be anxious to see how his reelection goes.
I've got a better idea Mr. Mayor, hire more police, get them to do things like actual police work, educate your people, do something positive, but whatever you do please don’t leave it up to mindless symbolic actions that will do absolutely nothing.
Exodus Conference
This week, just outside of Asheville NC at Lifeway Ridgecrest Conference Center, more than 700 people are attending the 33rd annual Exodus conference which promotes freedom from homosexuality.
After reading this article I am quite frankly stunned. Which just goes to show that I will never get used to Christian antics.
Apparently the focus of the conference is to allow people to “explore freedom from same-sex attraction in a Christian context” says Randy Thomas, exec vp of Exodus Int’l.
Question Randy: Is there any other context that a person could even begin to believe that they really free themselves from attraction other than a delusional make believe empire? Last I checked attraction is pretty much a gut instinct, doesn’t require thought or study or meditation, you either are or you aren’t attracted to someone.
Further, animals have repeatedly been found to have homosexual and bisexual tendencies. Any search on the web will provide scientific research. Much of which, oddly enough, try to say this doesn’t necessarily apply to humans. Funny, I’m fairly certain we’re animals too so how does this not apply? Particularly when one of the most talked about bisexual species is bonobo apes, a very close relative to humans.
But back to the topic at hand, the Exodus conference is “intended to help people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction.” Sounds more to me like the conference is intended to solidify people’s denial. You are who you are, you can try to run from it but as most every one who tries finds out, it’s very hard to outrun yourself.
Two attendees are quoted in the article, one, Eric Didia who is gay and had sex with men from 18-25 states “… you can’t be Christian and live as a homosexual, it’ll tear at you.” He goes on to state that being with others like himself helped him to realize “It all boiled down to being my choice.” Well yes Eric it certainly will tear at you but I think you’re confusing which of these labels is an actual choice. You can’t help that you’re attracted to men, you can help going to church every week. (Hint: just don’t go back)
Rodney Hicks is also quoted, he is three years out of the “homosexual lifestyle” (I think I like the term “practicing gay” better, can any gay/lesbians approve/disapprove this out there?) and he stopped his ways because he decided that his drug and alcohol abuse went hand-in-hand with his homosexuality.
WTF? Look Rod, if you can’t handle your liquor and pharmaceuticals that’s your problem. But don’t blame them for being who you are, don’t hide behind other actions because you like one set of actions less than another. Denial is a much worse addiction than any pill, smoke, snort, or shot.
Rodney went on to say “The conference is great because you get to learn what caused you to become gay and helps you have freedom from that.”
Rodney, Rodney, Rodney, you need to learn what is causing you to believe you had a choice in the first place and free yourself from people who want you to be something you’re not.
This is typical Xtian propaganda at its best. Don’t look for facts and data and discern truth from that, choose the truth you want to be right and then try to go find data that supports it. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, believing in something does not make it so.
These are answers on a subject that real science is struggling with and people are actually taking the word of those who’s favorite origins answer is “god did it” and still believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. They don’t even have peer reviewed papers out for what they believe!
This is true intolerance, forcing people thru the use of propaganda and inundation of mantra to try to force themselves to believe that they are someone they are not. It is the greatest sin against nature and I for one am appalled that this goes on in this day and age.
After reading this article I am quite frankly stunned. Which just goes to show that I will never get used to Christian antics.
Apparently the focus of the conference is to allow people to “explore freedom from same-sex attraction in a Christian context” says Randy Thomas, exec vp of Exodus Int’l.
Question Randy: Is there any other context that a person could even begin to believe that they really free themselves from attraction other than a delusional make believe empire? Last I checked attraction is pretty much a gut instinct, doesn’t require thought or study or meditation, you either are or you aren’t attracted to someone.
Further, animals have repeatedly been found to have homosexual and bisexual tendencies. Any search on the web will provide scientific research. Much of which, oddly enough, try to say this doesn’t necessarily apply to humans. Funny, I’m fairly certain we’re animals too so how does this not apply? Particularly when one of the most talked about bisexual species is bonobo apes, a very close relative to humans.
But back to the topic at hand, the Exodus conference is “intended to help people struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction.” Sounds more to me like the conference is intended to solidify people’s denial. You are who you are, you can try to run from it but as most every one who tries finds out, it’s very hard to outrun yourself.
Two attendees are quoted in the article, one, Eric Didia who is gay and had sex with men from 18-25 states “… you can’t be Christian and live as a homosexual, it’ll tear at you.” He goes on to state that being with others like himself helped him to realize “It all boiled down to being my choice.” Well yes Eric it certainly will tear at you but I think you’re confusing which of these labels is an actual choice. You can’t help that you’re attracted to men, you can help going to church every week. (Hint: just don’t go back)
Rodney Hicks is also quoted, he is three years out of the “homosexual lifestyle” (I think I like the term “practicing gay” better, can any gay/lesbians approve/disapprove this out there?) and he stopped his ways because he decided that his drug and alcohol abuse went hand-in-hand with his homosexuality.
WTF? Look Rod, if you can’t handle your liquor and pharmaceuticals that’s your problem. But don’t blame them for being who you are, don’t hide behind other actions because you like one set of actions less than another. Denial is a much worse addiction than any pill, smoke, snort, or shot.
Rodney went on to say “The conference is great because you get to learn what caused you to become gay and helps you have freedom from that.”
Rodney, Rodney, Rodney, you need to learn what is causing you to believe you had a choice in the first place and free yourself from people who want you to be something you’re not.
This is typical Xtian propaganda at its best. Don’t look for facts and data and discern truth from that, choose the truth you want to be right and then try to go find data that supports it. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, believing in something does not make it so.
These are answers on a subject that real science is struggling with and people are actually taking the word of those who’s favorite origins answer is “god did it” and still believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. They don’t even have peer reviewed papers out for what they believe!
This is true intolerance, forcing people thru the use of propaganda and inundation of mantra to try to force themselves to believe that they are someone they are not. It is the greatest sin against nature and I for one am appalled that this goes on in this day and age.
Death
So if you read my previous post you’ll know I’m probably in a weird frame of mind right now, death tends to do that to people. But it got me thinking about spirituality and my own death.
No, I’m not thinking of going back to the faith because of this, that would be silly. But I just feel the need to set the record straight from my point of view concerning my own atheist beliefs.
Many religious people need the “fuzzies” they get from their religion. It gives them a false sense of belonging, of hope, of love, and of happiness. I feel these are all illusions. But many feel that since I am an atheist then I cannot attain that level of belonging, or hope, or love, or happiness.
To me science is very much it’s own religion (gasp!). Truth is it’s god, hope in mankind and faith in our abilities to discern truth is the structure of beliefs, and belief that we all have the foresight to do what’s right is part of my strength.
But today death is on my mind the most and I want people to know how I feel about that.
I was at the Birmingham Atheist Meetup last night and at one point we discussed that everything, including our bodies and minds are from “star stuff” as Sagan would say. When I die I want to be cremated and have my ashes spread in a few locations around Bryant-Denny Stadium. It sounds silly yes, but I love Alabama football and some of my favorite memories are tailgating and watching games with friends and loved ones. I’m even hoping that someone can smuggle a few ashes onto the field, I’d love to fertilize it for a bit.
It’s not that I’ll know where I am, but I think it would be cool for friends and family to go to a game and know that in some symbolic way that I’m there too. Maybe they’ll remember a joke I made, or the time I tripped and hurt my ankle chasing a 5 year old and just for moment they’ll smile and remember me.
Not to mention when opposing players are running in open field gaining massive yards and all of a sudden trip and fall for no good reason they can smile at one another and say a quick “Thanks Captain.”
But what I really like about the idea of after my death is that millions of years from now as the sun runs out of fuel it will swell and expand eventually swallowing the earth. I will return to the stars themselves and eventually the sun will go supernova and blast my remains out into the very cosmos. I won’t know it, but I know now that one day my remains will return home and that makes me very happy.
Sorry I’m being sappy today, I’ll try to find something to rant about later.
No, I’m not thinking of going back to the faith because of this, that would be silly. But I just feel the need to set the record straight from my point of view concerning my own atheist beliefs.
Many religious people need the “fuzzies” they get from their religion. It gives them a false sense of belonging, of hope, of love, and of happiness. I feel these are all illusions. But many feel that since I am an atheist then I cannot attain that level of belonging, or hope, or love, or happiness.
To me science is very much it’s own religion (gasp!). Truth is it’s god, hope in mankind and faith in our abilities to discern truth is the structure of beliefs, and belief that we all have the foresight to do what’s right is part of my strength.
But today death is on my mind the most and I want people to know how I feel about that.
I was at the Birmingham Atheist Meetup last night and at one point we discussed that everything, including our bodies and minds are from “star stuff” as Sagan would say. When I die I want to be cremated and have my ashes spread in a few locations around Bryant-Denny Stadium. It sounds silly yes, but I love Alabama football and some of my favorite memories are tailgating and watching games with friends and loved ones. I’m even hoping that someone can smuggle a few ashes onto the field, I’d love to fertilize it for a bit.
It’s not that I’ll know where I am, but I think it would be cool for friends and family to go to a game and know that in some symbolic way that I’m there too. Maybe they’ll remember a joke I made, or the time I tripped and hurt my ankle chasing a 5 year old and just for moment they’ll smile and remember me.
Not to mention when opposing players are running in open field gaining massive yards and all of a sudden trip and fall for no good reason they can smile at one another and say a quick “Thanks Captain.”
But what I really like about the idea of after my death is that millions of years from now as the sun runs out of fuel it will swell and expand eventually swallowing the earth. I will return to the stars themselves and eventually the sun will go supernova and blast my remains out into the very cosmos. I won’t know it, but I know now that one day my remains will return home and that makes me very happy.
Sorry I’m being sappy today, I’ll try to find something to rant about later.
I was reminded...
I just got one of the worst emails I’ve gotten in a long time. My step cousin was to be married on Aug. 9th, less than a month away, I was just informed that her husband to be passed away. I don’t know any details, when or why, just that he’s gone and that she is understandably devastated.
I’m not looking for sympathy, or pity, or anything else, don’t even want to hear it. Very simply I was reminded that we, as atheists, should be living every day to the fullest. We need to remember that today is our Heaven, and that nothing is guaranteed.
So today, do something you’ve always wanted to, do something that scares you, set plans in motion to reach your dreams, hug your loved ones, tell them how you feel, and live today with happiness, joy, and without regret.
I’m not looking for sympathy, or pity, or anything else, don’t even want to hear it. Very simply I was reminded that we, as atheists, should be living every day to the fullest. We need to remember that today is our Heaven, and that nothing is guaranteed.
So today, do something you’ve always wanted to, do something that scares you, set plans in motion to reach your dreams, hug your loved ones, tell them how you feel, and live today with happiness, joy, and without regret.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I Don't Like Zealots
There, I said it. I’m sorry, I try to be tolerant and mindful but JESUS! Some of you guys make it so very hard. I just want to scream BE REASONABLE from the rooftops sometimes.
I’ll be honest, I live in the south so not having a Christian friend would be a statistical impossibility barring complete seclusion, and while the idea is tempting I don’t have the finances for it at present. But I do have several Christian friends, and I like many of them, I downright love a few of them but that’s mainly because they’re moderates and don’t feel the need to cram JC and gospels down my throat. Plus they understand the concept of reason.
Trolling the web at times however is like a recipe for a short fuse rage of fury from the Captain. I had forgotten about Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s “Bananas: The Atheist Nightmare” until I saw someone mention it online a few minutes ago, oh how blissful that time of forgetfulness was. You can see the video here www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 (at least I think you can, where I’m at that site is blocked so I can’t check it to be sure).
Forget that the title sounds like a bad 70’s B movie, the entire premise is ridiculous. They wax on about how bananas are an obvious gift from god designed specifically for human consumption, they’re shaped to the hand, they have a scored wrapper for easy access, said wrapper is biodegradable, a pull tab knob for easy opening, they taste good, and the very color of them can tell you whether they’re ready to eat or not.
They forgot that when women eat them it has the uncanny ability to bring frat boys running for miles around like a homing beacon. But I digress.
I’ve got one question Mike Seaver, is this like that episode where you paid Carol to do your research paper so you could go to a party with Boner and she intentionally screwed it up on purpose so you’d get caught? It worked.
Can Cameron and Comfort not afford a computer? Are internet service fees too high for the people at “The Way of the Master” (Cameron and Comfort’s “ministry”)? Will Candace and her hubby not let you use the net at their house?
A simple internet search will provide endless information on the fact that the bananas that Comfort and Cameron speak of are indeed based on intelligent design… by humans. The bananas that humans eat are engineered that way, they’re clones as a matter of fact. Wild bananas, the ones that are allegedly created by their god, are for the most part inedible to humans. The seeds are too big, they taste terrible, only a few species can be eaten at all and those have to be cooked first.
So once again we find that if there is a god, and if he/she/it just happens to be the Christian rendition, then he/she/it is a terrible designer and needs to go to a secular engineering school.
I’ll be honest, I live in the south so not having a Christian friend would be a statistical impossibility barring complete seclusion, and while the idea is tempting I don’t have the finances for it at present. But I do have several Christian friends, and I like many of them, I downright love a few of them but that’s mainly because they’re moderates and don’t feel the need to cram JC and gospels down my throat. Plus they understand the concept of reason.
Trolling the web at times however is like a recipe for a short fuse rage of fury from the Captain. I had forgotten about Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s “Bananas: The Atheist Nightmare” until I saw someone mention it online a few minutes ago, oh how blissful that time of forgetfulness was. You can see the video here www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 (at least I think you can, where I’m at that site is blocked so I can’t check it to be sure).
Forget that the title sounds like a bad 70’s B movie, the entire premise is ridiculous. They wax on about how bananas are an obvious gift from god designed specifically for human consumption, they’re shaped to the hand, they have a scored wrapper for easy access, said wrapper is biodegradable, a pull tab knob for easy opening, they taste good, and the very color of them can tell you whether they’re ready to eat or not.
They forgot that when women eat them it has the uncanny ability to bring frat boys running for miles around like a homing beacon. But I digress.
I’ve got one question Mike Seaver, is this like that episode where you paid Carol to do your research paper so you could go to a party with Boner and she intentionally screwed it up on purpose so you’d get caught? It worked.
Can Cameron and Comfort not afford a computer? Are internet service fees too high for the people at “The Way of the Master” (Cameron and Comfort’s “ministry”)? Will Candace and her hubby not let you use the net at their house?
A simple internet search will provide endless information on the fact that the bananas that Comfort and Cameron speak of are indeed based on intelligent design… by humans. The bananas that humans eat are engineered that way, they’re clones as a matter of fact. Wild bananas, the ones that are allegedly created by their god, are for the most part inedible to humans. The seeds are too big, they taste terrible, only a few species can be eaten at all and those have to be cooked first.
So once again we find that if there is a god, and if he/she/it just happens to be the Christian rendition, then he/she/it is a terrible designer and needs to go to a secular engineering school.
Evolution Part 1
Let’s be honest, people are stupid. This is unacceptable, the United States is the wealthiest nation in history, according to www.internetworldstats.com 73.1% of North Americans have access to the greatest library known to man. So why the stupidity? Laziness and a want to believe whoever is on tv or at the pulpit I’d wager. However, in the spirit of fellowship I’d like to help in some small way.
Evolution is a far more simple concept than most give it credit for. It’s the details of evolution that are so in depth and will rarely, if ever, be gone into on this blog. Sorry biology lovers of the world, while fascinating it is also quite boring to me.
But, to understand the concept we’ll use four pairs of butterflies to illustrate the point. Each pair consists of a male and female, and each are giving birth to a new butterfly (we’ll skip the other phases and technicalities, it’s the overall premise that counts here.)
Before we can go into that however one must accept that mutations do exist. They are every where and not as hard to spot as one might think. Truth be told every part of every living thing was a mutation at some point. For an easy example think of an albino of any species, that is a mutation outside the norm. Or, Hemingway’s famous 6-toed cats are another good example of mutations.
There are three types of mutations; positive mutations which benefit the mutated offspring in some way, negative mutations which hinder the offspring in some way, and no change mutations which neither benefit nor hinder the offspring.
Back to the butterflies. For this example all of the butterflies are the same, they are all approximately the same size and shape and each of them have yellow wings with a black dot in the center of the wings.
Pair one has an offspring that grows up to be the same size, shape, and color pattern and scheme as its parents. There is no mutation in this offspring, it is just like the other butterflies.
Pair two has an offspring that grows up to have a brown dot rather than black dots on the wings, all other characteristics are normal. This is a no change mutation, this will neither help the offspring to get mates, nor hinder it from getting mates later in life.
Pair three has an offspring that grows up to have a very small wing on one side, but a normal one on the other. Poor thing will fly in circles for all its days. But all other characteristics are normal. This is a negative mutation, the smaller wing will require more work to move around, less agility to evade predators, and in the end will cause the offspring a much harder time finding a mate.
Pair four has an offspring that is born with black wings, no yellow on them. For the sake of the point we’ll say that in the region where these butterflies live there is also a black moth of roughly the same size. The birds in the area love the taste of the butterflies but hate the taste of the moths and tend to avoid them. In this instance it is a positive mutation. Because of this mutation that offspring will be a desired mate to other butterflies in the area. This offspring will pass this trait down to some of its offspring thereby creating a different branch of butterfly.
This in essence is natural selection, which I intend to post more on later.
Evolution is a far more simple concept than most give it credit for. It’s the details of evolution that are so in depth and will rarely, if ever, be gone into on this blog. Sorry biology lovers of the world, while fascinating it is also quite boring to me.
But, to understand the concept we’ll use four pairs of butterflies to illustrate the point. Each pair consists of a male and female, and each are giving birth to a new butterfly (we’ll skip the other phases and technicalities, it’s the overall premise that counts here.)
Before we can go into that however one must accept that mutations do exist. They are every where and not as hard to spot as one might think. Truth be told every part of every living thing was a mutation at some point. For an easy example think of an albino of any species, that is a mutation outside the norm. Or, Hemingway’s famous 6-toed cats are another good example of mutations.
There are three types of mutations; positive mutations which benefit the mutated offspring in some way, negative mutations which hinder the offspring in some way, and no change mutations which neither benefit nor hinder the offspring.
Back to the butterflies. For this example all of the butterflies are the same, they are all approximately the same size and shape and each of them have yellow wings with a black dot in the center of the wings.
Pair one has an offspring that grows up to be the same size, shape, and color pattern and scheme as its parents. There is no mutation in this offspring, it is just like the other butterflies.
Pair two has an offspring that grows up to have a brown dot rather than black dots on the wings, all other characteristics are normal. This is a no change mutation, this will neither help the offspring to get mates, nor hinder it from getting mates later in life.
Pair three has an offspring that grows up to have a very small wing on one side, but a normal one on the other. Poor thing will fly in circles for all its days. But all other characteristics are normal. This is a negative mutation, the smaller wing will require more work to move around, less agility to evade predators, and in the end will cause the offspring a much harder time finding a mate.
Pair four has an offspring that is born with black wings, no yellow on them. For the sake of the point we’ll say that in the region where these butterflies live there is also a black moth of roughly the same size. The birds in the area love the taste of the butterflies but hate the taste of the moths and tend to avoid them. In this instance it is a positive mutation. Because of this mutation that offspring will be a desired mate to other butterflies in the area. This offspring will pass this trait down to some of its offspring thereby creating a different branch of butterfly.
This in essence is natural selection, which I intend to post more on later.
The Big Bang Theory Part 1
Let’s be honest, people are stupid. This is unacceptable, the United States is the wealthiest nation in history, according to www.internetworldstats.com 73.1% of North Americans have access to the greatest library known to man. So why the stupidity? Laziness and a want to believe whoever is on tv or at the pulpit I’d wager. However, in the spirit of fellowship I’d like to help in some small way.
It astounds me that there are people in this day and age who still do not believe in the big bang theory, the problem in my opinion is a simple lack of understanding. (I blame the schools, the media, the government, and what the hell, Charro) The theory is truly so sound that once a person understands it they have a hard time not agreeing with it.
Simply put the big bang theory fits all observable data, predictions, and experiments concerning the present state of the universe.
Basically the idea is that everything in existence began as one infinitely small point of energy. Energy was converted to matter and everything began to expand. The best way to see this in a simple experiment is to grab a marker and a balloon. While the balloon is deflated draw tiny dots all grouped together, then blow the balloon up, the dots will grow farther and farther apart as the balloon gets bigger and bigger. Same thing with the universe.
Many opponents of the big bang theory like to state that “something can’t come from nothing, hence there must be a god.” This is a silly argument, something didn’t come from nothing, matter came from energy.
This can be a hard idea to grasp, but it’s all explained in Einstein’s theory of relativity. E=mc(squared) is one of the most famous equations in the annals of history, yet few people can actually explain it. The premise is simple E stands for energy, m stands for mass and in most purposes is basically weight, and the c stands for the cosmological constant, the speed of light. So energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
All the theory really states is that energy and matter are the same thing, simply in different forms. The speed of light is merely the constant that binds them for our understanding, a Rosetta stone if you will (and you will!) so that we can translate the two one into the other.
So there was something before the big bang, energy. And before you ask, no, science has some hypotheses but no sound theories on where the energy came from. But, just because science can’t fully answer this does not mean that there must be a god who started it. Based on that logic… well that’s not logical at all so I’ll just end here.
It astounds me that there are people in this day and age who still do not believe in the big bang theory, the problem in my opinion is a simple lack of understanding. (I blame the schools, the media, the government, and what the hell, Charro) The theory is truly so sound that once a person understands it they have a hard time not agreeing with it.
Simply put the big bang theory fits all observable data, predictions, and experiments concerning the present state of the universe.
Basically the idea is that everything in existence began as one infinitely small point of energy. Energy was converted to matter and everything began to expand. The best way to see this in a simple experiment is to grab a marker and a balloon. While the balloon is deflated draw tiny dots all grouped together, then blow the balloon up, the dots will grow farther and farther apart as the balloon gets bigger and bigger. Same thing with the universe.
Many opponents of the big bang theory like to state that “something can’t come from nothing, hence there must be a god.” This is a silly argument, something didn’t come from nothing, matter came from energy.
This can be a hard idea to grasp, but it’s all explained in Einstein’s theory of relativity. E=mc(squared) is one of the most famous equations in the annals of history, yet few people can actually explain it. The premise is simple E stands for energy, m stands for mass and in most purposes is basically weight, and the c stands for the cosmological constant, the speed of light. So energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
All the theory really states is that energy and matter are the same thing, simply in different forms. The speed of light is merely the constant that binds them for our understanding, a Rosetta stone if you will (and you will!) so that we can translate the two one into the other.
So there was something before the big bang, energy. And before you ask, no, science has some hypotheses but no sound theories on where the energy came from. But, just because science can’t fully answer this does not mean that there must be a god who started it. Based on that logic… well that’s not logical at all so I’ll just end here.
Monday, July 14, 2008
On Religion
It is time we grow up and discuss religion as educated adults rather than children arguing over who's father could beat up another's father. We must face the fact that religion has taken far more from us than it has ever given us.
There is no evidence that religion provides us with morality, there have been crimes against innocence and humanity throughout the history of man. It doesn't provide more charity, does not tell us where we have come from, does not answer any great question. In truth religion is merely the passing down of other's explanations of what the universe is and why we are here. Any in depth study of any religion provides more questions than answers, shows more holes in the story than coherence.
The middle east is currently, and has for some time been, in shambles mainly because of religion. If it's not Jews versus Muslims, or the Christians versus Muslims, it's the Muslims versus Muslims. In Ireland it's Christian versus Christian. All over the world religion causes more war than peace, more hatred than love, more prejudice than tolerance.
Yet we cannot discuss this anywhere, politics is too fickle to be able to tell the truth. People shun these subjects amongst people they call friends for fear of upsetting someone. Schools are not allowed to teach science because zealots are too closed minded to educate themselves on the facts.
It is time for the people of the world to step forward, to educate, offenses be damned. Only once we step forward out of the shadows of the archaic past can we truly move forward.
There is no evidence that religion provides us with morality, there have been crimes against innocence and humanity throughout the history of man. It doesn't provide more charity, does not tell us where we have come from, does not answer any great question. In truth religion is merely the passing down of other's explanations of what the universe is and why we are here. Any in depth study of any religion provides more questions than answers, shows more holes in the story than coherence.
The middle east is currently, and has for some time been, in shambles mainly because of religion. If it's not Jews versus Muslims, or the Christians versus Muslims, it's the Muslims versus Muslims. In Ireland it's Christian versus Christian. All over the world religion causes more war than peace, more hatred than love, more prejudice than tolerance.
Yet we cannot discuss this anywhere, politics is too fickle to be able to tell the truth. People shun these subjects amongst people they call friends for fear of upsetting someone. Schools are not allowed to teach science because zealots are too closed minded to educate themselves on the facts.
It is time for the people of the world to step forward, to educate, offenses be damned. Only once we step forward out of the shadows of the archaic past can we truly move forward.
Theories
Often times I hear the argument “Well evolution is only a theory…” as though that makes creationism true, I hate this. It is based on a simple lack of understanding.
For some reason many people hear “theory” and think “based on nothing.” This is wholly untrue. It might mean that in a person’s every day jargon with friends, but not in the realm of science.
In science theory is a very honorable position. Theory is a term used to describe an idea that addresses and answers a very large body of evidence which is exactly what evolution does.
To not believe in something because it has the term “theory” attached to it is quite frankly more foolish than most people realize. For instance, the very mathematics that make an atom bomb work is only a theory. Einstein’s e=mc(squared) is known as the theory of relativity, yet is the basis of nuclear power. That theory is what leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Further, gravity is also a theory, but of course we all know that gravity exists. We just can’t explain how it all works in full.
Evolution and the big bang theory are the ideas that are most fought against. These are ideas based on great bodies of evidence and yet they are shown no respect by people who base their entire differences on the subject on a book written before the tenets of science were even discovered.
For some reason many people hear “theory” and think “based on nothing.” This is wholly untrue. It might mean that in a person’s every day jargon with friends, but not in the realm of science.
In science theory is a very honorable position. Theory is a term used to describe an idea that addresses and answers a very large body of evidence which is exactly what evolution does.
To not believe in something because it has the term “theory” attached to it is quite frankly more foolish than most people realize. For instance, the very mathematics that make an atom bomb work is only a theory. Einstein’s e=mc(squared) is known as the theory of relativity, yet is the basis of nuclear power. That theory is what leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Further, gravity is also a theory, but of course we all know that gravity exists. We just can’t explain how it all works in full.
Evolution and the big bang theory are the ideas that are most fought against. These are ideas based on great bodies of evidence and yet they are shown no respect by people who base their entire differences on the subject on a book written before the tenets of science were even discovered.
New Yorker Makes a Funny
The cover of the July 21, 2008 issue of New Yorker Magazine has a caricature of Barack Obama in a robe and turban fist-bumping (careful) his wife Michelle who has an afro and an AK 47 slung over her shoulder. The drawing is completed with an American flag burning in the fireplace.
Here is a link to the New Yorker Website with a picture of this month's cover <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2008/07/21/toc_20080714>
The Obama campaign was quick to state that they believe the American people will find it "tasteless and offensive" (I personally did not, thanks for asking Barack) further stating that they agree with that assessment.
McCain's camp was also quick to jump on the bandwagon as well concurring with the Obama campaign's reply.
Personally I think it's somewhat funny, not laugh out loud funny but more that "wow we really are a nation of idiots aren't we?" type of funny.
What really offends me about it is that Obama couldn't just say "It's journalism, it's a satire, it's funny." It’s about him, and I’m sure it bothers him that so many people think these ridiculous things about him, but why would it be wrong to think that poking fun at people who actually believe that is funny? It’s not like he’s going to get their vote anyway.
People, as a general rule, are stupid and will believe most anything that perceived leaders will tell them. Since when did it become wrong to make fun of the stupid? It's an American tradition. It's not like people with a genuine medical or psychological condition are being made fun of here. Making fun of fully functional people who just happen to be dumb as a door knob is as American as apple pie and I think politicians should be able to admit it without fear.
Cowards!
Here is a link to the New Yorker Website with a picture of this month's cover <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2008/07/21/toc_20080714>
The Obama campaign was quick to state that they believe the American people will find it "tasteless and offensive" (I personally did not, thanks for asking Barack) further stating that they agree with that assessment.
McCain's camp was also quick to jump on the bandwagon as well concurring with the Obama campaign's reply.
Personally I think it's somewhat funny, not laugh out loud funny but more that "wow we really are a nation of idiots aren't we?" type of funny.
What really offends me about it is that Obama couldn't just say "It's journalism, it's a satire, it's funny." It’s about him, and I’m sure it bothers him that so many people think these ridiculous things about him, but why would it be wrong to think that poking fun at people who actually believe that is funny? It’s not like he’s going to get their vote anyway.
People, as a general rule, are stupid and will believe most anything that perceived leaders will tell them. Since when did it become wrong to make fun of the stupid? It's an American tradition. It's not like people with a genuine medical or psychological condition are being made fun of here. Making fun of fully functional people who just happen to be dumb as a door knob is as American as apple pie and I think politicians should be able to admit it without fear.
Cowards!
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Notion of Faith
Faith is the cornerstone of every religion. It is the base precept for every idea of any religion, without it nothing works. The first lesson learned in any religion is faith in the existence and perfection of god. This idea alone holds the entirety of religion up, it is not miracles, it is not ancient texts, only faith, an idea as hollow as an empty cup.
Take away faith and all arguments against the big bang, against evolution, and against gay marriage and adoptions would cease as well as numerous other social problems. Not to mention it would greatly reduce the amount of wars on this planet.
The problem with faith is that the religious minded speak of it as though it is a good thing, surpassing all other modes of thought. In reality however (funny how the word “however” tends to follow “in reality” when discussion religions) faith is the least useful entity in the realm of human thought.
Faith is the lowest rung of thought. The way I see it the order is such; truth is at the top, fact is just below it, theory below that, hypothesis below that, idea below that, and finally lowly faith.
Faith has no merit in society, banks give no loans based on faith. Movies and television shows are not greenlit on faith. Consumers do not purchase items based on faith. More often than not in any setting other than religion the notion of faith is completely dismissed and laughed at.
Truth, facts, theories, hypothesis, and even ideas have some sort of proof to back them up. An idea may work on paper, even if not in actuality, same goes for a hypothesis and this gives them at least a grain of credibility. Theories and facts have empirical data to back them up, and truth is, well the holy grail of thought.
Faith however is only required when a thought meets none of the above requirements, meaning it doesn’t even work out on paper. If an idea had any backbone to it, any proof at all it would not be required to be labeled as faith, it would inherently be something greater.
This is why the religious cling to it so vehemently, it requires no proof. It exists only because they say so and that flimsy want for it to be true makes all the difference to them. It is the reason that the atheist and the religious have such a hard time getting along on these subjects. Atheism requires proof, empirical data, something, anything before we can even entertain the notion of accepting it as possible truth. The religious require only that their book, their preacher, or lately their president say so for it to be true to them. Data is not needed, research is a waste of time, all that matters is that they believe it and to them that makes it true.
I don’t know what it takes for people to understand that just because you believe something does not make it so. I keep hoping that one day people will realize that their actions and their hopes are not in line with one another, but so far much of the world still seems to be living in its own little fantasy.
Take away faith and all arguments against the big bang, against evolution, and against gay marriage and adoptions would cease as well as numerous other social problems. Not to mention it would greatly reduce the amount of wars on this planet.
The problem with faith is that the religious minded speak of it as though it is a good thing, surpassing all other modes of thought. In reality however (funny how the word “however” tends to follow “in reality” when discussion religions) faith is the least useful entity in the realm of human thought.
Faith is the lowest rung of thought. The way I see it the order is such; truth is at the top, fact is just below it, theory below that, hypothesis below that, idea below that, and finally lowly faith.
Faith has no merit in society, banks give no loans based on faith. Movies and television shows are not greenlit on faith. Consumers do not purchase items based on faith. More often than not in any setting other than religion the notion of faith is completely dismissed and laughed at.
Truth, facts, theories, hypothesis, and even ideas have some sort of proof to back them up. An idea may work on paper, even if not in actuality, same goes for a hypothesis and this gives them at least a grain of credibility. Theories and facts have empirical data to back them up, and truth is, well the holy grail of thought.
Faith however is only required when a thought meets none of the above requirements, meaning it doesn’t even work out on paper. If an idea had any backbone to it, any proof at all it would not be required to be labeled as faith, it would inherently be something greater.
This is why the religious cling to it so vehemently, it requires no proof. It exists only because they say so and that flimsy want for it to be true makes all the difference to them. It is the reason that the atheist and the religious have such a hard time getting along on these subjects. Atheism requires proof, empirical data, something, anything before we can even entertain the notion of accepting it as possible truth. The religious require only that their book, their preacher, or lately their president say so for it to be true to them. Data is not needed, research is a waste of time, all that matters is that they believe it and to them that makes it true.
I don’t know what it takes for people to understand that just because you believe something does not make it so. I keep hoping that one day people will realize that their actions and their hopes are not in line with one another, but so far much of the world still seems to be living in its own little fantasy.
Webster Cook Revisited
Well I was hoping to be done with this topic since it is completely ridiculous but alas, ‘tis not meant to be.
PZ Meyers, a Professor of Biology at University of Minnesota at Morris and the author of blogsite Pharyngula, stated in his review of the Webster Cook situation that he personally wanted to desecrate the Eucharist, complete with photos and videos that he pledged to post on the web.
It seems that Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and from what I hear an all around right wing blow hard, though to be fair I have little to personally base that on other than hearsay, is now calling on members of his organization and presumably all Catholics to demand punishment up to the point of immediate dismissal from his professorship for PZ Meyers based on his comments regarding desecrating a cracker.
For what it’s worth I really don’t think Dr. Meyers had any intentions of desecrating the Eucharist. From my perspective he was merely using the idea to point out how ridiculous it was to get that upset over a cracker by emulating the way some Catholics were reacting to it. He was blatantly going overboard about it. There was even a poster in the comments who pointed out that these crackers could be ordered online and in bulk, yet there was no date set up for “Cracker Desecration 08!”
From what I understand PZ Meyers has received death threats for his remarks and a lot of hate mail. Presumably the president of his university is receiving plenty of requests for Dr. Meyers to be fired as well. Further, it seems that Donohue’s claims are based on incorrect information (imagine that, a Christian basing entire ideas and beliefs on misinformation), but I won’t go into details here, Dr. Meyers has recapped it all here.
For me this is one of the most basic problems with this country and religion as a whole. Once again Christianity is claiming “Do it our way or YOU’RE being intolerant.” Apparently the entire nature of tolerance and free speech is lost on the overly religious.
Yes, I get that according to your beliefs your god told you certain things. Yes, I get that you want to hold those beliefs as true for yourself without interference from government or other entities. Yes, I get that according to you the cracker is sacred. And yes, I get that you are offended by Dr. Meyers comments.
However, I do not think you get that according to my beliefs your god doesn’t exist. I do not think that you get that there is a reason that spirituality is referred to as “PERSONAL beliefs”, I’ll go ahead and spell that one out for any religious minded here, personal as in for you, not necessarily for others. I do not think you get that to the rest of the world incantations does not a sacred object make. And finally I do not think you get that to people like myself and presumably Dr. Meyers, many of your comments are just as offensive as his were to you.
If you want the right to practice your religion, fine, I can completely agree with that, hell I’d even fight for that right, but stop pushing it down our throats. You must respect our right to comment on your beliefs just as others respect your right to comment on others beliefs. Hard line Catholics and fundamentalists from other denominations of Christianity have blatantly engaged in hate speech concerning gays and lesbians. The Catholic church has been continually found guilty of harboring priests who do atrocious things to children. And I think Americans, atheists included, have been exceedingly patient and forgiving about it. Yet if someone makes a comment about your precious saltines you act as though the world is out to get you.
And here’s a little hint for you, if you don’t want to be made fun of or have bad things said about you then don’t have such funny beliefs and get all bent out of shape over poorly made accessories to soup.
The world should not have to stop because you want to throw a temper tantrum. I assure you, a lot fewer people than you think actually care about your precious cracker. Yes I know there are millions of Catholics worldwide, but of all the many Catholics I have personally known in my life, only about 5% of them actually practice the faith with any consistency, and I fee I am being generous there.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the real problem with Christians is that there aren’t any, only hypocrites in Christian guise.
PZ Meyers, a Professor of Biology at University of Minnesota at Morris and the author of blogsite Pharyngula, stated in his review of the Webster Cook situation that he personally wanted to desecrate the Eucharist, complete with photos and videos that he pledged to post on the web.
It seems that Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and from what I hear an all around right wing blow hard, though to be fair I have little to personally base that on other than hearsay, is now calling on members of his organization and presumably all Catholics to demand punishment up to the point of immediate dismissal from his professorship for PZ Meyers based on his comments regarding desecrating a cracker.
For what it’s worth I really don’t think Dr. Meyers had any intentions of desecrating the Eucharist. From my perspective he was merely using the idea to point out how ridiculous it was to get that upset over a cracker by emulating the way some Catholics were reacting to it. He was blatantly going overboard about it. There was even a poster in the comments who pointed out that these crackers could be ordered online and in bulk, yet there was no date set up for “Cracker Desecration 08!”
From what I understand PZ Meyers has received death threats for his remarks and a lot of hate mail. Presumably the president of his university is receiving plenty of requests for Dr. Meyers to be fired as well. Further, it seems that Donohue’s claims are based on incorrect information (imagine that, a Christian basing entire ideas and beliefs on misinformation), but I won’t go into details here, Dr. Meyers has recapped it all here.
For me this is one of the most basic problems with this country and religion as a whole. Once again Christianity is claiming “Do it our way or YOU’RE being intolerant.” Apparently the entire nature of tolerance and free speech is lost on the overly religious.
Yes, I get that according to your beliefs your god told you certain things. Yes, I get that you want to hold those beliefs as true for yourself without interference from government or other entities. Yes, I get that according to you the cracker is sacred. And yes, I get that you are offended by Dr. Meyers comments.
However, I do not think you get that according to my beliefs your god doesn’t exist. I do not think that you get that there is a reason that spirituality is referred to as “PERSONAL beliefs”, I’ll go ahead and spell that one out for any religious minded here, personal as in for you, not necessarily for others. I do not think you get that to the rest of the world incantations does not a sacred object make. And finally I do not think you get that to people like myself and presumably Dr. Meyers, many of your comments are just as offensive as his were to you.
If you want the right to practice your religion, fine, I can completely agree with that, hell I’d even fight for that right, but stop pushing it down our throats. You must respect our right to comment on your beliefs just as others respect your right to comment on others beliefs. Hard line Catholics and fundamentalists from other denominations of Christianity have blatantly engaged in hate speech concerning gays and lesbians. The Catholic church has been continually found guilty of harboring priests who do atrocious things to children. And I think Americans, atheists included, have been exceedingly patient and forgiving about it. Yet if someone makes a comment about your precious saltines you act as though the world is out to get you.
And here’s a little hint for you, if you don’t want to be made fun of or have bad things said about you then don’t have such funny beliefs and get all bent out of shape over poorly made accessories to soup.
The world should not have to stop because you want to throw a temper tantrum. I assure you, a lot fewer people than you think actually care about your precious cracker. Yes I know there are millions of Catholics worldwide, but of all the many Catholics I have personally known in my life, only about 5% of them actually practice the faith with any consistency, and I fee I am being generous there.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the real problem with Christians is that there aren’t any, only hypocrites in Christian guise.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A Metaphorical Model of Truth
When I was struggling with my Christianity I needed a way to test the preconceived notions I held as truth. I needed some sort of testable theory, I didn’t need mathematical equations or perfect provable data, it wasn’t about that, I just needed some way to test ideas in my head. A structure, some sort of embodiment even if it were fictional.
What I came up with was “The tower of truth.” The principle was simple, if there were some idea of truth that I had or was presented to me I structured it as a tower in my mind. After that the premise was quite simple, bombard the hell out of it. I would become devil’s advocate to that principle. I would research the antithesis of any notion I felt was truth and then hurl it with metaphorical catapults at the tower, this required research for the pro position as well in the defense of the tower. Both sides would do battle in my head, the stone of the tower representing the pro side, the stone of the catapult representing the con side. If in the end, after much research and much thought considering both sides, whichever stone annihilated the other was considered “truth”, whatever that may be. To me it was simply the most reasonable answer for the question at hand.
This became, for me anyway, an effective method of constructing broad theories, a way of weeding out parts of ideas, stones as it were, that should not be included in the theory. Maybe it’s silly, maybe it’s childish, but I found it to be a useful tool. It is quite honestly a big part of how I came to atheism, the tower of Christianity was destroyed over time, stone by stone. I only became an atheist after the last stone of the faith, the cornerstone of god was demolished.
What I came up with was “The tower of truth.” The principle was simple, if there were some idea of truth that I had or was presented to me I structured it as a tower in my mind. After that the premise was quite simple, bombard the hell out of it. I would become devil’s advocate to that principle. I would research the antithesis of any notion I felt was truth and then hurl it with metaphorical catapults at the tower, this required research for the pro position as well in the defense of the tower. Both sides would do battle in my head, the stone of the tower representing the pro side, the stone of the catapult representing the con side. If in the end, after much research and much thought considering both sides, whichever stone annihilated the other was considered “truth”, whatever that may be. To me it was simply the most reasonable answer for the question at hand.
This became, for me anyway, an effective method of constructing broad theories, a way of weeding out parts of ideas, stones as it were, that should not be included in the theory. Maybe it’s silly, maybe it’s childish, but I found it to be a useful tool. It is quite honestly a big part of how I came to atheism, the tower of Christianity was destroyed over time, stone by stone. I only became an atheist after the last stone of the faith, the cornerstone of god was demolished.
A Brief Discussion on Atheism
Atheists are perhaps the most misunderstood minority in the world. I can’t begin to count the amount of times I have been told that “you just don’t want to believe in Christianity because it interferes with the life you want to live.” Basically, many believe that people choose to be an atheist because we want to sin and don’t want our philosophies to get in the way. In response to that I would point out that if it were that I’d want to sin I’d just remain a Christian and be a hypocrite like the majority of alleged Christians.
Not to mention all of the “baby-eaters”, “liars who can’t help themselves because they’re wired wrong”, “devil worshippers” (that one makes me laugh the most since one would have to actually believe in a devil to worship it), and all manner of other terrible names. It is, quite frankly, hate speech put forth by the very group who’s ideology is based on a man who’s most famous wisdom for confrontation was “turn the other cheek” and “love thy enemies.”
Be wary Christians, I, a proud atheist, am about to be brutally honest. Having been raised as a devout Christian I will freely admit that I miss the idea of God. It was wonderful believing that I was never alone, that I always had a friend, a confidant, someone who loved me more than I could understand. Every now and then I still find myself beginning to pray at night, I quickly have to remind myself that I’m only talking to my own thoughts.
Basically my point is simple, I can’t speak for all atheists, I can only speak for myself, but I personally do wish there were a god. I wish there was some all powerful being watching over my life, someone I could implore for help or guidance. The problem is that in a rational frame of mind I find no reason to believe in one. There are too many problems, too many contradictions, too many things that cannot be written off by faith alone, not to mention that I have found faith to be utterly useless. I might be alone in this, but I suspect that even atheists who have been so since their birth would all like to believe that there were a god, but as far as we can tell, there just isn’t.
Not to mention all of the “baby-eaters”, “liars who can’t help themselves because they’re wired wrong”, “devil worshippers” (that one makes me laugh the most since one would have to actually believe in a devil to worship it), and all manner of other terrible names. It is, quite frankly, hate speech put forth by the very group who’s ideology is based on a man who’s most famous wisdom for confrontation was “turn the other cheek” and “love thy enemies.”
Be wary Christians, I, a proud atheist, am about to be brutally honest. Having been raised as a devout Christian I will freely admit that I miss the idea of God. It was wonderful believing that I was never alone, that I always had a friend, a confidant, someone who loved me more than I could understand. Every now and then I still find myself beginning to pray at night, I quickly have to remind myself that I’m only talking to my own thoughts.
Basically my point is simple, I can’t speak for all atheists, I can only speak for myself, but I personally do wish there were a god. I wish there was some all powerful being watching over my life, someone I could implore for help or guidance. The problem is that in a rational frame of mind I find no reason to believe in one. There are too many problems, too many contradictions, too many things that cannot be written off by faith alone, not to mention that I have found faith to be utterly useless. I might be alone in this, but I suspect that even atheists who have been so since their birth would all like to believe that there were a god, but as far as we can tell, there just isn’t.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Webster Cook
I may be a little late on this one but I just read about the saga of Webster Cook today, if you don’t know Mr. Cook is a student at the University of Central Florida. From what I understand he is a catholic who went to mass with a friend who was seeking to know more about the catholic faith.
Mr. Cook went to receive his communion wafer known as the Eucharist, for those who don’t know communion is a symbolic reference to “The Last Supper” of Jesus whereby the bread, or cracker in this case, is considered to be the symbolic “body of Christ.”
The way it works is that it is simply a cracker or wafer of bread, they are quite bland if you’re wondering, a priest blesses the wafers and after that they become the actual body of Christ to Catholics.
The way I understand it Mr. Cook decided to show his friend what the Eucharist looked like before he consumed it, but his friend was still in their seat in the pews. Mr. Cook accepted the wafer and began to walk back to his seat, but he was physically stopped by an official of the campus church they were at. Apparently it is against the rules of the Catholic faith to not consume the wafer immediately. Mr. Cook put the wafer in his mouth so that he could get back to his seat, once there he removed the wafer and showed it to his friend. However, a church official was watching this and from what I understand physically tried to remove the wafer from Mr. Cook’s hand by force. Mr. Cook decided to leave with the wafer in hand, not in his belly.
According to this story Catholics the world over are outraged. Mr. Cook has received death threats, Catholic bloggers have created quite the stir on the web and church officials are going so far as to call it a hate crime.
I’m sorry but this is ridiculous, any religion who has adherents who routinely harass gays and commit actual hate speech against their fellow man has no right to react this way over a cracker.
I understand that to Catholics this is a sacred ritual but it’s not like Catholics have the right to be the upstanding voice of morality at this point. What’s worse is that it really shows one of the fundamental flaws of Christianity, faith itself.
I just feel that it is silly to get so worked up over this based on the fact that a priest, which is nothing more than a man with a title, said magic words and waved his hands over a cracker and that supposedly makes it sacred. I don’t even want to know where those hands might have been given the recent history of the catholic priesthood, but I digress. It is the Catholic's faith that makes the cracker sacred to them, as an actual embodiment of Christ himself, but in reality it is still only a cracker.
It’s these types of semantics that give religions a bad name. Last I checked the bible was about forgiveness, about being a good person, about turning the other cheek. But Catholics have done the exact opposite. I have read the bible and I refuse to believe that Jesus would have reacted this way. Do you really think that if John the Baptist wanted to take his bread home with him at the last supper that Jesus would have used physical force to get it back?Once again it is semantics that make the church look like a group of fools, so far gone from the actual message of their faith that it’s no wonder that the faith is falling in this nation.
Mr. Cook went to receive his communion wafer known as the Eucharist, for those who don’t know communion is a symbolic reference to “The Last Supper” of Jesus whereby the bread, or cracker in this case, is considered to be the symbolic “body of Christ.”
The way it works is that it is simply a cracker or wafer of bread, they are quite bland if you’re wondering, a priest blesses the wafers and after that they become the actual body of Christ to Catholics.
The way I understand it Mr. Cook decided to show his friend what the Eucharist looked like before he consumed it, but his friend was still in their seat in the pews. Mr. Cook accepted the wafer and began to walk back to his seat, but he was physically stopped by an official of the campus church they were at. Apparently it is against the rules of the Catholic faith to not consume the wafer immediately. Mr. Cook put the wafer in his mouth so that he could get back to his seat, once there he removed the wafer and showed it to his friend. However, a church official was watching this and from what I understand physically tried to remove the wafer from Mr. Cook’s hand by force. Mr. Cook decided to leave with the wafer in hand, not in his belly.
According to this story Catholics the world over are outraged. Mr. Cook has received death threats, Catholic bloggers have created quite the stir on the web and church officials are going so far as to call it a hate crime.
I’m sorry but this is ridiculous, any religion who has adherents who routinely harass gays and commit actual hate speech against their fellow man has no right to react this way over a cracker.
I understand that to Catholics this is a sacred ritual but it’s not like Catholics have the right to be the upstanding voice of morality at this point. What’s worse is that it really shows one of the fundamental flaws of Christianity, faith itself.
I just feel that it is silly to get so worked up over this based on the fact that a priest, which is nothing more than a man with a title, said magic words and waved his hands over a cracker and that supposedly makes it sacred. I don’t even want to know where those hands might have been given the recent history of the catholic priesthood, but I digress. It is the Catholic's faith that makes the cracker sacred to them, as an actual embodiment of Christ himself, but in reality it is still only a cracker.
It’s these types of semantics that give religions a bad name. Last I checked the bible was about forgiveness, about being a good person, about turning the other cheek. But Catholics have done the exact opposite. I have read the bible and I refuse to believe that Jesus would have reacted this way. Do you really think that if John the Baptist wanted to take his bread home with him at the last supper that Jesus would have used physical force to get it back?Once again it is semantics that make the church look like a group of fools, so far gone from the actual message of their faith that it’s no wonder that the faith is falling in this nation.
Disproving Christianity Part I
Many have written on this subject before, and to be fair it is impossible to disprove an idea such as a religion, but I've decided I’d like throw my hat into the ring on this. First I would like to discuss the parameters of what I consider proof or evidence. Evidence consists of testable data by the scientific method. We use the scientific method every day, in business, in government, in the purchases we make, in the people we call friends and loved ones. Every aspect of our lives revolve around some standard of the scientific method save religion. I'd also like to state that I am not picking on Christianity, it is simply the dominant religion of this nation and even more dominant in the south, my home. It is also the one I understand best. Christianity has only one source of data to derive any decisions from and that is the book known as the Bible. Books fall into one of two categories, fiction and non-fiction. Non-fiction requires that every statement in a book be true, each statement of action had to have actually taken place and must be documented otherwise it becomes an account of actions and must be placed into the fiction category. Fictitious books are not held by such stringent rules. They are not bound by the rigors of truth and factuality which is why many of the greatest works in the English language are fiction. It allows an author or authors to use imaginary settings, actions, or people to get a point across. In a work of fiction the focus of the writing is to get an idea across to the audience, not semantics. However this does not mean that the whole work is a lie, many works of fiction draw extensively from principles, facts, and statements that are true. Christians would have all people believe that the bible is a work of non-fiction, of god’s literal word, but this is not the case. One needs look no further than the first two chapters of Genesis to see this. In chapter one it clearly states that man AND woman were created at the end of the 6th day (Gen 1:27), the final creation, the masterpiece as it were. But, in chapter two man is made, then trees and then the beasts and birds and only later does god create woman (Gen 2:7-22). This is a contradiction, there are many different ways this has been shrugged off by the religious minded but we're talking about an all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect god, if he can't have his followers who were given the task of writing god’s word to get it right between two different chapters then what hope does the rest of the book have? If there is a contradiction (and there are many more, just do a search on any search engine and you'll find plenty) then one or both must be a lie. Since there is a lie in the book known as the bible then it is obviously a work of fiction. Again, a fictitious work does not mean the whole thing is false though. The problem comes in this, in a work such as the bible where that book alone is the only source of basis for the religion, only the authors can know what was true and what wasn't. Further even the gospels themselves were written as told to others by the alleged disciples. Moreover to be a follower of the bible a Christian must decide whether it is literal or not, as shown earlier it cannot be seen as wholly literal which leaves metaphor. Who decides what is metaphor and what is not? If no one knows which parts are true then there is no reason to believe that the stories are more than that, just stories. Even so, there is still much to be learned in the bible. Many of the philosophies of Jesus are sound principles and much of the stories throughout are good suggestions for life. The garden story for instance is a story on the loss of innocence, a theme that resonates with all people to this day. Many of the miracles such as the story of Jesus turning the loaves and fishes into enough to feed a multitude is an example that if one person begins to share what they have, others will follow, that goodness spreads thru good works. But the fact of the matter is that no one has the right to say that this or that part is true, because no person alive was there, and to deny the facts of science because a book written in the ancient world when science itself hadn’t even been thought of yet is the dream of a fool.This alone does not condemn the bible or the religion, it is simply a philosophical question that believers should be asking themselves. In the end does it matter if god and Jesus are in the message? Does the message of goodness not remain? I am not asking a person to give up their religion, only to relax on the semantics, see the message, not the hatred that has so permeated the religion today.
And the people shall rise
To have a society that is more powerful than its government is the ultimate goal for any community. The process is actually quite simple in concept, but like in so many facets of life this is difficult to implement. This is the greatest sin of self opposed suffering of our time. The brain is a marvelous thing, but like all things it has more than one side. The dark side of our human condition is the fantasy. It has become used too often up to the point of addiction. In moderation it is a perfectly inspiring thing, but we allow the fantasy to become our mental reality, an escape mechanism to cope with our lives.
Instead of meeting a problem head on we cower from it, ignore it, fool ourselves into thinking otherwise of reality. We give away the right to our natural introspection of the self freely and without cause for its absence. We tell ourselves illusions of protection, of safety, of love, of freedom and of ideology so that we can cope with our lives.
Here are some general tips for the huddled masses. To lose weight one must exercise and eat a proper diet. To truly be loved one has to love themselves. No one can define god. Procrastination makes no progress. To be more one must ask more of themselves. Life passes with every breath.
One day we will have a better life. A better job, better finances, better love life, better social life, we will be better people, create a better society, have a better house, better cars and a better dog. One day. Somewhere down the line when [insert pathetic excuse here] we’ll have those better things. How trusting of our forgetfulness we have become. We can’t keep up with our keys or a watch but we can be trusted to put off our dreams of living life.
When the one day comes how will it be? Will it be begging for mercy for one more chance to try after refusing to take the chance? Will it be a labor of regret? Or merely a joy with regrets? Knowing that if that day does arrive moments that could have been spent happier are now lost forever. But we have grown comfortable in mourn for the past, it forms to us. Grows to us. Infects us.
When will that day come? When can I stand with my people proud and strong? My people of this earth, bound by no border or illusions of race, humanity as species, made from the same stock and granted the same gifts. When will the people rise?
They shall rise as we do, the followers of a single creed. To be the person that one dreams they can be. Knowing all the while that the dream is merely a point of inspiration to forge their life into the dream itself.
It starts by educating the self, knowing the self, becoming comfortable with the self. Learning all viewpoints by studying varying viewpoints on the important subjects of life. The path of wisdom is paved with understanding. It never ceases, introspection is a life long procession with advanced levels beyond quantification.
As one grows the hardest yet most fundamental duty is to educate others. It is something that should be done with complete humility providing facts and viewpoints, never with the attitude of pride or arrogance.
Being a better human begins with the simple practice of discipline. To be better we must read works that we think are beyond our limits, ask questions that scare us, believe in the possibility of that which was previously believed to be impossible. But to date we allow our weaknesses to control us and this is a heinous crime against ourselves.
Most things that we want are within our grasp, we simply lack the discipline to get them. It’s time we ask more of ourselves, that we learn to live a full life, that we understand, that we rise.
Be honest with people and they will appreciate it. Treat people like they are better than they are and they will rise to the call. Ask more and never be satisfied. And on the day of our freedom the people shall rise in unison with a mighty voice of reason, angered by the atrocities that we have too long neglected and by the lies we have too long believed.We seek to save everything we can, to help some entity so that we can bide our time and not have to face ourselves. We save the whales, the forests, the birds, the bees, the wetlands, the oceans, the rivers, and the planet itself. Good ideas although misguided, uninformed ideas built to distract us all from the real problem that we all fear so much. If you want to save something save yourselves, the rest will follow suit as nature intends.
Instead of meeting a problem head on we cower from it, ignore it, fool ourselves into thinking otherwise of reality. We give away the right to our natural introspection of the self freely and without cause for its absence. We tell ourselves illusions of protection, of safety, of love, of freedom and of ideology so that we can cope with our lives.
Here are some general tips for the huddled masses. To lose weight one must exercise and eat a proper diet. To truly be loved one has to love themselves. No one can define god. Procrastination makes no progress. To be more one must ask more of themselves. Life passes with every breath.
One day we will have a better life. A better job, better finances, better love life, better social life, we will be better people, create a better society, have a better house, better cars and a better dog. One day. Somewhere down the line when [insert pathetic excuse here] we’ll have those better things. How trusting of our forgetfulness we have become. We can’t keep up with our keys or a watch but we can be trusted to put off our dreams of living life.
When the one day comes how will it be? Will it be begging for mercy for one more chance to try after refusing to take the chance? Will it be a labor of regret? Or merely a joy with regrets? Knowing that if that day does arrive moments that could have been spent happier are now lost forever. But we have grown comfortable in mourn for the past, it forms to us. Grows to us. Infects us.
When will that day come? When can I stand with my people proud and strong? My people of this earth, bound by no border or illusions of race, humanity as species, made from the same stock and granted the same gifts. When will the people rise?
They shall rise as we do, the followers of a single creed. To be the person that one dreams they can be. Knowing all the while that the dream is merely a point of inspiration to forge their life into the dream itself.
It starts by educating the self, knowing the self, becoming comfortable with the self. Learning all viewpoints by studying varying viewpoints on the important subjects of life. The path of wisdom is paved with understanding. It never ceases, introspection is a life long procession with advanced levels beyond quantification.
As one grows the hardest yet most fundamental duty is to educate others. It is something that should be done with complete humility providing facts and viewpoints, never with the attitude of pride or arrogance.
Being a better human begins with the simple practice of discipline. To be better we must read works that we think are beyond our limits, ask questions that scare us, believe in the possibility of that which was previously believed to be impossible. But to date we allow our weaknesses to control us and this is a heinous crime against ourselves.
Most things that we want are within our grasp, we simply lack the discipline to get them. It’s time we ask more of ourselves, that we learn to live a full life, that we understand, that we rise.
Be honest with people and they will appreciate it. Treat people like they are better than they are and they will rise to the call. Ask more and never be satisfied. And on the day of our freedom the people shall rise in unison with a mighty voice of reason, angered by the atrocities that we have too long neglected and by the lies we have too long believed.We seek to save everything we can, to help some entity so that we can bide our time and not have to face ourselves. We save the whales, the forests, the birds, the bees, the wetlands, the oceans, the rivers, and the planet itself. Good ideas although misguided, uninformed ideas built to distract us all from the real problem that we all fear so much. If you want to save something save yourselves, the rest will follow suit as nature intends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
