Enigma of Human Perception

Been busy

2010-01-26T13:31:00.001-08:00

For the two people who sometimes read this blog, I apologize. I've been somewhat busy for the last few months. I've got some projects in the works which may turn out interesting from an atheist point of view, so I will hopefully be posting more often.

Yay for deities

2009-09-28T08:37:00.000-07:00

Looks like whatever beneficent deity or deities may exist, they've been asleep at the wheel again. It's almost as if the universe as a whole does not care about humanity, one way or another. Scenes like this just reinforce stupid religious memes, and send theists scurrying around to find some reason for destruction that has befallen them. The simplest reason, that there is no god to stop or even care about these tragedies, always seems to escape them.

Of course, some people like to peddle a supernatural explanation for such events:

Felix Alcala is thankful for the medicines that will help his children fight infection and fever. However, he said what touched him more was the prayer of the counselor for him.

"I felt joy and a sense of hope when the counselor prayed for me," Alcala said. "Most of us have forgotten about God and maybe that is why we got the flood. It's a reminder for us to turn back to God."

Homeopathy kills again

2009-09-28T07:48:00.000-07:00

At least this time, the parents were sentenced for murder. I don't care if adults forgo basic medical care to embrace unscientific, ill conceived folk remedies. It's their bodies, let them suffer and die needlessly if they so choose. But they should not be allowed to inflict the horrific results of their mindless pablum on their children.

More stupidity from Kent Hovind

2009-08-28T12:06:00.000-07:00

Kent Hovind(the moronic creationist who was recently put in prison for tax evasion) is till spouting stupidity. This time, it is in regards to the situation at the Pace High School in Florida, where the principal, Frank Lay, is facing possible jail time for violating an agreement to cease religious activities on school grounds. In an open letter to Lay, Hovind suggests that Lay should remove evolution from his schools as well, as it is a religion:

If what I read on LifeSiteNews.com, June 4, is true, ACLU attorney Benjamin Stevenson said school officials have a responsibility to “protect the silently held religious views of others” and to be sure that no one will “impose their religious views” on others. One headline read, “Religion Banned from Santa Rosa Schools.”
If this is indeed what the court and the ACLU intend then you need to begin removing the religion of evolution from your school’s textbooks, tests, classes, and videos shown in class immediately! You certainly don’t want to be held in contempt of court!

What a stupid bastard. But this is to expected. What really hit was some of the comments, especially this one:

I am a high school science teacher in southern California. I agree with what Dr. Hovind has said above 100%. The public schools are hypocrites! They use the laws of the land to manipulate people into following their wicked agenda. Evilution is not science it is a religion.

This is from a user called "BadBob," who needs to be fired from his position as a science teacher immediately.

Irrational People Killing Each Other

2009-08-03T20:00:00.001-07:00

Another installment of joy brought to you by that religion known the world over for its dedication to peace, Islam. This is the face of religion. This is the twisted, evil, wretched soul of irrational belief.

Continuing Examples of Speciation

2009-07-19T08:36:00.000-07:00

As always, we only add more weight to the theory of evolution as time goes by.
Here is an interesting article about a bird species in the middle of splitting into two or more species.

Cuttlefish writes another cool poem

2009-07-09T20:46:00.000-07:00

Found here:
I like my food spicy; some like their food bland.
I like an adventure; some want their lives planned.
My love is a woman who takes her own stand
While others want someone whom they can command.

While some treat their love like a delicate flower—
Watched and protected, locked up in some tower—
My love, I am certain, has shown she has power,
Which grows every day, and in truth, every hour.

My love has a power, which must be respected;
She’s earned it, of course, she’s not falsely protected
To make up for promises long since neglected,
Like some I could name, though that’s not unexpected.

My love is amazing; my love never tires,
My love, like a goddess, compels and inspires,
A muse to the people—like Dawkins or Myers—
Who wear on their sleeves scientific desires.

Some long for the common; we put our reliance
In methods where evidence earns its defiance;
We’ll climb till we see even further than giants—
The woman I love is a beauty called Science.

Jewish Violence

2009-07-07T07:19:00.000-07:00

Isn't this lovely? Ultra-Orthodox Jews attacking a non-Jewish journalist for the crime of using a tape recorder on the Sabbath. Another monotheistic religion of peace.
Here's a quote I really loved.

They might be supremely religious, but their behaviour - to me - was far from charitable or benevolent.

Anyone who thinks that increased religiosity is positively correlated with increased benevolence has not been paying attention to human history, either ancient or modern.

Door to Door Evangelists

2009-06-22T13:05:00.000-07:00

So, I was getting ready to leave my house several days ago, and I was confronted with four conservatively dressed young people(I would say from 18 to 30, maybe younger). They were handing out pamphlets, and the moment the lead young lady opened her mouth, I correctly pegged them as Jehovah's Witnesses.
They were passing out a single page leaflet entitled "How you can Survive the End of the World." Very catchy. I politely passed the pamphlet back and told them I was an atheist. To my surprise, they left. Normally, this results in an attempt to debate. Perhaps these youngsters had been told to avoid debate and only pass out literature.
I regretted passing back the leaflet, because I decided I wanted to see what oddball angle they were pushing this round. Luckily, I found one down the street.
It turns out that the JWs are presenting a series of conventions throughout the country called "Keep on the Watch." I am not certain if this is a new series or not. I imagine that the economy has reinvirgorated the snake oil trade as desperate and scared people begin to listen to anyone who claims to have answers.
I found a few references to this on other sites, as well, especially to the conventions they had in West Palm Beach.
It includes this lovely quote:

"We feel it is imminent," spokesman Richard Ferris said. "We can't really put a date on it, and the scriptures tell us that nobody knows days or hours, but we'll look at the signs as a theme of our convention and keep on the watch."
Jehovah Witnesses believe that while the apocalypse will be terrible for many, it will be the beginning of a better world for the faithful.
"The fighting against nations, we're seeing more earthquakes, you can look at the swine flu, all this, and it just points to the things that shows we are getting very close to what we feel is the end," Ferris said.
Going door-to-door with Bibles and informational packets has become a trademark for the Witnesses', and Ferris said there's a reason recruiting is such a major part of their religion.
"While we don't relish the thought of destruction that's going to take place, that's why we feel so strongly about door-to-door work and warning people," Ferris said. "If you knew a hurricane was coming, and you were the only one and you didn't tell anybody, it would be on your shoulders."

Next time, if I have time, I'll try to invite one of these poor people onto my porch to see how they are taught to defend against an atheist.

More Creationism foolishness

2009-06-17T20:11:00.000-07:00

Well, Dobson and his crew are trying an intensive small group indoctrination class call "The Truth Project." I'm sure it's old news to some, but I've just run across it. And it's chock full of the stupidity I expect from them.

From the overview section:
Lesson 5 - Science: What is True?

Science, the "systematic study of the natural world," brings to light innumerable evidences of Intelligent Design. But Darwinian theory transforms science from the honest investigation of nature into a vehicle for propagating a godless philosophy. (Part One)

A careful examination of molecular biology and the fossil record demonstrates that evolution is not a "proven fact." Meanwhile, history shows that ideas, including Darwinism as a social philosophy, have definite consequences – consequences that can turn ugly when God is left out of the picture. (Part Two)

So, we have an immediate attack on evolution, an outright lie("A careful examination...") and the fallacy of an appeal to consequences all within the overview. It doesn't bode well for the actual program. I imagine that they are trying to brainwash young adults with this crap primarily.
It's too bad that these people won't actually be presented with actual biology, or the readily found answers to their weak arguments and objections. I'm going to try to get a copy of this drek for a review.

Irrationality and Miracle Claims

2009-06-03T09:31:00.000-07:00

The concept of irrationality has been on my mind a lot recently. A lot of atheists I know tend to blame religion for the problems we see. I think this is somewhat shortsighted.

To start, the definition I'm using for "rational" is:
relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason

So, to be irrational is to lack in that. Simply put, it is to be disagreeable to reason.

In my view, religion is irrational. It is a codified belief in unprovable concepts without evidence. I often talk to religious people of various sects. In my experience, religion encourages exactly the wrong way to approach reality.

I see this, for example, in claims of miracles. My default position is skepticism when faced with a claim of supernatural intervention. I am constantly taken to task for not assuming the truth of a miracle claim when that claim has not been substantiated. But I will not budge on this issue. I have some rules of thumb that I start with when evaluating supernatural claims.

I do not start with belief and work to evidence. It has to be the other way around.
I do not accept authority or antiquity as reasons for believing.
If an event is explicable in natural terms, I am not going to ascribe supernatural causes to it.
To prevent bias(emotional, personal or otherwise), an anecdote must be corraborated with empirical evidence sufficient to make a determination about the nature of the event.
More generally, any event or item claimed as a miracle has to be open to skeptical investigation, or it is useless as evidence.

I'll expand on each briefly.

1. I do not start with belief and work to evidence. It has to be the other way around.

This means that I am not going to assume that a supernatural claim is true and then attempt to find evidence to support it. For example, the Shroud of Turin is often claimed as an example of a measurable miracle. The only radiological dating we have puts the date of the cloth's creation in roughly the 13 to 14th centuries. There have been calls for more in depth testing, all of which have been turned down by the Vatican. At best, the evidence points away from authenticity. At worst, it is simply too muddled as of yet to make a definitive statement about authenticity. And, so, I am not going to assume that this object is miraculous. This is aside from the fact that there is no evidence of supernatural composition, meaning that even if the cloth did date from the correct time period, it still doesn't constitute proof of a miracle.

2. I do not accept authority or antiquity as reasons for believing.

This is, for the most part, self explanatory. A religious group, making religious claims about an object, is the last group you should trust in regards to authenticity. They have a vested interest in maintaining the belief, and if their claims cannot be substantiated by an independent party, there is no reason to hold belief. So, noting that the Orthodox church holds that the "Holy Fire" event to be miraculous is useless.

3. If an event is explicable in natural terms, I am not going to ascribe supernatural causes to it.

This holds true for the Shroud of Turin, for example. Even if the cloth dates from the correct era, it will only constitute proof of a miracle if the image is proven to be impossible to generate from natural causes. As many people have made convincing duplicates of the Shroud using ancient techniques, it is no simple task to prove such a thing.
This also covers things like "miraculous" cures by faith healers. Unless the healing is impossible from a biological point of view(instant limb regeneration, for example), or that it is part of a testable pattern beyond statistical explanation(a priest who can cure cancers with a touch, for example), then it's useless as proof.

4. To prevent bias(emotional, personal or otherwise), an anecdote must be corraborated with empirical evidence sufficient to make a determination about the nature of the event.

An anecdote is not sufficient evidence, in and of itself, to determine anything. It has to be accompanied by some sort of empirical evidence verifying the claim.

5. More generally, any event or item claimed as a miracle has to be open to skeptical investigation, or it is useless as evidence.

This has to do with miracle claims like the Shroud of Turin and the Orthodox claims about "Holy Fire." In both cases, the church is denying independent investigators access to the relevant information. The Catholic church denies requests for further dating(and, indeed, a recent "restoration" of the cloth may have eliminated the possibility of such dating ever again). The Orthodox church refuses to allow scientific examination of the circumstances surrounding the annual "Holy Fire" event which is claimed to be a miracle.

Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves

2009-04-19T14:24:00.000-07:00

I was recently forwarded an email about sheep, sheepdogs and wolves. The central theme was that the majority of people where sheep, who need sheep dogs to protect them from wolves. The author was making a point about honoring veterans and other military and police people. I didn't have a comment on that. If you want to read the essay, you can find it here.

I did, however, start to think about the imagery of sheep. It occurs to me that sheep get a bad rap. A wild sheep is a noble and dangerous beast in it's own right. Take this bit from the wikipedia entry on sheep:

"Wild sheep have very keen senses of sight and hearing. When detecting predators wild sheep most often flee, usually uphill to higher ground. However they can also fight back. The Dall sheep has been known to butt wolves off the face of cliffs."
- Wikipedia

The domestic sheep is bred for docility. They fare worse than their wild counterparts against predators. And when domestic sheep are set free, they quickly become more like their wild counterparts. It seems that it is the presence of the shepherd that makes sheep weak. And this is unsurprising, as shepherds only keep sheep for fleecing and food, a terribly apt metaphor in my mind. Come to think of it, if a shepherd is bad for the sheep, then a sheepdog is an agent of control to keep sheep in line against their own good.

I fault this author for one other thing. He claims that the 9/11 attackers were wolves. He is wrong. They were just sheep who followed another shepherd.

Academic stupidity

2009-03-30T20:31:00.000-07:00

I try to be understanding of students. I know that society at large tends to downplay intelligence and science. I have little respect for people like Houston Friend(I'm going to assume that the person is male and, in fact, named Houston). I don't know Houston, but as he posts on the Arizona State University college paper website, I have gotten to know a little bit about him since he posted this interesting article complaining about a poor grade on a paper. Why did he get his poor mark? What excuse did his dastardly instructor use to tear down this poor person's paper?
I soon perused the plethora of red marks throughout the paper and began to notice generally why I did poorly. The principle reason I got a C was because I didn’t have enough “evidence,” as this particular paper required a certain amount of references to sources read throughout the semester.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. If the paper was supposed to be researched, arguing adequately in the realms of reason and philosophy relative to the subject instead of actually presenting evidence will not cut it. I wonder what the subject of the class was. I'm inclined to say biology, and I'll present my evidence soon.
Houston has some odd beliefs. Among them:
I think we have been accustomed to perceive intelligence as a product of one’s ability to present concrete evidence, especially scientifically. Not to say this is completely wrong or ineffective, but I think we must consider the possibility of metaphysical realities. And maybe, just maybe, we live in world that can’t always be explained rationally.
Well, Houston, the first problem is that we can, in fact, explain the world we live in rationally. The reason James Randi has never paid out his million dollar prize is because NO ONE has yet demonstrated a supernatural reality. No one has plausibly recorded an event which cannot be explained through science. This is the reason atheists exist. It is the reason I am an atheist. Pony up the proof, or walk away. I have no time in my life to entertain the delusions of people who can't or won't think rationally.
This seems like an odd thing to be arguing about. I mean, what class could he be railing about? I doubt an English class would require multiple sources throughout a semester(unless it was a scientific writing class, in which case Houston has even less of my sympathy). He leaves a clue, though:
So when the Intelligent Design theory is inevitably banned from discussion in all public schools, let us remember that science has led us to believe at one time that the earth was flat or that eugenics was a necessary study.
Ah, I see. It was likely a biology class. Why? Because Houston has complained about ID before, in this lovely article:
Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled,” which opened in theaters this time last year, exposed the slow but effective disintegration of ID (Intelligent Design) in education, especially secondary education. The documentary clearly illuminates the fact that ID and evolution are essentially only theories, and that if professors have been fired for even identifying ID as on the same plane as evolution, that’s a concerning injustice.
Perhaps Houston ought to look into the facts about Ben's little "documentary."
Regar

I can agree with Luther here

2009-03-28T10:51:00.001-07:00

It's the truth.

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. - Martin Luther

Ockham's Razor

2009-03-19T14:01:00.000-07:00

What is Ockham's(or Occam's) Razor? It is a principal of thought, which is as follows:
"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

Now, this is commonly paraphrased as follows:
"The explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."

And, finally, is boiled down to the idea that the simplest explanation for an event is usually correct.

Why do I bring this up? Well, I wandered by Jacob Stein's silly blog again. He had an entry entitled "God - The great explanatory principal." He starts with this line:
"[Occam’s Razor – the simplest answer is the best]"

The whole point of it boils down to this line:
"The simplest answer is: God did it."

He fails to see that suggesting a supernatural entity as a answer for the supposed problems he presents(all of which have completely natural answers to begin with) is a complete violation of Ockham's razor: he's suggesting an non-physical entity where one is not required for explanation.

Rape, Abortion and the Catholic Church

2009-03-11T18:21:00.000-07:00

Well, it's old news by now. A 9 year old girl in Brazil turned up at a hospital complaining of stomach pains. She was examined, and it was determined that she was pregnant with twins. Apparently, she was sexually abused by her step father since she was six years old.
Now, this is a sad situation. The girl was deemed much too small physically to carry a child to term, let alone two. So, the doctors, with the consent of the mother, performed an abortion.
First, the Catholic Church in Brazil attempted to bring legal action against the girl to force her to keep the children. And after the abortion was performed, they also threatened to have her charged with murder.
Then, they excommunicated everyone involved in performing the abortion except for the girl, deeming her too young(yet, somehow old enough to bear children. Go figure). There was one glaring exception to the list: the stepfather.
You see, raping a child is not a sin that one can be excommunicated for in the Catholic religion. The man who precipitated this whole sad affair by sexually molesting a child in his care(and if reports are correct, her handicapped older sister as well) can return to perfect standing with the Church with a simple confession. Meanwhile, the mother and the doctors who were trying to protect her daughter and very likely save her life must seek the equivalent of a papal pardon if they wish(for whatever twisted reason) to return to such a cradle of filth.
I would hope that this incident has opened the eyes of some Catholics to the dogmatic insanity of their religion.

Failures of god

2009-01-27T14:44:00.001-08:00

I was watching a TV show with my wife yesterday about people who survive horrific events. One of the authors interviewed was Ben Sherwood, for his book "Survivors Club."
I was fine with most of the show, until it got to the part about having faith. Even then, I could understand that having a belief that you can survive something can have a positive impact. However, Mr Sherwood immediately took the position that it was having the creator of the universe on your side that made the difference.
The case in discussion at this point was the story of Anne Hjelle. She was attacked by a mountain lion while biking with a friend. The lion grabbed her by the face, and later by the throat. Her friend held onto her, and kept the lion from dragging her away. Eventually, the friend's screams alerted two other riders who helped drive the cat away. Anne survived. Anne and her friend credit god with protecting them.
I wonder why god didn't care so much for Mark Reynolds. It turns out that the mountain lion had made a successful attack earlier in the day. This man was not so fortunate to have been riding with a friend, or to have had passing riders come to his aid. He died at the teeth and claws of that same lion, which fed upon him and buried his body.
Now, I obviously don't think that a god was watching over either victim. The story is perfectly explicable without that unfounded assumption. What made me angry was the fact that no one asked why god would watch out for Anne and not for Mark.

I don't exist

2008-12-08T13:38:00.000-08:00

Apparently, I don't exist. At least, according to Dante Tremayne in this blog. The whole thing is a mess, but I'll point out a few of his more glaring errors.

For instance, the nonbeliever (I believe I will refer to our “atheist” friends by that term for the duration of this article) necessarily holds the belief that we are the result of time plus matter plus chance, merely evolving accidents, the product of random collisions of matter. Yet they wish to believe that these accidental collisions produce truth, fact, and a coherent understanding of the universe.

Dante has an odd understanding of truth and accident. To an atheist, the truth of a statement is simply a measure of how closely that statement matches reality. So, to say that the universe produces truth is nonsense. The universe IS truth. Our conception of truth is based on the raw data that we can draw from observation of the reality that surrounds us. And, frankly, even if this odd statement had any merit, it still would not be proof of anything. Suppose, for a moment, that truth can not be ascertained from a random reality. This does not imply anything about the existence of a deity.

The irrational behavior I am referring to is the nonbeliever’s inability to admit when they have been defeated. Many nonbelievers are well educated people. They have done well to keep Theists on the hot seat. But when a well educated man — especially one schooled in logic — has his entire belief system completely dismantled and displayed as inconsistent and false, everybody else knows that this smart person knows he has been defeated. But he refuses to concede. He will not admit defeat. Instead, he retreats to his study to continue his search for one — just one — argument or proof that God does not exist. And he will repeat this over and over.

This, of course, presupposes some absolute proof of God's existence. I'd like to see one. I used to think that St. Thomas Aquinas had a few, but I can see why those fail so miserably now. Of course, Dante did not see fit to include this proof, so I can not comment on it. I can comment on the idea that atheists are searching for proof that God does not exist. We are not. There are an infinite number of things I do not believe exist, as I have no proof of them. God is just one more. Of course, because Dante's world revolves around his concept of God, he probably can not imagine living without it.

This irrational behavior is indicative of the real issue, and that is, that God exists, they know it, and they don’t like Him. If they admit He exists, then they have to bow the knee. Their rules no longer apply, God’s law does. That law of God that is written on the heart of every man is eating them alive, and they want very badly to make Him go away so that hopefully the guilt will go away as well. And so despite the evidences to prove the existence of God and the inconsistency of their own worldview, they continue to irrationally hold on to these beliefs.

Again, atheists do not know that God exists. If we did, we would not be atheists. We might not be Christians, but we certainly would not be atheists. In addition, the existence of a god does not imply any particular relationship between us. Finally, Dante, I am not being "eaten alive" by some supposed law that I am rebelling against. I gave up irrational guilt with Christianity. I suspect that you are projecting your own anxieties upon atheists. Perhaps some therapy would help you.

To further my point, compare the debate over the existence of God to the debate over the existence of unicorns. I could just stop there, right? What debate? And who cares? What bearing does that have on my life? If an intelligent person were clearly shown that belief or non belief in unicorns were unfounded and false, and unicorns did or did not exist, then for them to continue to hold that belief would be an insult to their intelligence. If God were just some unicorn theory that had no real affect on a person’s life, as some nonbelievers claim, then why don’t they treat it as such? Why don’t they just shrug and go on?

Are Unicornians flying planes into buildings? Are Unicornians executing suicide bombings? Are Unicornians shooting women in the head for being the victims of rape? Are Unicornians trying to force Unicornian beliefs to be taught in schools? Are Unicornians trying to make my children guilty for crimes they did not commit?

No, they are not. And that is why there is no one debating Unicornianism. If theism was as harmless as Unicornianism, I would have no need to ever even dwell on it.

Here is how this works, and how I know I’m right. When the believer is discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever, ask them why they don’t like God. Every one of them will present a list. That list will ultimately consist of areas of God’s law and His character that interfere with the self-law of the nonbeliever. They don’t want a God to tell them what to do and not to do: don’t fornicate, don’t steal, love your neighbor, go to church. They will also likely present a number of misunderstandings about God and the Church. They don’t understand grace. God to them is one big meanie and that if they don’t follow all of His rules perfectly, all the time, God will have no mercy and fry them like Uzza. And most of the time, the list usually begins and ends with Christians being such big jerks, which is, unfortunately, one thing the nonbeliever got right. They don’t want to believe in God because they don’t want to end up like us.

You are not right, Dante. I can certainly dislike fictional characters without accepting their existence. You worship one of the most nasty blood gods to come out of the Middle East, and you wonder why atheists find your beliefs distasteful? You worship a god who has commanded murder, sexual slavery, genocide and human sacrifice(a short and very truncated list of the atrocities found in your "good book"). This god then tops off this lovely list by announcing that non-believers are punished forever. Your concept of a loving god is a depraved maniac. I do not have to believe in him to believe that and find it detestable.

Whatever the list of reasons, they are the subjective beliefs of the nonbeliever. Proofs for the existence of God don’t address a person’s subjective arguments, which is why most apologists don’t ever address them. For some reason it is beneath the apologist to talk to a nonbeliever like he is a human being and not a broken math equation. By all means, use truth, logic, evidences, and arguments. After all, we have truth on our side. But after you have handed their worldview back to them in a broken heap, and they break into irrational behavior, find out what their real problem is with God.

All beliefs are, by definition, subjective. Apologists who can not muster a proof for the existence of their god are useless. To sum, Dante, my problem with your god is really a problem with his followers. While your "god" is a particularly repellant fiction, it is the real life consequences of belief that compel me to argue with people like you.

Interesting slashdot quote

2008-09-26T18:52:00.001-07:00

From a user named gordonjcp:

>>They are functional (but nevertheless, crazy as a shithouse rat) religious zealots

I think it's worth pointing out - particularly to people in the US - that the Muslim countries of the Middle East led the world in science and technology, once. Why do you think so many stars have Arabic names? Why do so many words in science have Arabic roots? Think carefully...

Now think about what happened when they let the conservative religious crazies take control.

Just sayin'

Why have this blog?

2008-08-13T23:48:00.000-07:00

After reading some silliness on Mark Shea's blog about PZ Meyers, I pondered this question. Why do I bother writing about God if I don't believe in him. The answer is simple, actually.
Everywhere you turn, things reference God. God did this, God did that. This group built a multi-million dollar church for God. This man blew himself and 10 innocent bus passengers up for God. This man flew a plane into a tower for God. This woman protests funerals to tell us how God hates us.
I honestly think that Christians see themselves as persecuted because they swim in a fountain of God-ism all the time. They don't notice the vast sea of theism that they live in. They only feel the occasional discomforts when they run into someone who doesn't buy into their fairytale.
So, Mark, you want to know why I feel compelled to talk about God?
Because faith demands it. Not my faith: yours, and those like you.
People kill each other over the type of fairy tales you espouse.
People try to control others using precepts taken directly from your holy books.
People try to warp the minds of children because of religious precepts.
Everywhere I look, there is someone trying to save me. There is someone trying to make me buy into the latest fad of ignorance. There is someone who wants to teach my children about their (god/prophet/imam/whatever).
In short, my life is surrounded by irrational people who get worked up over irrational beliefs and react in irrational(and often times, outright dangerous) ways. And these people include those who have sent people off to die in wars. It includes those who have their finger on weapons of mass destruction.
I strive to see the day when perhaps my kids will sleep a little more soundly at night, because the crazed yahoos are finally corralled.
You worship one of the bloodiest deities ever invented, and you wonder why I would like to see your religion erased?
It's self preservation, Mark. That's why I fight you. Because your religions are cancers. And you either kill the cancer, or the cancer kills you.

God is Love, Leviticus

2008-08-13T08:39:00.000-07:00

God is Love

Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. - Leviticus 10:1-2

God is Love

Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death." - Leviticus 24:13-16

God is Love

"You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you." - Leviticus 26:7-8

God is Love

"But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life." - Leviticus 26:14-16

God is Love

"If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters." - Leviticus 26:27-29

How to tell James Dobson is full of crap

2008-08-13T00:13:00.000-07:00

"Every description given to us in Scripture depicts God as infinitely loving and kind, tenderly watching over His earthly children and guiding the steps of the faithful." - newsletter, James Dobson

Apparently, Dr Dobson has never actually read Scripture. Otherwise, he would not be able to blather such nonsense with a straight face. I've started a series of posts call "God is Love" which showcase the many "loving" sections of the Bible. You know, the ones you would have to ignore to hold to anything like Dobson's statement.

God is Love, Exodus

2008-08-12T21:37:00.001-07:00

Selected readings demonstrating the infinite patience and love of the Judeo/Christian god

God is Love

At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. - Exodus 4:24

God is Love

So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again." - Exodus 11:4-6

God is Love

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. Pharaoh will think, 'The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.' And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD." - Exodus 14:1-4

God is Love

Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward it, and the LORD swept them into the sea. The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. - Exodus 14:27-28

God is Love

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." - Exodus 21:2-6

God is Love

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." - Exodus 21:7

God is Love

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." - Exodus 21:20-21

God is Love

"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft." - Exodus 22:3

God is Love

"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." - Exodus 22:20

God is Love

If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. - Exodus 23:22-23

God is Love

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you." - Exodus 23:31

God is Love

"Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the LORD, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire." - Exodus 29:18

God is Love

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. - Exodus 32:27-28

God is Love

For the LORD had said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites, 'You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you." - Exodus 33:5

God is Love

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." - Exodus 34:6-7

God is Love, Genesis

2008-08-12T21:35:00.000-07:00

Selected readings demonstrating the infinite patience and love of the Judeo/Christian god

God is Love

So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." - Genesis 6:7

God is Love

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." - Genesis 11:5-7

God is Love

By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. - Genesis 19:23-26

God is Love

The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. - Genesis 34:27-29

Which is worse?

2008-08-12T21:16:00.000-07:00

I make no bones about the fact that I despise the Old Testament. It is a wretched book, filled with fanciful depictions of the actions and decrees of one particularly nasty mid-Eastern deity, Yahweh. If you want to demonstrate the inhumanity of Judaism, you will find fertile fields to reap in those books. But that is not the worst the Bible has to offer, by far. You would have to go to the New Testament for that gem: Hell.
In the Old Testament, God spent a lot of time killing and demanding that his followers kill, whether it be women and children(see the book of Joshua for a sampling) or blasphemous Israelites doing such atrocious deeds as picking up sticks and offering incense. He railed about how he would bring destruction upon his enemies heads. He threatened to pursue vengeance against men, even unto their offspring for generations. But it took Jesus to come up with the coup de gras: eternal torment.
In every way it is possible to look at the issue, the idea of Hell is a injustice. It lasts for eternity. It is, literally, an infinite punishment. To be just, a punishment should fit the crime that inspired it. As finite beings, we cannot commit such a crime. Furthermore, the Bible tells us repeatedly that we don't have an understanding of the full picture. So, Hell is an infinite punishment for finite crimes committed by finite beings who have only a finite understanding of an infinite moral situation.
Yahweh only threatened death and mayhem. Jesus wants to keep killing you forever.

Beauty and God

2008-06-10T22:14:00.000-07:00

I was recently sent a link to a youtube video which consists of a slideshow of Hubble telescope images. The person sending it made the comment that he found the images beautiful, and that beauty was a sign of God's existence to him. I wrote a response to his email, and I've included a lightly edited version of it below.
I found them beautiful as well. But I also find it interesting that, as beautiful as we find those things, they are all completely inimical to human life. Most religions hold that the universe was in some way built for us. In reality, only an infinitesimal layer(like a layer of tissue paper wrapped around a basketball) is not completely hostile to human life. And, given that 75% of the Earth is covered with water, really only 25% of that tiny sliver of environment is somewhat safe for humans. Everywhere else in the universe that we have been able to explore is actively hostile to human life.
This touches on one of the biggest reasons I lost faith. The universe is indifferent, when not hostile, to human life. Christianity requires that we assume that this is a function of sin, that we caused this fallen state. The alternative is that this is simply how the universe operates. I would expect to find evidence of a radical break in the universe if the story of the Fall was true. It's not there. We see a history where mankind exists for a blink of geologic time. And death and destruction are a prevalent constant for all of that time. There is no trace of man when the first mass extinctions occurred. There is no evidence of a time before predation and death. Given the way that life likely evolved, you would not expect it. Primitive protein chains would cannabilize each other, and the process just became more refined as primordial replicators became more resistant.
In essence, it really boils down to a few simple points. Take the Chinese earthquake, for example. What are the possibilities?
1) This is just a natural process, completely indifferent to the devastation wrought on the people.
2) This is caused ultimately by mankind's fall. It is an unnatural, yet in a way automatic, event.
3) This is directly caused by God(or some other supernatural being).

Since we can trace and study the causes, #3 can't be substantiated. It is an outside possibility that this was supernaturally caused, but unless we find evidence of an unnatural event(a miracle, in other words; something that could not happen due to physics, for example), there is no reason to assume it. In addition, it violates the idea of an omnibenificent and omnipotent God.

#2 is implausible, simply because we have plenty of pre-human history that we can examine(geological formations, etc). There was never a time(since the Earth formed) that we don't see evidence of tectonic movement. If humans are the cause, we would expect to see a change in the record, and we don't.

This leaves #1, which also has the advantage of being the simplest explanation, and the one that Occam's Razor would lead us to accept. It doesn't disprove the existence of the supernatural, but it does not rely on unprovable claims to have explanatory power.

But the real kicker for me is the realization that those terrible, destructive forces are the flip side of the coin, so to speak, of the beauty we admire. That Chinese earthquake was the same process that formed the pretty mountains that I admired yesterday. The same plate movement formed the Pacific basin I splashed in and found so enthralling. And this repeated over and over. The grace of the cheetah exists to kill. The leap of the antelope exists to put off death for another day. The majestic orca, so playful with humans, seems to enjoy tormenting it's prey with a shocking brutality. The exploding nebulae that we look at through Hubble is also bathing us with high energy particles which will kill some of us.

I just don't think that the god described by Christianity or Judaism is a good fit to the evidence. When you strip away the anthropomorphic baggage, it just doesn't make sense. And, for me at least, it endows those things of beauty with a certain tragic nobility, knowing that both the viewer and the object are in a way accidents. We are unlikely travelers whose paths touch for a moment. It makes me savor those moments and objects more, knowing that they are not some pale reflection of a greater glorious existence, and I can never count on experiencing them again. This outlook extends to everything. It includes the people I interact with as well, which is why atheism has not lead to nihilism for me. The homeless man on the street is my brother, not because of a supernatural decree, but because we are both the beneficiaries of circumstance, and my stature is no more a function of my worth than his is. And, since we are both sentient beings who face an uncaring universe which will mourn our passing equally, it makes no sense to lord over him in some undeserved haughty manner.

Can a person live a fufilling atheistic life?

2008-05-13T13:25:00.000-07:00

This is a big question. Most religious writers tend to think that an atheist's life must be empty, bereft of meaning. This is not surprising, since most hold that God designed us to center our existence around him, so it could not be possible to live without him.
First, I would offer my own life as an example. I no longer believe in a god. Yet, I am not unhappy.
I have good days and bad, just like every theist.
I have goals and dreams, just like every theist.
I love my family and friends, just like every theist.
I do not have to seek to fill my life with addiction and distraction(although, since I have a very wide range of interests, I am sure it sometimes appears that way).
I recognize the fact that I am the only being responsible for my failure and success.

Micki had it right.

Eastern Orthodox and Atheism

2008-05-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

As I have family members who are very interested in the Eastern Orthodox church, I tend to get a lot of links to them. I've noticed something pretty evident. Virtually all Eastern Orthodox discussions of atheism are framed by the experiences of the Russian Orthodox under the regimes of the USSR. For them, atheism is a militant, brutal philosophy bent on erasing them:

The great multitude (by the most conservative estimates over twenty million) of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia who suffered for their Orthodox Faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, testify of the extreme militant efforts the atheist enemies of God had to resort to in their attempt to inculcate their false beliefs on the populace.- http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/infoage.aspx

Most Christian groups(such as the Catholic church, for example), view atheism as more of a spiritual disease, brought on by apathy and pride. Of course, these views are also largely mirrored by other religions, such as Islam and Judaism.
Neither of these views are consistent with atheism as I experience it. Since my experience is generally congruent with those of most atheists I know, I do not think I am anything of an anomaly. My atheism is built upon one principal: everything I think I know or experience is open to critical analysis. In other words, there are no sacred cows. There are no questions which should not be asked. This includes the big questions, like the existence of the God.
Religious writers make many mistakes when trying to analyze atheism. A prime one is an attempt to redefine atheism to suit theistic terms. To take an Eastern Orthodox quote as an example:

Atheism is the assertion that there is no God. Atheism is itself a belief, since to know that there is no God is impossible. Thus, Atheism is faith that there is no God, a faith in an un-God. - http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/infoage.aspx

This is simply not true. Atheism is a lack of theism. Anyone who does not assert a theistic belief is a de facto atheist, whether they actively deny the existence of God or not. Atheism is not the addition of an anti-God philosophy, it is the lack of any theistic philosophy. Many theists attempt to assert the above claim in order to portray atheism as simply another brand of religion.
Aside from the false generalizations, I think the Eastern Orthodox have another problem in approaching atheism: the tendency towards mystery. They have a tendency to wrap their theology in mystery(to the point that 'mystery' and 'sacrament' can be interchanged). All Christian groups have this tendency in some measure, but the Eastern Orthodox are especially affected by it. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to skepticism. An inquiring skeptic is not satisfied with fencing off some ideas and avoiding analysis.
This combination of factors makes discussing religion with Eastern Orthodox apologists a challenge. There is very little common ground to start. Keeping the above in mind may prove fruitful.

A common mistake in reasoning

2008-02-14T22:48:00.000-08:00

In my studies of religion, I keep running across a very common fallacy, the appeal to consequences. It is very widespread. Basically, this fallacy is arguing that some proposition is either true or false based on the consequences of that proposition. For example, one might argue that without a belief in God, one cannot have a belief in absolute moral values, and therefore God must exist to allow us to believe in absolute morality. Another example would be that evolution leaves no room for God, therefore it must be wrong. It is usually an emotion driven argument, primarily propped up by fear or anger, although sometimes it is simply a lack of understanding or imagination. In the case of the "existence of God" example, it was driven by a fear of having one's moral grounding undermined. In the second case, the person was simply unwilling or unable to imagine the possibility that there could be some form of theistic evolution.
I bring it up, because I just got done listening to a partial sermon by the Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias. His entire message was based on this fallacy(although his further sub-arguments revealed a few more fallacies): I can not be an atheist because I can not live with the consequences.
Of course, such a statement has no bearing on whether Ravi's god actually exists. One way to point this out to someone using such an argument is to turn it around: I cannot be a Christian because I can not live with a god who would create Hell, for example. You can then point out that your feelings about a god who would act in such a way have no bearing on whether that god exists, a point which they would certainly agree with as a theist. But, be ready to deal with an emotional blockade whenever this argument rears up, because in my experience, it is almost always driven by pure emotion.

PS - I did find it funny that Ravi took the time to point out his respect for agnostics who have taken the time study the issue of the existence of god seriously. He is a little mixed up as to the difference between atheism and agnosticism. One is a question of knowledge(can we know that god exists?) and one is a question of belief(do I hold to a belief in god?). So, he really spent the time lauding every atheist who is not just a knee jerk non-believer. Thank you, I guess.

EDIT: I just noticed the Wiki link for this fallacy:The Appeal to Consequences

I'm far too slow

2008-02-13T22:07:00.000-08:00

I hate it when I find an interesting conversation online, and realize that it took place months ago. Case in point: Jacob Stein's blog from August 24, 2007.
Jacob brings on a few tired old saws about atheism, but this one gets my goat the most:

It is apparently impossible to find a well-documented case of an atheist who was kind, honest, sober and sexually responsible.

I'm pretty mild mannered in person, but I think that this would have elicited quite a heated discussion, to say the least. I can think of many people I know personally who fit the first three criteria without a doubt. This group includes every single atheist I know personally, myself included. I strive for honesty. I treat others with respect and dignity, including giving to charities that I think are worthwhile and personally handing out food to the homeless, among other things I think elevate my character to kindness at the least. And, while I enjoy a drink of wine or a beer now and again, I am in no way a drunk. And the same goes for all of the people I mentioned!
Now, the last qualification is vague, at best. I think it is obvious that Jacob has a certain sexual morality in mind when he says "sexually responsible." He later attempts to link pornography with atheism, by linking to a "Smut for Smut" table set up by a college group, exchanging religious writings for porn. If that's his proof, it's little surprise that he is incapable of grasping the basic use of logic that underlies atheistic reasoning. I can't even say "correlation without causation" because he doesn't even get to the point of proving a correlation!
Personally, I have no problem with most pornography, nor with adults enjoying it. I don't commit adultery(outside of the Christian view that any sexual thought not centered on a spouse is adultery). I don't long for relationships outside of my marriage. So, I feel perfectly fine laying claim to being sexually responsible as well. I happen to know that the most committed atheists I know eschew even that, and actually behave more in line with Judeo-Christian sexual morality than ANY religious person I have ever known well enough to be able to say anything about their sex lives.

He goes on to ramble on about science disproving the underpinnings of atheism. Newsflash, Jacob: neither quantum mechanics or the Big Bang disprove any part of the idea that there is no God. Pick up a book other than your segment of the Bible sometime, and read all about it. You might be a bit surprised about how few physicists agree with you.

The crux of Jacob's argument is that atheistic arguments are "clearly just excuses atheists use to justify their own addictions." I would simply reply that his arguments are clearly just an excuse to justify his immature insecurities about an uncertain universe and his fear of death.

He continues to babble on in his comments, dredging up such chestnuts as this:
when science, such as the anthropic principle, proves atheists wrong, they become apologetic and come up with fanciful speculation such as multiverses to explain the contradiction.

This proves absolutely nothing of the sort, which he would know if he had read the article he linked to. I assume that he hasn't, or is perhaps too indoctrinated to see the counter arguments.

Later in the discussion, he comes out with this gem(the quote in quotation marks was a previous reply from an atheist):
"Atheism contains no specific ethos."

Exactly my point. Leaving atheists to behave like animals if no police are watching them.

Ahh, another piece of grand old stupidity. Apparently, Jacob can only behave humanely because he is worried that God will smack him down. I say this, because he is apparently unable to grasp that people can and do live moral lives without fear of hellfire and damnation, even morality on his terms. I'm sad that he is so sociopathic that he is brainwashed into believing that everyone else must be, too. Of course, given the psychotic murderer he takes as his god, he is just being true to his beliefs. If you'd like to debate that last bit, Jacob, feel free. We can run through your holy books and point out all the fun places where your god reportedly acted like a murderous bastard.

In short, Jacob, if you ever happen to read this, I think you are a stunted, bigoted little man. I'd like to see you present a logical defense of your beliefs, if you ever manage to grow a brain cell.

Prayer

2008-01-21T15:11:00.001-08:00

I have received several emails from someone who has a sister in the hospital. The sister has been sick for several weeks now. She has been on a roller coaster of a ride, in terms of how she has responded to treatment. Every improvement, no matter how small, is seen as a sign of God answering prayers, while the declines are ignored.
It's sad. The situation is heart-breaking. It's clear to me that this is a case of a slow physical decline, with the body fighting as best it can to survive. It explains the ups and downs so much better than assuming that a god is listening, and chooses to have the woman dangle on the edge of death for no good reason.
The problem is, of course, that actually saying anything like this would be horrific to the family. Expressing such doubts would irreparably mar our relationship, perhaps to the degree of complete separation. It is my hope that she gets better, but I hold out no hope that a divine intervention will occur.

My conversion

2007-12-28T09:10:00.000-08:00

For a long time, I've been a faithful Christian. Even before my conversion in college, I held basic Christian ideals, and was always uncomfortable with anti-Christian art and literature.

I remained Christian until several years ago, when personal issues led me to reevaluate the basis for my beliefs. As a Christian, one of my favorite activities was Christian apologetics. I loved to argue, and it was fun to pry into someone's arguments and take them down.

My conversion began for two reasons: 1) the conversion of someone near to me to another religion and 2) the realization that I was not applying the same rigorous standards of belief to my own faith as I was to other religions.

The first forced me to look at my religion from a neutral standpoint. If I were to honestly evaluate this person's new claims, I would have to be dispassionate about it. Begging the question by assuming either viewpoint would obscure the truth.

The second came at about the same time. As I was grappling with this perceived attack on my religion, I also became aware of the fact that I let a lot of claims about Christianity slide. While I was perfectly happy to debunk Mormon claims to miracles, for example, I was unwilling to see that my on religion had its set of outlandish beliefs.

So, I set out to rebuild my faith, seeking a more mature and defensible position. And that's where it all fell apart. All of the little doubts I had about Christianity came back, and this time I couldn't just sweep them under the rug.

So, one night, after reading for yet another several hours on the Internet, I sat back, took a deep breath and admitted out loud that I no longer believed in God. It was an odd moment, full of fear, yet also in a way freeing.

I'm still in the closet about my new position. It's a painful place to be. I go to weekly services. I play the part of the Christian parent, while at the same time, I worry about the things people are teaching my children. My family are almost all strongly religious, and they will view my conversion as a direct attack upon them, no matter how I approach it. Many of my customers are Evangelical Christians, and they tend to try to avoid atheists. I am without a doubt going to lose business if I go public.

But then, how much longer can I go on? It's becoming increasingly apparent to some that something has changed in me, and this will eventually be brought out in the open, since I am not going to lie about it. In addition, my children are getting to the point of life where they begin questioning, and I am not going to lie to them. At that point, I would imagine that it will be impossible to hide.

Hello, I suppose

2007-12-22T10:32:00.000-08:00

I opened this blog to post musing about the world as I see it. I've been going through a lot of changes in my beliefs, and I'd like to have some outlet to express them. I'm not sure this is a good idea. After all, people have a nasty habit of seeing a change in belief as a betrayal of the ideals you used to share. This usually results in broken relationships, which is sad, since both sides are denied a chance to grow at that point.