DisComforting Ignorance

God's Punishment for Not Updating?

2009-09-14T05:45:00.003-05:00

For over a month now (since August 9, to be exact), Japanese (I think) spammers have been commenting on my blog between 9pm and 10pm.

As such, I've enabled word verification for commenting. Hopefully this will eliminate this nuisance of the inbox.

On a content update, I'm planning on making a post here soon regarding my activities during my hiatus. I have been very active in freethought campaigns in real life which, I think, have been a much better use of my time. I do miss posting to this blog, though. After several well crafted, unique posts were overlooked by readers, I became disheartened with this blog and soon after ceased regular posting.

I do plan to return, likely with a different slant.

- JT

An Update and a Comment

2009-04-06T21:58:00.002-05:00

The Update
I am a bit stunned to see how long it has been since I last posted. Updating this blog and interacting with everyone was always an enjoyable part of the day. I have, however, had the past few months constitute the worst period of my life. Writing that at such a young age I am sure that I will experience far worse. But having lived probably a third to a fourth of my life, now, I feel it's significant and has made me feel as though I've matured in thought, but yet to meet it in action.

The Comment
While I haven't been updating, I have been reading all my comments as they are emailed to me. I still receive at least once a week, even though I haven't been updating. I thought I'd share one I received last week that was rather entertaining. This one was posted to my entry Arguing for a Christian God which explained on a prompt I put forth for Christian readers to convince me, specifically, of the Christian God. This is from a reader named "searching_agnostic":

hi - I'd love to read a good justification for Christainity also, as far as I can tell, from what most historians believe Paul wrote ~50's AD, we can be moderately confident that Paul, Peter, John and James believed Jesus was God and was ressurrected. This to me gives only three possibilities, 1) they were claiming the truth, and He was God
2) Peter, John and James were lying for reasons unknown. - why tho? no satisfactory answer found.
3) Peter, John and James where fooled, Paul was lying, or nuts.
help required to work out the likelihoods of each.
as an asside I'd feel much more comfortable with my Agnostic beliefs if the big bang was false.

I wonder if there is a reverse-Poe's law. From the several comments I have received of theists pretending to be atheists, I am unconvinced there is.

The Unnatural Race

2009-01-21T17:39:00.003-06:00

Something I've been encountering a lot recently with other people is the topic of gay adoption. (Could it be from the recent election wherein the various electorates voted against children in the system?)

Something rather baffling is how the point of homosexuality not being natural comes up. When this argument comes up in homosexuality discussions, my first thought to myself is why, by any logic, should laws be based on what's natural?

In gay adoption discussions, though, this line of argument is especially puzzling. What of the latter half of the phrase: adoption? I recently had a conversation with a Christian friend of mine along the following lines:

Me: Why are you opposed to gay adoption? As an adopted child, I would think you, of anyone, would support it.
Him: I do support adoption, just not gay adoption.
Me: Why not gay adoption? What's the difference between adoption by heterosexual or homosexual parent(s)? The result in both cases is an adoption. Shouldn't that be our objective?
Him: Homosexuality is unnatural, though.
Me: Why should that be a criterion?
Him: It's unhealthy for a child to grow up in that unnatural relationship.
Me: You're adopted, though, right? Adoption is unnatural too, and you're not against that.
Him: How do you figure?
Me: The natural order of things is that you have a child and then rear the child. It is unnatural to rear another's offspring. You just said that it's unhealthy for a child to grow up in an unnatural relationship; an parent-adopted child is an unnatural relationship.
Him: It's not unnatural, though. There are plenty examples of it in the animal kingdom of some dog taking care of a kitten or something.
Me: There's also plenty of examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, too, though.

It went on from there with him continuing to refute me using common refutations of the "homosexuality is unnatural."

After I began reading and thinking more, I have never understood the "nature" argument as any sort of defense of a law. There are plenty of natural things we prohibit. For example, defecation in the outdoors is very natural; however, we have chosen to prohibit people from defecating in public for good reasons (mainly sanitation).

There are also many (many) unnatural things we do not prohibit and, in fact, advocate. Blood donation, for example, is very unnatural. A needle is inserted into your arm, your blood is withdrawn and deposited in a bag, that bag is processed and stored, and then that blood is put into someone else's body.

There is a good reason we have chosen not to prohibit blood donation: the recipients need the blood. I could not fathom opposing blood donation under the banner of "it is unnatural." In the end, shouldn't we recognize the parallel to gay adoption? We should choose not to prohibit gay adoption for the same reason: the recipients need the adoption. How can people march under the banner of "it is unnatural" when there are so many children in need? Someone should contact Arkansas and find out. (Oh wait, the ACLU already has.)

JT: 1, Hemant Mehta: 4,913

2008-11-07T09:00:00.000-06:00

While browsing Facebook to try to find some horribly offensive anti-Christian group title* (as payback for the barrage of Christian Right status updates Tuesday night), I came across a rather interesting one:

I wonder if that's anything like swallowing Jesus at communion only to throw him up fifteen minutes later.

* I had no such luck. The only "offensive" anti-Christian group titles were about 1-2 dozen groups all titled "Delete the 'Fuck Christianity' group."

Atheist Debate on Abortion

2008-11-06T21:45:00.002-06:00

I'm not sure when my schedule will first allow for this, but I wanted to throw it out there.

I frequently hear atheists -- and I want to stress frequently -- claim that you can't be a thinking atheist and also against abortion. The rationale is analogous to homophobia. You can't be both a thinking atheist and against homosexuality because homophobia is solely a consequence of religion. The same claim is made about abortion: the arguments against abortion are religious in nature. To put it more precisely, there is no secular, rational basis for opposition to abortion.

As an atheist who was opposed to abortion up until this year, I must reject this when I hear it. Even when I do, though, I'm told I'm wrong and that it's still something kept from religion.

I have had several readers ask me for a further account of my transition from anti-abortion to pro-abortion (both legally and morally). Rather than giving dry details about the arguments which I was once persuaded by and later arguments which dissuaded me from my former conclusion, I thought I'd try something more interesting.

Is there any atheist who would be interested in doing a debate via blog on abortion? I'm not sure if there is something already out there of this nature, but I thought it would be a good opportunity to show that there are secular arguments against abortion. Even though I no longer hold these views (and it has been a while since I have pondered the philosophy around it), I will take the side of an anti-abortionist in this debate.

So, if there's anyone interested, let me know. The only qualification is you must be an atheist. You can be either pro-abortion or anti-abortion (either legally or morally), but you must take the pro-abortion side.

My Exceptionally Poor Sex (Education)

2008-11-06T11:21:00.004-06:00

I was reading AiG's article today on posters and their messages. It concluded with the author discussing how most professors are anti-Christian and textbooks having a heavy anti-Christian bias. It made me think: what were some of my educational experiences? I thought of Columbus myths I learned, lies about the effects of drugs, and many other things. Nothing, though, is more stark than what I learned about sex: nothing.

(To note, I grew up in Oklahoma.)

Abstinence-only? If only.
The amount of sex education I received in school is roughly equal to the number of legitimate scientific criticisms Ray has regarding evolution: none. There were no health courses, no material handed out to students, no discussion of it at all. I had questions about various things relating to sex in middle school. Were they questions about the mechanics of sex? No. Were they questions about relationships surrounding sex? No. They were health-related questions.

Why weren't my questions regarding mechanics or relationships? I think by middle school most kids understand these fairly well. I actually had the awkward experience of being sat down for the mechanics talk by my father in middle school -- roughly three years after a guy had brought a Penthouse magazine to elementary school one day. As far as relationships, that's stressed ad nauseam by parents and television.

Questions a 13-year-old can't answer
What was lacking, though, was education about sex.

What's the probability of getting pregnant the first time you have sex without contraception use?
Can either party contract an STD if there is only oral sex?
If the other person is a virgin, is there any chance of getting an STD?
How reliable is contraception for preventing both STDs and pregnancy?
Where can you get condoms and is there an age restriction?

Would answers to these questions have encouraged sexual activity? I can't say, as none of us had any sex education in school. What I can say, though, is that not having the answers to these questions didn't discourage sexual activity. Without any sexual education at all, most of the people in knew in middle school were becoming sexually active by no later than the eighth grade. Most of it, from what I remember, was either manual or oral sex -- acts generally considered not sex by middle school students and assumed to be safe.

Sampling educational material
I wonder if condoms had been available at school if that would have encouraged sexual activity? Again, I can't say, but I imagine, if anything, it would have encouraged responsible sexual activity. I knew a couple of guys who stole condoms from the store, but I wonder about those who didn't? Would the several pregnancies which occurred in eighth grade have occurred had condoms been available along with proper sex education? Again... I can't say.

My observations are limited to middle school as I had the privilege of going to an academically-accelerated school for high school (one to where you must apply). Visiting with my friends who went to the public high school was surreal. All they seemed to talk about was sex and recounting all the girls I knew in middle school who were now pregnant. While I imagine the details of most STD-positive individuals is kept private (for good reason), they could recite a list of diseased individuals.

Abstinence-only driver's education
I think ignorance is an invalid form of education. I reflect back on my driver's education. Most of it was about the mechanics of driving, but they set apart a third of the course for responsible driving. Did they make sure to avoid a discussion of drinking so as not to encourage it? No. Did they, in their discussion, urge us only to abstain from drinking? No. They educated us about it.

What are the laws surrounding drinking, and drinking and driving?
What are the physical and mental effects of intoxication?
How does intoxication influence your driving?
How much more likely are you to get in an accident if you're intoxicated?
Is marijuana intoxication okay to drive with?

The science of their answers were pretty good. They gave us the facts, they gave us statistics, and they took questions. They knew kids would drink; it's inevitable these days. I imagine they figured it's better they know the facts about drinking so it could better shape their policies.

A foundation of ignorance
What if my driver's education had omitted the education on drinking? I could only imagine people thinking it's safe as long as you aren't traveling a long distance or at high speeds. I imagine their only education would be comprised of what they hear from others, such as drink coffee before you drive drunk to make you alert.

I don't think we would accept that for education on driving. Sadly, this type of education is what we accept for sex. Too many kids think oral sex is not sex and that there are no risks for disease contraction with it. Too many don't know whether there's an age restriction on buying condoms (which only compounds the fear of embarrassment at the checkout lane). Too many just don't have basic education -- neither from schools or parents.

Answers Ray Can't Not Contradict Himself In

2008-11-05T14:05:00.004-06:00

To make up for the absence over the past two weeks, I have been preparing a series of posts entitled Common Christian Contradictions. Although I haven't been able to post recently, I have been following Ray's blog. His post today, though, was too good not to pass up, especially since it ties into the series I'm preparing.

In this post, Ray tries to show why atheists can't answer these questions. I'll start with #1:

#1: What was in the beginning?
Ray states:

If they say that there were gases (or something) in the beginning, then it’s not the "beginning," because the gases or the “something” already existed. Who or what made them?

Okay, ignoring the issue of time, Ray, what was in the beginning? If you say God was in the beginning, then it's not the "beginning" because God already existed. Who or what made him?

#2: Humans' intrinsic value
The above may not be all that interesting, but it's #2 that caught my attention and probably caught others' attention who have been following Ray's blog for a while:

If your pet dog and your neighbor are drowning, and you can only save one of them, who would you save?

That particular dilemma sounded very familiar to me. And there's a good reason why, as Captain Howdy posed it to Ray in regard to life beginning at conception:

If you were in a fertility clinic and a fire broke out, and you could rescue either a trapped, screaming, terrified 2-year-old girl or a tray with 1000 2-week-old embryos in it--but not both--which would you choose? One of the two will burn; you can only rescue one.

To Ray, a two-week-old embryo has the same intrinsic value as a two-year-old girl, but the reply he posted seemed to endorse the decision of saving the two-year-old girl. So even if I consider that both a dog and a human have the same intrinsic value, obviously there are other considerations which are made in facing this sort of dilemma.

#3: What happens after death?
Not a contradiction, but worth examining nonetheless:

The only way any of us can speak with any authority about the subject of death, is to have reliable information from someone who has been there.

Good point, Ray. I guess I better be sure to die in combat, then, as the god Odin (who has been on the side of death) says that I must die in combat to travel to Valhalla, led by valkyries.

#4: The purpose of life?
Ray writes:

Without reference to a Creator who made us with the purpose of eternal fellowship, life has no real rhyme or reason.

God must live a really depressing life, then. We just float around in purposeless space for 80 years whereas God floats around without purpose for, well, eternity.

#5: Order in creation?
Ray writes:

Why do summer, fall, winter and spring come around each year, at different times of the year, in different parts of the world--always in the same order?

It's called science, Ray.

#6: Why's there morality?
Ray writes:

The only reasonable explanation is the one given by the Bible--that "the work of the Law is written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15)

Really? That's the only reasonable explanation? Really?

I think God must be doing too much as he seems to have his hands full (probably monitoring the thoughts of every person to make sure they don't think naughty things) as he managed to miss penciling in his notes on a few hearts on the production line.

#7: Why does every civilization believe in a creator?
Ray writes:

mankind has never found any civilization (no matter how primitive) that didn’t worship some sort of Creator, whether it be the sun, or an idol

I'm not sure if Ray really wrote that or someone hacked his blog. He points to people worshiping the sun as evidence for his position. I imagine some 9/11 Truther pointing to the prevalence of conspiracy theories and noting that "some even believe the moon's made of cheese."

#8: Why does everyone have a conscience?
It doesn't matter what Ray writes.

#9: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Again, it doesn't matter what Ray writes as it's a false dilemma. The midget came first.

#10: How did nothing create everything?
Ray writes:

Something had to create it, and the Creator of all things was and is the non-material Spirit of the eternal God, who dwells outside the dimension of time (see Titus 1:2), and is infinitely beyond the comprehension of human understanding. (emphasis added)

He should have added an asterisk at the end with: "* Except beyond the comprehension of Ray Comfort and every other Christian's understanding."

Frank Turek Speaks

2008-11-01T22:52:00.003-05:00

So, I promised this week I would make up for my lack of posting last week. I lied! Most of you probably believed me, and most of you are atheists. And quoth the Bible: "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Fools.

My marathon of atheist events continued tonight by attending "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist," presented by the co-author of the book by the same title, Frank Turek. First, I must praise him for slapping Christians' hands for rejecting the Big Bang (and maybe evolution) since the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it. That being said, all the rest was quite bad. He tried to use the Big Bang as proof there was a creator because it was the beginning of the universe. He then tied it to the argument "everything which beings to exist had a cause." Cause=God. QED.

The teleological arguments he gave were exceptionally poor, I felt. And morality arguments? He begins by saying there is absolute morality and those who say there isn't can make any moral arguments because it would just be their opinions. He then proceeds to give arguments for morals. And this was the man who begun his evening by arguing against self-defeating statements.

While I didn't like Frank Turek, the great stuff came afterward. I had an hour long discussion with a Christian over certain statements in the Bible and also biblical integrity. Some of the things we discussed were the NT statements of slavery, the integrity of the Bible, reliability of the Evangelists, and interpretations of the Bible.

I loved this guy. He was the most interesting Christian I have ever met in my life. He was very astute in his points and didn't have logic riddled with logical fallacies. He did have certain inconsistencies and fallacies. For example, claiming the onus is on disproving it and that devising plausible scenarios reconciles conflicts. Other than that, he was fantastic.

I found out why, too. He's majoring in philosophy of religion. I study religion in some of my free time. He studies religion in the majority of his time. He gave me his contact information as we had to cut our conversation off before we got into why we should believe Christianity over Islam. At this point I invited him to speak at our club. I discovered after this pointed that he has debated Zach Moore on the problem of evil.

I'm rather excited about talking more with him. It's such a nice break to have such an intellectual discussion with someone from the inanity of Ray's blog. It's refreshed my interest in studying Christianity.

I Am Identifying As Agnostic?

2008-10-30T10:26:00.000-05:00

Agnostic: The Atheists' Four-Letter Word
At the Texas Freethought Convention, Terry McDonald (chairman of DFW Metroplex Atheists) took a polling of people in the room on labels for their beliefs, first if they identified by it and then if they did not identify by it:

Agnostic
Freethinker
Atheist
Bright
Humanist

The only two labels which had votes against it were agnostic and bright. I found it particularly interesting that agnostic was voted against, given that most atheists I've ever met are agnostics. Agnostic has gotten a bad wrap in atheist circles, I have observed. The only thing worse than calling yourself religious to an atheist is to call yourself an agnostic.

A better label
He concluded the survey by asking if anyone identified by something else. The representative from CFI raised his hand and responded "skeptic." No one had any problems with that. People seemed to approve of it. It definitely didn't get the dirty reactions that agnostic did.

This reinforced something I have been thinking for a while now. Should I call myself an atheist over agnostic? Perhaps I should represent myself as agnostic instead of atheist. Perhaps all of us should.

A meaningless label
What does being an atheist entail? Nothing, except that you don't believe any gods exist. Does it tell you why you don't believe? Does it tell you how you approach the question? Does it tell you anything?

If you label yourself as a skeptic, though, what does that tell you? It tells you why you don't believe. It tells you how you approach the issue. It's a very good label. As such, I would use it as my view on religion.

A broader application
However, skepticism doesn't really apply to your view on the existence of gods beyond religion. I disbelieve religions because they fail with every application of skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry is just the method by which we assess claims through critical thought.

The essence of agnosticism, though, is that the truth value of certain claims cannot be assessed. I don't believe any religions are true because I am a skeptic; in other words, they collapse under critical examination. I don't believe in any gods because I am an agnostic; in other words, the claim that a "god exists" is one which I cannot even begin to assess.

Why should I identify as atheist?
Yes, I'm an atheist because I have no belief. It doesn't say anything about my disbelief, though. Why not use agnostic for my views on theism and skeptic on my views on religion? I certainly wouldn't describe my view on alien abductions as anabductionist; I would describe it as skeptic. Furthermore, I wouldn't describe my view on the general existence of aliens as analienist; I would describe it as agnostic.

Conclusion
Should I now describe myself as an agnostic? Or, perhaps, an agnostic skeptic?

Presuppositions Don't Require Extraordinary Evidence!

2008-10-29T13:39:00.006-05:00

I googled extraordinary claims and you'll never guess what popped up as a top result A Christian apologetics website:

CARM. Humor.

I was googling it for a t-shirt I'm designing. The link that made it to #2 is an article on CARM about it. The author starts off saying how much he agrees with it:

The statement is self explanatory; if someone makes an extraordinary claim, there better be extraordinary evidence to back it up. If, for example, someone made the claim that an alien race has made contact with earth, we would need sufficient evidence to verify the claim, such as an alien space craft, or an actual alien. The extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence.

My thoughts as I'm reading it were wondering why a Christian site would have this. It became clear in the next paragraph:

Personally, except for a few qualifications, I agree with the sentiment of the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Those qualifications follow. (emphasis added)

Ah! He agrees with the statement, as long as there is an asterisk at the end. And the asterisk? For the special case of the extraordinary claims he believes without extraordinary evidence. His first argument (and the one after which I stopped reading) was trying to argue from presupposition:

In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.
Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God¹ would require that God involvement cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositions. (emphasis added)

Oh, I see now! I would accept the evidence for Jesus' resurrection without extraordinary evidence if I would first accept the existence of a personal God without extraordinary evidence. This is an amazing feat of rationalization the author is doing. Take his introductory example of aliens. Could you imagine who this author would argue against the maxim of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" if he believed in alien abductions?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an excellent maxim to live by. It introduces a healthy level of skepticism when assessing claims. I do have to make a note, though, that a qualification is needed for presupposition.

I presuppose that aliens are visiting Earth. Therefore, when I'm confronted with observations of lights in the sky, grainy photographs on the Internet, and much anecdotal evidence about being abducted by aliens, this is enough to convince those people who believe aliens are visiting Earth that aliens are also abducting people. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.

But you, you skeptics! You have a skeptic presupposition that aliens are not visiting Earth! So, you are negating this claim by default. Therefore, the skeptic requires "exceptionally" extraordinary evidence in order to overcome his skeptic presuppositions.

Is there any difference? I would accept the same evidence you do of Jesus if you would first introduce the extraordinary evidence of a personal God. you can't just presuppose the existence of a personal God to circumvent the requirement of extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims you are making. You can't do it any more than alien conspiracy theorists can presuppose that aliens are visiting Earth to circumvent the extraordinary evidence needed for their claims.

Freethought Convention Reflection

2008-10-29T00:40:00.003-05:00

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blind-folded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

"Hey, the first raffling is coming up in ten minutes. Those autographed Daniel Dennet books look sexy. Let's go get some tickets," she says, as we are waiting in our seats having just heard Blair Scott of the American Atheists Alabama speak. As we walk to the front to buy some tickets, we approach Matt Dillahunty. With a sword in a hand that he had been carrying, he is speaking with the event's organizer. Matt raises the sword above his head, leans his head back, opens his mouth and slides it down. With it swallowed, he bends over taking care to keep his spine straight.

We proceed to buy our raffle tickets. "Are you familiar with Guy P. Harrison and Daniel Dennet?" the attendant asks. Smiling, "Of course we do." We buy six tickets and head back to our seats.

As I pass by Matt again, I turn to my friend and marvel "Here we are attending an event of interesting lectures and we see someone swallow a sword!" She is silent for a few moments and remarks "You really believed that? My skeptic sensor went off."

The Texas Freethought Convention was enjoyable. We heard from:

Joe Zamecki
Zach Moore, North Texas Church of Freethought
Matt Dillahunty, President of Atheist Community of Austin and host of The Atheist Experience
Blair Scott, American Atheists Alabama
Kathleen Johnson, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
Terry McDonald, Chairman of Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex Atheists
Clare Wuellner, CFI Austin & Secular Family Network
Geoff Henley, author of Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Lawyer's Case for Disbelief in God

The speakers were all very informative and dynamic. I particularly enjoyed Geoff's presentation. He argued we should approach others who are in our fields and professions and apply concepts and standards in our fields to their religious beliefs. For him, he related the claim of God's existence to the plaintiff in a trial and our position as the defendants: the onus is not on us to disprove his existence; the onus is on them to prove his existence beyond a reasonable doubt. When they make their claim, all we need to do is create reasonable doubt. He made many more comparisons, such as relating Pascal's Wager to a contract of adhesion. I didn't buy a book there, but it's on my list now.

My main, and MAJOR, criticism of the event is the schedule. It was such that after every speaker/even there was 15-30 minutes of downtime. Further, most speakers didn't even use their full 30 minutes, so we wound up having at least 20-25 minutes between each event with nothing to do. It was great in the beginning as it gave us a chance to check out the booths, speak to people, and network. A third of the way through, though, I had met everyone and looked at everything.

I suspect many others did too as people began leaving in large numbers after the fourth hour. They accomplished in nine hours what should have been done in no more than six.

I forgive them this, though, as it was the first convention and these types of problems are to be expected. The speakers were good and the event was nice exposure to people. In the future I would recommend have speakers present in 2-3 blocks, and then allow for 30-45 minutes of networking between each. Also, for one of the breaks allow about an hour for a meal break.

All-in-all though, it was a really good experience. The only big problem was the schedule, so without that I would describe it as fantastic. I look forward to next year, anticipate an even greater pool of speakers, and hope for a better schedule.

Texas Freethought Convention

2008-10-26T02:45:00.003-05:00

Sorry for the lack of updates recently. I'll make it up to you this week :-) I've been spending the past week working on several events. And now (one of the) fruits of my labor:

I will be attending the Texas Freethought Convention tomorrow... err... today, down in Austin. Perhaps I'll meet some of you there.

Since I need to be up by seven and seeing as how it's 3, I should probably turn in. But alas, I still have CDs to burn, ATMs to hit up, and reading selections to make.

Brittany: How Much Should Jesus Have Suffered?

2008-10-23T21:47:00.004-05:00

In The People vs Joe the Plumber earlier this week, I looked at Ray's claim that the indication that God has high standards of justice is his severe punishment for even minor infractions (e.g. infinite torture for one lie).

In the second part of the post I looked at the claim that Jesus "paid the fine" with his death so that God could "legally dismiss the case." I pointed out that the "fine" is eternal torture and Jesus only suffered brief torture and then death. I noted that that is hardly "paying the fine."

One of the regular commenters here, Brittany, has finally returned and she had a few things to say regarding this post which I thought was worthy of a full post:

God's Standard of Justice

"By Ray's flawed logic, the greater the punishment, the greater the justice. I can't cite any figures, but for the crime of burglary of some small store I would think a just punishment would be a year or two in prison."

Yet what you and I would consider "just" is actually loaded with sin. Our standards of judgement are not pure, and are not right. God's justice is righteousness, and He cleanses out ALL sin.

I don't think this addresses the point I was making in that Ray's logic is flawed. He's making the argument that since the punishment is so severe, that indicates God's high standard.

To Brittany's point, though, what you're arguing is basically that whatever God does is just. (If I'm mistaken, please correct me.) Justice is defined by whatever God does. If this is the case, then any analogy to man's laws or standards (which is my point) is fundamentally flawed. Examine three main components of God's "justice":

* Every crime, no matter what it is, receives a punishment of eternal, infinite torture.
* Even if you were to live a perfect life, you would still receive a punishment of eternal, infinite torture as being born is a crime punishable by death; the sins of the parent are visited upon the child.
* The only -- only -- unforgivable crime is not believing in God. Did you murder, rape, or steal? That's perfectly forgivable as long as you believe in God.

I am not judging these, I am simply pointing these out. Are these his standards? If so, you are asserting that these are the highest standards for the mere fact that they are God's standards. If this is your assertion there is no way for me to argue the justness of them. I could just as easily define whatever I say to be just and there would be no way for you to argue with me as it would be my assertion. I am defining "just" as whatever I do. You are defining "just" as whatever God does.

Man's Standard of Justice
The point of my original post, though, is that God's "standards" are so different from ours that any analogy between ours and his is fundamentally flawed. That's why all of Ray's courtroom analogies where God is the judge and Jesus is the fine-payer are nonsensical. Our standards compared to his are:

* The punishment of a crime depends on the nature and degree of the crime. We do not give liars (perjurers) the same punishment as murderers. We do not give people who run a stop sign the same punishment as rapists.
* If you life a perfect life you will receive no punishment because the crimes of the parent are not visited upon the child.
* There are no forgivable crimes. A crime is a crime and if you are convicted, you will do the time.

What Would Constitute Jesus' Payment of Our Fine?

"I wonder what constitutes "paying the fine"? The punishment is infinite torture, but Jesus was only subjected to temporary torture (and not nearly as bad) and was then put to death. "

I wander, even if Jesus was subject to torture/death for a million years would that be enough to satisfy you? It seems that you are missing the main point though...Yes Jesus did die for mankinds sin...yet He rose from the dead and defeated death/sin. That is the main point...Jesus defeated the sin of the world...He saved ALL of mankind from death.

That's a good question. Well, a million years would not be good enough. The starting point has to be infinite torture. So, if Jesus were tortured eternally, would that be enough to satisfy me? In the realm of Christianity mythology, yes. If Jesus were really paying our fine, I would expect the fine he paid to be the fine levied against us. But I would have a second objection, then, as the numbers don't add up. So, Jesus paid my fine by being tortured eternally -- okay. Now what about you? Jesus paid my fine; why should his payment count twice as much in order to cover you? This is Ray's analogy and it doesn't make sense.

It Ain't Easy to Believe & Follow

He gave all mankind eternal life, all He asked in return is that you and I believe in Him and follow His ways. He never said it would be easy.

I agree that it is not easy for what he is asking. How am I supposed to believe in him when his own story doesn't make sense? To even begin to consider believing Christianity, I would expect it to at least make sense. As it stands, Christianity makes only a little more sense than Mormonism and a lot less than Judaism.

Free Yourself From Sin

I hope and pray that you recognize the sin in your life, and recognize that the only way to free yourself from that sin is in Christ. Accept Him, and not lean on your own understanding, because man's knowledge is nothing compared to Almighty God's knowledge and wisdom.

I recognize that I have a lot of "sin" in my life (as defined by Christianity). I also recognize, though, that Christians sin just as much. If I accept Christ, what would change? I probably wouldn't blaspheme as much, but from what I gather from Christians I see, I would still have a bunch of sin. Being Christian doesn't make you perfect. I'm sure you recognize this too and so what you meant by "free yourself from that sin" is that accepting Christ will remove your responsibility of that sin.

So, as I see it, both you and I sin. We both have sin in our lives. The only difference is that when I die I will be held responsible for that sin whereas you will not because you believed in God. Further beyond that, though, I will be punished for my life which contained sin whereas you will be rewarded for your life which contained sin merely because you believed in God. Is that correct?

If so, I have a follow-up question. If not, I'd like clarification.

More Lies From Expelled: Who's #1?

2008-10-23T16:09:00.003-05:00

While checking out Beliefnet, I saw this advertisement they had for Expelled:

Sorry Ben Stein. Faith loses out to facts once again as Religulous is the #1 documentary of 2008.

Religulous, while opening is about half as many theaters as Expelled, surpassed Expelled in two weeks of being out. Even thought it's only been out for a few weeks, it has already grossed almost two million dollars more than Expelled (even though it's in half the theaters).

Furthermore, it's been even better received by critics with 70% Fresh rating compared to Expelled's 8% Rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The Case Against Beliefnet: Bill Maher's Fundamentalism

2008-10-23T15:45:00.003-05:00

I started a series on Religulous posts starting with a criticism of the quotes Maher uses in the film. I discovered Steven Waldman over at Beliefnet started a Case Against Religulous series, beginning with his own criticism of the quotes. I posted a criticism on his criticism of the quotes, as he tried to blow them out of proportion as Maher's "thesis." Until now I couldn't continue following Waldman's blog as I could not access it (for whatever reason).

Waldman writes a short entry on Maher's "fundamentalism":

Maher declares at the outset that he's just a reasonable man who seeks to raise the status of "doubt." While religion sells a silly/dangerous "invisible product," he says, "my product is doubt."

But by the end he declares, with fervor that would make Jimmy Swaggert proud, "Religion must die if mankind is to live." There is no doubt, no shades of gray. There are no examples of religion ever doing anything good, ever. He casts his opponents as not merely mistaken but grotesque and dangerous to your very existence.
Maher's product is not doubt. [...]

What an amazing fallacy. I saw Religulous on October 3 when it first came out; I can't help but wonder what film Waldman saw when I read his reviews and statements. I did not see a film about how there are certainly no gods. In fact, I didn't hear any arguments against the existence of gods in general (perhaps because Bill Maher is not an atheist and indeed believes there is a God).

The fallacy in Mr. Waldman's post is a straw man. He starts off discussing Maher's doubt concerning the nature of God, the afterlife, etc, and then shifts this into a statement of how there are "no examples of religion ever doing anything good, ever." He shifts Maher's statement concerning the doubt of the nature of God to Maher's non-doubt concerning religion. Religion and theism are not the same thing.

The point of the film was not that religion does no good. In fact, I never heard that mentioned at all. The point of the film was the silliness of religion and its negative impact on rational thought and society.

Waldman ends the post on a rather bizarre note:

Maher's product is not doubt. It's certainty -- a black-and-white world view that demonizes religion in the same way that some religious fundamentalists demonize those who differ from them.
Maher is a secular fundamentalist.

Again, Maher wasn't discussing his doubt about the effects of religion; he was discussing his doubt concerning the nature of God. The oddness of the concluding note, though, is his labeling of Maher as a secular fundamentalist. What exactly is secular fundamentalism? What dogma and tenets does Maher take fundamentally? Religious fundamentalists take their holy texts to be infallible in morals and faith and take them literally.

Secularism means without religion or not connected to anything religious. How exactly do you go about being fundamental about that?

I'm Suing Ray Comfort

2008-10-22T16:17:00.004-05:00

And unlike Patrick, I have a legitimate claim: copyright infringement.

Ray Comfort has announced he has written a bible for atheists. I have already completed a bible for atheists:

This lengthy 344 page bible covers every belief of atheism. If Ray's atheist bible is an accurate text on beliefs in atheism, it will be word-for-word identical to my unpublished text. A lawsuit will be filed once his is published, unless it's a straw man or completely irrelevant.

I have uploaded my completed atheist bible for free download:

http://disco-igno.godlesscreation.com/THE_ATHEIST_BIBLE.doc

I will close with a quote from page 187:

-- The Atheist Bible, pg 187

Very powerful, I know. It's even more inspiring in print:

Questions an Atheist Can Answer

2008-10-22T11:38:00.002-05:00

So, Ray seems to think he has a list of ten questions atheists can't answer. This atheist can, though. Observe:

1. What was in the beginning?
Nothing

2. How will life on earth end?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster will boil the universe in a bowl of spaghetti sauce.

3. What happens after death?
Those who were one with His Noodliness will receive the most spectacular paperclip (which we can't even imagine) that we will have to play with for all eternity. Those who weren't will be subjected to watching a Ray Comfort floss for all eternity.

4. What is the purpose of existence?
To be touched by his noodley appendage.

5. Why there is order in all of creation?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster made it so.

6. Why there is morality in every civilization?
They fear the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

7. Why does every civilization believe in a Creator?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is obvious.

8. Why does every sane person have a conscience, even when it is not dictated by society?
I suppose the question is, why doesn't every person have a conscience? And why does society influence the conscience and values of the person? (Answer to both these questions: The Flying Spaghetti Monster)

9. How did nothing create everything?
Nothing created the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and then the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything. Isn't it obvious?

10. Which came first--the chicken or the egg?
Neither. Nothing came first, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster came second, then a mountain, then a tree, then a midget, then the egg, and finally the chicken.

I Just Won £1,000,000!

2008-10-20T14:42:00.002-05:00

Oh wow, look what I just received!

Dear Winner,

Congratulations Lucky Winner, Your email address has just won for you the sum of £1,000,000 (One million pounds Sterling's Only). From the online ballot held by Uk National Lottery few days ago we have been trying to contact you all this time. Your email address has attached to the Winning Number 76-99798-uk/2 and serial number LT-HLT/Th7.

To claim your prize it is important that you Contact the bellow officer sending Her your informations:

Name: Mrs. Carol Morgan
Email: carolmorgandep@yahoo.se
Tell: +44-703-199-5723
+44-703-190-6814

Send Her the bellow details for verifications.

Oh wow! I'm so lucky! I didn't even enter!

Now, to reply and send her all my details "bellow" for "verifications"...

The People vs Joe the Plumber

2008-10-20T07:55:00.000-05:00

Ray Comfort has argued that God has a high standard of righteousness and justice. To support this claim, he points out that lying gets a death sentence, he considers hate to be murder, and lust to be adultery:

He knows that God's standard of righteousness is so high that the crime of lying demands the death sentence, and that He considers hatred of another human being to be murder. [...] If you lust after another human being, God considers you to be an adulterer. That's the height of His moral standard, and that will be the standard of judgment on Judgment Day.

First, allow me to tutor you on your religion, Ray. God's penalty for lying isn't death, it's infinite torture. Further, the mere fact that you were born is punishable by infinite torture, according to original sin.

But how warped is Ray's logic in this post? He points to God considering hate to be murder and lust to be adultery to be markers of his high moral standard. Where, exactly, is the logic in that? Shall I consider someone touching my hand to be rape? That seems to be a pretty high moral standard, then. Or, I could one-up God and consider mere dislike of a person to be murder.

JT-1, God-0.

But there's a second discomforting line of argument Ray appeals to. He takes punishment of lies with infinite torture to be a high standard of justice. By Ray's flawed logic, the greater the punishment, the greater the justice. I can't cite any figures, but for the crime of burglary of some small store I would think a just punishment would be a year or two in prison. If the judge instead sentences the person to 10 years, is that a higher standard of justice? How about life in prison? Or, wait, how about death? Or, better yet, how about unending torture for the rest of that person's life?

Yes, that's a very high standard of justice. If I were a judge, that's what I would adopt for that sort of burglary. In fact, I would adopt it for every case that comes before me.

Stole a car? Unending, life-long torture!
DUI? Unending, life-long torture!
Stole a pumpkin? Unending, life-long torture!
Stole a pencil? Unending, life-long torture!

But wait! Now that I have my high standard of justice like God, I now need a high standard of mercy:

He was manifest in the flesh and suffered for us, so that we could be free from the demands of Eternal Justice. His was a "vicarious" sacrifice. He paid the fine so that God could legally dismiss our case.

I wonder what constitutes "paying the fine"? The punishment is infinite torture, but Jesus was only subjected to temporary torture (and not nearly as bad) and was then put to death. So, he hardly paid the fine.

So, to constitute a high standard of mercy, I need to set up my court so that one person can "pay" a reduced "fine" and then anyone who comes before me can appeal to that. I will have Bob taken out back, tortured for thirty minutes, and then put to death. Now, whenever you come before, all you have to do is invoke Bob's name.

The People vs Joe the Plumber
Me, the Judge: It says here that you raped a child, is that correct?
Joe the Plumber: Yes.
Me, the Judge: Did you do it?
Joe, the Plumber: Yes, along with a lot of other things.
Me, the Judge: Alright, do you have anything else to say before I impose the sentence of unending, life-long torture?
Joe, the Plumber: Yes.
Me, the Judge: Speak and be heard.
Joe, the Plumber: Bob.
Me, the Judge: Case legally dismissed!

The end.

Christian Response #B-1: Daily Prayer

2008-10-18T22:43:00.003-05:00

Submitted by: Brittany
Summary of Challenge: Pray for five minutes, daily, for a month.
Status as of Oct. 18: Accepted

As readers will be familiar with, I have an open request to Christians to convince me of their faith. I am not offering this request to show why I don't believe; I am offering it because I genuinely want to be convinced that it is true -- but only if it is true. If Christianity is true, then that's something I definitely want to know.

Brittany, a regular reader here, has given me a challenge on this request. Her submission is as follows:

I've been trying to find the proof of God's existence(besides the obvious, which I have found that many non-believers will not accept) that many non-believers seem to want/need beore they accept Christ.

[...]

Therefore I have a proposition for you JT, and any other atheist/nonbeliever:

Would you take 5 minutes of every day, for a month (give or take 30 days) and talk to God. Yeah I know you don't believe in Him, but could just try. [...]

She says she thinks I may find it childish, but what if I find that I'm wrong? I had the following questions for her:

I'm willing to pray daily for a month, and I'll be sincere in the prayers, too. I have a few questions first, though.

* What should I pray about?
* When should I pray?
* Where should I pray?
* Is there anything I need to pray?
* Do I need to read when I pray?

I want to be sure I do it correctly. I don't want to spend over two hours in a month's time only to find out I wasn't praying correctly. Also, should it not work, I don't want to be told that I didn't do it correctly. So, any advice you have, I'd like to hear it.

I do have a pertinent question, though. Ray has stated, categorically, that God won't listen to atheists' prayers. So, why should I even bother trying?

Finally, she has replied:

"* What should I pray about?"

You seem to have alot of questions about Christianity, heaven, hell, sin, proof that God even exists, etc. So why not start from the beginning. Just talk to Him, from my experience He has always listened.

"* When should I pray?"

Whenever the urge hits you. Christianity is not like the Islamic faith. We don't have certain times in the day where we have to pray. I personally talk to God throughout my entire day, where ever or with whatever I am doing.

"* Where should I pray?"

Anywhere. As I stated earlier I talk with God where ever I am; either it be outside at the grocery store, etc.

"* Is there anything I need to pray?"

You can pray about anything you want; as long as it is not evil. Just remember that while God listens to your prayers sometimes His answers to your prayers will be No. God knows what is best for you and if what you pray for is not in His plan for your life, He will not allow it.

"* Do I need to read when I pray?"

I assume that you mean reading the Bible. In my experience, I have found that after talking to God, I find the answers to my questions in the Bible. Remember that the Bible is the main way God talks to His people.

"I do have a pertinent question, though. Ray has stated, categorically, that God won't listen to atheists' prayers.

I beleive that what Ray was trying to say is that those who specifically talk with God with a PRIDEful heart will not be answered by God. You previously mentioned that you would be sincere in your talk with God, so ray's statement would not apply to you.

While I did pray often when I was younger, I will try it again now. I have no intentions of just going through the motions; that would be a waste of two and a half hours of my life. I'll give it my sincerest attempt. So, if I come away unconvinced of the Christian God, I don't want to be told it was because I wasn't being honest. If you're a Christian and you have any advice or feedback about an atheist praying to God, please comment.

I accept the challenge and I will pray daily for a month.

Schisms Within Atheism

2008-10-18T11:18:00.002-05:00

MrFreeThinker writes in response to a post about the many denominations of Christianity:

What about allthe different type of atheism? Weak atheism ,strong atheism , Agnostic Atheism , naturalistic atheism. There are so many divisions within atheism too.

Actually, there are only two types of atheism: non-theism (weak atheism), and anti-theism (strong atheism). The other two aren't types of atheism. There are certain philosophies and ideologies you can take towards atheism, such as naturalism or skepticism, but they aren't types of atheism. Some atheists may also embrace certain types of philosophies or ideologies, such as humanism and agnosticism, but still, these aren't types of atheism.

Theism is the belief a god exists. Religion incorporates theism and there are so many different types of beliefs concerning a god. Atheism is not having a belief that a god exists; how can there be many different types of non-beliefs concerning gods? But further, the divisions within Christianity are concerning the different beliefs regarding one particular god.

The main problem, though, this statement suffers from is its analysis of atheism as a religion, as this was in response to pointing out how many different types of Christianity there are.

John McCain's Consultant is Ray Comfort

2008-10-15T14:30:00.000-05:00

GermanMike over at the Raytractors speculates that the reason Ray fights so hard for Christianity is because he would be out of a high-paying job. He wonders what job Ray would have if Christianity came to an end.

Come on now. Isn't it obvious that Ray Comfort already has another job: acting as a political advisor to John McCain? When you analyze the McCain-Palin campaign, it becomes indubitable.

Ray Comfort is the world's foremost expert on taking quotes out of context. Do you remember the "lipstick on a pig" incident? That has Ray's patented quote mining techniques written all over it.

Ray once quoted Richard Dawkins in support of intelligent design. Palin recently quoted Madeleine Albright as supporting her. Do you fail to see his fingerprints?

Ray Comfort's strategy against atheism is to claim atheists will eat your babies and lust after your wife as they have no reason to be moral. He promoted Expelled's claimed tie between evolutionary theory and the Holocaust as support. Obama knew Bill Ayers who did some things when Obama was eight years old. Isn't it obvious? Obama is a terrorist! He's palling around with them! If you elect Obama, he will nuke America.

Ray Comfort surrounds himself with supporters who call atheists evil, wicked, foul, foolish, stupid, arrogant liars. McCain surrounds himself with supporters who call Obama a baby-killing, Arab, Muslim terrorist.

Oh, and let's not forget the contribution of Ray's preference of know-nothing sidekicks to McCain's VP pick!

Isn't it exceedingly obvious now?

Evolving Baby Computers

2008-10-14T19:16:00.002-05:00

I'm currently making my way through another one of Michael Shermer's books, Why Darwin Matters. In his discussion of Paley's watchmaker argument, it reminds me of the modern analogies creationists use. My favorite is the intricacies of the computer (I think this is also one of Hovind's favorite). It's also argued that from within the computer you can only assess whatever else in inside the computer and nothing that is without; the analogy being to humans inside the universe assessing what's outside the universe (God).

I've always found the comparison to a computer especially interesting both as an atheist and as a computer scientist. I've always thought of the computer as more of an argument for evolution rather than against it. You can find all your favorite creationist arguments in a computer.

Evolution of the Computer
Something that is common among creationists, or merely those who don't understand evolution, is viewing humans as the end result of evolution and then asking the question: How did natural selection know what to select to get us here? They use this as an opportunity to posit a creator-designer.

But no one looks at a computer and says "How did the computer designers know how to get to the current, powerful modern computer which is capable of tackling today's problems?" And they certainly don't then posit the existence of a computer designer who came up with the modern computer ex nihilo. Of course there was no end goal for the evolution of the computer, nor is today's computer the "end" or the "goal."

Computers started out with the concept of Babbage's Analytical Machine which gave rise to Hollerith's tabulating machine. This was a very primitive machine, but it was the beginning. From there, the computer slowly "evolved" with adjustments and modifications being made to it. There isn't just one type of computer line, either, as there are branches (such as in modern times a PC, game console, cell phone, etc).

How did they know to get to the modern computer? They didn't. It was done by gradual progress and the environment imposed the conditions in which computers succeeded or failed. Some computers today are heavy on the processing side for tasks which require analysis of volumes of data whereas other computers are heavy on rendering hardware (such as video for gaming).

Slow, gradual changes gave rise to the modern computer through a bottom-up process. No "intelligent designer" was needed with the "end" result in mind to create it top-down or ex nihilo.

Irreducible Complexity
I know what you computer-creationists are saying. But JT, thou fool, you fail to realize that some components are irreducibly complex. Well, you've got me there. Remove one electrical bus or circuit and the computer fails to function. You got me there! The modern computer must have been conceived in its entirity in the mind of one designer.

The Mind-Body (err, Processor-Circuit) Problem
This is a puzzle I like to put forward to people. How does the computer know what to do? How does it know when we put in some sort of command like "print" that it sends an action to the printer? The programming you say.

Yes, but how does it know how to interpret the programming? The programming is translated into machine language you say. Ah, yes, but how does it know how to relate that language into an action? How does it know when its sent some command like, say, 10001111011010 that it knows to direct the internal, physical processes to print?

It raises an interesting question. Before we can input any data (such as programming) it must first know how to understand it. In order for it to understand our data or programming, it must have the programming or functioning to do it. But how can this possibly arise? How can we go from linking a bunch of circuits together and conducting electricity through them to the computer starting up, understanding a program, running it, and processing data? Shall we posit the existence of a computer-soul?

Computers Disprove Sexual Reproduction
I always marvel at how creationists can take a manufactured object, hypothetically apply biological processes to it, and, when the processes fail, conclude the biological processes can't work for biological objects either. The common manner is using manufactured objects as proof against evolution.

Ho! If you can use a manufactured object, fail to realize its lack of biological mechanisms (such as those necessary for evolution), and then conclude a biological process is false, then so can I.

Observe the computer. It's a lot like a human -- in fact, "computers" is what humans used to be called who computed numbers. The computer has a brain like humans, it has a way to cool itself when it heats up (cooling unit vs pores), it requires energy to operate, it can accomplish a wide array of tasks, etc. It also has several openings on it, just like a human. Some holes only allow things in, some holes only allow things out, some holes allow things to go in or out, and some people try to put things in holes which are only meant to have things go out.

Just like humans, too, computers have male and female parts. But what happens when you connect one computer's male part to another computer's female part? Does it produce a baby computer? No! Nothing happens! So, we should then conclude that when one human's male part is connected to another human's female part, no baby will be produced. If a biological process doesn't manifest itself in manufactured objects, why should we expect it to manifest in biological objects?

Been Schooled In Science?

2008-10-13T08:09:00.000-05:00

By science we understand the knowledge of facts to be meant, and not speculative theories on the meaning of such facts. Only too often are such theories in the minds of some confounded with the knowledge of facts -- real science. -- Paul S. L. Johnson, Creation (p165)

SGU #168 discussed, at one point, with PZ Myers that students aren't receiving the basic tenets of science, such as what is it, how do we know what we know, fundamental concepts, etc.

Reflecting back, I never learned anything like that in high school (or before that). That's really saying something, too, since I went to one of the the top ranked schools in the country. My education included a year of biology and three intensive years of chemistry. Oddly enough, I also had a theory of knowledge class which only dealt with philosophical questions, but never touched on science.

In fact, it is only through the reading and studying on my own time that I learned these things, especially through atheist and skeptic discussions.

Something we see often with the anti-evolution crowd are arguments that arise from this ignorance. For example, in one comment to The Raytractors, one fundamentalist Christian writes:

It is wrong to teach evolution in schools because it is not a fact but a theory.

We can't attribute this as a lack of eduction; we must attribute this to a failure of education. I was never taught the difference. I think I had always thought that a law is just a proven theory. Describing germs or gravity as theories would have sounded very peculiar to me.

The first time I ever learned anything basic about science was in a physics class my senior year in college -- rather, a physics lab. But this was only because the lab centered around recreating the original experiments used to discover certain properties and then trying to discover them ourselves with a conclusion. And still, the only thing basic I was presented was that science is wholly comprised of "provisional truths." Nothing beyond that.

How do we expect to ever win against the scientific illiterate if we aren't teaching basic science literacy at the middle- and high- school levels? It's like teaching kids how to analyze a novel without teachings the basics of theme, tone, etc.

With an eduction built upon an ignorance of basic science, why should we be surprised when people post things like "you weren't there" or "evolution isn't a fact, it's just a theory" or "science has been wrong before"?

Being Unfair and Balanced

2008-10-12T19:15:00.003-05:00

Several weeks ago I prepared a presentation for my atheist group on religion and science in the 2008 election. At the time I had decided not to vote.

I know that many active atheists, certainly those in my group, are liberals and really behind Obama. I wanted to have plenty to say on Obama regarding religion and science. My naive goal was to approach it in a fair-and-balanced manner. After doing the research, I would have had to compromise my presentation to be both fair and balanced between the two.

You cannot be both fair and balanced unless the nature of the situation is one wherein both sides merit equal representation. Otherwise, you necessarily sacrifice one at the cost of the other. In my presentation, it would have been unfair to have balanced criticism of bringing religion into the political arena on both sides. Yes, Obama has made some nasty remarks, but that pales in comparison to the multitude of detestable, loathsome remarks McCain has made regarding religion and science. To have balanced the criticism would have rendered the presentation unfair.

Being fair and balanced is not a virtuous principle.

Is Bill Maher an Atheist? No.

2008-10-12T09:09:00.002-05:00

Ray has somewhat eased off of his usual #1 hits (such as "atheists don't exist" and the "theory tale of evolution") and instead switched gears to anecdotes which all conclude that atheists should convert (not to mention an increase in censorship of detractor comments).

I thought I would venture out a little with some coverage of Bill Maher, in light of his new film (as I have already done here and here). Firstly, Bill Maher is my favorite comedian. I only agree with maybe half of what he discusses, but that has nothing to do with his comedy. I laugh just as much when he criticizes what I believe -- to be fair, though, he's much funnier as a stand-up than a talk show host.

With the release of Religulous, he has been the subject of critical discussion from Christian, atheist, and skeptic forums alike.

For Christians, he has brought criticism of religion under the spotlight yet again with a feature-length film of him visiting various places simply asking questions. Personally, I found nothing in the film as controversial as many of the things he has said on Real Time (especially regarding Catholicism).

For atheists, he has argued the straw man of how "atheism" has the same certainty you find in religion that God doesn't exist. Adrian Hayter suggests writing him an open letter clarifying what atheism is. While I like the idea since it will be publicly available as a source of clarification for Maher supporters and detractors alike on the film, I'm doubtful it will have any effect on Maher himself. I don't think Maher is interested in anything further than criticizing religion.

For skeptics, he serves as an interesting example of how skeptical thought can be so hit-and-miss. Maher has excellent criticisms of religion in terms of the lack of skeptical thinking by believers. He also addresses other irrational claims such as 9/11 Truth and many conspiracy theories. He doesn't seem to arrive at these positions through skepticism, though, as he himself partakes in many conspiracy theories, most notably Big Pharma and the anti-vaccinationist crowd.

From most of the discussions I have heard, most recently on SGU #166, Maher is usually described as an atheist. I don't think he is, though. He has described himself as an agnostic and an apatheist -- the former regarding knowledge and the latter regarding interest. I have heard him several times mention something about a higher power, such as 2002 interview with The AV Club: (Question: Is there a God?)

I think there is. We did a show last night about God and religion with Dave Foley, who I love, and we were arguing against this one woman who had a book called I Like Being Catholic. Someone said, "Oh, boy, a lot of atheists on this panel." I said, "I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no." I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they're fighting about in the Middle East, it's so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven—no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It's like, "Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you're really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?" But I do believe in a God, yes.

He firmly rejects any sort of personal god as well as attributes of god. He is very anti-religious, but it seems he simply rejects that any sort of religion has answers regarding the god question.

Does this make me appreciate Maher any less? No. As I have stated a few times before, my concern is also with religion itself, not with the general existence of a god. I think his statement above of there being a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion was very well put.

Crashing Economy and Biblical Prophecy

2008-10-11T11:29:00.003-05:00

So, Ray has been heavy into the doom-and-gloom of Biblical prophecy and eschatology. Dan the Debunker turned up in an alert on Ray Comfort as he comments on Ray's latest bit of nonsense:

Allow me to parrot Ray today. What if you all start to see the Bible come true? Would you acknowledge it? Would you understand that you have been wrong all along?

I liked what Kaitlyn posted on the matter:

I don't know what passages Ray is referring to, but if the Bible did predict that a country called the United States would have a financial crisis due to the home-lending / mortgage business in the year 2008, I think it's time to reevaluate our position on the Bible.

Exactly, if it predicted it, I would begin to re-evaluate it as it would be some extra evidence in favor of it. But why should I accept the vague, incoherent ramblings of Revelations over, say, the incoherent ramblings of Nostradamus? Jefferson had a similar thought concerning this book:

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. … what has no meaning admits no explanation.

Exactly. What has no meaning admits no explanation. Ray's attempts to get the current events to fit into the Bible are as inane as those attempts to get the current events to fit into Nostradamus' works.

The posts of Ray and Dan, though, highlight the truly unsettling quality about many Christians I see who accept all of the New Testament: their glee over the destruction of the world. Oh, there's a "world-wide economic meltdown"! Hooray! The end times, and Jesus, are near!

The prospect of destruction is only appealing to fanatics: those fanatically-bent on evil and those fanatically-bent on religion. (The two are not mutually exclusive.)

I Voted!

2008-10-09T17:18:00.003-05:00

As promised.

Who Killed the Baby? Mr. Condom!

2008-10-09T10:50:00.003-05:00

People often ask me why I'm so passionate about the subject of contraception. I explain that a few years ago someone told me that two people were going to have sex -- and they were going to use a condom. I was horrified at what I heard. I frantically rushed to my car and sped to the place of coitus.

I rushed in and found the open condom wrapper. I begged the woman, Fran, not to put the condom on him. She smiled at me and said, "Don't worry, I'm not going to. I told myself that if some crazy man whom I don't know bursts in here then I wouldn't use the condom." I headed home, condom in hand, knowing I had done the right thing.

Two years later while I was in the park, I saw a beautiful little girl playing in the grass; it was Fran's child. It really hammered home the issue that we're dealing with when it comes to contraception. If I hadn't confiscated the condom, the little girl wouldn't be alive today.

Do remember that the solution to this isn't just to protest; although, that is a good start. We need to prevent people altogether from using contraception. Write your congressman to help prevent the dissemination of condoms in Africa. If you know your friends are going to have sex, urge them not to use "protection." That sort of protection is the same kind of "protection" the Nazis in Germany used to protect themselves from Jews existing. Using condoms makes you a Nazi.

In the next post on the immorality of apathy: abstinence. This vile practice eliminates untold millions and millions of citizens. I would never... ever... vote for a politician who advocates killing babies before they even get in the womb. Down with contraception. Down with abstinence.

Intolerable Dissent

2008-10-08T14:13:00.004-05:00

Usually Ray's arguments are so crazy that I wouldn't even think about calling them the typical arguments of Christians. His post today is an exception to that rule.

"I don’t accept that [God sends all non-Christians to Hell]. It seems unfair to me that it is exclusive."
"You mean that Jesus said that He was the only way to God?"
"Yes."
"Do you think that Christianity is 'intolerant?'"
"Yes, I do."
"So you are being intolerant of Christianity? You are doing what you are accusing Christianity of doing. Being intolerant."
"No, no, not at all. I was just wondering..."

This is a good example of the typical concept of "tolerance" I see espoused by many Christians -- especially liberal ones. How exactly is Joe doing what Christianity is doing? Christianity is sending every non-Christian to Hell and torturing them for all eternity for not believing Jesus was a god. Joe is simply pointing out that that seems unfair.

It seems anytime you criticize or even just disagree (as Joe did in this example) you are labeled as intolerant. What does qualify for tolerance then? It seems the only way to qualify for being tolerant is to agree. For if you disagree, you are being intolerant.

Me: Hey Mr. Racist, it seems unfair that you only lynch black people.
Racist: You mean that I'm only lynching non-whites simply because they aren't white?
Me: Yes.
Racist: Oh, so you are being intolerant of me!

It seems to me that in order to be intolerant you must not be tolerating someone or something:

tolerate (v): to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

The Christian concept of Hell is clearly intolerant: God is going to mercilessly torture everyone who isn't a Christian simply for not being a Christian. Note that the statement is that Christianity is intolerant. If a person believes this to be true, that doesn't make that Christian intolerant.

Many atheists are now speaking out against religion. We criticize the irrationality often involved, we reject faith as a legitimate way of knowing, and argue to remove the oppressive laws and stigma against atheists. In doing so, we're called intolerant. How does this possibly qualify as intolerance as it's being used in this case?

If that is intolerance, then all disagreements and debates are intolerant. I watched the Presidential debate last night and McCain was clearly intolerant of Obama and Obama was clearly intolerant of McCain. Well, at least by the same standard that intolerance is being applied towards atheists. McCain was criticizing Obama and his policies and arguing against both of them. Obama was doing the same in turn. Clearly, then, they are being intolerant.

This is to make "intolerance" a meaningless term as its applicability has been made so broad that it has no applicability whatsoever.

Intolerance can only come in the form of prohibiting the existence, presence, or act of something. When Christians pass laws that atheists cannot hold public office, the Christians are being intolerant of atheists. When atheists criticize Christians passing laws that atheists cannot hold public office, we are dissenting.

Dissent and criticism are not forms of intolerance.

The Case Against the Case Against Religulous

2008-10-08T09:24:00.001-05:00

I have previously published my criticism of Religulous for its inappropriate use of Founders' quotes to support their secular, even anti-religious (and anti-Clerical) views. Beliefnet seems to think the misuse of those quotes is an adequate case against Religulous:

In the beginning of the movie, he offers this quote from our second president, John Adams: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." Wow. That certainly provides stunning support for Maher's thesis. Did Adams really mean that?

He goes on to show it in its true context, which does not support the view of Adams being anti-religious. This is the only point in Steven Waldman's "The Case Against Religulous."

While I share in the criticism of using these quotes (I think it is the result of laziness rather than dishonesty), I question it as the basis of a case against the film.

He notes that the out-of-context quotes provides "stunning support for Maher's thesis." What exactly is Maher's thesis? I watched the film and it most certainly was not that the Founders were anti-religious. If Maher's thesis were that the Founders were anti-religious, and that that is the point of the film, then the criticism of this quote is indeed a strong basis for a case against Religulous.

The anti-Christian views of the Founders were a minor point later in the film where he quotes Frankling, Adams, and Jefferson. My criticism stems from the misleading nature of the quotes, not the message itself. But even if the Founders were devout Christians (which they weren't), how does this incorrect argument for a minor point amount to a discrediting of the film?

It doesn't.

Supporting Kay Hagan

2008-10-07T20:59:00.002-05:00

The story is making the rounds on Daylight Atheism and The Friendly Atheist of the anti-atheist smear campaign Elizabeth Dole is running against Kay Hagan, a Democratic candidate running for the US Senate.

I don't know anything of Hagan's politics, but I made a donation to her campaign as I don't want Ms. Dole to win by filthily promoting anti-atheist bigotry.

You can donate to Hagan's campaign to show your support, even if it is only $5-$10.

Paul S. L. Johnson's Creation

2008-10-07T15:33:00.001-05:00

While my mother knows that I am an atheist, my father does not, for reasons previously discussed. While I was visiting earlier this year, he handed me the second volume in Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures written by Paul S. L. Johnson. The topic of the book is "Creation" where he attempts to give a scientific look at the process and result of creation. My father knows I have a keen interest in science and have become increasingly knowledgeable in various subjects. As such, he gave it to me to read, not only to interest me but also so that I will let him know how the science standards up to the times.

I think I will use this opportunity to disclose my support of evolutionary theory to him. The beginning of the last chapter, "Evolution: Not the Creative Method," goes:

We will devote the last chapter of our book to a consideration of evolution, which is falsely, we believe, held by an ever decreasing number of scientists to be the method of creation.

My father has told me on a number of occasions that scientists have "flocked away" from evolution and the big bang. I now know where he learned that.

The discussion begins by breaking evolution down in the five "various schools of evolution": (paraphrased)

1. "atheistic materialistic evolutionists": the universe, plants, and animals produced themselves by a series of transmutations.
2. "spontaneous-generation evolutionsts": God created matter and its forces, and then the animals and plants developed themselves from the matter.
3. "Darwinian evolutionists": God creater matter, its forces, and the first few lifeforms. They "developed themselves" from there.
4. The same as above, except they believe man isn't a result of evolution. Rather, evolution created everything and then God created man.
5. God created everything, beginning with a "kind" of every plant and animal, and then those kinds deteriorated into the many species.

I decided to begin my discussion on this chapter. The first five pages attempt to show that evolution is impossible because, had man existed for even 100,000 years, assuming a constant population growth of .5% would result in 4.66 billion billion people alive today. This is my first exposure with creationist math. Where did the .5% come from? Apparently out of his ass, as the population growth between 1000 and 1800 is under 1.5%. He apparently calculated it by the difference of the population now and that immediately after the Flood.

Therefore, I think his argument more disproves the Bible than it does evolution. The argument was genuinely baffling.

Stargate SG-1 & Atheism, Pt 2

2008-10-07T08:14:00.000-05:00

In my first post on Stargate SG-1 and atheism, I explored the connections between the over all show and religious topics. I have been watching the series again from Season One and have two episodes left of the last season. I thought I would make a second part delving further into the last arc of the show: the Ori. The Ori, if you recall, were a race of humans who evolved to the point where they could shed their bodies, exist as pure energy, and live on a "higher plane of existence" (called "ascension").

The Ori were once part of a race of humans called the Alterans. The Alterans lived in a distant galaxy and were very advanced; the most advanced race to have ever existed. A philosophical divide grew within the Alterans: one whom we now call the Ancients and one whom we now call the Ori. These two groups became more and more opposed. The Ancients pursued science and rational thought while the Ori became more and more fervent in their religion. At one point, they broke altogether and became enemies.

The Ancients, being committed to freethought, were absolutely opposed to violating anyone's free will. This was not the case with the Ori, who were fierce in their religious convictions and not above killing the Ancients. They began to amass an army against the Ancients. The Ancients were philosophically and morally opposed to killing or even interefering with others' choices. As such, they chose to conceal their level of scientific progress so as not to exacerbate the situation with the Ori.

One of the Ancients devised a weapon, The Ark of Truth, which makes anyone who looks into it brainwashed. The purpose of devising it was to counter the lies the Ori spread to get people to submit to their religion. Use of this weapon, though, would violate their followers' free will and, as such, they agreed not to use it. Instead, they built an advanced spaceship and set sail.

The Ancients and Ori both eventually ascend. The philosophical differences they had as humans continue even into their ascension. The Ancients, being dedicated to scientific thought and philosophical principles, have a strict non-interventionist policy with the lower realm. They feel they have no right to play God with the lower realms. As the pacifists they are, they will not even intervene in self-defense; preservation of free will is the highest moral law for them.

The Ori do not share this. Their religious convictions have led them to a sense of entitlement as it were over the lower realms. They feel as higher beings they have a greater truth than those on the lower realm. As such, they command all humans to submit to their religion, Origin. By believing in the Ori, the Ori harness the power of their followers.

The Ori cannot stand the Ancients who are dedicated to science and do not submit to their religious convictions. As such, the Ori are still bent on destroying the Ancients. Once they learn of the humans in the Milky Way Galaxy -- the Ancients having been shielding our existence from the Ori -- they begin to amass an army of followers to conquer the Milky Way by spreading Origin.

Even though the Ancients know that the Ori's ultimate purpose is to destroy them by harnessing the power of the believers in the Milky Way, the Ancients refuse to intervene. Even though Origin is a lie, they refuse to violate the free will of those who wish to follow.

The religious criticism in the last two seasons of Stargate SG-1 does not go unappreciated. The ultimate moral of the arc is that of rational thought versus dogma. There is a strong emphasis on not forcing someone else to believe and promoting critical thinking over blind submission.

There is a second aspect which is explored in all this: killing people for what they believe. The Ancients represent one extreme of the spectrum in that they will never kill anyone for what they believe nor influence what anyone else believes, not even when that belief is damaging to the individual or will inform aggressive actions against others.

The humans from Earth represent somewhat of what Sam Harris advocates. They attempt to always reason logically with Origin followers about what they believe. They won't forcibly prevent someone from believing in Origin. There comes a point, though, where they recognize it may be ethical to kill someone for what they believe -- the sentiment from The End of Faith which is so frequently quoted out of context. Origin teaches that the unbelievers are wicked and must be given the opportunity to convert. If they refuse, it is your duty to put the infidel to death.

With Origin holders having this belief, it is a fine line the humans from Earth consider: when is it ethical to kill someone merely for what he believes?

The Expelled Nutters at Blockbuster.com

2008-10-06T06:27:00.000-05:00

While I was adding a few choice blasphemous entries to my Blockbuster Queue, such as Blasphemy the Movie and Saved!, I decided to stop by the page for Expelled and see what kind of reviews it had from members. I have yet to see the film as I'm waiting for it to come out on DVD. It seems the conspiracy theorist fans of Expelled are conspiracy theorists through and through.

Note that Expelled will not be released until October 21 of this month. Blockbuster allows you to "Save" (as opposed to "Add") movies to your Queue which have yet to be released. That way, as soon as the movie is released, it will "Add" it to your Queue.

The loony Expelled fans, though, blithely skip over this merry little fact as they advance their conspiracy theory of how Blockbuster is being run by a secret atheist group which is trying to silence Expelled by preventing them from being able to add it to their queues:

but blockbuster doesn't carry it. Is Blockbuster being politically correct?

Why is Blockbuster boycotting this film?

If you look at the reviews, they are all pretty much 5 stars, yet on the description it is rated as 2 stars. And it is not available even in the future? Do we have an Atheist running Blockbuster? Just asking.

I would highly recommend this to my family and friends. Great insight to whats going on behind the scenes and an eye opener of how our freedom as Americans is quietly being squelched and others views and non-beliefs are being forced upon us. See it! It will make a difference on how you view alot of things! Question I'm asking now is "WHY ISN"T BLOCKBUSTER MAKING THIS AVAILABLE FOR ONLINE RENTAL? Has someone already squelched your freedom?

There are so many obscure movies available, and I also have about 20 movies in my queue that are not yet available. But, for some reason I can't get this one. [...] I'd really like to see it to see why the entertainment industry hates it so much

isn't it also funny how you can easily find movies that support a lie, such as inconvenient truth or Fahrenheit 9/11. but a movie that challenges a lie, like Expelled is censored and not available. i will now be seriously examining whether or not i continue with Blockbuster. if it is true that this movie is available on Netfix i will probably cancel and move. PAY ATTENTION BLOCKBUSTER IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD STOP TRYING TO BE ONE.

Why can't I save it in my queue!?!?!? WE DEMAND this MOVIE!!!

Ben Stein is just asking questions and everyone is up in arms. Even Blockbuster is afraid to rent it!

Too bad places like Blockbuster are far too liberal to allow any factual views to be heard. They should offer this movie and it's wrong that they don't.

Why can I not get this one? It is a recent movies that was like by alot of people. Ben Stein been on TV alot. Is Blockbuster afraid?

Is Blockbuster controlled by liberal media activists against common sense, or Americans? come on Blockbuster, don't make me use Netflix!!

What do you (Blockbuster) have against this movie? Are you afraid you will be expelled or just exposed?

I am disappointed and disheartened that Blockbuster is not carrying Expelled. My family and I did not get an opportunity to see this movie in the theaters; we heard it was great and we were looking forward to using our Blockbuster membership to watch it. It's hard to believe that Blockbuster eagerly advertises and rents the trash that most R rated movies are, but censors a thought provoking and brilliantly scripted movie like Expelled. My family and I will be cancelling our Blockbuster membership.

Netflix has this movie listed, with picture and a 4-1/2 star rating. Maybe Blockbuster doesn't want those of us who are actually interested and want to see this movie to patronize their stores or service. It's evident they do not wish to support this film.

Im disappointted in blockbuster :\ ithought they were above this.

Gay and lesbian movies are just fine, but Expelled is a threat and must be boycotted. Does it ever seem as though those that claim to be 'open minded' are the same ones that seek to control the media and everyone's thoughts? I think so.

Write to Blockbuster and demand this movie!! Pathetic that they would rent Michael Moore garbage but ban this movie from us. Political agenda nonsense!

Seems very odd to me that all the members rated this film four or five stars, and the site rates it a 2 1/2. Watch this movie with your lib friends and get some conversation going. It is absolutely amazing and will make you take a different look at our liberal arts colleges.

My favorite is the one telling Blockbuster that they need to stop trying to be a god just because they don't believe in one.

Oh, and there were several which were accusing Blockbuster of rigging the rating. The only reviews left are 5-star ones with nutter comments about Blockbuster censoring creationism and conspiring to expel Expelled. Again, the fact that you can easily rate movies without leaving a review is entirely lost on them -- which is rather surprising seeing as how you can rate movies on just about every page of the site.

They weren't all nutters, though. Well, at least not Blockbuster-conspiring-with-atheists nutters:

As scientists we need to be unbiased. Hence actually be willing to listen to various options. This movie brings forth many questions, and makes you think. It is sad that so many stern scientists keep their heads in the sand like ostriches when it cmes to alternate explanations. They speak of open mindedness, but that means others must be open to their closed minded views. Anyway, great movie check it out, and keep your mind open.

Just saw it. I loved it. The clips of humor were clever. I am glad to see someone question the THEORY that so many take as fact. Theory means n rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a particular subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice economic theories speculation: abstract thought or contemplation idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

So many of you claim to be open-minded -- -- prove it by watching this provocative & entertaining account of the controversy surrounding Darwinism (evolutionary theory). I think Ben did a great job of unearthing some of the gross hypocrisy of the scientific-nazis of our current era. I learned a great deal -- I look forward to sharing the video with my children.

Okay, that last one was rather scary.

Quotes in Religulous: A Criticism

2008-10-05T17:04:00.004-05:00

There have been two occasions I have counted on Real Time With Bill Maher where Maher has used a popular, misattributed quote (probably unintentionally). One occasion was quoting Einstein as saying something about bees disappearing resulting in the collapse of society and the other I cannot recall.

At one point in Religulous, he quotes three of the Founders as having scorn for Christianity. One such quote came from Thomas Jefferson:

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.

I suspected this wasn't the first time I had seen this quote, but, nonetheless, I knew it must be falsely attributed to Jefferson. This quote which appeared in Religulous is a bogus quote. It has not, to date, been found in any of his writings.

Jefferson had quite the affinity for the teachings of Christ (minus all the bogus supernatural and miraculous claims). As such, he edited the New Testament to glean such ludicrousies out; which Religulous correctly explained. So, when Jefferson speaks on being a Christian or Christianity, he often doesn't refer to the church or its teachings as "Christianity," unless he explicitly states it. Otherwise, it would be confused with the teachings of Christ, which he did not despise.

Jefferson confirms this in a letter:

No doctrines of [Jesus] lead to schism. It is the speculations of crazy theologists which have made a Babel of a religion the most moral and sublime ever preached to man, and calculated to heal, and not to create differences. These religious animosities I impute to those who call themselves his ministers, and who engraft their casuistries on the stock of his simple precepts. I am sometimes more angry with them than is authorised by the blessed charities which he preached.

It's clear his gripe is with Christians and not with Christ. The Jefferson Encyclopedia cites the following as the possible basis of this misattributed quote:

[A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, & perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in church & state: that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man has been adulterated & sophisticated, by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth & power to themselves, that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue & cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Don't let his affinity for Christ mislead you into thinking he's a believer of the New Testament and simply rejects the Church's teachings (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses). He liked the teachings attributed to Christ, but did not like all the fantastic supernatural, divine content (which is why The Jefferson Bible came about). Many Christians like to quote mine Jefferson where he speaks highly of Christ and his teachings as evidence he was a Christian. In fact, in one passage Jefferson actually calls himself a Christian:

I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of d blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.

You can actually search for "'i am a real christian' jefferson" and you'll find many Christian sites quote mine this. He is speaking on his revision of the New Testament, though, and is clearly indicating that. If one is to claim Jefferson is a real Christian and we are to define "Christian" as what Jefferson believed, then everyone alive today who calls themselves a Christian are false Christians. They are as close to Jefferson's version of a Christian as I am to Ray's version of a Christian.

This post went off on a bit of a tangent, but I think his use of the Founders' quotes is going to be heavily attacked by critics of the film. There were much better quotes to use and from many different Founders. I found the quotes that he did use from all three were poor selections and misleading.

To conclude on a poignant quote:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. -- Jefferson

Oh, wait a minute. That doesn't sound quite as I remember it...

EDIT -- 4/06/2009
Before commenting about what a dumb Christian I am, you should do yourself the favor of reading my subsequent posts on Religulous/Bill Maher and realize that you can constructively criticize that which you side with. Hold nothing sacred.

The Case Against the Case Against Religulous
Is Bill Maher an Atheist? No.
The Case Against Beliefnet: Bill Maher's Fundamentalism

Response to MrFreethinker #A-1: Jesus' Resurrection

2008-10-05T15:41:00.003-05:00

Hey MrFreeThinker,

These are my preliminary questions regarding your submission to convince me of Christianity. You have submitted an argument for the resurrection of Jesus. Again, these are preliminary questions to get some extra information and explanation before I fully evaluate the argument. Most of my questions are simply regarding your sources.

When you reply to these, could you please number each of your responses respective to how I have numbered them here?

A) How did Jesus get out of the tomb and what evidence do you have for it? If I understand the story correctly, he was resurrected as a man and appeared before people. How, then, did his body leave the tomb?

B) You cite that 98% of historians accept facts 1, 3, 4, and 5. Who are these historians (i.e. is their field relevant to this discussion) and where do you get this figure? For the question about who these historians are, it's often the tactic, I've found, of creationists to appeal to authorities who have no authority in the field. For example, in the Discovery Institute's list of scientists who disagree with Darwin, they have listed someone with only a PhD in agricultural economics.^[1] I am not accusing you of this; I'm only explaining the question.

C) You cite that 75% of historians accept "fact" 2. Assuming that these historians have relevant credentials and that the same historians polled above are the same ones polled here, why the stark discrepancy? Fact #2 is that the tomb is empty -- a pretty big claim. Why, if they accept that there is sufficient evidence to support claims 1, 3, 4, and 5, do they not accept that there is sufficient evidence to support claim 2?

D) As a note of the statistics, I would expect to see high figures for them. Those who take up as scholars on the New Testament would, ostensibly, most be Christians and would, therefore, agree with these claims. This isn't an argument against the claims (as the claims may still stand on their own); it's just an argument against the appeal to authority. For example, I would expect to see a high level of acceptance among scholars on the Qur'an that Muhammed ascended to Heaven and/or that his followers believed he did.

E) For the first claim, you mention the "other 3 gospels" as sources in passing. Could you give chapters and verses (so as only to assess your arguments)?

F) You mention the following sources in your argument:

[Source] [Times mentioned] [Claims]
Luke 5 1,2,3
Matthew 5 1,2,3
John 4 1,2,3
Corinthians 3 1,2,3
Mark 3 1,2,3
Acts 2 3,4
Galatians 2 2,4
Josephus 2 1,5
Justin Martyr 1 2
Lucian 1 1
Tacitus 1 1
Tertullian 1 2

So, most of the claims find their support in five books of the Bible. I need to know the weight of these sources before I can consider their content as evidence. As such, I'd like to know, for my consideration:

i) Why should I accept these books of Bible as evidence of a historical event?
ii) Are they reliable?
iii) How are their integrity? Were they contemporary accounts?
iv) Are the authors authenticated?
v) If they are accurate accounts of what happened, why are there so many contradictions and discrepancies between them?
vi) Why shouldn't I discount these sources due to the above contradictions and discrepancies?

G) You cite Josephus as an extrabiblical support, and you note that it is disputed among scholars. Why should I accept this, then?

H) You mention that the empty tomb is attested to by all four Gospels. Could you cite the chapters and verses?

I) Under "Enemy Attestation" you seem to address the Stolen Body Hypothesis as evidence the tomb was empty. What contemporary Jews made this argument? And, if they made the argument, were they explaining why the tomb was empty, or were they assuming the tomb was empty for the sake of argument? You advance Matthew's account of the Jews bribing the guards for a cover-up; is this mentioned in any other account?

J) On the same topic: a recurring theme in your argument is "why would they lie?" Why, then, would the Jews bribe the guards to cover it up? You argue that if Christians were making this claim, surely the Jews would go check the tomb. If the tomb truly was empty, then the Jews would have found it empty. Further, the only explanation is that Jesus had been resurrected (since the guards wouldn't have moved the body). Assuming all of this, then, why would the Jews commit this mass cover-up and lie?

K) You cite three of the Gospels and Acts as evidence in claim three but give no reference. Further, why, if these are accounts I should accept as reliable, does this third claim not appear in one of the Gospels?

L) You cite several "early church fathers" as corroborating that the apostles claim that they saw the resurrected Jesus; where did they corroborate it?

M) You give sources for Peter and Paul dying for their beliefs. Could you give an online resource so that I can read the accounts myself?

N) You state that no one ever dies for a lie -- this is untrue. If I start a cult and claim that I have spoken to God and if they all commit suicide they will ascend to a higher plane of existence -- this is a lie. If I gain followers, they believe me, and kill themselves, they have died for a lie. This is a documented scenario. It is better stated that no one willingly dies for something they believe is false (which, even then, there are conceivable scenarios where there are exceptions).

O) What skeptics make the claims indicated in the third claim? (I want to know if they are legitimate or straw men.)

P) I have sitting on my shelf the Gnostic Gospels (including the Gospel of Mary, Thomas, Truth, and Philip). If I accept the other books as evidence, why shouldn't I consider these as evidence? Why don't you consider these as evidence?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Affiliations_and_credentials

Christian Response #A-1: Jesus' Resurrection

2008-10-05T15:34:00.002-05:00

As mentioned, MrFreeThinker has accepted my challenge to Christians to convince me of Christianity. I am posting below his original submission for preservation. The original can be found here.

I will evaluate the submission in posts to come and what I think about it. I invite everyone else to post or comment on it as they please.

PREFACE

I have recently taken it upon myself to respond to a challenge here for Christians.

“What reason is there to believe in the authenticity of the Bible, its message, and/or Christianity?”

My post will be focusing on the Resurrection of Jesus as a historical event.

Before I actually address this issue I will explain what I will not be doing and what I will attempt to do and what responses I will not accept lest I be misunderstood.

What I will be doing

I will be using facts accepted by the majority of historians (at least 75%) and that are multiply attested.
I will be using historical criteria like the criterion of embarrassment , earlyness and multiple attestation to lend credence to these facts

What I will not be doing

I am not “using the bible to prove the bible” or appealing to the inerrancy of scripture. I do not argue,” the bible says so -so it was true.”I just appeal to the gospels and epistles of Paul as normal ancient documents and biographies.
I am not using just “the bible as a source”. The New testament documents were a group of ancient documents by different writers.They can be used as multiple attestation.The epistles of Paul and Gospels are different sources

Responses I will not accept

“The resurrection is false and can never happen because resurrections don’t happen”- Don’t question-beg naturalism in your answers.
“Jesus never existed”-This is a fringe and outdated position held by a group of German philosophers in the 18th century and popularised by uncredentialed popular writers like Earl Doherty and Acharya S. No serious historian takes these writers and their Jesus myth thesis seriously.
“The accounts are contradictory so they cannot be used”-Wrong. Even if the accounts of the resurrection were contradictory- historians use cntradictory sources all the time. A good example would be the usage of Polybius and Livy’s accounts of Hannibal’s crossing .

SUBMISSION

I am sure many readers are familiar with the minimal facts approach used by a certain historian called Gary Habermas (to which I am indebted to for this post). I will be using his material .

The minimal facts approach takes facts accepted by the majority of scholars[1] and multiply attested.

The Facts are:-

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. The tomb was empty
3. Jesus’ disciples were disheartened after he was dead.However they had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had physically risen from the dead and appeared to them.Thwy were so convinced they suffered and some were martyred for their belief.
4. Paul ,who was a persecutor of Jesus had an experience that led him to convert and believe in the risen Jesus
5. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly converted to Christianity.

Fact 1-The crucifixion

We begin with the crucifixion. The crucifixion is multiply attested in and outside the Bible. It is attested by Paul:

(1 Corinthians 1:23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

Mark’s Passion Source (I will provide evidence for the existence of a pre Markan passion source if it is challenged by the negative)

(Mark 15:23-24)

and the other 3 gospels

And for extrabiblical attestation we have:

Flavius Josephus[2]

(Antiquities 18.3.3) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross

Cornelius Tacitus

(Annals 15.44) Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus

Lucian of Samosata

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine 11-13 (, 49)

The evidence is so strong that even John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar( the most liberal group in historical Jesus studies today) concedes that the crucifixion is an undisputed fact of history .

Fact 2-The empty tomb

This facts is agreed on by 75% of historians. There are many lines of the evidence for the empty tomb.The first is that it is attested to in all 4 gospels. Before I present the other evidence let me discuss the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. There is a gap between the start of Christianity and the first written documents of the New testament. The way historians bridge this gap period is examining the oral creeds that are found in the New testament. Creeds were meant to pass along important information in a manner that would make the information easy to memorize. These creeds would have been recited by Christian communities prior to them being put in written from in the New testament. In the places in the New testament where creed are cited- we can see the syntax and flow of the sentence in Greek written and changes in language. One of the creeds cited in the New testament is the 1 Corinthians 15 creed.

3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received - that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

1 Corinthians 15:3-5

The phrases Paul uses “I passed on to you…what I also received” were used a way of passing oral tradition is rabbinical literature.Linguistic factors also indicate the creed was probaly translated from Aramaic.The use of non-Pauline words coupled with the Aramaic leads most scholars to believe Paul received the creed from Peter and James in the Jerusalem church during his visit (in Galatians1- 2). If ths is the case- Paul most likely received the creed around 33-35CE( within 5 years of the crucifixion) from 2 eyewitnesses. Even the liberal Jesus seminar concedes that the creed was probaly formulated n the early 30’sCE.

The Early evidence

The creed clearly says Jesus was buried, and rose. (The word used here in Greek anastasis strongly indicates a physical rising from the dead as seen in its usage in the Septuagaint ,Greek literature and the New testament itself).If Paul says Jesus had physically risen after he was buried-the logical implication would be that his body was no longer in the tomb. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed provides early attestation (within 5 years) of the empty tomb

Enemy Attestation

This is common sense- but it is used in historical methodology too. If your enemy admits something- it is more likely to be true.The fact that the tomb was empty is admitted even by enemies of Christianity. Matthew records that the Jews paid some to say that the disciples had stolen the body (28:12-13). Justin Martyr and Tertullian record the same

So the polemic goes like this:
Jews: The disciples stole the body!
Christians: No, the guards would have prevented that!
Jews: The guards fell asleep!
Christians: You bribed them to say that!

The Jewish polemic presupposes the fact that the tomb was empty. This would not be the case if the tomb was still occupied.

Testimony of women and the criterion of embarassment

The first witnesses of the empty tomb were women, as recorded in all four Gospels . Were the narratives madeup, it is unlikely the made-up testimony would have included women, and certainly not as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb, since women were looked down upon in the cultures of that time.Even Luke 24:11 admits the disciples had a hard time believing the women.The best explaination is that the gospels were just faithfully recording what happened.

The Jerusalem Factor

Jerusalem is the place where Jesus was publicly executed on the Roman cross. It is there that He was buried, and there that His resurrection was first proclaimed.Imagine the early disciples telling the Jews that their master who had been shamefully executed had been risen and his tomb was empty.A group of Jews go check it out and find the tomb to be occupied. Christianity would be crushed. Christainity could not have spread in Jerusalem if the tomb was still occupied.

Fact 3:The appearances

The appearances are attested in the early 1 Corinthians 15 creed. They are also recorded in the gospels of Matthew , Luke and John. Testimony is also found in the speeches of the aposles in the book of Acts.

The testimony of the early church fathers( Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatious of Antioch) agrees that the apostles claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ. In many cases, these early church fathers knew the apostles themselves, or knew someone close to the apostles.This can be taken as historically certain.

Some skeptic might conjecture that the apostles were lying. However this is unlikely as the disciples were wiling to be martyred[ 3] for their beliefs. No-one knowingly and willingly dies for a lie.(Note that a comparison with Muslims matyrs would be unwarranted as I never claimed their beliefs were true because of their persecution.I claimed that they were sincere in there beliefs because of their persecution.)

Another theory skeptics will propound is that the appearances were hallucinations.I will address this theory more fully in another post- but I will point out that had the disciples hallucinated -they would not interpret it to be physical experiences of the kind the New testament claims but visions. The hallucination theory also does not account for the fact that Paul and James , who were skeptics and did not want ot see Jesus- did see him.

Fact 4:-Conversion of Paul

22 But I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith he once tried to destroy.”Galatians 1:22-23

Paul’s conversion is attested in his own letters and in Acts.Paul was converted not as a neutral observer, but as an enemy of Christ. What’s more, his conversion was not the result of his friends trying their best to convince him of Christianity, but of what he believed to be a personal encounter with the risen Christ.

Fact 5-the conversion of James

The gospels record that James was skeptical of Jesus during his ministry( this fits under the criterion of embarrassment as it was embarrassing in 1st century Jerusalem for a rabbi’s family to reject his teaching) . However later became Christian after the appearance of thew risen Christ. He was a skeptic.But he eventually was martyred for his strong faith (Josephus(Antiquities 20:200),Hegesippus).

So in summary there are 5 facts. As with all good historical situations we look at theories and see which has the greatest explanatory power. I contend that the resurrection is the best explanation for these 5 facts. The tomb was empty because Jesus was risen and James, Paul and the disciples saw Jesus because he was really there. The documentation for this is in the New testament. Other naturalistic theories fail to account for all of the facts. Once we conclude that Jesus rose from the dead- the most parsimonious explanation is his own deity.

The counter-challenge- Provide a different theory that provides a superior explaination for all the facts and provide documentation for this theory.

For further reading check out “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Mike Lincona.

A video series by Veritas48 and KabaneTheChristian is availible here

[1]Facts 1 and 3-5 are accepted almost unanimously(over 98%) by historians. Facts 2 is accepted by 75% of historians.The figures come from gary Habermas’ survey of more than 1400 scholarly articles on the historical Jesus that were written in English, German and French.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

[2]Some scholars question the authenticity of parts of the Testimonium Flavianum.However according to a study done by Louis Feldman- most Josephan scholars will accept the passge as authentic with some minor embellishments.The Tacitus passage is undisputedly authentic.

[3]Clement of Rome indicates that Peter and Paul suffered and died for their beliefs. Ignatius of Antioch, who was also most likely personally acquainted with the apostles reports that the apostles were unafraid of martyrdom in his letter to Smyra, and Polycarp reports in his letter to the Philippians that Paul and all of the apostles suffered. Dionysis of Corinth also reports, (as cited by Eusebius in book 2, chapter 25, verse 8 of Ecclesiastical history) Tertullain reports in Scorpiace chapter 15, and Origen in Contra Celsum .

Returning From Religulous

2008-10-05T13:35:00.000-05:00

I saw Religulous with my atheist group Friday night. We descended on the theater in a swarm of thirty.

Religulous surpassed my expectations. It was quite delightful. I'm a big fan of Bill Maher -- especially his stand-up -- and the film was somewhat of a stand-up documentary. Even the scenes from the trailer were funnier in the film as there was more to them.

Have you ever been to a film where there's so much noise in the audience that you can't hear what's being said in the film? That was my experience with Religulous -- but in a good way. People, myself included, were laughing so hard and so frequently that I missed out on a lot of dialog.

I'll definitely see it again (again, big fan of Bill Maher). I'm looking forward to the DVD to see all the bonus footage. I read that Rael was supposed to be in the film, but I didn't see him, so hopefully that will be there.

H2thyphrO's Dilemma

2008-10-04T12:50:00.000-05:00

MrFreeThinker (don't let the name mislead you) has taken up my challenge for Christians to convince me by arguing for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. I will be replying to him later once I have a little more time.

He has left a comment here, though, and also posted a response to my fellow Raytractor Dave attempting to resolve logical contradictions. Regarding the rock-so-heavy argument, MrFreeThinker attempts to resolve it by saying that it is trivial -- like saying can God make a female horse that is a stallion. It is trivially false because by definition it doesn't exist. He fails to understand a paradox, though.

He tried to resolve Euthyphro dilemma in the same way:

I am holding a glass of water in my hands.Is this H20 because it is water, or is it water because it’s H2O?

(Meant to demonstrate the meaninglessness of Euthrypo’s dilemma.)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Euthyphro dilemma. That dilemma is often phrased as:

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God.

To phrase it differently, does God command some action because he recognizes it is wrong or is it wrong because God commands it? If you understand the dilemma it is anything but meaningless.

The importance of it is especially relevant in the "how can you be moral without God"? Some sort of appeal to absolute morality -- without God morals would be relative, or something along those lines. The Euthyphro dilemma is fatal for this argument.

If we take the former case, that God says something is wrong because he recognizes it is wrong, the argument against atheism/for God fails because there is a morality independent of God and we atheists can help ourselves to this absolute standard.

If we take the latter case, that things are wrong because God says so, renders morality arbitrary and relative as well -- because it's moral just because God says so. He might as well just have flipped a coin to decide is something is moral or not to command it (and it seems this is what he did in the Old Testament).

To be consistent with the argument, morals must be independent of both ourselves and God.

If the latter option is chosen, though, that it's dependent on God, then we have a whole other avenue to stroll down of divining just what those morals are.

Definitively Atheist

2008-10-03T00:59:00.003-05:00

This is a post I have intended for a while and is aimed at both atheists and theists, though more for the latter. The aim is not to define atheism, per se, but rather discuss the arguments used by theists in debates about the term.

To preface it, the definition atheists advance is "not believing that a god exists" (what I'll label the "weak definition" for purposes of this entry) whereas the definition theists advance is "believing that no gods exist" (what I'll label the "strong definition").

"Common Usage"
The argument I hear often is something along the lines of:

Atheists improperly argue etymology, historical use of the term, or dictionary definitions. While interesting, it bears no weight on the current meaning of the word; words change over time. The correct meaning of the word is that in which it is commonly used.

This is the common usage argument. Overlooking the fact that dictionaries give usages of the words rather than definitions (thus rendering that point moot), one should take the time to ask: How is "atheist" commonly used? Imagine the following conversation (in which I have actually been the atheist):

Bob: What are your views about God?
Bert: I don't believe God exists.
Bob: Oh. You're an atheist?

And a variant:

Bob: Do you believe that a god exists?
Bert: No.
Bob: Oh. So you're an atheist?

Both of these support the weak definition. I imagine most people who pose Bob's first question and receive Bert's response would then call Bert an atheist. Such a response is inconsistent with the strong definition.

Not Believing vs Believing Not
Another common argument goes that there is no difference between the two definitions. The weak definition centers on "not believing" whereas the strong definition centers on "believing not." Is there a difference? There's a difference because the former definition is about having no belief whereas the latter is necessarily having a belief.

To illustrate the difference, I'll pick a topic which most people probably won't be familiar with: semantics of programming languages. Consider:

A sentential form which is of a leftmost derivation is necessary for recursive-descent parsing.

Do you believe the above is true or false? If you have don't have any idea about what a sentential form is or what recursive-descent parsing is, it is the ostensible truth that you have no belief. You neither believe that the above claim is true nor do you believe that the above claim is false. You neither believe for or against. You don't believe.

Now, consider the following conversation:

Me: Do you believe that recursive-descent parsing requires a sentential form which is of a leftmost derivation?
You: No.
Me: Oh, so you believe that claim is false!

Is it accurate for me to conclude that, since you do not believe that the claim is true, you necessarily believe that it is false? Of course not.

X: I believe the claim is true.
Y: I neither believe the claim is true nor do I believe the claim is false.
Z: I believe the claim is false.

If I ask you if you believe the claim is true, I'm asking "do you fall in the category X." Since you're in category Y, you would have to answer "no." That places you in the category "~X." It's a fallacy for me to conclude you are in category Z, though, because ~X = Y + Z. Since you fall in the category Y, it is valid for you to say "I do not fall in category X" -- "I don't believe the claim is true."

There's a clear distinction between not believing a claim is true and believing a claim is false. So, similarly:

X: I believe a god exists. (theist)
Y: I neither believe god exists, nor do I believe that no gods exist. (non-theist)
Z: I believe that no gods exist. (anti-theist)

Now, if you ask me if I fall in category X, I would have to say no. I lie squarely in ~X.

Do you believe a god exists? Yes = X; No = ~X.

Since I don't hold that belief -- since I don't believe a god exists -- I am in ~X. It's a fallacy for you to conclude that I must therefore be in category Z.

To tie this in to the weak and strong definitions, the weak definition is ~X while the strong definition is Z. Note that ~X = Y + Z. So, these two terms are not mutually exclusive; Z is a subset of ~X. All Z are also ~X but not all ~X are Z.

Conclusion: Redefining Atheism
So, to the point, theists often charge that we are trying to redefine atheism. That's clearly not the case. But even if it is... so what? "Gay" hasn't always meant homosexual -- at some point they began to redefine it by choosing it as a label for themselves. Even if it weren't the case that atheism is defined using the weak definition both in dictionaries and in common usage, what does it matter that we are trying to redefine it? It's simply the label we've chosen to identify ourselves as.

But this goes to a larger point. To often it's the case that the charge is leveled that we're trying to redefine atheism in a grand misdirection. What is the logic in the mind of the person who alleges this?

Dan: Do you believe a god exists?
Sal: No.
Dan: Ah, so you're an atheist!
Sal: Yeah, I don't believe any gods exist.
Dan: Well, believing there are no gods requires just as much faith as my position.
Sal: I never said I believe there are no gods. I'm an atheist; I just lack the belief.
Dan: Oh, you're just trying to redefine the word to mean lacking a belief. It really means that you believe there are no gods.
Sal: But that's not what I believe. I don't have a belief about the existence of gods.
Dan: Quit trying to redefine the word.

Ad nauseam. They seem to somehow shift the debate from the belief in a god to a debate about the label on beliefs in a god. What is the logic in Dan's mind? That Sal secretly believes there are no gods, calls himself an atheist, insists on atheism simply being a lack of belief to misdirect, but also claiming at the same time he doesn't believe gods exist?

Let's not forget that these are the labels we put on ideas; the labels themselves have no meaning. They are defined by the ideas which they label. Quit directing arguments against the label and start directing them towards the idea.

Proof That Obama Will Be Elected

2008-10-02T22:16:00.002-05:00

Tonight, I figured out that I could prove that Obama will be elected this November.

I was walking home with my friend tonight and we were laughing at some horrible mistakes we had made today on a project -- mistakes that seriously set us back. I said I would be going home to watch Palin in the debate (still waiting on it to be posted online to view) -- he didn't see the connection. "We made such a huge mistake today -- come on, we're half way through our project and we discover we've been using the wrong circuit. Now, that was stupid. When I get to home and watch Palin, though, it'll make me feel better -- that's profound stupid that's actually successful."

I'm not laughing any more, though. Palin was funny. She's genuinely frightening now, though. It's frightening that she actually has a chance. Listening to her speak is like listening to one of Ray's little minions parrot everything he says. They'll pull out the building argument, you point out that it can be used to prove evolution, and they are completely stumped -- but then keep asserting the same argument. It's transparently obvious they know absolutely nothing and are just copying doltish arguments to mask their own ignorance.

That's all Palin does: she parrots everything from McCain, such as listening to her on Roe v Wade. Katie asked her to name just one other Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade with which she disagrees. Her answer? Roe v Wade. Seriously, because she could not name just other Supreme Court case she disagreed with. In fact, I suspect she doesn't even know any other Supreme Court case at all. This blatant ignorance is unacceptable. You don't have to follow the Supreme Court, all you have to do is have a seventh grade level education.

Hmm, let's brainstorm a bit here for Supreme Court cases. Hey, I know! How about that one that upheld segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal"? Surely she disagrees with Plessy v Ferguson!

Oh, wait, I know! How about that old case about slaves being chattel? That no black, regardless of whether or not a slave, could never be a citizen... and neither could their children. Surely she could fumble through all the propaganda floating on the top layer of her brain to work her way to "Dred Scott."

Or wait! I know! WHAT ABOUT KITZMILLER V DOVER?! That one is for creationism, which is dear to her heart. I know, it's not a Supreme Court case, but come on, this is the woman who thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was good enough for the Founders. Surely we can forgive her this.

But how does all of this get to proof of Obama being elected? It goes towards a line of argument I have observed from Christians. It's an argument from emotion -- God has to exist. If God doesn't exist, then I have no purpose... no reason to live. God has to exist or else there is no ultimate justice. The child rapist who gets away with it in this lifetime will never receive justice. Therefore, God must exist. They cannot believe that there can be no purpose or such injustice.

Similarly, Palin cannot be elected. She's too shockingly ignorant and stupid. Americans have to be smarter than electing someone without even a seventh grade level of knowledge of the Supreme Court. I just cannot believe that Americans would cast their vote for someone so ridiculous that, if it weren't for the tragic reality of it, we would otherwise think her a parody of politicians. In fact, SNL can't even parody her because she's a self-parody.

But further, Americans can't be so stupid that they don't see through the reason she was nominated. I know there will be plenty of ignorant, uninformed, partisan hacks like Ray Comfort who thinks Palin "rocks," but I cannot accept a reality where she is elected.

Therefore, Obama will be elected.

Prostrate for Christian Tolerance!

2008-10-01T19:02:00.000-05:00

Ray likes to call atheists chicken for, supposedly, criticizing Christianity instead of Islam. In his latest post he warns of the repercussion to atheists due to Religulous mocking Islam. It's more of the, "oh, you atheists are lucky you live in America and are criticizing Christians. You're lucky this isn't the Middle East or that you aren't criticizing Islam because they'd kill you. You should be thankful we're so tolerant that we don't attack you."

Comfort warns that Hollywood has gotten away with mockery of Christianity, but many Muslims aren’t so tolerant.

It echoes one of his earlier sentiments (which he pulls out all the time):

I want to get under your skin and ask why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Muslims what you keep shouting at Christians. Prove me wrong. [...] You wouldn’t dare, because you are chicken-livered. You know that they are not like Christians. Despite the “anonymity” of your little chicken coop, they would come after you to lop off your head.

Are you kidding me? Why is this always something I hear Christians pull out when Christianity is mocked or criticized? At least 70% of Ray's blog is dedicated to mocking atheists; do we come back at him and say "hey, you should be thankful that we atheists don't send you death threats like the Catholics or lop your head off like the Muslims for mocking us"?

When I refuse to let you borrow my car, should you admonish me by saying "you should be thankful I asked you instead of just stealing it." What is this nonsense of "you're lucky I don't throw a temper tantrum and hit you," anyway?

What are you? Three?

What Happened to Common Decency?

2008-09-30T19:52:00.003-05:00

My last entry on prying into the personal lives of others hasn't been the most well-received. There's a related issue, though, I'd like to press on the matter of homosexuality.

Whatever happened to civility and common decency? Even if you do personally find homosexuality disgusting, why is it okay to voice that? Further, why would you even voice it?

I'm a bit out of the typical mold in that I, personally, find all sexual relationships disgusting for me. How appropriate would it be for you to tell me that you're in love with someone and me respond with: "Oh, that's great and I fully support your right to make choices for your personal life, but I find it personally disgusting." Why would I even voice that? What I find for myself is completely irrelevant, intrusive on the discussion, and quite indecent due to the magnitude of the issue for you.

Let's not forget the magnitude of the issue involved. A commenter to my last post made an analogy to him voicing to someone eating sauerkraut that he finds it disgusting. The magnitude of the issue, though, is not comparable.

Let's take another example. This time, for me. I never plan on procreating. This is for several reasons, including the one outlined above regarding sexual relationships. I do plan on having a son, though, because that's something that is very important to me. As such, I plan on adopting within the next seven years. What if upon me telling you this, you reply: "Oh, that's great and I fully support your right to adopt if you wish, but I think it's best to only rear children who are of my own DNA." There's nothing wrong with you holding that as an opinion for yourself since it's something you feel personally, but it's completely irrelevant and intrusive on the discussion. Furthermore, you're passing that as a judgment upon my actions over my own life. The offensiveness of that is egregious.

Kiss Off

2008-09-28T20:20:00.000-05:00

Social conservatives never fail to elicit my awe with how much they pry into the lives of others and make much ado about it. Something that's been circling around the Internet this week that finally made its way to Ray's blog is Kirk's standing policy not to kiss anyone other than his wife.

Social "conservatives" (I don't think they deserve such a title) have made it a policy to meddle in the lives of others and publicly comment on them. This is what I've been seeing in various blogs regarding Kirk and his policy. They praise it as someone in Hollywood having solid values, being loyal to his marriage, etc.

To my surprise, I have not seen negative blogs criticizing it, and I think that speaks volumes of the character of those so often at the end of the wagging finger of pompous prudes like Ray Comfort and other social conservatives.

Whether it's in praise or condemnation, neither should be made. If two consenting adults have some sort of agreement or understanding with one another, no judgment should be passed on that. It's what's so wrong in America now. What does it matter if a committed couple have a policy of "no kissing anyone but me" or "you can kiss anyone as long as I know about it"? I see nothing special in Kirk's marital policy than in the marital policy of another actor allowing him to kiss his co-stars on-camera.

Or, what does it matter if a couple only have sex with one another or have sex with others, but still within their marriage? As long as both have consented and have that understanding, what does it matter? Who are we to judge or comment on the agreements of consenting adults?

And there are broader issues here. I have recently been going back-and-forth with a Christian blogger on various issues, and I mentioned homosexual rights. Part of his reply included:

I support gay rights as a fundamental liberty of mankind. [...] I personally find the behavior rather revolting and unnatural - inconsistent with the "form follows function" rule of biology [...]. Who are we to say though what consenting adults can and cannot do?

While I applaud him for being a Christian who supports gay rights (and he also states that God loves them), I question why he finds it "revolting." If he means that for him personally the thought of him being homosexual is revolting, that's understandable (probably the same way many homosexuals feel about them being heterosexual). But I doubt it's that.

Indeed, I hear this all too often. "I support them, but I find it disgusting and shouldn't be preferred." We should, as citizens, neighbors, and decent human beings not intrude upon others' lives and personal decisions in their relationships with our judgments.

For me, I find any relationship revolting -- but that's for me. Why should I visit upon others as judgments what revolts me personally? We should take the time that we would invest into judging others' relationships and instead, kiss off.

Could You Make an Argument So Simple Even AiG Couldn't Mess It Up?

2008-09-27T23:29:00.004-05:00

Behold, the longest entry title ever for this blog. Before heading out on my walk tonight, I checked some of AiG's recent articles while my mp3 player was sync'ing. One immediately caught my attention:

Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it? Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S., shows how to respond to this sort of argument.

I thought ahhh. I wonder how they will respond to this one? Will it be a "God is impossible to comprehend" or perhaps "God is not bound by the laws of logic" or maybe even "God can do anything logically possible." The argument they chose will stun you...

For this to be a valid question, God would need to be bound by the laws of gravity. Obviously, God is not bound by His creation (i.e., gravity), as it is part of the universe He created. [...] In other words, this question first assumes that gravity is greater than God.

I don't usually laugh out loud reading blogs, but I made an exception in this case. So, could you make an argument so simple that even Answers In Genesis couldn't mess it up? Obviously, no.

The heavy rock paradox is just a silly little conundrum to show that omnipotence -- understood in the traditional since as all-powerful or able to do anything -- is logically impossible and therefore meaningless. Perhaps when phrasing questions to AiG you should take into consideration this elementary school-level understanding. Perhaps you should take care to phrase it as "can God do something that he can't undo" or "can God create something he can't destroy" or "can God create something more powerful than himself" or "can God microwave a burrito so hot that not even he can eat it?" And let's not even get into the omniscience aspect of it.

But the silliness of this short entry goes even further:

This is like asking on what page of Shakespeare’s Hamlet can we find Shakespeare? It is an illogical question.

Yeah, that is an illogical question. Perhaps if we were asking where in the universe we can find God that would be a good analogy.

But the real gem of this article is at the end where they discuss the God of the Bible. If you take the Bible literally then God is definitely not omnipotent. Take the lying aspect:

Along a similar line, a coworker relayed this conversation to me that she had with her ten-year-old daughter:

She asked “Can God lie?” to which I said “No.” Then she asked, “Can't He do anything?” and I said “Yes, but He wouldn't want to lie.” Then she asked, “Well, could He if He wanted to?” to which I replied, “He wouldn't want to.” But she kept asking, “But what if He wanted to.” So I answered “According to the biblical account of His character, He wouldn't want to and He wouldn't. Whether or not He could is a question that misses the point. The answer is He wouldn't want to and so He would not, and that’s the end of it.”
Additional to the general biblical account of God’s character indicating He would not lie is Hebrews 6:18, which says it is impossible for God to lie.

Are you rolling on the floor yet? Apparently the entire article is not a refutation of arguments against God's omnipotence, it's just a refutation of God literally creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it. They have no problem with God being unable to do certain things (therefore he is not omnipotent), they just have a problem with him creating heavy rocks.

This Just In: 2+2=5

2008-09-27T00:05:00.003-05:00

Ray decided to move out of the way to let an argument go over someone else's head today:

Moses said...Like you, I don't believe in Hindu gods. I don't believe in Chinese Ancestor worship. I don't believe in Shintoism. I don't believe in the Thunder-bird or Old Man Coyote. I don't believe in Thor, Odin or Freya. Heck Ray, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa." [...]

Do you use the same reasoning with math? 2+2= "Oh, there's no answer, because I don’t believe the answer is 1, or 2, or 3, or 5, or Santa, or Thor..."

Yes, I use the same reasoning with math. Why don't I believe that 2+2=1? Because it doesn't add up. I don't believe that 2+2=1 for the same reason I don't believe that 2+2=2: because it doesn't add up.

I don't believe Thor exists for the same reason I don't believe God exists: because it doesn't add up.

But the math analogy is even more well chosen. If this were a math test, you would fail because you didn't show your work. All you've done is written down the answer "God." I'm perfectly willing to accept that the answer is God, but if you don't show your work, don't expect me to. Why should I believe the answer is God any more than 42? They both have had the same amount of work shown.

Best Atheist TV Line Ever

2008-09-26T16:16:00.004-05:00

I am in the process of watching Brothers & Sisters: Season Two on DVD. One of the sisters, Kitty, is engaged to a Republican senator, Robert, who is running for President. Robert is rehearsing answers to possible debate questions with his advisors. Kitty's been feeling sick from the shrimp pizza that's sitting in the room:

Travis: Senator, do you believe in evolution, or is it, as the Bible said, that God created the world in six days?
Robert: Well, that’s a little before my time.
Travis: That’s good! Use humor. It makes you seem like a real person.
Robert: I am a real person.
Travis: (Laughs) Should I repeat the question?
Robert: Well, the question's the problem. Faith and science shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Whether you believe six days is literally six 24-hour intervals or something longer, well... that's a conversation we can have.
Robert: But, if you’re asking me whether or not I believe in God: the answer’s yes.
Kitty: (Throws up)
Travis: What, is she an atheist?

That nearly killed me.

Literally, I was taking a drink at the time and choked in laughter.

Arguing for the Christian God

2008-09-25T00:51:00.005-05:00

Another reader has stated interest in taking up my request for Christians to convince me. The reader had some questions as to why I have these guidelines for submissions. My comment to him was becoming too long and, besides, it goes to a topic I have meant to post on for a while. I think atheists in general will find this interesting as it goes to a topic I rarely see discussed: arguments for a religion always seem to devolve to arguments for a god.

The prompt:

What reason is there to believe in the authenticity of the Bible, its message, and/or Christianity? You can submit any claim that you like; whatever you find convincing.

If you recall my request, I had some submission guidelines to weed out submissions that would completely miss the prompt (such as arguing for a creator-god or against atheism):

1. It cannot be an argument "against atheism" as that bears no weight on the validity of Christianity.
2. Arguments that go simply to the existence of a deistic God. (fine-tuning, first cause, etc)
3. Arguments to "open my heart" or "Jesus saves." These are arguments from the Bible, not for the Bible.

Additionally, I had the concluding thought:

Keep in mind that I will consider how your reasons and evidence apply to both Christianity and other religions. I want to be convinced of Christianity, not of Deism or evidence that can be used for any religion.

The reader:

And this is beside the point but hy no arguments for god. Are you going to grant that some god might exist for the sake of argument?

I am not granting that a god or gods may exist for the sake of argument; I'm granting it for the sake of reality. I've never actually met an atheist who has said that gods definitely don't exist. This is because all the atheists I've ever known are agnostics.

The reason I'm not accepting general arguments for a god, specifically a creator-god like the deistic God, is because I'm offering this challenge for Christianity, not of gods in general. I'm an atheist because I disbelieve that gods exist; I also disbelieve that gods do not exist; I have no belief. Of course, a god may exist -- the truth value of that claim, though, cannot be assessed. As such, I am, personally, wholly unconcerned with conjectures on it. I'm an apatheist in this regard. I'm offering this challenge because every debate I have ever seen devolves into general arguments about a deistic god with no discussion of the person's actual religion (see Ray's Atheist Test). Often the argument goes that they attempt to prove a god exists and then conclude that that god is necessarily their god with no supporting argument.

I've written a blog entry before (I can't find it with a cursory search) that it doesn't matter if a god exists. If a god exists, why should I care? It doesn't affect me in any way. Christianity and many religions, though, make claims that it does. That's what I'm interested in.

It's unfair to chalk up all those aspects of god to deism.they could fit the Christian god just as well( if not more).

That's the point, though. Yes, they could fit the Christian God. They could also fit almost any god, which is the point. Those aren't arguments for the Christian God; they are arguments for a god or, in some cases, gods in general. Allow me to make an analogy to arguments regarding aliens.

There are numerous claims about aliens. Some aliens abduct people (abductionism). Some aliens impersonate people (impersonationism). Some aliens live among people (assimilationism). All of these claims share a common premise: aliens exist (alienism).

Now, let's say I've encountered someone who believes that aliens abduct people -- an abductionist. I'm very interested as to why he believes aliens are abducting people and why I should care. He engages me and he spends the entire debate arguing for the general existence for aliens.

He argues that there are many billions of planets.
He argues that life is likely to have evolved on some of these planets.
He argues that it requires intelligent beings to form the constellations we see in the sky.

He continues in this manner throughout the debate. In the end he concludes: aliens exists, therefore they abduct people. The conclusion is a non-sequitir.

At no point did he argue as to why they would abduct people. He did not present any evidence for abductions. He did not address the problems with accounts of abductions. He simply argued for alienism, not abductionism.

This is what I am pre-empting in the Christianity request. I am wholly unconcerned if aliens exist or not. That truth value cannot be assessed. And so what if they do or do not? Why should I care? The same can be said for the general existence of a god.

Now, if aliens are abducting people, I want to know about that and I'd like to hear arguments and evidence for it. Abductionism is to alienism what Christianity is to theism. He argued for alienism, but that applies to impersonationism, assimilationism, and bare alienism (the deism equivalent). He gave no argument for abductionism.

If your argument is for the general existence of a god or even a creator-god, you have not given any argument for Christianity. The request is for arguments for Christianity.

Lastly...
Why not take arguments against atheism? I know it doesn't prove Christianity but are you just afraid your worldview can't stand up to criticism?

You seem to imply that I have an atheist worldview -- I do not know what that is. Is it the same as my worldview that is without the belief in Bigfoot? An atheist worldview would be one, I assume, that is simply without the belief in a god. I don't think my lack of belief in a god alters my worldview any more than my lack of belief in Bigfoot or astrology alters my worldview.

If I learn that Bigfoot exists? It doesn't alter my worldview in any way. It doesn't affect how I see the world. And if a god exists? It doesn't alter my worldview, per se. It's impossible for me to know anything about the god, so it necessarily won't alter my worldview. If the Christian God exists, though, and Christianity is true? That would fundamentally alter my worldview, so I'm interested in arguments for that.

I'm not accepting arguments "against atheism" because it does not contribute any support to Christianity.

I also am not sure I know what an argument against atheism would entail. Unless it is an argument against the lack of belief in a god (wherein you would have to be arguing for the existence of a god), all I can imagine is one, long fallacy. If it is the former, then it violates the guideline of arguments for a deistic god.

For the sake of argument, you may assume that a god exists. If I were arguing with an abductionist, I would allow him to assume that aliens exist for the sake of argument.

Resolving Biblical Contradictions

2008-09-23T07:55:00.006-05:00

Last week while I was on my evening stroll I found a 1,500 page manuscript for an unpublished book. It had no author or contact information listed, so I took it home. I read it cover-to-cover and then read it several more times. It was the most uplifting story I had ever read. It was an autobiography and it was profound. Summary of book:

Aron Lee is a reclusive asexual with OCD. He finds love in his life by meeting a woman named Heather Smith who shows him a deep insight into himself. She tells him she wants a baby once they get married and he is filled with joy as he had always wanted a son. He never thought he would find someone who would accept him enough to have a relationship with him.

On their wedding day, they go skydiving to celebrate their nuptials. His parachute won't open, though, and he plummets to Earth and crashes into the ground. He irreparably damages his penis in collision and also has to have his testicles removed. The doctors tell him it will be impossible for them to conceive. He defies the odds, though, and regains mobility in half the time projected. On the night he first returns home, they conceive. After the baby is born, there is a tragic accident and Heather dies. While the thought of suicide overcomes him, he perseveres because he has his son.

I gave this book to one of my good friends, Brian, to show how everyone can find someone and that you should never listen when the experts say something is impossible. I stressed the fact that this is an autobiography.

After reading it Brian approached me puzzled. He asked how I could believe this is true, because first and least of all the author is unknown so its integrity is without validity. I told him that doesn't matter. It's quite a lengthy work at over 1,500 pages. You would expect such a long work to have inaccuracies and contradictions, but it is wholly self-consistent. That's considerable evidence for the veracity of its content.

Further puzzled, he opened up to the introduction where the author discusses his wife's death:

My dearest Heather contracted a virulent disease on the evening of January 2. She died in my arms on February 6.

He then flipped to the point in the text where it gives the account of her death:

The sky drew dark and she inhaled the wintery air. A horrible accident befell her that evening and she was hospitalized. She spent forty-four days in the hospital. I visited her on the forty-fifth night in the hospital. She died and I held her in my arms.

He pointed out that the introduction gives an account of 42 days between the day she contracts the disease and the day she dies. The account in the text, though, has a span of 45 days and there's no mention of a disease. In fact, it says there was an accident. He pointed to it as a clear contradiction.

I pored over the text and returned to him the next day, shaking my head.

You'll see that there is no contradiction here and the confusion is easily resolved. It's clear that the accident he refers to is one where there is a disease involved that she contracts. It's easy to come up with scenarios which fit this. She may have been in a lab and there was some disease in a vile. The accident refers to accidentally dropping a vile and releasing the air-borne disease. Or, she may have accidentally come into contact with someone's blood. It's clear that the disease came from an accident.

And there is no contradiction in the days. You see, they are just different ways of stating the same thing. It's not difficult to come up with a number of scenarios here either. The introduction clearly states that she died on the 42nd night in his arms. The text, though, does not state that she died on the 45th night. It just says that Aron visited her on the 45th night and held her in his arms again. So you see, the sequence of events was like this:

She contracted the disease in an accident on January 2. She died in his arms on February 6. We know that hospitals keep corpses for a number of days. So, he went back to the hospital on February 9 and lovingly embraced her dead body in his arms.

And thus the "contradiction" is resolved; there is no contradiction here. If you would quit trying to shoot holes in it you would realize that.

Revoking the Christian Privilege

2008-09-22T16:06:00.000-05:00

On Friday I gave a presentation and discussion to my atheist group on science and religion in the 2008 election. One of the issues I brought up was the religious rhetoric in our political discourse. They had a hoot when it came to Palin, but they weren't so receptive when I brought up many of Obama's anti-secular sentiments.

One statement he made was along the line of "Not every mention of God is a violation of church/state separation." I tried making the case that it is, with the context being In God We Trust stamped on everything and the Pledge of Allegiance. This is an example of Christian privilege in our society. The mention of God anywhere is this privilege in action. The standard is often replacing it with anything else. What about "Not every mention of white privilege is a violation of civil rights" or "Not every mention of male privilege is a violation of civil rights"? One of the responses I received is that it's a false analogy. I fail to understand how.

We've become desensitized to it. The only reason the rhetoric of white privilege evokes a knee-jerk reaction is because of consciousness raising and exposure to others. The Christians think they have some special place in society just like whites did and men before that. Do they fail to understand the word "tyranny"?

This topic culminated in a post because I was browsing through some old email from one of my sisters and came across the following:

86% to keep the words, IN God We Trust and God in the Pledge of Allegiance. 14% against

That is a pretty 'commanding' public response. I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn't . Now it is your turn. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.

Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having 'In God We Trust' on our money, and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why is the world catering to this 14%?

AMEN!

If you agree, pass this on, if not, simply delete.

In God We Trust . . .

It's something she had forwarded me earlier this year -- this sister doesn't know I'm an atheist. I was shocked by it, but chose not to respond. The message is shocking enough. Ironically enough, this comes from my gay sister. What if I had sent her something that said that homosexuals were wanting to redefine marriage and since they only make up 10% of the country they should sit down and shut up? After all, why cater to this 10%?

What is so astonishing is that they fail to see that they're the ones being catered to. We don't ask to be catered to. If anyone ever proposed inserting "under no God" into the Pledge or "In Satan We Trust" I would oppose that as well. The point isn't to be catered to, it's to stop the Christians from being catered to.

It's about revoking this Christian privilege. It's egregiously unacceptable and yet I see atheists accepting it because it's just a passive abuse of power. The difference between passive and active abuse is one of degree, not of character. Abuse is abuse and we should be intolerant. It's not okay to invoke the power of male power or white power, but it's okay to invoke the power of God?

It's irrelevant that it's a violation of the First Amendment; it's a violation of decency, courtesy, and respect to your fellow citizen and a gross injustice.

Closing the Funny Factory?

2008-09-21T22:43:00.002-05:00

Ray claims he's thinking about closing his blog down due to the annoying atheist flies. You can see in his post the makings of a new canard to toss out in interviews. First it was the atheists who were unscrupulously editing his banana video to make his banana argument appear untenable. Now it's the atheists who are relentlessly spamming his blog with profanity, blasphemy, and pornography forcing him to abandon it.

He won't do it, though. He's just like VenomFangX and most of the other ignorance-peddling Christian creationists out there. Those two are birds of a feather from beak to tail. They don't have rational arguments to build their cases on, so they build it on a persecution complex. That's all this is: him playing to his persecution complex.

He's the victim at the hands of the relentless atheists. What he fails to mention is that it's the atheists' logic and rationality that's relentless. I don't really care if his blog closes down. It makes for a nice serving of ridiculous in the afternoon, but that's about it. While that's a plus, he counteracts it with truly frustrating posts such as those that fall in line with the "science leads you to killing people" idiocy.

Hey Ray, quit placating the persecution complexes of you and your followers. It's nice to see you taking a break from your inanity and foolishness on the only two topics you post on: the blind atheist religion and science denial/illiteracy. But taking a break and posting some whining post where you flail your arms, stamp your feet, and hold your breath isn't much of an improvement (though, it is an improvement).

How about taking a break and posting something of interest, such as a post with a logically sound argument or a post which demonstrates at least an eighth grade level understanding of science?

Technically Agnostic?

2008-09-21T12:42:00.002-05:00

So, there was a recent thread over at The Atheist Blogger regarding agnosticism and its relationships to atheism. Adrian was explaining the relationship of knowledge to belief. The individual he was addressing responded with a comment I hear often with agnosticism:

Are you agnostic about ghosts? Are you agnostic about talking to the dead? Are you agnostic about UFOs? It seems to me the answers to those questions should be yes, yes, and yes. We just can’t know!

Again, as the answers should technically be yes, most people do not consider them important enough to acknowledge. In fact, UFO’s exist, we just don’t know what they are. Even if you meant aliens, I would not be agnostic about them either. The universe is only finitely sized, and if the aliens live within it, we can know about them. (emphasis mine)

Why technically? Why the qualification? The essence of agnosticism is that the truth value of certain claims are not known or cannot be proven/disproven -- perhaps inherently unknowable or unprovable.

For example: Life, the universe, and everything came into existence five minutes ago. Everything was created as-is with every person created with memories of an entire life. Each person was created in a specific position performing a specific action.

Should you be agnostic about this claim? Absolutely. The truth value of this claim is unknown and cannot even be assessed.

Usually we apply agnosticism to the realm of the metaphysical, supernatural, and ultimate reality. You can apply it to other things though.

For example: Intelligent life forms exist in some other area of the universe.

We cannot assess the truth value of this claim and it's unknown, at least relative to our known segment of reality. We should be agnostic about it. And, being agnostic about it, we shouldn't care much about taking a position or arguing beliefs on it. Sure, you can try justifying belief in it with statistics or try justifying belief against it using the stroke of luck involved for Earth and life here. Ultimately, it's pointless.

Now, once people start making specific claims about it and about how it intersects with our known reality, then we can start making assessments of it and arguments are justified. For example, we can move beyond simple alienism and into abductionism. One is perfectly justified in responding and assessing these claims. Why always abduct the stupid people? What's with the homosexuality? Why travel all this way just to study us? If you aren't afraid of exposing yourself to some humans, why not all humans? Why haven't we detected you? And so on.

The same applies to the god question. Claim: a god exists. And? There's no possible way of assessing the truth value of this claim and it's unknown and, perhaps, unknowable. There's definitely no way to prove or disprove it. So, yes, we should be agnostic about it. There's no point in even taking a position on it as you can't justify it.

Now, once claims start flying about how this god intersects with our reality, starts interfering and intervening, then we can start assessing that particular claim. For example, Christianity. You can assess the Bible, the history of it, the consistency of it, the ludicrousy of it, the logical contradictions, etc. Belief for or against this can be justified given how much it interacts with us.

Something I see often, including in The Atheist Blogger's post on it, was assessing agnosticism and atheism in relation to "God." Atheism and agnosticism apply to gods in general, not just the monotheistical creator-god. I think we do our discourse a disservice when perpetuating such privilege to the monotheistical religions by extending it here. Furthermore, it compounds confusion for those trying to grapple with application of agnosticism to claims. Existence of a god merits agnosticism. Existence of a specifically defined god may not.

Related: Godly Aliens

What's My Faith?

2008-09-21T02:28:00.004-05:00

I have been emailing back and forth with an officer of our campus Muslim group. I was recommended a site for learning more about Islam, so I went and noticed they offered free literature. I love free literature -- reading from paper is always more enjoyable than reading from a screen. :-)

They had over a dozen pieces of literature to choose from, so I chose all of them. It asked some questions about me and, while filling them out, I came across a troubling question:

I was going to select "atheist" until I saw the question: "My faith is." I had to leave it blank and hope it wouldn't require it, or else I would have gone without.

Atheism isn't my faith anymore than skepticism is my gris gris. Perhaps atheism is my view on faith, but definitely not my faith. It's pedantry, but I think it's justified pedantry to make an issue out of it. The distinction is a clear one.

If you ask me what my religious views are, I would say "atheist." If you ask me what my religion is, I would say "none."

Well... most of the time, anyway.

Heaven Disproves God

2008-09-20T23:08:00.003-05:00

An all-good God, at least.

In a comment, I discussed the idea that Hell can't offer eternal torment as it is unending pain. With only pain, there's no reference for torment since there are no moments of bliss.

We are all familiar with the problem of evil as an argument against an all-good God. What are the typical responses? Oh, it's not logically incompatible because the presence of some evil is necessary for good as a point of contrast. Doesn't Heaven face the same problem? Consider:

Heaven is a paradise. All tears will be wiped away and there will be eternal bliss. Doesn't this necessarily invalidate their argument against the problem of evil? If God can achieve it in Heaven, why not here in this life? If evil isn't a necessary component for the perfect world, the most good world, why is it necessary for good in this one?

Perhaps I can anticipate a response to this: ah, but you forget that those in Heaven will have already existed in this world writhing with evil. Therefore, those in Heaven will have already had the necessary experience with evil! I think you fail to consider the disparity between the length in this world and the next. What is eighty years compared to eternity? It's even less significant than the removal of one grain of sand from a beach. But that's not the biggest problem with this response.

If they are in Heaven and they carry their experiences in this life so as to have the necessary exposure to evil, doesn't that necessitate suffering in Heaven? Not only would they suffer from the memories themselves, they would also be tormented with the knowledge of loved ones in Hell. If God makes them immune to this thought, then he has fundamentally changed them and could have done that from the very beginning. If he wipes their memories or knowledge of their loved ones, then he necessarily removes the experience of evil.

Heaven, as eternal paradise, seems inconsistent with the view of an all-good God on this one facet alone.

Conservatism is Dead

2008-09-18T23:14:00.003-05:00

I have had my absentee ballot request filled out and in a sealed, addressed, stamped envelope for some time now. It has been sitting on a shelf and hasn't moved. I had not decided if I would vote or not. Individual voting is entirely symbolic. My one vote doesn't count. But the symbolism is important to me, so I would vote anyway. For example, in 2006 I voted for a commissioner and a few other positions, but not the top level offices. The only way your vote matters is if you get others to vote your way, which is perhaps the purpose of this post.

This cycle, though, there really hasn't been anything to be excited about. I have to vote in Oklahoma which has the most restrictive ballot access measures in the nation. As such, I won't reward them by giving either major party my vote just because I have no alternative. That's where I found myself this election. Neither Obama nor McCain is palatable. I'd appreciate a conservative, but neither is.

On those two, who is more appealing? Obama I suppose. I detest many of his policies I have read, but he has some redeeming qualities. His appearance -- skin color and name -- are both appealing, given our current situation. He taught constitutional law for over a decade. He seems dedicated to the separation of church and state. He doesn't seem to get into the partisan politics like most -- everyone has to to an extent, of course. A major consideration, though, is the Supreme Court. Given who Bush appointed, it's important not to let McCain have even a single position.

So, I've decided to just try something this election. I'm going to be a single-issue voter. A single issue voter is one who gives political support on one essential issue or idea. And my defining issue? Separation of Church and State. The level of religious discourse in this election is egregious and unconscionable.

As such, I am making this post and casting my vote in support of Barack Hussein Obama. I am leaving now to mail my ballot request. Perhaps a further post on why I chose Obama, but for now I have enough to swallow that I am actually voting for a liberal and, especially, one as liberal as Obama.

Conservatism is dead.

Alternative After-lifestyles

2008-09-17T21:52:00.002-05:00

There are two important truths to understand here. First: God will not "torture" anyone. He will give them "justice." A criminal may believe that his being thrown into a cold prison because he viciously raped three teenage girls, is torture. The judge rather knows better. He calls it "justice."

Right-o Ray. Way to take a page out of the torture-proponents handbooks. God won't "torture" people, he will simply give them "justice." Just like waterboarding and other torture techniques the US employs. We don't "torture" people, we simply have "aggressive interrogation techniques."

And you see, there is no "Hell." Really, there is just an "alternative life-style."

And, you vile atheists, consider this: a person may believe that his being burned, tormented, and plagued with sickness for all eternity because he once told a lie, is torture. God rather knows better. You may call it torture, but he calls it "justice."

P.S. This post is not "sarcasm." I "mean" everything I have typed. And the quotes? They don't "negate" whatever is in them. Ray Comfort is "not" an idiot.

History of First Amendment & Atheism, Part 2

2008-09-17T19:52:00.000-05:00

Note: I had this almost entirely completed (except for the last two cases) and it was just sitting around in my drafts. When I was fetching a link to the first part, I noticed I had never published this. I hope you enjoy it as much as the first.

In the previous post we looked at the foundational history for First Amendment Jurisprudence with respect to the Free Exercise Clause. This post will conclude this Clause.

The cases here will be discussed in a shorter format to hopefully make the length shorter for you. These cases are more interesting than the previous as they are more prevalent to where the Court is currently at. The previous cases were needed as a background as these build on those (precedents) and there is also a school of thought we will see where Scalia wishes to return to Reynolds.

We left the Court when it was considering a balancing approach when there is an issue of state interest vs individual liberty. Further, as the Prince case concluded on (in the dissent), we will see the Court begin to consider just what sort of interest should trump liberty as we see some new standards emerge. Below are some of the most famous cases in the Court's history.

We will cover here:

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961)
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
U.S. v. Seeger (1965)
Welsh v. U.S (1970)
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
Boerne v. Flores (1997)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal et al. (2006)

We will also see some more consideration as to "what is religion?" This question, though, is covered more in-depth with Establishment/Assistance cases.

Braunfeld v Brown (1961): Burden and "purpose or effect" is added to the Valid Secular Policy test
Background
Brought by Jews. Here we have a Pennsylvania statute requiring business to close on Sunday. As Orthodox Jews, though, they had to also be closed on Friday evening and Saturday. This effectively meant they had to be closed a day longer than their competing Christian merchants. These are the so-called "blue laws."

Decision
This was a plurality opinion, meaning there was no majority consensus on the opinion. Chief Justice Warren writes for three of the other justices.

Warren cites the Cantwell precedent we saw in the last post and builds on it. He argues:
1. The legislation is constitutional as it is to advance a valid secular goal, despite its indirect burden. The secular purpose was providing for the general welfare a day of rest.
2. Issuing individual exemptions would be too cumbersome upon the state.

You see he notes the valid secular purpose, but also comments on burdens. Although there is an indirect burden to free exercise, it is a general law to advance the State's interest and there is no other way to accomplish its goal by means without such an imposed burden.

Dissent
Just a quick note on Stewart's dissent as we will see this sentiment discussed in future cases. He dissents because the law "grossly violates" their freedom of religion as it forces an Orthodox Jew to choose between his faith and his economic survival.

Free Exercise Tests
1. He cites Cantwell and builds: If the purpose or effect of law is to discriminate against one or all religions, it is unconstitutional even if the burden is only indirect.
2. If the law is enacted to advance State's valid secular goals, it is valid despite its indirect burden on religion unless the State may accomplish through other means not imposing such a burden.

Sherbet v Verner (1963): The Sherbert Test and genesis of a controversy
Background
Brought by a Seventh-Day Adventist. The plaintiff's employer switched to a six-a-day week which required her to work on the Sabbath. She refused and was fired. When she applied for worker's compensation, she was denied.

Decision
It's a 6-3 decision and Brennan is able to write his dissent from Braunfeld into the majority opinion here:

1. An indirect burden is definitely imposed: it forces her to choose between violating religion and forfeiting unemployment benefits. The "choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against appellant for her Saturday worship."
2. There are no alternative forms of regulation which could combat abuses without infringing on freedom of religion.

We see a Jackson's dissent in Prince appearing here. If you remember, Jackson argued that only the gravest of abuses and danger to the state interest can warrant any degree of limitation on an individual's free exercise of religion.

Brennan argues that in such a sensitive area as religious freedom, "[o]nly the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation." In addition to showing some "compelling state interest," "it would plainly be incumbent upon the appellees to demonstrate that no alternative forms of regulation would combat such abuses without infringing First Amendment rights."

Key Issues
Should government have to prove higher level of interest if it criminalizes behavior as opposed to affecting a person economically?

Free Exercise Tests
This adds on to the Valid Secular Policy:
Compelling Interest Test
a. There must be some compelling state interest for legislation (only against the "gravest abuses" to justify infringement).
b. It must be by the least restrictive means possible.

US v Seeger (1965): The first Conscientious Objector case and "what is religion?"
Background
Brought by a Quaker. He was conscripted into the army but denied conscientious-objector status as his religious beliefs did not constitute "belief in a Supreme being."

Decision
Religion does not require belief in a God; it only requires something that is "sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to orthodox belief in God."

Decision in Welsh v US (1970)
Religious exemption would include moral and ethical beliefs if they are "as sincerely held as traditionally defined religious beliefs."

Key Ideas/Concepts
Conscientious objectors cannot be reserved for those who profess compliance with moral directives from a supreme being. The only thing important is that the belief is "sincere and meaningful" and occupies a place "parallel" to religion.

Wisconsin v Yoder (1972): Foundation for controversies
Background
Brought by the Amish. This is, perhaps, the most well known First Amendment case among the general public. We don't see any new test out of here, but it will be the battling ground of a controversy to come among the justices.

The Amish withdrew their children from school after eighth grade, which violated Wisconsin's compulsory education law. The Amish made an argument that such compulsory education violated their free exercise.

Decision
Burger writes for the unanimous majority (Douglas, though, files a partial dissent below). They rule that compulsory education laws violate the Amish's free exercise of religion, arguing:

1. Mandatory public education compels the parents to fundamentally violate their religious beliefs.
2. ...Even though the state has a compelling interest to do so.
3. This is not at odds with Prince as Prince concerned itself with protecting children from grave evils, not extending children a benefit. This lays in his reasoning that this case is "not one in which any harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to the public safety, peace, order, or welfare."
4. Amish practice is rooted in religious conviction, not just a personal preference.

On the last point, the Court was considering whether the Amish lifestyle was truly part of their religious beliefs. If it is not inseparable, then it is really just philosophical and therefore does not qualify for protection under the First Amendment. He notes this with a reference to Thoreau: Thoreau's choice was philosophical and personal rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses.

Dissent
1. Violates Seeger as Seeger stated philosophical beliefs are protected
2. The emphasis on the Amish's good law and order is irrelevant. (One of the points was that if the children weren't in school, they were receiving a good life/upbringing at home.)
3. The consideration, therefore, is the future of the student: he will be forever harnessed to the Amish way of life <- This is an application of Sherbert

Key Issues
1. Protection of children vs religious faith
2. Difference between philosophical/personal preference and rooted in faith

As you can see here, we're starting to move away from the principles set forth in Sherbert. This continues to happen and, once we move into the Rehnquist Court, we will see us getting further away. Keep this in mind for the next case, which is very important.

Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1990): Scalia rolls back Free Exercise jurisprudence
Background
Brought by an American Indian of a Native American Church. Smith, who ironically worked at a drug rehabilitation center, was fired for ingesting peyote. It was ingested as part of a religious ceremony, although possession of peyote was a crime. He applied for and was denied unemployment benefits, due to "work-related misconduct." It was for this that Smith sued. His claim is that the state denying the benefits was a violation of his Free Exercise since he had been fired due to religious reasons. (Remind you of Sherbet v Verner?)

Decision
Scalia writes the majority opinion here and we are going to see some shifting in the Court. We'll also be revisiting some of those Key Issues/Concepts covered in previous cases, which you should look back at:

1. The criminal law is not specifically directed towards religious practice and only incidentally forbids performance in accordance with religious belief.
2. Previous cases were based on a hybrid of religion and another (seems to relegate religion to second-rung status). He uses this fact to get around the precedents. Remember that previous cases often were a hybrid of religion and speech.
3. Invalidating laws based on an individual's conscience makes it a law unto himself.
4. REYNOLDS sets general rule and SHERBERT/YODER narrow exceptions

We have now completely moved away from the standards and principles set forth in Sherbert and actually revives Reynolds. He has now set forth a new standard which contrasts with it (outlined at the end of this case below).

If you can tell from this brief summary, Scalia dislikes the balancing approach when it comes to anything, as was the foundation of the precedents.

Dissent
Technically, O'Connor is concurring with the judgment, but her opinion here is a dissent. She is very disturbed by the opinion put forth by Scalia and its disregard for the precedents of Braunfeld's severest burden and Sherbert's compelling-interest.

1. Cites Braunfeld: Making criminal an individual's religiously motivated conduct is the severest burden possible.
2. Results in choosing between religious principle and facing criminal prosecution.
3. Cites WEST BARNETTE: purpose of Bill of Rights is to protect religion against such laws, so indirect or direct burdens do matter
4. SHERBERT/YODER are the binding rules; overruled Reynolds.

Key Issues/Concepts
1. Government's ability to enforce general legislation prohibiting socially harmful conduct cannot depend on measuring the effect of it.
2. Democratic rule vs Bill of Rights for minorities
3. Valid, neutral law of general applicability vs Compelling interest and less restrictive means.

Free Exercise Tests
THE SMITH TEST:
1. Freedom of religion does not relieve individual of complying with a VALID and neutral law of general applicability
2. When facing criminal punishments, religious believers cannot be protected by Free Exercise Clause as long as the legislation was not meant to penalize the religion specifically.

There's a lot more to this case and could go on for pages as it's quite a fascinating discussion of balancing approaches, burden and effect, Bill of Rights vs majoritarian rule, stare decisis, etc.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993): Just for fun :-)
Background
Brought by Santerians. This is rather interesting. The City learned that a church was going to locate there which practiced Santeria (ritual animal sacrifice). As such, the city passed a law that prohibited the unnecessary killing of animals, private or public, for anything other than a primary purpose of food consumption. They filed suit. The lower courts upheld the law with the new Smith Test.

Decision
While the lower courts upheld the law under the Smith Test -- as there was a legitimate government interest for it -- the Supreme Court did not. Rather, it found that the laws were not neutral and "suppressed much more religious conduct than necessary to achieve their stated ends." As such, Kennedy subjected it to the compelling-interest standard and, with a vote of 9-0, ruled the law unconstitutional.

CONGRESS INTERFERES...
Congress is not at all happy with the Smith Test. The Compelling Interest test, established in Sherbert, resulted in an imbalance towards more liberty creating a higher standard for government to meet in order to infringe on Free Exercise rights. The Smith Test, though, shifts that imbalance to the government, as you can tell by the parameters, and lowers the standard.

Congress does not like this and enacts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 nearly unanimously (only three votes against in the Senate). It states that whenever neutral laws burden the individuals right to Free Exercise, the courts must apply the compelling-interest test:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability [unless the government can show that the burden] 1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and 2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

This act, meant to roll back Scalia's rollback of jurisprudence on Free Exercise to expand religious freedom was enacted by that godless liberal, Bill Clinton. With this, it aimed to undo Smith and go back to Sherbert/Yoder, as you'll remember from O'Conner and Scalia's argument in the Smith decision.

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): The Supreme Court asserts itself over Congress
A Catholic Archbishop applied for a building permit to enlarge his Church's building. It was denied due to local zoning ordinances which prohibited such construction for any building in the area. The suit was brought alleging that it burdened his ability to act on his beliefs, as permitted by the RFRA.

Decision
Stevens, writing for the majority, struck down the RFRA as unconstitutional and ruled in favor of the City of Boerne in holding with the Smith Test. Kennedy argued that the RFRA is designed to control "cases and controversies," which is the power of the judiciary and no the legislative. This signaled the end to any further Congressional action (short of an Amendment) to overturn Smith.

Concurrence
Just a quick concurrence by Stevens of applying the First Amendment to the RFRA. He held that the RFRA gives preference to religion over irreligion as it respects an establishment of religion. Therefore, it's unconstitutional via the previous standards we have observed.

O'Connor
O'Connor dissent wasn't specifically over the constitutionality of RFRA. Instead, her argument was that Smith was wrongly decided and is not the correct understanding of the Free Exercise Clause. By correcting Smith it would simultaneously but the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence back on track, thereby rendering RFRA moot.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal et al. (2006): Boerne limited
A UDV church in NM had some of their tea seized (which contained a Schedule I substance) and sued for an injunction.

Decision
Roberts, writing for a unanimous court, upheld the applicability of the RFRA to the federal government, as it had only been ruled in Boerne that Congress had exceeded its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment with RFRA. Obviously, the federal government has the right to restrict the degree to which its own officials may restrict the free exercise of religion. Roberts found that the government had failed to apply the strict scrutiny RFRA demands with its actions: the federal government failed to show a compelling-interest.

Looking Forward to Establishment Cases?
This concludes the investigation of the Free Exercise cases of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. We have visited the Conscientious Objector cases where it was considered what, exactly, constitutes a religion under the First Amendment.

As Scalia joined the bench, we say a step back to the ideas in Reynolds. The Court returned to the idea of exceptions for religions rendering one's conscience a law unto itself.

The governing precedence for Free Exercise cases is Smith where Scalia held that Reynolds set the general rule and Sherbert/Yoder set the narrow exceptions. This remains counter to the prevailing idea before this case that, as O'Connor had argued, Sherbert/Yoder are the binding rules and that they overruled Reynolds.

If you enjoyed this walkthrough of the Free Exercise Clause, along with the first part, let me know and I can continue on with the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause relates much more with atheism as that contains all the monuments, displays, and school prayer cases. The Free Exercise cases had to be done first as the Establishment ones build on these ideas.

Is Ray Devolving?

2008-09-17T11:07:00.003-05:00

So, Ray recently posted that he thinks holometabola's metamorphoses are proof of evolution. One has to wonder, then. Ray's obvious misunderstanding of evolution is getting worse and worse. He used to thing that evolution occurs within a pseudo-species but that it can only go to the boundary of the pseudo-species. Now he thinks that it occurs within an individual organism.

By Ray's logic, then, he has been evolving his entire life. He used to be a baby, then he evolved into a teen, then into an adult, then into an older man, and so on. But here's what I like to call the Problem of Stupid with Ray's fundamental misunderstanding:

If Ray has been evolving, and is continuing to evolve, how come his understanding of basic science is getting even worse and his arguments are getting dumber?

An Atheist Verse in the Qur'an

2008-09-16T08:27:00.000-05:00

I have been emailing back and forth with the PR officer of my local Muslim group. We have been discussing a few things and, most recently, abrogation. He quoted a few verses to me, so I opened my Qur'an and read a few pages of context for them. I then came along this gem of a line:

And they say: None entereth paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. These are their own desires. Say: Bring your proof (of what ye state) if ye are truthful. (2:111)

Well, what do you know? An atheist verse right there in the Qur'an. When Jews and Christians bring their claims to me, I say all the time: Bring your proof if ye are truthful. :-)

I must wonder, though, does this also apply to the Muslim's claims? Regardless, it's going in my collection of quotes from holy texts I like to quote. Not too much farther down the page comes another dandy:

And the Jews say the Christians follow nothing (true), and the Christians say the Jews follow nothing (true); yet both are readers of the Scripture.

Yet another good observation. If it weren't for all the vainglorious praise to Allah on every page -- and, not to mention, all the misogynistic, violent, and homophobic filling the gaps in between the praises -- I could really find the Qur'an enjoyable. Actually, I could live with the misogyny, violence, and homophobia; it adds intrigue. But in the name of the merciful and compassionate Allah, the repetitive praise of Allah persists ad nauseam.

The Testament of Elyksha

2008-09-15T07:13:00.000-05:00

The atheists are wrong and the religious believers are all incorrect. My name is Elyksha and I used to be a god. Due to the conduct of my former colleagues in conjunction with my own personal failures, I can be silent no more. I have chosen to take mortal form so that I may relay the greatest story that was never told...

We had existed forever, as long as this universe and those universes before. We neither created the universes nor preceded the universes. It is a concept you will not understand for a great many generations, but their existence is an intrinsic property of the hyperuniverse and the subuniverses (this universe is the current subuniverse) are contingent on their existence. This principle is irrelevant, though, to the story at hand.

My aim is to expose the truth behind the many religions of the world and subvert those who have sought to enslave humanity for their own, petty reasons.

The Nature of the Gods
What you have heard of the characteristics of your gods in your religions is the hyperbole of gods and the fabrication of mortals. No gods are omnipotent nor omniscience. Do not misunderstand, though. They are both very powerful and very knowledgeable. To speak of their "knowledge," they do not know everything, but they know a great much and have a large capacity to store knowledge. Even though they aren't omniscient, it would be difficult for mortals to discern otherwise.

Their "power" is also mighty. They can manipulate matter and energy in the subuniverses, but they may not violate the fundamental laws which delicately hold this universe intact. What you have called "miracles" or realization of the impossible is actually the result of your race's infancy in understanding; you do not yet understand the true nature of your universe.

While our "powers" were equal at the inception of this subuniverse, not all the gods have the same levels of power or knowledge now. Certain events in the subuniverse affect the hyperuniverse, including their relative powers. The greater the number of people who believe in their existence, the greater their power and also their capacity for knowledge are. This fact is what explains the existence of many of your religions, both past and present. The gods are competing for power and knowledge by obtaining believers.

It is in this respect that I, like many gods, have failed. Despite my many efforts, I have been unable to recruit the level of followers that my colleagues have been able to. It is for this reason I am here. Before explaining my role, though, I must first preface it with a history of some religions and how your religions exist today.

The Rules of the Omniverse Continuum
You may begin to ask why we would have even invented religions if we are so powerful that we can manipulate matter and energy itself -- therefore we would be able to control what you think anyway. You misunderstand.

We could have very well revealed ourselves to you and sufficiently demonstrated our supernatural abilities. Indeed, we had attempted this on previous planets. Chaos ensued as every god participated. It fundamentally altered reality itself as it exists in this universe, thereby obliterating them. It was agreed on that there would be rules to govern the continuum to ensure that would not happen again. It was not out of concern for the organized energy-matter in this universe; when those compartments obliterated, the knowledge and power concentrated there was destroyed. The effects in the hyperuniverse were also felt as the collective power was redistributed in an even fashion.

These rules stipulate that they may not manipulate what you call the physical world in any manner, unless agreed upon collectively. They may enter your consciousness, but only one is allowed access into any one mind and the gods are limited how many they may reveal themselves to. Gods themselves may choose to take mortal form (as I have) with the assistance of another god. When one god takes mortal form, his knowledge and power is distributed proportionally over the other gods, as that is the fundamental law of the hyperuniverse.

As you can see, some gods posses more knowledge and power than other gods. When one god is eliminated, every god increases his respective knowledge and power. Therefore, as one god gains more believers and more gods are eliminated, the sum of that god's knowledge and power approaches 1 (omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence).

There are other constraints on their interactions with the subuniverse. As I have failed in obtaining a great number of believers, I lacked a sufficient sum of knowledge and power to meaningfully affect this world. If a god, though, tried to break the agreed law and break the continuum, the collective power of the other gods would prevail in stopping him. Another constraint is that they are not omnipresent. While large disruptions in the continuum are easily detected, subtle ones may not be, depending on where in this universe the concentration of presence is located.

It is here we get to religions.

A Brief History of Religions
When the beings on this planet first began gaining their higher levels of consciousness, we had already many experiences with similar beings on other planets. The beings on this planet, though, seemed predisposed to religious thoughts, and so often they would event their own religions or rituals. We tried to reveal religions to certain primitives, but they were too unintelligent to comprehend any one god's presence in their mind.

Less than 10,000 years ago, this started to change and gods were able to pervade certain isolated cultures in the various parts of this planet to set up religions. The population of this planet, though, was not deemed worthy of the greater gods, so many of the lesser gods, myself included, descended upon this world.

As the population began to grow, so did the concentration of gods. It was a normal occurrence for gods to team up and create polytheistic religions and share the resources of the believers among them. I was never able to accomplish such a pact, so I spent much of "my time" (there is no other term to relate the concept of our existence) on this planet in the religions of those you call Native Americans.

Monotheistic religions were very difficult to establish due to our rules. Not all the minds we entered could comprehend us, so if a mind didn't comprehend our revelation, we lost one of our allotments. As you see in the Native American religions, my revelations were sorely misunderstood which is why they are so obscure. Having multiple gods increased the likelihood of one taking, and we could also reveal the same religion to multiple people so that they could confirm its authenticity. The contents of the religions themselves are irrelevant; we simply need the beliefs. As such, we tried varying the religions to see what was accepted best.

The Rise of Monotheism
The tide of power and knowledge concentration on this planet began to shift starting in the first millenium BCE. One god did what no other god could: establish a monotheistic faith that wasn't battered into obscurity. I speak of Faershua. He revealed himself as the personality of Yahweh to pre-modern tribes. He took a tactic none of us had done before. As I earlier mentioned, those of this world are predisposed to religion. As such, there are a great many religions invented by delusional mortals. A religion had begun to develop in the region known to you as the Middle East. They were authoring a holy book you now know as The Bible. Faershua interceded and revealed himself to a principal in the developing religion and began communicating messages to him for inclusion in the holy text.

Faershua had been the first to create a religion where the most important principle was the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, transcendent god. He also was able to successfully reveal a number of important laws to help propagate his religion. For example, he created a penalty against homosexuality. The sole aim of religions is to get a great number of people to believe in a particular god's existence. While the homosexuals themselves may believe, they would not procreate. As such, there is no growth. As this world is predisposed to religious thought, the children are most likely to accept their parents beliefs -- also another thing Faershua introduced.

He also stressed the importance of "faith" as he knew the civilizations of this world would one day advance to a point of greater understanding, as we have observed on numerous other planets. He revealed certain verses that knowledge of his existence is the greatest knowledge of all and the superiority of those who have this knowledge over those who don't. Due to this world's predisposition to religion, he knew that once it was discovered their true origins that many would reject it due to personal incredulity. We often used deception in our religions as the religions themselves were meant to deceive. He designed an account to exploit this inevitable rejection by offering a simpler origin version for his believers to cling on to. It was highly successful, too, as it reinforced the other passages stating that knowledge of Faershua is greater than any other knowledge.

There were, of course, a great many things in the text which he did not reveal. This is due to the inability of the mortal mind to fully comprehend the presence of a god. It is also due to integrity compromise, both unintentional and malicious.

The surprising success of Faershua's bizarre monotheistic religion startled the rest of us. The threat was not significant on this planet due to the meager population, but Faershua had already begun attempting it on other planets. He was fast gaining more knowledge and power. As his knowledge and power increased, so did his ability to be present in this subuniverse.

The Struggle for Power Escalates: 00 CE
Many of the other gods who had been present on this planet scrambled to temper this religion. We organized into great numbers to reveal grand polytheistic faiths. A strategy was devised to reveal our polytheistic religions to the most advanced people of the time in an attempt to get others to convert upon seeing the superiority of the advanced people. It was somewhat successful, given the circumstances. The number of religions established decreased due to the concentrated polytheistic ones -- usually we would reveal a number of religions. We had used up our allotted revelations for this planet's time when revealing these grand polytheistic religions. As such, many of us moved on to other planets

None of us expected what Faershua had come up with. What happened next, though, had never been attempted with even the slightest degree of success ever in this universe (or in those comparable subuniverses which preceded this one). One obscure god, in collusion with another, would subtly violate the continuum, successfully, and exploit Faershua's religion to subvert his believers over to this god.

End of Part the First.

Two Creationist Laughs

2008-09-14T22:07:00.002-05:00

Just a quick note on two creationists. First up is VenomFangX. Thunderf00t (the one and only) has posted the following ultimatum to VenomFangX:

I thought I'd share my support with him, so I dropped him a line:

The content of what creationists like VFX publish is irrelevant. We live in a free society of free ideas -- much to the chagrin of those very same creationists. What VFX has done has gone beyond mere censorship of dissent on his private videos. While that is an odious mark of anti-intellectualism and acknowledgment of the untenableness of his arguments, it is still his private channel and he is well within his rights.

What he has apparently done, though, is abuse a venue provided by both YouTube and the government of this country in order to expand his censorship to other channels. Not only is his intellectual fortitude so scarce that he must prohibit dissent in his own little bubble of the Internet, he must wage a cowardice assault from behind his keyboard to prohibit dissent everywhere.

He has, like so many others, gotten so comfortable with the anonymity of the Internet that he has shown his Christianity mandates no integrity on his part. He seems to be part of the "it's okay to lie for Jesus" camp. He has abused a service meant for legitimate claims for real infringements to compensate for his own intellectual impotence.

I hope you pursue him; not for his content, but for his conduct. If any atheist did what the "good Christian" VFX did, I would demand the same. For someone who is so quick to profess the moral superiority of Christianity, it's interesting to see, via his latest video, how unapologetic he is regarding his decisively unethical actions.

While he likes to play the victim, I am not asking you to crucify him. I am asking for you to pursue what is just. For that goal, I would happily furnish contributions.

The other creationist is Sarah Palin (also, the one and only). I'm rather uninterested in the flurry of posts about her due to the blatant hypocrisy and frivolities in this election. I'm given a presentation to my atheist group this Friday on the election, though, so I thought I'd watch a lot of media today to grab a few clips. Without fail, anytime they asked for her foreign policy experience, she would say that her state is bordered by two countries and there's a spot in Alaska where you can actually see Russia.

Really? I mean, really? Hey, I think tomorrow I'll go apply to be the CEO of Bank of America. When they ask for my experience, I will reply that there are several banks nearby and that I can see one from my window.

"If Atheists Truly Didn't Believe..."

2008-09-14T08:41:00.002-05:00

"Then they wouldn't spend all their time arguing against what they claim not to believe. Since the atheist worldview says this is your only life, you would spend every moment of every day not wasting it. You would spend it enjoying life. It's obvious you don't for the same reason you spend all your time arguing against that which you claim not to believe: you know it's true and are just trying to convince yourself. The Bible is so right, no one does not know God, they simply hate him."

What a middle school assessment of the opposition. Many of the atheists I know, myself included, are skeptics. We spend time arguing against other types of bunk like UFOs, Bigfoot, CAM, etc. By your middle school logic, it is apparent that we don't actually disbelieve these claims. If we really did not believe, then why would we waste our time arguing against things which we believe to be false? Because you fundamentally misunderstand. We do not argue against Bigfoot; we argue against the belief in Bigfoot. I don't believe Bigfoot exists anymore than I believe that the Christian God exists -- in fact, I positively believe those two things do not exist.

I, like skeptics and many atheists, argue against nonsense like Bigfoot and God because of a few reasons. One reason is that the belief is often harmful in some way to the person who holds it. Unlike the horrible painting you have created of atheists in your mind, we actually care about people -- to quote the great Dr. Comfort, we atheists actually "have a conscience." Belief in stuff like homeopathy is harmful because it acts as a horrible substitute for actual medicine -- on the same level that feces is a horrible substitute for chocolate: they may look similar, but one makes you feel good and the other one is crap.

Another reason, though, is that you misunderstand again. You recognize that this life is precious for us (another reason to be an atheist), so it is a logical conclusion that we would like to have meaningful, fulfilled lives and enjoy ourselves. Most atheists -- and I do mean most -- do not care at all about arguing against religion. They see it as a waste of their time as there's better things to do. One of my best friends is an atheist and we have fun laughing at silly (religious/supernatural) beliefs and creationist arguments, but that's as far as she goes. She doesn't want to discuss any philosophical or scientific arguments one way or the other.

That's great for her, because she does not enjoy it; she spends her time doing things she does enjoy. You fail to even consider, though, that arguing against religion and other nonsense is enjoyable to many atheists. That's the only reason an atheist would even have a blog dedicated to it.

Other reasons include the fact that we have religion forced down our throats in society. We are activists because you good Christians feel it appropriate to infringe on our rights. So, we take action in the government to protect ourselves. There's also many who have our relationships with our families poisoned by religion, and speaking out against it is a cathartic experience. There's also a passion for educating people. For example, creationists have launched a vile attack on science, and it's important for people to exist to counter it and explain why creationism fails at every level.

But these are secondary for me. I spend my time arguing against religion and religious superstition because it's enjoyable. I know it is a difficult concept to grasp for those who accept their religion on faith, but intellectualism is a prosperous exercise. Engaging in intellectual activities expands my own sphere. When I recognize how people delude themselves into many of the beliefs they have regarding religion, how people mistake anecdotes for rigorous evidence, how people use poor logic, it improves my mind.

I can use these observations and inspect my own beliefs on other matters critically. Am I forming these beliefs for good reasons? Am I analyzing the evidence, setting my bias aside? Am I carefully making sure I see all the variables in the evidence? Am I using proper logic? Can my same arguments be used for the contrary belief?

A Godly Encounter

2008-09-13T03:36:00.002-05:00

Yesterday I met a mortal who used to be a god.

More on this Monday...

Imagine No Religion

2008-09-11T00:52:00.004-05:00

There will probably be many posts across atheist blogs today on this. This will be my first September 11th in the atheist community. Religious fanatics flying planes into our buildings is genuinely frightening. What is even more frightening, I think, is how politically correct our country has become that many deny the link between religious fanaticism and 9/11.

Too often I hear people claiming that they are just hatemongers using religion as the rhetoric to have their cause embraced (though, I don't see how that is any better), or people claiming that it is just a few people perverting and misconstruing the message of Islam. Islam is the not the mask on the face of the problem; Islam is the hideous face of the reality of our situation. Denial is an inhibitor; we can have no rational discourse on the problem as there is no denying the link of religion. Islam promotes violence the same Christianity promotes misogyny and homophobia; the two are inextricably linked.

I don't have any big post planned for today, but I thought I would share words from two people already this morning.

Greydon Square -- The Dream

I'm dreamin' of a world with no gods at all
No separation, nobody takin' sides at all
No Holocaust, no one indoctrinatin' our children
No religious fanatics flyin' planes into our buildin's
Everybody playing in the game of life in which they can't lose
Instead of killing for an invisible man they can't prove

Nobody dyin' over a book
No Crusades, no war on terror headed by Bush
I'm dreamin' of a world where there is no such place as the Bible Belt
Instead of lookin' up you look inside yourself
And when you do find yourself, you gonna help somebody else
Instead of prayin' you'd do well to maintain your body's health

Now that's what I call a dream

KafirGirl relates her experience of walking home after having all eyes upon her in class on 9/11:

It was a 3 mile walk, at least, and I had plenty to think about on my way over. Somewhere along the way, I realized that I’d been hiding behind the word agnostic for 2 years. The word atheist, at that point, just seemed so final. If I used the word atheist, it would mean having to give up my back door, my Plan B, my escape route. There was no way out. I realized that I was tired — really, genuinely tired — of lying to myself. I knew with every fiber of my being that I could never just go back to being a Muslim again. I’d crossed the line, embraced logic, reason & reality. And there was no looking back.

I’m an atheist, I thought to myself. An atheist. And then I whispered it out loud, just to hear myself say it: I’m an atheist.

I’m an atheist.
And there is no looking back.

The Dark Ages Are Over, Ray

2008-09-10T17:15:00.010-05:00

Ray made a rather sickening post juxtaposing a starving child with a description of the LHC. His motive? Ray hates science and knowledge. The more that science uncovers, the more evidence against his unfounded beliefs, the more time he has to spend inventing nonsense to throw at the wall and see what sticks.

Contrary to what you and your cohorts like Ben Stein claim, Ray, science does not lead you to killing people nor does it harm society. To the contrary, Ray, science has been a major benefit to society; there is no way we could sustain over six billion people otherwise. You frequently post on how atheists should give respect and reverence to God because he, supposedly, gave us life and provided for us. Why don't you, Ray, a 58 year old man, take your own advice and give some respect to the science that has provided the vaccinations and cures to protect you from your God's pestilence, as well as the science that has allowed you to live so long and so comfortably (in your $250,000 home). Hypocrite.

And I don't want to hear any of this nonsense about investing ten billion dollars into science and juxtaposing it with starving children. The great thing about science is that discovering new principles and facts about the universe leads to inventions and contributions in other areas of science. Before we should even give one thought to the idea of investing ten billion dollars into science and juxtaposing that with starving children, we should first look at all the frivolous hundreds of thousands of luxurious, ostentatiously extravagant churches. Why don't you give up some of your $100k+/year salary and $250,000 home and give that to the starving child, Ray? Hypocrite.

It's not the Dark Ages, Ray. I know science scares you because you don't understand it (not even gravity) and it threatens your primitive beliefs and contradicts your ancient, antiquated texts, but the Dark Ages are over. Quit attacking science and go back to leading your flock astray.

Your audacity never fails to put me in a state of awe, you arrogant dolt.

I'm Fasting for Ramadan

2008-09-10T14:10:00.002-05:00

It's the blessed month of Ramadan and we all know what that means: we godless atheists get to enjoy steaks while the Muslims go hungry. I'll be joining the Muslims this year, though, or at least joining them for one day.

Some members from my atheist group were conducting an Ask-An-Atheist booth from 11am-1pm today. While I was out, I decided to drop by. Two Muslim girls wearing hijabs were walking around passing some things out and apparently getting people to sign up for something.

They come up to us, smiling, and greet us. They begin to speak when they see our "Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists" sign behind us. They both stop talking and one of them exclaims:

Oh no! You guys are atheists.

It was a bit of a humorous comment. It was said in the tone of some environmental activists trying to get people to commit to using less gasoline and then run into some oil executives:

Oh no! You guys are oil executives. The enemy!

Ha ha. Just what were these two Muslim girls passing out and getting people to sign up for? A pledge to fast from sunrise to sunset on Monday:

For every non-Muslim who fasts with us, local-area businesses have pledged to donate a certain amount of money towards the 2008 Ramadan Orphan Drive, conducted by Islamic Relief, who currently sponsor over 20,000 orphans in 21 countries.

There was something very telling in her tone and exclamation about her exposure and conception of atheists. I think she was particularly surprised when we didn't laugh at all the hungry orphans in the world and instead all signed a pledge to fast.

Suggest Some Atheist Media, Please

2008-09-09T19:07:00.003-05:00

I'll have a post up later on the magic medicine of the ad hominem, but currently I am working on an website which will be a repository of information for new atheists or those just beginning to question their religion.

Could you recommend some of your favorite atheist media? It could be a general blog, a blog post, podcasts, some youtube video, debates, pictures, music, books, websites, etc.

All suggestions are appreciated.

Holy Hatred: Homosexuality

2008-09-08T10:13:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I offered an open-ended request to Christians to show me some good reason or evidence to believe in Christianity, the authenticity of the Bible, and/or its message. While that's still open, I thought I would advance a smaller question relating to it regarding homosexuality.

I hear it often described that the Bible is the best guide to live your life by. In fact, my father told me for many years that one of the most convincing things for him is that following the laws and guidelines in the Bible leads to a better life and disobeying them never bodes well. While I am not "out" to my father about being an atheist (as he would never speak to me again), I had a discussion with him one night last year regarding the Leviticus codes that I will now post here.

It's difficult to make sense of all the things written in Leviticus and those early books. Many Christians now today simply pick and choose from them so that they don't have to deal with things such as slavery. We can focus on one of the things that some Christians are not choosing while others are choosing: homosexuality.

If the guidelines of the Bible really are the best we have, if the things said to be immoral there are because they are harmful, then I must ask, what objective reason is there for considering homosexuality immoral? Or, better yet, to shed the "moral" argument: Why should we be opposed to homosexuality and prohibit it?

So, for those Christians who have chosen this parcel from the Bible and condemn homosexuality, please explain why. Please offer arguments and reasons against homosexuality. I am genuinely interested in why. And, the reasons should not create some sort of double standard.

For those Christians who have not chosen this particular thing, why not?

This question is of particular importance in America. A legitimate secular purpose is one of the requirements for any sort of law. Now's your chance. What's the legitimate secular purpose? So, since we're considering the political ramfications as well, feel free to address same-sex marriage if you wish.

Addressing Science to Inform Politics

2008-09-08T07:33:00.000-05:00

(This doesn't have to do with religion, just an experience I had tonight with science advocacy in the realm of politics.)

Tonight [Friday] was the first general meeting of my atheist and skeptics club. It was quite successful with over thirty people turning up for a discussion session. We addressed the topic of science advocacy and why it is important. We then broke up into four groups, each led by a club officer, to each discuss a specific topic of: intelligent design (of course), stem cell research, nuclear power, or marijuana prohibition.

The last two were meant specifically to address the need of science advocacy in the realm of the politics of it. Liberals are overly opposed to nuclear power whereas conservatives are overly favoring marijuana prohibition. One of the officers in the club who is a liberal took on the discussion group of nuclear power. I, being a conservative, took on the discussion group of marijuana prohibition.

One of the things I stressed was the need to address the science in order to inform the politics. Too often we are guilty of addressing the politics to inform the science. It reminds me very much of the creationist political cartoon where it juxtaposes evolutionary scientists versus creationist "scientists." The scientists say "here are the facts; what conclusion fits?" The creationists say "here is the conclusion; what facts can we fit in?"

This is a personal issue I have brought up on many of my late night discussions with the president of our club, who is a liberal. Too often we let ideologies, partisanship, religion, and preconceived notions clout our analysis and lead to cherry picking data and taking a bias. It has been particularly bad this year due to the nature of our presidential election. Lately the partisan politics that I observe from politicians and the public alike has almost led me to become apolitical as I go from being a skeptic to a cynic in the political realm. Dinesh D'Souza attacking Edwards and claiming it the bankrupt values of liberal and liberals attacking Palin with criticism they dismissed towards Obama.

So, this is a message I tried to hammer in my discussion group on marijuana prohibition. This is a topic where people generally are not passionate about because they are largely ignorant of it. The most common concerns I hear from people are effects on driving, the gateway theory, and it making people habitually lazy. So, this at least is not an issue where you have to break through people's biases to address, but it is an excellent topic to show how science can well inform the politics. I gave two common ideologies and beliefs we need to set aside before approaching the topic: the common liberal position that you should be able to do whatever you want with your own body and the common conservative position that it would "send the wrong message to kids" (which I actually quoted from John Edwards). Both of these are valid political stances, but they are completely irrelevant to the analysis and can only serve to unduly influence it.

I gave a brief history of marijuana prohibition, including the racist and ignorant roots of it. I went through a timeline of the War on Drugs and primarily the impact on incarceration rates and prison statistics. It was not difficult to see the effects of "tough on crime" legislation on the prison population. The penalties for marijuana possession, including mandatory minimums and the death penalty, were especially shocking.

We then moved into a discussion on the medical effects and benefits of marijuana. We not only discussed the benefits, we also discussed the effects of marijuana on the user (such as the negative impact on memory). We then discussed the common objections to it: the gateway theory and effects on driving. Luckily, the effects of marijuana on driving have been well researched; however, the media don't report on it. The impairment caused by marijuana on driving is of a very, very low risk. The gateway theory is just an excellent exercise in critical thinking, logical fallacies, and bad statistics.

At the end, I told them: We have now spent about half an hour addressing just the science alone; we can now have that inform the politics. I put forth several solutions:

1. Maintain the zero tolerance approach we have taken and keep it as a Schedule I drug "having no medical benefit and high probability of abuse."
2. Medicalize it: Allow doctors to prescribe it, and likely lower it to a Schedule II drug.
3. Decriminalize it: It remains illegal, but you aren't prosecuted for possession or free transfer (of certain quantities).
4. Legalization with strict regulation: Basically bring it to the legalized status of tobacco or alcohol.
5. Legalization: Basically make it as regulated as aspirin.

No one voted for the zero tolerance approach. The common stance was #4 and the other being a fusion of #2 and #4 -- allowing doctors to freely prescribe it in any quantity and then allow the public to buy it at restricted, monitored quantities (like cough syrup).

At the end, I think they did quite well and we discussed how we could apply this to other issues. I think they still had this idea of "we must control it for some reason." I would personally go with #5 as I don't think the reasons are there for the #4 classification: it isn't very harmful to your physical body and doesn't have the serious adverse effects on you while impaired.

That's a very brief slice of the issue and discussion, but this post wasn't meant for any big message anyway.

Mailbag: Hopeful Afterlife

2008-09-07T15:28:00.000-05:00

The mail I receive is generally either friendly or "burn in hell" type messages. This one, though, I thought was interesting enough for a post (I'm not sure if it's in response to this morning's request). Celina writes:

dont you want an afterlife? all you have to do is accept the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and He will embrace you in Heaven. why wouldnt you want to go to Heaven and spend an eternity in bliss? isnt that worth beleiving in?

No matter how much I may hope something is true, the only things worth believing in are those things for which there are good reasons. On the Christian Heaven, though, I don't necessarily believe that it's a place I would even want to go to. The details of it are obscure:

What would I do everyday?
Would I remember those I loved in this life who are now suffering eternally in Hell?
Would sleep be required?
Would I be endowed with the knowledge of the universe?
Would there still be crime and, if so, what types of crime?
Would I be the same person?

The details of Heaven that I do know, though, lead me not to want to spend an eternity there:

I, presumably, would have to follow the laws of the Bible (slavery anyone?).
I would have to spend an eternity there. I don't know if I would want to spend an eternity anywhere.
I would be surrounded by people who had surrendered rational beliefs in this life. That means I would be with the likes of Ray Comfort, but Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Benjamin Franklin, and countless others would not be there.
Many of my friends are atheists, since I am now involved in atheist groups, so I wouldn't have them there with me.
I would have an eternity with this God fellow. If he's the miserable, vainglorious ogre that he is portrayed as in the Bible, being around him would be anything but bliss.

So, from what I can tell, I wouldn't want to spend an eternity in Heaven as it wouldn't be bliss. If the only other alternative is spending eternity in Hell, well, I guess I would choose Heaven. But that's sort of like asking if I would rather have both my legs broken or to be kicked in the groin several times.

If I could get something like Create-Your-Own-Heaven^™ software, I would design something along the lines of:

First and foremost, the ability to die if I so choose.
I would be exactly the same person that I am now and with exactly the same knowledge. I would have some superior form of body, though, especially a computer-like brain.
I would have all the necessary essentials and some luxuries automatically provided for so that I can spend all my times pursuing my own interests. Any study or educational materials would be automatically provided for as well.
Most of everyone would be there, but I would be able to choose who I do and do not see.
The surrounding would be much of what they are now, except all the maintenance and construction are automatically done. There's also anarchy as there is no need for government anymore.

I think that covers the basics of it. I could spend eternity learning all sorts of new things. I could study every field of knowledge and eventually unlock the secrets of the universe myself. God would just be like the Hint button when you get stuck on something. I would also be able to reminisce and visit with any person in history, including every Founder of America and every great scientist.

Oh, and there would also be some sort of time machine available to view any segment of history (with no ability to change it). How wonderful would it be to watch the evolution of the universe in accelerated speed? At a million years per second, it would be the greatest four hour movie ever viewed.

But still with this wonderful afterlife that I hope for, I cannot believe it exists. I would love for it to exist, but there's no good reason to believe in it any more than believing the mail man will show up Monday and deliver a package to me that contains a sizeable diamond in it.

Christians: Convince Me

2008-09-07T07:00:00.000-05:00

This request is open to all religions, though specifically to the Christians who read this blog. Post your response as a comment, anonymous comment, or email me at disco.igno@gmail.com. Whatever you submit, I will make a post on it and what I think about it. This is your chance to convince me or at least find out why I think whatever your reason or evidence is is not credible.

The prompt is simple:

What reason is there to believe in the authenticity of the Bible, its message, and/or Christianity?

You can submit any claim that you like; whatever you find convincing. It cannot be an argument "against atheism" as that bears no weight on the validity of Christianity -- atheism is simply the lack of belief. I am asking for any reason or evidence to warrant a belief.

Some reasons or evidence that qualify for submission could include historicity of Jesus, authenticity of the Bible, historical arguments for the Bible, revelations, anecdotes, empirical evidence, studies, etc. You should keep in mind that these aren't necessary credible, but examples that go towards reasons or evidence for Christianity.

Some reasons or evidence that do not qualify for submission include arguments for the existence of a Deistic God (one who created the universe and left it alone) as it does not go towards Christianity, but rather Deism. Arguments such as "you need to accept Jesus to wash your sins away" or anything along that line -- I want arguments for Jesus and the Bible, not arguments from Jesus and the Bible.

Keep in mind that I will consider how your reasons and evidence apply to both Christianity and other religions. I want to be convinced of Christianity, not of Deism or evidence that can be used for any religion.

Those are the ground rules. I look forward to your submissions.

$25, If You Prove Gravity

2008-09-06T18:10:00.000-05:00

As I have already exposed gravity as the fraud that it is, I see no reason to post on it further. I am a rational individual, though, which is more than I can say about the dogmatic Newtonists. So, I feel compelled to offer a small prize to force them to inspect their beliefs.

I am but a senior in college with a web development business. I do not exploit my followers for large sums of money, pay myself from my ministry in excess of $100,000, and do not own a home worth a quarter of a million dollars (which is more than I can say for Ray Comfort).

As such, I cannot offer a $10,000 prize like Ray Comfort and, since I have the integrity to back mine up with actual cash even though no one can prove something as nonexistent as gravity (or unicorns), I am offering a prize of $25 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for gravity*. My $25 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of gravity is nothing more than a religious belief. It may be a paltry sum, but if gravity is as obvious as the believers in the theory tale of gravity claim that it is, it should be a quick buck.

* NOTE: When I use the word gravity, I am not referring to the minor attractions of various things on the Earth to the Earth (microgravity via The Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodley appendage). I am referring to the general theory of gravity (Newtonism) which believes these five major events take place without the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

1. All matter and energy gravitated itself into existence.
2. The Big Bang created gravity.
3. Every object, including dogs and kittens, have gravitational orbits around them.
4. The Moon is on a crash course towards Earth -- since Earth supposedly has a gravitational pull on the Moon.
5. A bowling ball and a feather can be dropped from the top of a building at the same time and hit the ground at the same time.

P.S. Oh, and sorry Newtonists. No articles of faith will be accepted, so no submissions of "just believe" will be accepted. To quote the great Dr. Comfort: "'Chance' or 'accident' is too bigger leap of blind faith for me. The evolutionist's version of 'just believe' isn't good enough. I want verifiable scientific facts."

P.P.S. A special thanks to the crook Kent Hovind for this challenge; it is modeled after his $250,000 challenge for the equally insane theory tale of evolution.

Sweaty Morals: Enslave, Hate, and Subjugate

2008-09-05T23:37:00.009-05:00

I wanted to kick the weekend off with a challenge to Newtonists, but until I can find my camera I will have to find other ways to suppress my baby eating, erm, predilections.

Speaking of baby eating, I received an email alert today. I stopped reading Dan's blog over at Debunking Atheists as he kept deleting my comments. I failed to unsubscribe from comment notifications, though, on his Atheists Eat Babies! entry. He posted a comment which I hear made a lot by Ray, that God has written his moral code "in our hearts" as a conscience. Therefore, it does not matter if we disbelieve the Bible as he's given us a permanent copy. Dan writes, in response to Adrian Hayter:

For example, it's a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that;

They experience sweaty palms.

They experience induced swallowing.

Their heart rate increases.

Their faces turn red.

They avoid eye contact.

They speak more quickly, etc. etc. (The same old, same old with everyone human being on the planet. Except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception.

I will spare you the rest that leads up to God's moral law is our conscience, atheists are immoral because we disobey our conscience, and feeling bad for lying or "raping and murdering a baby" is evidence for this. I address this point as, I said, it's brought up a lot. Not just by Ray, but also by a commenter of this blog some months ago:

"And if you fail to receive a copy of these laws, through no fault of your own, you are to be tortured for all eternity, regardless of whether or not you lived your life better than those who are getting into Heaven?"

Yet, God gave us a conscience. Man knows what is right and what is wrong. [...]

God is going to judge all mankind.
He will judge the ones who have been given the law stricter than those who have never heard of it.

Therefore the people who have not heard of the law will indeed be judged by the law of God which has been placed into there heart.

So, to begin, the obvious question arises: what about sociopaths? Dan begins by saying that, it's a fact, "ALL people" have it and then he concludes with "except of course for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception." I wonder if he just stated it ambiguously or if he really believes that sociopaths have "perfected evil deception." The notable feature of sociopaths is that they do not have a conscience: "Because of the psychopaths inability to internalize superego precursors, they are unable to learn from past mistakes, and are completely devoid of a conscience." So, why has God given a conscience to some people but not to others -- especially if he is supposed to judge everyone by that standard?

It has been advanced by the above, and Ray, that the conscience is God's moral laws written on our hearts (which makes you wonder why, then, go through the trouble of writing them down?). Their assertion is that God's moral laws are absolute -- after all, their whole shtick is about the necessity of dictated moral absolutes. Therefore, everyone's conscience should match up and also with the Bible.

This is demonstrably false, though. I can speak only for myself, as the conscience is necessarily a first hand experience. Here are a few things my conscience "tells" me:

Slavery
When I think of enslaving anyone -- anyone -- it makes me queasy. It makes me literally queasy to close my eyes and imagine going out, capturing someone or paying a slave trader, and then infringing on that person's right to liberty for as long as I please in the most inhumane manner possible. It shocks my conscience. I think, perhaps, it is the most immoral thing you can do; even greater than murder as, at least then, the person can actually die. And yet, this moral law God has supposedly written in my heart is in direct conflict with the moral laws he has written in the Bible that slavery is moral:

** (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
** (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
** (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
** (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
** (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
** (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
** (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Morally repugnant. Egregiously immoral. Unconscionable.

Homosexuality
What is there to say about homosexuality in the realm of morality? About as much as there is to say about the preference of green towels over red towels. If someone I knew preferred members of their sex over members of the opposite sex, I would have about as strong of feelings towards that revelation as if they were to tell me that they preferred green towels of red towels.

What I do find immoral is judging them for their nature. That is truly wicked. It is just as immoral as judging them based on their skin color -- in fact, actually worse as you are sullying something essential to them and often desecrating something sacred they may hold for someone else. It's morally repugnant and abominable, especially to impose some sort of penalty on them. And yet, this moral law God has supposedly written in my heart is in direct conflict with the "moral" laws he has written in the Bible that homosexuality is immoral:

* Genesis 19:1-9 (as it relates to it)
* Leviticus 18:22
* Leviticus 18:29
* Leviticus 20:13
* Romans 1:26-32
* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

I'm supposed to feel that it is wicked that my sister, a loving mother of a beautiful daughter and an all around gregarious person, is some sort of immoral deviant or scourge because she is naturally attracted to females? Morally reprehensible.

Subjugation of Women
What is there to say here that I have not said before? Women are not my equals; I am their equal. Women are just as capable as men and they are born with the same inherent rights: life, liberty, and property. Misogyny is deplorable in all its forms. And the woman's place? The woman's place is any where she damn well pleases. The man's place is to treat her as the person she is. That's what's written in my heart. I wince -- literally -- any time I hear some "good" Christian talking about the role of women or women "pretending to be men." And yet, this moral law God has supposedly written in my heart is in direct conflict with the "moral" laws he has written in the Bible that women are inferior to men and/or property:

* Genesis 3:16
* Genesis 19:8
* Exodus 21:7-8
* Numbers 31:15-19
* Deuteronomy 22:20-24
* 1 Corinthians 11:3
* Ephesians 5:22-24
* 1 Timothy 2:11-12
* 1 Peter 3:1

Vile commandments and "morals." Paine was right when he described the so-called teachings of the Bible to be more the word of a demon than of a god. I was going to go on into shellfish, treatment of children, rape, taking a day off, but this is about all the scripture from the "good" book that I can stomach in one evening. I once was truly horrified by what the Bible taught, but even the cruel wickedness of the Bible I have become desensitized to.

So, from all of this, the question is: Why write these things in my heart, and then write something entirely opposite in the Bible? Why God? Did you plan on me being an atheist and, therefore, decided to make it so that I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't? Are you just trying to cover all your bases to ensure that I'm going to Hell? Either my conscience is wrong or the Bible is false. I choose the option that doesn't allow me to enslave, hate, and subjugate: my conscience.

What Have I DONE?!

2008-09-05T20:06:00.004-05:00

Oh no! I thought my article debunking gravity was well put together, but I didn't actually expect to convince anyone that gravity is absurd and the theory full of holes. I thought it was completely innocent. Obviously, I was wrong. I didn't consider that Ray Comfort would read my blog as, apparently, he agrees that gravity is not well supported:

Science discovered that when a certain object moves at a certain speed it supersedes the law of gravity, and can fly. [...] However, we now know that even though the law of gravity remains, the flying object has moved into a higher law, the invisible law of aerodynamics.

I just contributed to Ray making my brain hurt more with his posts. To the people who follow him into the gates of science illiteracy Hell with evolution denial: how can you possibly subscribe to or trust anything this man has to say regarding science after a statement like this? The man who thinks light is invisible also thinks the law of aerodynamics is invisible (whatever that means), that flight "supersedes" the law of gravity, and that the law of aerodynamics is a "higher law" than the law of gravity?

I was working on a post regarding my discussion group tonight that I attended regarding science advocacy. If only I had had this article to bring in to discuss. Indeed, we discussed the problem with elementary and secondary education in science classes and the horribly inadequate and incorrect presentation of science. Too many people are taught in middle school that a law is fundamentally different than a theory and that a theory is synonymous with hypothesis. Too many are taught in middle school that a law is just a "proven" theory and that there are certain hierarchies there.

Too bad many people, like Ray Comfort, never move beyond this middle school concept of science. Too bad Ray Comfort writes on and "teaches" science topics to people. Too bad many people follow Ray Comfort and trust him on science topics.

Godly Aliens

2008-09-05T03:07:00.001-05:00

Image: Kecko

I have had a few questions regarding my agnosticism and atheism from some Christian and non-Christian commenters, so I thought I would explain my position with an analogy between gods and aliens to demonstrate not believing versus believing not. I hope the three in the morning post doesn't lose its coherency...

I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. That is not to say that I believe there are no gods, just that I don't actively hold some belief regarding it. To assign some values to it:

+1: I believe there is at least one god. (theism)
0: I do not believe there are any gods. (a-theism)
-1: I believe there are no gods. (anti-theism)

The proposition is "A god exists." With that scoring method, I gain 0 points. Perhaps to make this more clear, let's relate this to aliens. We have the following scoring options:

+1: I believe that aliens exist. (alienism)
0: I do not believe any aliens exist. (an-alienism)
-1: I believe no aliens exist. (anti-alienism)

The proposition is "Aliens exist." Again, for this, I score a 0. It's not that I believe no aliens exist, it's that I have no belief regarding it. There may be or there may not be; I have no belief either way (I'll clarify this point later).

Just like with the god question, "alien" is not well defined. What are we talking about here? Super intelligent aliens? Semi intelligent aliens? Aliens constructing spacecrafts? Aliens who are mere life and not even sentient? It's as ill-defined as "god." What are we talking about here? An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god? A deistic sort of god? A personal god? A semi-powerful god? An omnipresent god? It's not really defined.

Now, my lack of belief in aliens is not simply because I do not know. You can start defining the aliens and giving them characteristics. For example: A race of aliens who are super intelligent, capable of interstellar travel, and have been visiting Earth for centuries. They are little green men, with antennas coming out of their heads, they have been abducting people for centuries, probing them, and studying them. Once they have finished, they put that person back on Earth. That's the proposition, here's the scoring:

+1: I believe these aliens exist. (abductionist)
0: I don't believe these aliens exist. (an-abductionist)
-1: I believe these aliens don't exist. (anti-abductionist)

In this case, I score a -1 because I have the belief that these aliens with these activities don't exist. Of course, I don't "absolutely know" one way or the other; they may exist. I believe they don't, though. There are many reasons that have led me to this belief: Why always abduct the stupid people? Why the homosexual overtones with the abductions? Why travel all this way for all these centuries just to study us? Why not make your presence known? Why haven't we been able to detect you?

Just because I believe these aliens don't exist does not contribute at all to the general existence of aliens or to my general not believing in aliens. In other words, my anti-abductionist belief has nothing to do with my an-alienist lack of belief.

Now, to relate this to the god question. Start defining one and I'll see what I score on it. Take the Judeo-Christian God. He created the life, the universe, Earth, and everything 6,000 years ago. He's omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. He had a son 2,000 years ago and wrote a book in his free time. He will judge everyone after they die and send them either to Hell or to Heaven, depending if they believed in the divinity of Jesus. That's the basic proposition, and here's the scoring:

+1: I believe this god exists. (Christian)
0: I don't believe this god exists. (a-Christian)
-1: I believe this god does not exist. (anti-Christian)

I score a -1 because I believe this god does not exist. Of course, I don't "absolutely know" one way or the other; he may exist. I believe he doesn't, though. There are many reasons leading to this belief: The contradictions of his magical power (omnipotence and omniscience, for example). The extraordinary amount of suffering in this world does not lead to an all-loving god. The idea that God exists, powerful enough to reveal himself, cares that we believe he exists, and does not show himself because he doesn't want to force the belief or whatever, is absurd. Why would a god that powerful even care enough to create us, and further would even care about us, and finally would care that we believe he exists? Why if it's all about us did he create the billions of others stars and planets? What about all the evidence which disproves the 6,000 year old Earth/universe? What of all the errors, idiocies, and immorality in the Bible? Why write a Bible at all? If he doesn't want to interfere with us, why do it once with the Bible and again with Jesus, but never again? Why isn't there more evidence regarding Jesus and why isn't there any about his magical powers? I could go on, but that's the point of the religious absurdity series.

My believing that Christianity is false (and, by consequence, the Christian God) has nothing to do with my atheism on the broader question of the existence of gods.

Is this all some grand equivocation to get around saying that "I believe that no gods exist"? No, of course not, as I don't believe that. I believe that certain proposed gods, such as Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Anubis, Ra, Osiris, Apophis, Odin, etc, do not exist. Certain types of gods though, like a deistic type of god or even a god very limited in power and with no other defined attributes, I hold no belief in either way. I may one day believe in them, but the time to believe in something is when there is some good evidence or some good reason to believe in them. In the light of counter evidence, contradictions, and good reason not to believe, that is an appropriate time to believe they do not exist. And just like super intelligent aliens abducting the dumbest people on the Earth and having homosexual encounters with them, there is good reason to believe that Yahweh does not exist.

While not concise, I hope this elaboration was clear enough for those who have asked about it.

I Am No Longer an Atheist

2008-09-04T13:58:00.004-05:00

Over at The Raytractors, I offered a little contest to identify some activities, principles, or causes that are religions under Ray Comfort's definition of religion. Since Silent Dave stole the one I was going to do on Raylianism, I decided to go a little different of a route:

If Ray can select the inappropriate connotation of the word religion (zeal) to prove that atheism is a religion, then I can, by the same method, show that atheists are fools for not believing in gods -- and Ray Comfort is a fool for believing in his false god. I submit the following definition for God from the American Heritage Dictionary -- the same one Ray chose his definition of religion from:

A very handsome man.

Brad Pitt -- God

I am no longer an atheist.

EXPOSED: Gravity is Absurd

2008-09-03T07:08:00.003-05:00

If Newtonism were true, we would all be dead right now; obliterated by the Moon.

Update
If, after reading this article, you are still a fundamentalist Newtonist, feel free to try to prove gravity exists to win $25.

Introduction
When Google Chrome came out today, thirty minutes before my class, I had a dilemma: go to my physics class and listen to an interesting lecture on the way our universe works, or stay at home and play with a shiny new toy from Google. I'm fairly confident in my choice of the latter. In this new toy, I decided to spend a few hours of listening to creationists debunking evolution. I was sufficiently convinced by their arguments and have, myself, become a creationist.

Having my fundamentalist belief in evolution broken by the great iconoclast Kent Hovind, I chose to apply my new found skepticism to other absurd so-called "scientific" theories that I had always assumed to be true. After much though, I have rejected the theory of gravity using the tools Dr. Hovind and Dr. Comfort have given me. I urge my fellow Raytractors to abandon their faith in gravity by considering the following...

The theory of gravity is absurd. It doesn't merely seem absurd; it is absurd. Here's a little history lesson to start off with.

The History of Newtonism
The theory of gravity, or Newtonism, was hypothesized by Isaac Newton in 1687 in his work Principia Mathematica -- that was over four hundred years ago and not much has changed since. I am not saying Newton was a dumb man, of course not. Newtonism was a brilliant theory in his day.

But let's not forget: it was just a theory formulated over four hundred years ago. Just as Darwin didn't have access to the modern technology that we have and didn't know of the complex structure of cell, Newton was even more ignorant, through no fault of his own. Calculus hadn't even been formally established and, as such, Newton's work rested on geometric proofs -- a math far below our current accepted standard of calculus.

Besides the sketchy historical basis of Newtonism, its historical impact has been grave. There is no denying that Newtonism has been the source of many social ills throughout history. The Nazis themselves believed in Newtonism and made is a central part of their quest to exterminate the Jews. As Ben Stein once famously said, "Science leads you to killing people." Indeed, this is what we say in Nazi Germany as they put Newtonism into practice to kill people. Using the idea that things are accelerated towards the Earth, they not only threw people off of high points to kill them, they also dropped bombs based on calculations made with Newtonism. This is the ugly truth of Newtonism that the scientists refuse to include in their physics books.

The Character of Newton
Before we examine the theory itself, it's important to understand the character of Newton. Just as in a courtroom where you establish the credibility of the witness before considering their testimony, we must first establish Newton's credibility before considering his theory.

The believers of Newtonism have a blind devotion to Newton, making him a deity of sorts. As such, they have whitewashed much of his history. There is a large amount of evidence that Newton was a sexual deviant; a homosexual. He never married or even dated. There is no evidence whatsoever that he ever had sex with a woman. He was also a very miserable and unpleasant man by all accounts. He conducted himself in an arrogant, pompous, and selfish manner which caused many quarrels with intellectuals of his time.

Gravity wasn't the only absurd unscientific theory he came up with; he was also deeply involved with alchemy and eschatology. In fact, it seems his interest in occult studies contributed to his theory of gravity, as he could not otherwise account for the concept of "action-at-a-distance" (another absurdity of Newtonism). As mentioned, he was interested in alchemy -- the idea of transforming common materials into gold and creating an elixir of life -- and also eschatology -- writing on the end of the world, even putting for the date of 2060 AD.

Newton is often credited with the discovery of calculus. This is another example of his followers whitewashing history and also ascribing to him the great accomplishments of others. Calculus was actually discovered by Gottfried Leibniz in 1684. Newton published the full version of his work on calculus in 1704 -- twenty years after Leibniz had already published his. Newton blatantly plagiarized Leibniz to try to take credit for calculus.

How can we believe anything that this plagiarizer has to offer?

Problems with Newtonism
All the problems discussed so far haven't even dealt with the problems of the theory itself. You may say the above is merely circumstantial evidence -- that it says nothing of the theory itself. The theory, though, falls flat on its own merits.

Newtonism doesn't even explain the observed fact that inertial and gravitational masses are the same for all bodies. Furthermore, it doesn't explain the precession of the prehelion of the orbits of the planets. For example, there is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy between what Newtonism predicts and the observed precession.

Examples could be continued, but explanations by Newtonism disagree with the observations. That's a fact, but that doesn't shake the faith of the dogmatic Newtonists.

The Absurdity of Gravity
Newton himself acknowledged the absurdity of gravity. He wrote in Principia Mathematica on this absurdity:

That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.

I have already exposed the glaring flaws in the so-called "scientific" theory of gravity. I will now expose the glaring absurdities in this theory tale.

Newtonism is improbable.
Newtonism states that if you drop a ball from a height of 1.5m (~ft) that it will take .553 seconds to hit the ground. If you drop it from the same height again from the same position again, Newtonism states that it will hit the same mark in .553 seconds again. If you do this a billion times, Newtonism states that it will hit the same mark in .553 seconds every single time.

This is statistically impossible to have such recurring precision. It would be like flipping a quarter a hundred billion times and having it come up heads every single time. The probability of the ball dropping from a height of 1.5m taking .553 seconds to hit the exact same location is roughly one in 2.04 x 10³⁹⁰. That is absurdly impossible.

Newtonism neglects mass.
To compound the absurdity, Newtonism states that objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass. What?! Perhaps he didn't have them handy, but if you go to the top of a tall building and drop a feather and a bowling ball off at the same time, the bowling ball will hit the ground much sooner than the feather. The idea that objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass is palpably absurd. This is demonstrably false, and yet Newtonists remain blind to this overwhelming evidence.

Newtonism cannot explain orbiting satellites.
I have already debunked Newtonism showing that it cannot account for the orbits of the planets due to a discrepancy. The absurdity of gravity does not stop there. Gravity cannot explain how satellites, the moon for example, remain in orbit. If objects of mass are attracted to one another, then why hasn't the Moon come crashing down to Earth?

If Newtonism were true, we would all be dead right now; obliterated by the Moon.

Source of Matter.
Gravity hinges on the existence of matter. If there were no matter, there would be nothing for gravity to work on. But Newtonism doesn't explain where this matter comes from. Are we to believe it gravitated itself into existence? Preposterous.

Blind Precision?
I have already discussed the problem of precision with Newtonism. Newtonism states that gravity knows how long to keep things in the air, when to land them, and where to land them. But how does it know? How does it know to accelerate an object from 1.5 meters high 9.8 meters per squared second towards the Earth, landing it in a position after .553 seconds? Just as Darwinism cannot explain how organisms know what mutations to create, Newtonism cannot explain how objects know when, where, and how to land.

The Alternative
Having now disposed of all the facets of Newtonism and exposed gravity as the fraud that it is, I will now advance the only rational explanation for the orbits of planets and the theory of what goes up must come down.

As Newtonism cannot account for the Moon orbiting Earth, what then? What is holding it in place? Well, it seems obvious to me that if the Moon is being held in place, there must be an Intelligent Holder. How else can one account for the perfectly circular orbits of the planets and the high precision and predictability of the paths of projectiles?

While we Intelligent Holder proponents do not define who the intelligent agent is, we know that, due to the impossibility of the contrary, this Intelligent Holder is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, thrusting objects downwards with the guidance of his noodley appendages.

RAmen.

A Godsend?

2008-09-02T16:05:00.003-05:00

This isn't exactly a post on religion; I try to keep my technological posts to another blog. I am, however, a member of The Church of Google (and had developed my own form of Googlism before the Church was established). As such, I thought it was appropriate to post this revelation here:

The Google Blog has announced Google's latest project: Google Chrome. It is Google's own spin on the browser. It's very new, but I'm excited to see what comes from this browser, so I will be shifting my atheist demands from FireFox to Chrome for a week.

Google has a track record of revolutionizing whatever field it enters, so I hope it does the same here in this much needed area.

Blogger Science

2008-09-02T13:10:00.003-05:00

In a usual move by Ray Comfort -- and many apologists -- he has chosen an alternate, inappropriate connotation of a word to support his wild ideas, just as he did when selectively choosing the inappropriate definition of animal to exclude humans.

He calls atheism a "religion." To support this wild claim, he confuses the idea of a sort of revealed or adhered religion -- such as beliefs, devotions, and practices concerning human affairs etc -- with religious zeal. He writes that:

It’s interesting to note that one definition of religion is:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

That rightly describes the ardent atheist cause. Despite protests to the contrary by its faithful adherents, atheism is a form of religion.

To get to this, though, he had to selectively skip over three relevant definitions (in the American Heritage Dictionary):

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1a. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

What's really interesting is that the definition he uses as religion (since it is not the "religion" we are discussing) applies only to someone like, say, Dawkins. Although, atheism is merely not believing in a god. Dawkins is not pursuing not believing in a god with zeal -- so that necessarily disqualifies even Dawkins's atheism as a religion. What Dawkins pursues with zeal is his opposition to organized religion, so that pursuit would be his religion. Merely "not believing" is not a cause, principle, or activity, so atheism is necessarily not a religion.

But, what of the apathetic atheist anyway? The atheist who wouldn't even waste the time to spend one minute listening to arguments for or against a belief in God? Since that person is not pursuing it at all he necessarily does not qualify as possessing a "religion" -- based on Ray's definition of religion as zeal.

But let's go ahead and explore what else qualifies as a religion under Ray's selective, inappropriate definition -- the only qualification being something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. If he's going to use religious zeal to define religion, then we must also consider:

1. Blogging -- Blogging is my religion as it is an activity I pursue as zeal. Further, Ray is blogging, too, so that's his religion thereby violating one of the tenets of his other religion: Christianity. Blogging is my religion.
2. Education -- This is a cause I pursue with a high level of devotion. I devote myself fully to educating myself. I also spend free time providing free tutoring to kids because I believe education is important for them. Education is my religion.
3. Debunking Ray -- This is an activity I pursue with zeal making it, by Ray's definition, my religion. Debunking Ray Comfort is my religion.

Although Ray Comfort has previously said he is not a scientist, he overlooks the fact that blogging is a science, if you selectively choose the inappropriate definition of the word. We can use the word skill to define science.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Blogging clearly qualifies as a science, then. There's a methodological approach to it, including ways to entice readers -- Ray adds graphics, formatting, and baits atheists. You gain knowledge through experience of blogging. You learn how to use the software, how to organize thoughts, etc.

Blogging is Ray's science (along with quote mining).

Abortion Arguments You Shouldn't Make

2008-09-02T13:01:00.000-05:00

It seems Ray has recently started to shift from evolution denialism to posts regarding abortion. I will spend several posts discussing abortion this month, probably from a perspective few are familiar with. As I wrote in an earlier post, I have only recently become both pro-abortion rights (legal) and pro-abortion (moral). I'll also offer a history of abortion and Christianity. As many are familiar, the Bible is silent on the matter of abortion -- as it is on many moral questions.

In this first post, though, I will just address a few of the arguments/statements I have seen posted in several blogs and comments to those blogs.

Arguments/statements that abortion rights advocates shouldn't use.
To preface this, a person is not the same as a human being. A person, in a legal and philosophical sense, is someone or something with rights. When we discuss at what point personhood is attached, we are discussing at which point the human has rights, philosophically speaking. The philosophical demarcation should, arguably, be the same as the legal demarcation. Just remember that a person is someone or something with rights -- just like a corporation or a church is, legally, a person.

"Anti-Choice"
Calling anti-abortionists "anti-choice" is as ridiculous as calling pro-abortionists "anti-life." Anti-abortionists aren't against choice; they just see the preborn as a person whereas you don't. To relate it to slavery, you could separate the sides as Pro-Liberty (anti-slavery) and Pro-Choice (pro-slavery) where the fundamental difference focused on whether blacks were persons. Calling abolitionists anti-choice is as ridiculous as calling anti-abortionists anti-choice.

Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice
To go in line with the above, we do our discourse a great disservice when getting behind the banners of the sloganized terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice." We are all in favor of both. Addressing these labels reminds me very much of the clash of the Federalists and the Republicans in 1800. Thomas Jefferson, as he so often did, addressed these labels eloquently in his inaugural address:

But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

It may be more cumbersome, but the appropriate labels of pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights should be used. If you insist on using the less-than-correct labels, then at least capitalize them properly and stray from falling into the above trap.

Caricaturing the Opposition
Don't caricature the anti-abortionist position as masturbation being a Holocaust of sperm or scratching your nose to being a Holocaust of skin cells. It would be as fair as a caricature taking the birth-demarcation beyond there to any arbitrary point, including past infancy or even past death.

If this is a response to the specific argument of "potential life," then this is something fair to bring up as a discussion topic on the difference. Too often, though, this is a general response issued to anti-abortion rights advocates.

The Contradication of Anti-Abortion Rights and Pro-Death Penalty
Don't say that it doesn't make sense for someone to be anti-abortion rights and pro-death penalty -- that statement just makes no sense. If the preborn is a person, then its right to life remains intact as it is guilty of no crime. A convicted murderer, on the other hand, has lost his right to life the moment he violated another's rights.

Misrepresenting their position like this would be just like saying "it doesn't make sense that you're for abortion rights but also for imprisonment... you say a mother has liberty while a convicted felon does not? Can someone say 'contradiction'?"

Those who march under the banner of "Pro-Life" advocate life for those who have the right to it, just the same as those who march under the banner of "Pro-Choice" advocate choice for those who have the right to it. Those who are against abortion but for the death penalty no more advocate life for a convicted felon than those who are for abortion advocate choice for a convicted felon to choose not to be imprisoned.

Arguments/statements that abortion rights opponents shouldn't use.
Let's not forget the cringeworthy things that those on the other side make. When I was an anti-abortionist and in fact participated in a debate on it, nothing irked me more than sharing the proverbial stage with those who voice these arguments.

Slippery Slope to Infanticide
Accepting abortion is no more of a slippery slope to allowing infanticide than opposing abortion is a slippery slope to prohibiting contraception or prohibiting abstinence. The boundary is firmly fixed at conception as the opposite boundary is fixed at birth.

The Pro-Life Label
What I noted on these labels above applies equally here. In fact, anti-abortionists should want to shed the label of Pro-Life. Those on the pro-abortion side have misconstrued it horribly so as to make a mockery of the stance in terms of the death penalty and "potential life."

I could continue on for each, but I think that this covers the major points (with the notable omissions of gender and religion related arguments). As mentioned, the next abortion post will be on Christianity and abortion.

Religions Don't Make Sense, Part II

2008-09-02T05:00:00.003-05:00

This is a series of posts of unorganized thoughts on why religions, specifically Christianity, don't make sense to me. Go to: Part I.

Here's another thing that doesn't make sense about the Christian religion specifically: why didn't God make Adam so he wouldn't sin? There's two characteristics about God that you cannot get around: omnipotence and omniscience. Let's go with omniscience first. If God created Adam the way he did, he created him to sin as, before he even started creating, he knew Adam would sin. The answers I have seen to this don't make sense either. This is yet another place where they throw out free will. "God couldn't know because he created man with free will." I think this is abandoning the omniscience claim, but we will go ahead and run with it. This answer doesn't make sense either. Again, if you accept the Bible (and as a Christian you must), then you know that it is laden with prophecies. Are you telling me that the men who were pretending to be prophets could see the future whereas a god could not? This just does not make sense. Furthermore, Jesus purportedly foretold the future as well, so for those who think that Jesus was God in a man-costume, this eliminates that whole argument. For those who think that Jesus was simply in fellowship with the Almighty, then you get back to the problem of man knowing and god not.

On to the omnipotence characteristic that doesn't make sense. No matter how he created man (with or without free will), he could have made man better. He could have made a super version of Jesus, if you will. He could have made a near clone of himself. Instead, he created man very inferior hardware and with deficient software. This doesn't make sense to me.

Then to the omnibenevolence characteristic, I find answers to the problem of evil to be lacking sense. What kind of sick god would create evil in man and in nature? The free will canard is often tossed out here as well. "God is perfectly good, he doesn't create evil. God created man with free will and man sinned and creates sin." I've always been perplexed by this sort of answer. God can't create evil, but he can create evil-creating beings?

Religions don't make sense to me... to be continued.

The Racist, Sexist, Adulterous Bigot

2008-09-02T00:22:00.005-05:00

As a major fan, I was excited to see that Real Time With Bill Maher had returned with a new episode. Sadly, it ended on an ignorant note that has happened several times before on his show. He discussed Edwards's extramarital affair and how it shouldn't disqualify him from office or even a place in politics. That, I am in full agreement with. He then proceeded to list a few well known Presidents who had had affairs -- and I knew where he would be heading.

"Jefferson" passes his lips, and I cringed.

There is no greater figure in American History, I think, around whom more ignorance is centered. This is particularly discomforting as Jefferson wrote voluminously and went to painstaking lengths to preserve his writings and correspondences. I, myself, have about half a dozen collections of his writings on various subjects.

Despite the excellent records we have, people, on a large scale, have many false beliefs concerning Jefferson: that he was a Christian, that he advocated slavery, that he committed adultery, that he only favored equal rights for whites, etc.

I remember one particular lecture in my senior English class wherein my instructor said something along the lines of: "When Jefferson wrote that 'all men are created equal' he of course meant only white, land-owning men." No, he of course meant all persons are created equal, regardless of gender, race, or status.

Maher has made several incorrect comments over the years concerning Jefferson, including concerning his views on slavery and his relationships with slaves.

A little known fact -- which is rather shocking to me -- is that this year, 2008, we are celebrating two hundred years of having the slave trade banned. Who was the President who banned this abominable trade January 1, 2008 -- the earliest date allowed by the Constitution? The same person who had wrote a scathing indictment against the English King for the practice in the Declaration of Independence:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

It was Jefferson, one of our earliest, greatest abolitionists. But people are largely ignorant of his long career fighting for the abolition of slavery, so it is no surprise that they are ignorant of this 200th year milestone.

Their education of Jefferson in school is comprised of three pieces of information: 1) He wrote the Declaration. 2) He was the third President. 3) He owned slaves. Why shouldn't we also, then, be surprised at their shocking ignorance of his relationships with slaves, then, too, when their education on that subject is acquired through idle, uninformed cultural references -- like the skit in one Family Guy episode where Jefferson beckons for all his slave children to join him in the family photo? They are like the blind man receiving the description of an awesome sight from the testimony of another blind man.

Even if Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Hemings children, it was confined to this one particular slave -- it is commonly accepted that she was the half-sister of Martha Jefferson. And even if he had fathered one or more of Sally Hemings children, it occurred years after Martha's death, thereby making it by definition not an adulterous affair.

I find it ironic that this was discussed in reference to a politician being attacked by his political opposition on the exposure of this affair. The Sally Hemings controversy has its roots in Jefferson's first term when the scandalmongerer Callendar published relentless attacks on Jefferson, after Jefferson had refused him a Postmaster appointment he had requested.

Jefferson is just one subject that particularly gets under my skin as it is such a source of misunderstanding and misinformation. False claims about Jefferson are as frequently made as the widely-held false belief that America was founded on Christianity -- and usually Jefferson plays a component in this false belief when he is claimed as a Christian. There are literally hundreds, even thousands, of biographies on Jefferson. There's no reason for such astounding ignorance.

Analogous Absurdity

2008-09-01T13:46:00.004-05:00

Last night I spent about an hour typing up some of my thoughts on why religions, starting with Christianity, don't make sense to me in a stream-of-consciousness style, and then spacing them out over several posts. By coincidence, Ray has chosen to write this morning on just one of the many absurdities of Christianity. A reader poses a question:

I would like to ask you a couple of relevant questions pertaining to the 'sacrifice' of Jesus and it's purpose. Please logically explain why an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni benevolent God would need to sacrifice Himself (as Jesus) to Himself (God) in order to forgive man of sins against Him (God)? The entire premise seems totally absurd.

I think Ray's explanation was quite inadequate. He threw out a number of analogies, but they missed the centerpiece of the question: God sacrificing himself to himself in order to forgive man's sins (as defined by him) against him.

Ray begins with an analogy that the atheist in his stupor has been going 80mph while drunk in a 15mph zone and Ray has sold everything he has (including his quarter of a million dollar home) to pay the fine to the police to get the atheist released. I think he could have made a better analogy to address Chuck's question with his later comment about the dog. Observe:

My dog, vastly inferior to me, has just been born as a puppy. I lay down some laws for him. A few of these commandments is that he cannot poop in the house, he can't chew my sneakers, and he can't get in the trash. Furthermore, he cannot even think about it, or else he has committed the crimes "in his heart." Breaking any of these commandments will result in me torture, maim, and beat him for all of his life (this isn't a true comparison, as the punishment should be torture for all eternity). Since the transgression is visited upon the offspring, all of his offspring will be tortured as well.

One day, I decide to cook a steak and throw it into the trash and then set the trash can right in front of him. Then, he thinks about getting into the trash, thus breaking the commandment. I love my dog, though, and I don't want to have to torture him for all eternity. So, I sacrifice myself by having me tortured and then killed, so as to forgive the dog his sins against me for me.

While the analogy is not perfect, as it cannot be, it is much closer than anything Ray offered. One of the big problems about it is that I'm not a god, so I can die. God killed himself to "pay the fine" even though God cannot die. Death as a punishment on God would be like clipping my nails is a punishment of torture on me. Perhaps that would make the analogy truer: to redeem the dog of his thoughtcrime, I have punished myself by clipping the nail off the end of my pinky.

The major problem with all of Ray's analogies concerning Jesus -- not only in this blog post, but in his ministry in general -- is he always uses an example of paying a monetary fine. This is a false analogy as it doesn't resolve the absurdity of vicarious redemption. A truer analogy would be that I have run a red light and have been imposed a fine of continual, unending torture. My sister doesn't want to see me endure that, so she kills herself, thereby redeeming me. It is absurd.

The first commenter to the post writes:

So: an omnipotent omniscient God creates flawed beings that offend him so much, he sacrifices his own son in lieu of payment from the failure of his flawed creation.

Still doesn't make sense, Ray.

To which Ray tells him to go back and reread the concluding line of his post:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Hey, the emperor has nothing on!

Religions Don't Make Sense, Part I

2008-09-01T01:19:00.010-05:00

Last night my atheist group put on a free cookout for the campus and it went off quite well. I spent the evening working the room, speaking to almost everyone. I had many interesting conversations with those who showed up. Contrary to how Ray and most Christian leaders portray atheists, we are not this intolerant group of people with their minds made up that there are no gods and that our big gripe is others' beliefs in the existence of some particular god. One of my favorite conversations of the evening was with a deist who wants to join the group.

I have no problem at all with some sort of deistic belief as it is rational in all other regards. Why, though, show up at an atheist group if one believes in the existence of a supreme being? When I send out an email to our mailing list (now swelling at the number of 200), I address it to those "skeptical of religions and religious superstition." This was very much the individual in question. We had a nice conversation on the history of Christianity.

I posted a couple days ago about the history of the name Jesus. Most of the Christians I have met do not know that history. It is not surprising, though, as there's much in the history of their religion that they do not know and is part of the reason this particular religion doesn't make sense to me. Here is just a general, unorganized list of why religions don't make sense to me. They are not religion specific, or rather they are not denomination specific.

I will post this in a series over several posts. Remember, these will be unorganized and general in particular.

One of my favorite posts from Pvblivs's blog is one where he asks an ethical question. A summary of it is that he is a highly advanced alien who has high expectations of his arrival. He's fully able to communicate his existence and expectations to Earth directly, but instead he has simply provided a sketch of his craft in crayon and some residents of insane asylums are providing instructions to everyone on how to meet his expectations. I agree with Pvblivs that I see this as highly analogous to the Christian Bible...

Why, if the Christian God exists, doesn't he reveal himself to us? If he wants us to believe in him, why not just reveal himself? Why play games? I've heard several answers for it and none of them make sense to me. If you accept the Bible (which you have to if you're Christian), God was revealing himself all throughout the Old Testament. He didn't make a stranger of himself -- although, his presence must have not been all that convincing if every time he turned his back his favorite tribe were off worshiping some other god. Or better yet, he revealed himself through Jesus. Jesus did not make a secret his magic powers. Obviously, he had no problem revealing himself then. He knew godly things, he performed godly magic tricks, he flew around in the air... why not do that now? He obviously didn't have a problem before.

But wait. He has done it again since then. He did it again to Muhammad, yet another example of him playing favorites. For some reason, though, Muhammad's tale is unconvincing to Christians, even though they have even more reason to believe in the Qur'an than the Bible. And let's not forget, he did it again since then with Joseph Smith. Here's a man who lived less than 200 years ago and we have solid proof that he existed. Why do Christians make such ado about the sketchy evidence for the existence of Jesus when there is such solid evidence for the existence of Joseph Smith?

But, let's get back to the question of why he won't reveal himself. Here's a popular response: it would violate our free will. Again, this question makes no sense as he already made a habit of violating our free wills before when he spent centuries supposedly revealing himself. I suspect that this canard is just supposed to be a steak thrown in front of the atheists to get us distracted and off guard. I suspect this doesn't make sense to those who propose it as they pray nonstop and claim that God answers their prayers and interferes in their little lives, thus violating free will. I'll revisit free will later.

Religion makes no sense to me... to be continued.

Jesus? That's Not My Name!

2008-08-29T21:20:00.004-05:00

I have a question for all you Christians regarding the supposed disrespect of failing to capitalize the name Jesus at the end of this post. I am sure all of you are familiar with one of Ray's commenting rules:

Any comments that don't properly, and respectfully, capitalize the name "Jesus" and/or "God," or use these in a blasphemous manner, will not be published.

But... why? I am all for capitalizing proper nouns, as proper grammar is something painfully lacking on the Internet. But, why go out of the way for these two exceptions? I'll just focus on Jesus in this post and may make a later post about the Ineffable Name.

Jesus of Nazareth
Have you ever heard someone say that there is historical evidence that there once lived a man named "Jesus" (around whom the mythology of the Bible is centered)? That is a positive indication that that person knows nothing of which they speak. That's because that wasn't his name and (the name) didn't even exist. It is the result of perversion of perversion of perversion from inadequate transliterations and language evolution.

This relates to Ray's rules as, why is reverence supposed to be given to those names? "God" and "Jesus" were never their names. In fact, Jesus does not correlate at all with what his name truly was. Imagine if, thousands of years into the future, when society knows very little historically of our period (for whatever reason) comes across some of Ray's books. A cult begins where the historic book is translated several times and then into other languages. In the process, the names also begin to be improperly transliterated and perverted into something obscure. In the end, this cult begins worshiping the Prophet Rutherford -- God of the Atheists -- and demand his name be properly capitalized for reverence.

This is very much what happened with the "Jesus" name. The actual Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ transliterates as (with dispute) Yehoshua (Yahweh is Salvation). Due to changes in languages, this soon shortens to Yeshua. When it went into Greek, there wasn't a Greek equivalent for the "sh," so it was replaced with "s" and an "s" was added on to the end to make it masculine, thus rendering it now Iesous. And from Greek it now goes to Latin where it is corrupted even further into IESVS.

This was only several hundred years after "Jesus" died. The languages change and evolve over time and, in the process, so does the name as the "v" is replaced with a "u" to distinguish the vowel. Then the English languages beat up on it even more and the name participates in the Great Vowel Shift, etc etc. It eventually ends up as Iesus or Iesu. In fact, the 1611 printing of the King James Version doesn't even use the "Jesus" name yet as it is still spelled with an "I."

We can raise problems with "Christ" and "Lord" as well. If you're wanting to translate his name, though I think it's improper to do so, it would be Joshua.

So, here's the question for Christians and Ray:
What is the greater disrespect here? Failing to capitalize the fictitious name Jesus, or calling him by a fictitious name in the first place? If the name is supposed to be so important that it must be capitalized, surely it is important enough to have the correct name used, then, right? If it's not disrespectful for you to call Yehoshua "Jesus" then why is it disrespectful for someone else to call Yehoshua "jesus"?

My Abortion Video

2008-08-25T22:48:00.005-05:00

This is an excerpt of my post Ray: Liar, Lunatic, or Lacking regarding his video The Science of Evolution.

Inane Skit: Orangutan
If you looked up "inane" in the dictionary, I think you should find a picture of Ray Comfort, or at least of this video.

His post previous to this one was on abortion and how its a child with rights. Really? I was both anti-abortion rights and anti-abortion up until just a few months ago -- long after becoming an atheist. Now being both pro-abortion rights and pro-abortion, I shall make a video debunking the anti-abortionists. Behold, as I take a page out of Ray's book -- or a scene out of his video, as it were. Here is how I would produce my video:

I am unsure of how to first start off. I considered first to use a zygote (the product of fertilization) or perhaps an embryo, but then I thought I should approach it with some sort of strawman like Ray does. In that case, I should mix a sperm and an ovum in a Petri dish. Since they look pretty much the same to an observer, it doesn't really matter, so I will just go with the zygote.

First, I would take the zygote to a restaurant for lunch and order it a salad. I would try to converse with it and note how it isn't eating its food. It is not behaving as a person so, therefore, it's obviously not a person.

Next, I would call up eight airliners to see if I could take the zygote on the plane. When they say its a biological substance and must be stored, I would insist on a seat for it as it is a "person." When they won't budge, I will acknowledge that it is because they know it is intrinsically not a person.

Inane Skit: Interviewing the laity
Next, I would try to contact some reputable biologists to appear in my silly video. When they had better things to do, I would move on to lay people. They would sound like an expert on sexual reproduction at first, but with a little probing they'll admit they don't have any idea what they're talking about -- and any who do I will edit out. I would ask about haploid and diploid cells, zygotes and fertilization, gametes, mitosis, and diplontic life cycles and watch as they all fumble.

I will then create a blog where I claim to be trying to inform people and get them to become pro-abortion and insist it is out of my love for humanity and their well-being, but I will make sure to plug the video for profit at the bottom of my post.

Perhaps for my next video I will debunk the theory of relativity by interviewing the laity again. They'll sound like experts on gravity, but I will soon show they have no idea what they're talking about, thereby proving that people simply have unfounded faith in the theory tale of gravity.

Albert Einstein and the Bible

2008-08-22T14:59:00.005-05:00

I was going to make a project out of my 100th post, but that was taking too long, so I will post that later. I decided, instead, to re-post my favorite blog entry from Ray. I think more than any of his other posts, this is a prime example of how ignorant and dishonest he is. Do not bother looking in his blog for the post, as he removed it without making any note of it or acknowledging his grievous error -- so that he can continue to make wild claims about the beliefs of Albert Einstein. His post, accompanied by a screenshot, is as follows:

Lore Weaver said..."The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -- Einstein

I never knew that Einstein believed that the Bible was "the of Word of God." I knew that be was a believer in God's existence (see quote on Blog-header), but this quote is very encouraging. The Scriptures sure were an honourable product of human weakness. God chose to inspire the weakness of men to write His Word to humanity. Albert naturally reacted to it as I did before my conversion. This reaction is explained in Scripture: "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

What About Platypus?

2008-08-19T13:22:00.005-05:00

Ray made a post on Tiktaalik where he says it's not a transitional form because it's "technically a fish." You have to wonder, what exactly is Ray's definition of a transitional form? I know that in science it is a form which illustrates the transitioning into another, illustrating the evolutionary transition. But what is Ray's?

He has already told us what his definition is: it's half one thing and half something else. For Ray, a fossilized mermaid would be what he calls a transitional form. That is no misrepresentation of Ray's caricature of evolution. Here is his own representation of how he thinks evolution happens:

The next obvious question when presented with this level of ignorance -- perhaps not the immediately next, as so many questions come to mind -- is: "What about Platypus?"

Note that the platypus is an "egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal." According to Ray, doesn't this qualify as his transitional form of some duck to a beaver, thus conforming to his misunderstanding of evolution? Of course not. As with any Young Earth Creationist, any evidence to the contrary is just how God created it. (Watch the first minute:)

Kirk later says regarding transitional fossils, that "as far as [he] understands, any fossil that you find in your museum is a fully formed creature. There is not something in there that is halfway between on animal and halfway between another animal that you can observe to be so." But let's not forget what he had just said after stating that there are, according to his research and understanding, no transitional forms:

"Wait a minute, look at the platypus. There is a mammal with hair and a bill like a duck." Yeah, it's a strange one and that's exactly how God made it. And there's plenty of strange animals like that.