I do believe I've written on this before, but I will again.
Position of the earth. A creationist will claim that the universe was designed for us because of the position of the earth. There are billions of galaxies, with at least trillions of stars/planets/moons in each. How vain is humanity to suggest that it's all here for us? So back to the position of the earth, which is perfect for life. The earth is really a harsh environment for life. We only do so well because we adapt and more yet, we adapt our environment. The earth isn't naturally a good place for human life.
Now, more literally on the celestial position of the earth and less on the planet itself. There are billions of galaxies with trillions or quadrillions of celestial bodies in each to my knowledge. Now think of earth as a candidate planet as I will call it. A candidate planet is one which has the requirements to support life in a given form. Keep in mind as well that this is based only on our carbon-based life and there may be many different kinds. Can it be rationalized that earth is the only candidate planet in the universe/multiverse? No, we can't rationalize that. There can be so many candidate planets, not all of which will produce life. What we wind up with is a grand dice roll. We seem to have won that roll.
Nature... Can we call this cruel system designed? Why would a designer make a prey animal fast, only to make the predator as fast or failing that, sneaky? There's no clear reason why. Natural selection has survival to account for on both sides. But a designer has no motivation to make such a cruel game unless the designer is a sadistic bastard, to be polite.
What evidence even suggests design? Almost every science points to a materialistic origin. I've come to the conclusion that either I am completely and horribly ignorant or there isn't much backing it up really.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
God and free will
God makes a race to worship and serve him. He gives us free will. He commands us to act a specific way, but makes doing so impossible. When we fail to act this way, we're supposedly punished. Not only slap-on-the-wrist sort of punishment either, eternal torture.
Say I write a computer program, I write it to complete an equation. I then give it several different types of equations to solve and expect it to always have the same result. My analogy fails when we come to punishment, because nothing is less just than infinite punishment for finite crime. The worst person who ever lived or will live could not possibly deserve that.
So we've got the celestial "screw you" down. Let's talk about God's plan for us. God is supposed to have this divine plan for each of our lives. That is not possible if we have free will. Imagine you are commanding an army. The catch is, none of your soldiers follow orders unless it suits their personal agenda. Can you imagine commanding a free-willed army? The only thing which holds a plan involving multiple people together is knowledge of how they will act. If they change what they are to do, they can endanger the entire plan and screw it up completely. The typical counter-argument to this is that God can work all things that happen into his plan. The problem is that it's still a plan, which requires manipulation of at least several elements.
Next, divine intervention. Some people think God intervenes on a daily basis for them. If God saves parking spaces and the like for the individual like some believe, he must deprive another of that parking space. The other person would have to be swayed divinely to park somewhere else or not make that particular stop. What does that do to free will? I suppose God would have to make them want to not stop or not park there so that they'd freely choose to avoid it, but can that be considered free choice? The educated person cannot believe in both the divine and free will simultaneously.
A friend of mine recently posted on facebook "If I had a time machine, I would go back to the Precambrian, throw a pebble in the ocean, and then fast forward to the present to see how much had changed.". The result in this experiment could be catastrophic, or it could have almost no effect. In the same way every time God meddles, he disrupts the entire natural order. When he does that he could change almost everything and what does that say about free will?
As a Christian, there can be no free will. Without free will we're not responsible for our actions. That removes sin, making us sinless. We'd have no need for God to "save" us. No hell to punish us for the sin. If one argues that we're still responsible without free will then God is a tyrant (which is a notion I wouldn't be above, I derive great pleasure from knowing that he doesn't exist).
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Argument from design - Teleological argument
The first error is in assuming that natural selection is a random unguided process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Natural selection is the filling of a need via necessity. Let's look at a few examples;
Let's take the native's watch. The native living in a primitive culture finds a watch on a beach, he doesn't know what it is, but he knows that it was designed. The watch is correlated with the universe and us with the native. Theists will take that to prove God. The problem is that the watch has clear markings on it which indicate design, and that watches are to my knowledge only ever created by humans. If I, right now found a machine with effects beyond our current level I would have to postulate a more advanced person than myself. The tribesman, were he wise could do the same. We should not aspire to be the ignorant tribesman, we don't see the clear markings of design (later post more based on lack of design).
- Foals can walk and nurse within an hour of being born, can trot and canter within several hours and can gallop within a day. They need this ability to be able to move away from predators. This ability can be confidently suggested to be rooted in natural selection. A horse which is born and has to sit around for days will be killed more easily than a quickly mobile one. That causes the more mobile horse to be more likely to pass along it's genes and as a result eventually cause horses in general to be able to move faster after birth.
- Let's look at a predator. Cheetahs are a rather optimized predator. They are stealthy, accurate, fast and deadly. These abilities came when the cheetah was hunting prey animals and I'll use gazelles as an example. The gazelle is fast and can turn in an instant. To be able to hunt and kill a gazelle the cheetah must be able to move very fast after stealthily hunting. Any cheetahs which didn't have these traits wouldn't as easily catch their prey and would find survival and thus reproduction hard to sustain.
- The crocodile looks rather like a log to the unsuspecting creature. It sits still and watches until a creature wanders past or comes to drink and launches itself at the animal. It then often drags the creature underwater, drowning it and allowing the crocodile to eat it's prey at leisure. These traits have solid roots also in natural selection.
Let's take the native's watch. The native living in a primitive culture finds a watch on a beach, he doesn't know what it is, but he knows that it was designed. The watch is correlated with the universe and us with the native. Theists will take that to prove God. The problem is that the watch has clear markings on it which indicate design, and that watches are to my knowledge only ever created by humans. If I, right now found a machine with effects beyond our current level I would have to postulate a more advanced person than myself. The tribesman, were he wise could do the same. We should not aspire to be the ignorant tribesman, we don't see the clear markings of design (later post more based on lack of design).
Friday, April 27, 2012
IDiots
ID of course, being the "Cheap tuxedo" of creationism, trying to make it sound vaguely scientific by coining the term "Intelligent Design", often amended with the word 'theory'. This is insane for a few reasons.
The most obvious reason is that ID isn't a theory. It would be lucky to attain hypothesis status. For a suggestion to become a hypothesis, it must be testable by the scientific method. Creationism is not testable by the scientific method. Evidence cannot be found which points to creationism, and evidence is key to the scientific method.
At this point, the ID postulation is laughed out of the academic arena. There's no historical, natural or philosophical evidence for ID. The natural evidence which we have points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. The historical evidence we have suggests naturalistic and materialist origin. Lastly out of those three, our current philosophy correlates us nicely with evolved animals based on instinct. This makes evolution and the big bang theories which to date survive the academic arena as opposed to ID, whose bloodied corpse is dragged out of the academic arena.
To merely try to rename young earth ideology to make it sound scientific is dishonest. There's no way to prove young earth theory, we have many dating methods which place the earth at 4.5 billion years. There's no mistake here, no "Oops, turns out that the earth was only 6,000-8,000 years old.". It's just so improbable at this point. Young earth ideology is now entirely kept alive by the willfully ignorant, a Google search is a way to disprove that in under 10 seconds.
If a person manages to believe in ID, they have an Olympic level of ignorance, and to call them IDiots is fair.
“Five percent of the people think;
ten percent of the people think they think;
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
― Thomas A. Edison
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
― Benjamin Franklin
“One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.”
― Richard Dawkins
The most obvious reason is that ID isn't a theory. It would be lucky to attain hypothesis status. For a suggestion to become a hypothesis, it must be testable by the scientific method. Creationism is not testable by the scientific method. Evidence cannot be found which points to creationism, and evidence is key to the scientific method.
At this point, the ID postulation is laughed out of the academic arena. There's no historical, natural or philosophical evidence for ID. The natural evidence which we have points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. The historical evidence we have suggests naturalistic and materialist origin. Lastly out of those three, our current philosophy correlates us nicely with evolved animals based on instinct. This makes evolution and the big bang theories which to date survive the academic arena as opposed to ID, whose bloodied corpse is dragged out of the academic arena.
To merely try to rename young earth ideology to make it sound scientific is dishonest. There's no way to prove young earth theory, we have many dating methods which place the earth at 4.5 billion years. There's no mistake here, no "Oops, turns out that the earth was only 6,000-8,000 years old.". It's just so improbable at this point. Young earth ideology is now entirely kept alive by the willfully ignorant, a Google search is a way to disprove that in under 10 seconds.
If a person manages to believe in ID, they have an Olympic level of ignorance, and to call them IDiots is fair.
“Five percent of the people think;
ten percent of the people think they think;
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
― Thomas A. Edison
― Benjamin Franklin
― Richard Dawkins
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Have gay sex to improve chance of rapture!
Luke 17:34-35
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
To be fair, in the NIV they added "grain" to that second sentence. Also in the NIV, they substituted "men" for "people". Because whatever happens, the Bible can't sound gay...at all!
This is a mostly jovial post. Just saying, go gays and lesbians! Even if you're atheists, you've got a 50/50 of being included in the rapture, the Bible says so.
I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
To be fair, in the NIV they added "grain" to that second sentence. Also in the NIV, they substituted "men" for "people". Because whatever happens, the Bible can't sound gay...at all!
This is a mostly jovial post. Just saying, go gays and lesbians! Even if you're atheists, you've got a 50/50 of being included in the rapture, the Bible says so.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Why is this real?
Why do people still try to use the cosmological argument? Let's take a look at it.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Conclusion 2: The cause for the universe must be an uncaused cause, which is God.
So special pleading aside... Let's prove that you and I mean YOU can fly using this argument.
Premise 1: You are a mammal.
Premise 2: Bats are mammals.
Premise 3: Bats can fly.
Conclusion: Mammals can fly.
Conclusion 2: You, as a mammal, can fly independently.
All of my premises are correct, demonstrably so. My conclusion, like the cosmological argument's conclusion is false. A major difference between the two is that I don't invoke special pleading.
I know I've posted on this previously, but come on. The logical fallacies should have people who use this argument weeping uncontrollably in corners. Yet people use this argument proudly even now. It diminishes my already very slight faith in humanity.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Conclusion 2: The cause for the universe must be an uncaused cause, which is God.
So special pleading aside... Let's prove that you and I mean YOU can fly using this argument.
Premise 1: You are a mammal.
Premise 2: Bats are mammals.
Premise 3: Bats can fly.
Conclusion: Mammals can fly.
Conclusion 2: You, as a mammal, can fly independently.
All of my premises are correct, demonstrably so. My conclusion, like the cosmological argument's conclusion is false. A major difference between the two is that I don't invoke special pleading.
I know I've posted on this previously, but come on. The logical fallacies should have people who use this argument weeping uncontrollably in corners. Yet people use this argument proudly even now. It diminishes my already very slight faith in humanity.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
It's the devil!
I was informed today by a Christian that mental illness is demon possession. In fact, most everything Christians don't like can be traced back to devils. Isn't that convenient? Rather obviously, there are no demons at all. This was specifically in relation to the book Extreme Evil: Kids Killing Kids which has to do with school killings and how they're rooted in demonic activity. Again, this is patently ridiculous.
We can forget psychology and physiology, it's all the demons. If the Christian is willing to back into the "medical symptoms are the effects of the demon" corner, there's no real argument to be had. There's no argument because when someone is willing to concede any hope of evidence in favor of unfounded claims of causality, there's no way to make any progress.
People tried blaming everything we didn't understand or like on demons, it set science back and cost thousands of innocent lives. That people would take this dark-ages mentality into the 21st century disgusts me. The outright rejection of science in favor of superstition is so terribly harmful in so very many ways. There should never be a conflict here, yet the majority of America is still in the dark ages.
Anything which is beyond testing and observation should immediately raise a flag of warning. This includes all things spiritual. It's a shame that so many theists are advocates of the unfalsifiable hypothesis, it greatly inhibits my ability to learn from and talk to them.
The same Christian who went off on the devil thing is a conspiracy theorist (go figure), but oddly enough he also thinks governments are incompetent. The two are mutually exclusive. To plan a conspiracy and have almost no people know about it, a person or group must be incredibly prepared, organized and intelligent. An incompetent person or group would never manage to pull off such an elaborate plan.
At any rate, he submits on a regular basis the One-World-Government idea*. He says it's forming now, and that the devil is behind it. There are so many reasons why this is improbable, here are a few;
Next, he decried Wicca as Satanism. He wasn't talking about the mainstream Satanism either, more the "Kill cute puppies, small children and anyone who annoys you" version, or put more simply, the bastardized Christian version of Satanism. Wicca has a karma system...On steroids. The law of three as it is called states that any energy one puts out into the world will come back threefold to bite them in the ass. Wicca has a requirement for the respect of free will and offers cosmic punishment for those who disregard free will. The semi-famous Wiccan's creed "An ye harm none do what ye will" shows the awful, evil, violent nature of Wicca, except oh wait IT'S ALL BUT THE DAMNED GOLDEN RULE!
I mentioned Satanism in the past paragraph. The version I stated was as I said, bastardized. Satanism is essentially religious libertarianism. There are rules of Satanism saying that harming animals and children is wrong. I'd go further to say that harming anyone who isn't trying to harm anyone is wrong in most cases, but it's still not the kitten-blood-drinking, bonfire-lighting, demon-summoning ideology which people assume. Most of the cases which the author of Extreme Evil: Kids Killing Kids gives in his promotional video are high-school related, naturally. The problem is the factor of rebellion in high school, an angry child will reach for what they perceive to be the darkest thing out there to impress their peers and annoy authority. Some times there's more to it, but to entirely discount rebellion as a cause of this is disingenuous.
*I don't grace it with calling it a theory, even as far as conspiracy theories go.
We can forget psychology and physiology, it's all the demons. If the Christian is willing to back into the "medical symptoms are the effects of the demon" corner, there's no real argument to be had. There's no argument because when someone is willing to concede any hope of evidence in favor of unfounded claims of causality, there's no way to make any progress.
People tried blaming everything we didn't understand or like on demons, it set science back and cost thousands of innocent lives. That people would take this dark-ages mentality into the 21st century disgusts me. The outright rejection of science in favor of superstition is so terribly harmful in so very many ways. There should never be a conflict here, yet the majority of America is still in the dark ages.
Anything which is beyond testing and observation should immediately raise a flag of warning. This includes all things spiritual. It's a shame that so many theists are advocates of the unfalsifiable hypothesis, it greatly inhibits my ability to learn from and talk to them.
The same Christian who went off on the devil thing is a conspiracy theorist (go figure), but oddly enough he also thinks governments are incompetent. The two are mutually exclusive. To plan a conspiracy and have almost no people know about it, a person or group must be incredibly prepared, organized and intelligent. An incompetent person or group would never manage to pull off such an elaborate plan.
At any rate, he submits on a regular basis the One-World-Government idea*. He says it's forming now, and that the devil is behind it. There are so many reasons why this is improbable, here are a few;
- So many governments don't like each other and couldn't merge peacefully.
- Many people would protest the idea and anarchy wouldn't be a ridiculous assumption.
- Religions of all colors which make up almost all of the world wouldn't let it happen.
- There are no real advantages to it.
Next, he decried Wicca as Satanism. He wasn't talking about the mainstream Satanism either, more the "Kill cute puppies, small children and anyone who annoys you" version, or put more simply, the bastardized Christian version of Satanism. Wicca has a karma system...On steroids. The law of three as it is called states that any energy one puts out into the world will come back threefold to bite them in the ass. Wicca has a requirement for the respect of free will and offers cosmic punishment for those who disregard free will. The semi-famous Wiccan's creed "An ye harm none do what ye will" shows the awful, evil, violent nature of Wicca, except oh wait IT'S ALL BUT THE DAMNED GOLDEN RULE!
I mentioned Satanism in the past paragraph. The version I stated was as I said, bastardized. Satanism is essentially religious libertarianism. There are rules of Satanism saying that harming animals and children is wrong. I'd go further to say that harming anyone who isn't trying to harm anyone is wrong in most cases, but it's still not the kitten-blood-drinking, bonfire-lighting, demon-summoning ideology which people assume. Most of the cases which the author of Extreme Evil: Kids Killing Kids gives in his promotional video are high-school related, naturally. The problem is the factor of rebellion in high school, an angry child will reach for what they perceive to be the darkest thing out there to impress their peers and annoy authority. Some times there's more to it, but to entirely discount rebellion as a cause of this is disingenuous.
*I don't grace it with calling it a theory, even as far as conspiracy theories go.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Shining intellect of YouTube 1
Person 1: Glad to see "good" Christians rejoice in the death of a man [Christopher Hitchens] who rose up and challenged their beliefs. And they wonder why people take their "loving" stance with a grain of salt
Person 2: We rejoiced over the death of Bin Laden as well. As I'm sure YOU did as well.
Me: I saw killing him as a necessary evil. It's not something to rejoice over.
Person 2: So in the Old Testament when thousands were killed in the name of religion, could that be considered a "necessary evil" as well?? LMAO You atheists can't have it both ways.
Me: Far from it. Most of the people killed in the old testament were innocent. Bin Laden was an international threat. You're right we can't have it both ways, that's why I only take one. If someone needs to die to save a lot of people, it's sometimes the right thing to do. Many of the people killed in the old testament were peaceful. Infants were massacred. Women were raped. All this because God was pissed. How dare you make this comparison?
Person 2: Ok, YOU know that they were innocent. I didn't realize you were there. NONE are innocent. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Maybe if you knew scripture you would know this already. If you're going to make omelette, you have to crack some eggs. Stop being a pussy
Me: Of course, I'm talking from a materialist standpoint. I don't think that we're all innately evil. It's not that I don't know what the Bible says, it's that I think it's hooey (with all due respect). The problem I have with God's old testament "omelette" is that he had to crack almost 25 million "eggs". I'm not being a pussy as you so crudely assert. If you were told by "God" to wipe a city which wasn't harming anyone off the map, would you be eager to do so? You gotta make the omelette!
Person 2: We all all born in sin because of the fall of man. Hooey or not, that's we we have to be Born Again. And PLEASE don't spout numbers when you are totally ignorant on the Bible. There were not 25 million people on the PLANET in the old Testament. Only 2% of human life existed before Jesus, 2000 years ago. And God would not tell me to wipe out a city that wasn't harming anyone. He wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah because of sexual immorality.
Me: Again, I don't believe in the born evil theory. Your wording "hooey or not" is all-encompassing and therefore ridiculous. Think of pre-flood population. The species would have had 120,000 years + to populate. 25 million is a conservative estimate taking into account other catastrophic events. 2% of human life before Jesus, who may or may not have even existed. 2% assumes young earth theory, which is ridiculed in the scientific community.
Me: If you're ignorant enough to think that Sodom and Gomorrah were the only cities wiped out, you may be a lost case. Sexual immorality (in this case homosexuality), so? The children and infants were sexually immoral assuming that homosexuality is immoral (and it's not)? Numbers 31:7-18 details the genocide and rape of the Midianites, ordered by God. What were the Midianites doing? What made the virgins deserve to be raped and forced to marry? You try to defend this?
Person 2: You must be GAY
Me: Well that's intellectually stimulating. Funny how you back down to such unfounded claims in the face of an argument.
I'm not gay, but if I were I don't think I should have a problem with it.
Homophobia is on par with racism, it's hating a trait about someone which they have minimal to no control over.
Religion has been oppressing all sexuality since the dawn of time.
Sex is an amazing recreational activity and there's no reason to reserve it for procreation.
Good job there.
Person 2: Sex is for PROcreation not Recreation. Hey MORON? If you take that attitude, then Pedophilia is OK right?? Wouldn't discriminating against them be ON PAR with racism?? After all, you said sex is an amazing RECREATIONAL activity. right? You DUMB FUCK!
Me: First, that's prudish and unnecessary.
Me? Yes? [In reference to "Hey MORON?" not a separate post in case it matters...]
No, pedophilia cannot be compared to consensual sex between two adults. I knew this would come up, but there's only so much to say in 500 characters.
That's exactly what I meant to say, discriminating against homosexuals is on par with racism.
Sex is an amazing recreational activity. It's good psychologically and physically. Sex relaxes people, which could go to partially explain your tense state.
Person 2: Discriminating against pedophilia is the same as gays. There is NO way you can defend what you said without defending ANY kind of sexual perversion. THUS, you don't have time.. LOL
Me: The problem you run into comparing pedophilia with homosexuality is that homosexuality is almost perfectly harmless under consensual conditions. Pedophilia is as close to constantly mentally and physically devastating as can be assumed.
Your comparison is like comparing the sport of boxing to murder. One is done by athletes and the other is done by thugs. One is legitimate and the other is vile.
I don't have... Time? What?
---
I wish I were joking, or that I had written all parts for comedic value. But this again, is YouTube's finest.
Person 2: We rejoiced over the death of Bin Laden as well. As I'm sure YOU did as well.
Me: I saw killing him as a necessary evil. It's not something to rejoice over.
Person 2: So in the Old Testament when thousands were killed in the name of religion, could that be considered a "necessary evil" as well?? LMAO You atheists can't have it both ways.
Me: Far from it. Most of the people killed in the old testament were innocent. Bin Laden was an international threat. You're right we can't have it both ways, that's why I only take one. If someone needs to die to save a lot of people, it's sometimes the right thing to do. Many of the people killed in the old testament were peaceful. Infants were massacred. Women were raped. All this because God was pissed. How dare you make this comparison?
Person 2: Ok, YOU know that they were innocent. I didn't realize you were there. NONE are innocent. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Maybe if you knew scripture you would know this already. If you're going to make omelette, you have to crack some eggs. Stop being a pussy
Me: Of course, I'm talking from a materialist standpoint. I don't think that we're all innately evil. It's not that I don't know what the Bible says, it's that I think it's hooey (with all due respect). The problem I have with God's old testament "omelette" is that he had to crack almost 25 million "eggs". I'm not being a pussy as you so crudely assert. If you were told by "God" to wipe a city which wasn't harming anyone off the map, would you be eager to do so? You gotta make the omelette!
Person 2: We all all born in sin because of the fall of man. Hooey or not, that's we we have to be Born Again. And PLEASE don't spout numbers when you are totally ignorant on the Bible. There were not 25 million people on the PLANET in the old Testament. Only 2% of human life existed before Jesus, 2000 years ago. And God would not tell me to wipe out a city that wasn't harming anyone. He wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah because of sexual immorality.
Me: Again, I don't believe in the born evil theory. Your wording "hooey or not" is all-encompassing and therefore ridiculous. Think of pre-flood population. The species would have had 120,000 years + to populate. 25 million is a conservative estimate taking into account other catastrophic events. 2% of human life before Jesus, who may or may not have even existed. 2% assumes young earth theory, which is ridiculed in the scientific community.
Me: If you're ignorant enough to think that Sodom and Gomorrah were the only cities wiped out, you may be a lost case. Sexual immorality (in this case homosexuality), so? The children and infants were sexually immoral assuming that homosexuality is immoral (and it's not)? Numbers 31:7-18 details the genocide and rape of the Midianites, ordered by God. What were the Midianites doing? What made the virgins deserve to be raped and forced to marry? You try to defend this?
Person 2: You must be GAY
Me: Well that's intellectually stimulating. Funny how you back down to such unfounded claims in the face of an argument.
I'm not gay, but if I were I don't think I should have a problem with it.
Homophobia is on par with racism, it's hating a trait about someone which they have minimal to no control over.
Religion has been oppressing all sexuality since the dawn of time.
Sex is an amazing recreational activity and there's no reason to reserve it for procreation.
Good job there.
Person 2: Sex is for PROcreation not Recreation. Hey MORON? If you take that attitude, then Pedophilia is OK right?? Wouldn't discriminating against them be ON PAR with racism?? After all, you said sex is an amazing RECREATIONAL activity. right? You DUMB FUCK!
Me: First, that's prudish and unnecessary.
Me? Yes? [In reference to "Hey MORON?" not a separate post in case it matters...]
No, pedophilia cannot be compared to consensual sex between two adults. I knew this would come up, but there's only so much to say in 500 characters.
That's exactly what I meant to say, discriminating against homosexuals is on par with racism.
Sex is an amazing recreational activity. It's good psychologically and physically. Sex relaxes people, which could go to partially explain your tense state.
Person 2: Discriminating against pedophilia is the same as gays. There is NO way you can defend what you said without defending ANY kind of sexual perversion. THUS, you don't have time.. LOL
Me: The problem you run into comparing pedophilia with homosexuality is that homosexuality is almost perfectly harmless under consensual conditions. Pedophilia is as close to constantly mentally and physically devastating as can be assumed.
Your comparison is like comparing the sport of boxing to murder. One is done by athletes and the other is done by thugs. One is legitimate and the other is vile.
I don't have... Time? What?
---
I wish I were joking, or that I had written all parts for comedic value. But this again, is YouTube's finest.
My story and why I'm a tooth fairy agnostic
We'd just moved to Farmington, Maine and I was three and a half years old. I was brought to VBS (vacation bible school) along with regular church attendance. During one of the 'Love God or burn!' speeches, I weighed my options in my immature brain and decided on the former. That was the start of my mentally slow life. I was indoctrinated since birth with religion and never even heard of evolution until (to the best of my memory) I was about 10. The indoctrination which I suitably call brainwashing haunted me for a very long time, but we'll get to that later.
At any rate, when I was about 10 I heard of evolution in Sunday school. I heard it being ridiculed by some apologist whose name escapes me. There was a video series on why evolution is false which lasted around 8 weeks. The apologist was bad enough at making a case that I'd have assumed it to be William Lane Craig, but for the fact that I recall him to at least have a good manner. Several more series occurred before I turned 15 and learned skepticism, rational thought and the scientific method.
I was a rabid young earth creationist. I'm not ashamed of that, but for the merciless haranguing of one of my friends. I'm not sure exactly how old he was when we met, but we discussed philosophy, religion and evolution. I constantly spewed logical fallacies which I'd learned from the video apologists and various other thing my parents introduced me to. I had a fortress of willful ignorance which no reason could lay siege to.
My faith in God was always fairly strong, it was the only idea ever posed to me as valid. I'd step outside on a summer morning and feel God all around me. I'd look at mountains, rivers, trees, animals... And see God in all of them. What I never realized is that what I was seeing and feeling was an idea, not a reality. It's trivially easy to slap the 'magic' label on everything and feel very satisfied when one's intellect is retained by religion.
The tide started to change when I got to be about 15. I couldn't see God everywhere and I couldn't feel him. This was a result of several things including reading the Bible, skepticism and an actual realization that not every other theory was absolute rubbish inherently.
I gave up Christianity temporarily to try other religions. I looked at Wicca, mostly because magic is interesting. When I realized that Wicca is a re-branding of any religion, I had to give it up too. Wicca is based on asking spirits for favors, like prayer. The difference is that these spirits in Wicca don't require your eternal devotion and love, they want trinkets and sacrifice. Thinking again, I was thinking of it more like a new age spiritualism than the ancient Paganism which it is based upon.
The next step along this journey was at least in the right direction. I looked at Buddhism and rather liked it. The philosophy in Buddhism is amazingly interesting, which it to it's credit as Buddhism is more a life philosophy than a proper religion. That's why I eventually moved away from it, after learning some philosophy. I found that I could borrow Buddhist philosophy without the pseudo-religious hooey.
I tried briefly before and in between these to invent my own metaphysical ideas. Mine was an omni-theistic philosophy in which nothing is to be worshiped, but everything is to be considered and heard out. Everything had the potential to be great and the answer to almost any question. While this decision obsoleted religious worship as most religions would have it, it was still ignorant. I quote Richard Dawkins "Let us be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out.". That idea put the last nail in the coffin of my ideology.
Throughout all of this transition I couldn't feel any enlightenment because all of the brainwashing from my young life was tormenting me mentally. I spent all of my time thinking philosophically and scientifically. To be fair, I don't regret this at all. In the end it was rather worth the misery of the year-and-a-half it endured. Despite that I shouldn't have had to endure it. I walked away from that on this side a more rational person.
From there, it was a quick trip from the faint belief I had left to Agnosticism to what is well termed 'Tooth Fairy Agnosticism'. TFA is essentially atheism, which I normally identify as. TFA allows for scientific possibility, against all odds. I put God's existence on par in terms of likelihood with the tooth fairy or werewolves. All of those are technically unfalsifiable, but horribly unlikely. I'm tempted to call myself a Tooth Fairy Atheist, because that implies the improbability of God. However creationists tend to consider Atheism an absolute claim, and for lack of better material they argue it.
Atheism is probably the most wonderful ideology out there. It allows me to fully appreciate the wonders of the universe without having to blame magic for it all. It allows science to be influential instead of dismissed merely because it disagrees with an ancient text written in the desert by barbarians in the bronze age. It allows reason, which cannot be adequately replaced by 'Because God said so.'. Philosophy can be meaningful because we don't have to discard ideas which infringe upon a god. We can understand origins without worrying about pissing off the almighty.
At any rate, when I was about 10 I heard of evolution in Sunday school. I heard it being ridiculed by some apologist whose name escapes me. There was a video series on why evolution is false which lasted around 8 weeks. The apologist was bad enough at making a case that I'd have assumed it to be William Lane Craig, but for the fact that I recall him to at least have a good manner. Several more series occurred before I turned 15 and learned skepticism, rational thought and the scientific method.
I was a rabid young earth creationist. I'm not ashamed of that, but for the merciless haranguing of one of my friends. I'm not sure exactly how old he was when we met, but we discussed philosophy, religion and evolution. I constantly spewed logical fallacies which I'd learned from the video apologists and various other thing my parents introduced me to. I had a fortress of willful ignorance which no reason could lay siege to.
My faith in God was always fairly strong, it was the only idea ever posed to me as valid. I'd step outside on a summer morning and feel God all around me. I'd look at mountains, rivers, trees, animals... And see God in all of them. What I never realized is that what I was seeing and feeling was an idea, not a reality. It's trivially easy to slap the 'magic' label on everything and feel very satisfied when one's intellect is retained by religion.
The tide started to change when I got to be about 15. I couldn't see God everywhere and I couldn't feel him. This was a result of several things including reading the Bible, skepticism and an actual realization that not every other theory was absolute rubbish inherently.
I gave up Christianity temporarily to try other religions. I looked at Wicca, mostly because magic is interesting. When I realized that Wicca is a re-branding of any religion, I had to give it up too. Wicca is based on asking spirits for favors, like prayer. The difference is that these spirits in Wicca don't require your eternal devotion and love, they want trinkets and sacrifice. Thinking again, I was thinking of it more like a new age spiritualism than the ancient Paganism which it is based upon.
The next step along this journey was at least in the right direction. I looked at Buddhism and rather liked it. The philosophy in Buddhism is amazingly interesting, which it to it's credit as Buddhism is more a life philosophy than a proper religion. That's why I eventually moved away from it, after learning some philosophy. I found that I could borrow Buddhist philosophy without the pseudo-religious hooey.
I tried briefly before and in between these to invent my own metaphysical ideas. Mine was an omni-theistic philosophy in which nothing is to be worshiped, but everything is to be considered and heard out. Everything had the potential to be great and the answer to almost any question. While this decision obsoleted religious worship as most religions would have it, it was still ignorant. I quote Richard Dawkins "Let us be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out.". That idea put the last nail in the coffin of my ideology.
Throughout all of this transition I couldn't feel any enlightenment because all of the brainwashing from my young life was tormenting me mentally. I spent all of my time thinking philosophically and scientifically. To be fair, I don't regret this at all. In the end it was rather worth the misery of the year-and-a-half it endured. Despite that I shouldn't have had to endure it. I walked away from that on this side a more rational person.
From there, it was a quick trip from the faint belief I had left to Agnosticism to what is well termed 'Tooth Fairy Agnosticism'. TFA is essentially atheism, which I normally identify as. TFA allows for scientific possibility, against all odds. I put God's existence on par in terms of likelihood with the tooth fairy or werewolves. All of those are technically unfalsifiable, but horribly unlikely. I'm tempted to call myself a Tooth Fairy Atheist, because that implies the improbability of God. However creationists tend to consider Atheism an absolute claim, and for lack of better material they argue it.
Atheism is probably the most wonderful ideology out there. It allows me to fully appreciate the wonders of the universe without having to blame magic for it all. It allows science to be influential instead of dismissed merely because it disagrees with an ancient text written in the desert by barbarians in the bronze age. It allows reason, which cannot be adequately replaced by 'Because God said so.'. Philosophy can be meaningful because we don't have to discard ideas which infringe upon a god. We can understand origins without worrying about pissing off the almighty.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
This finely tuned universe we live in
This is a finely tuned universe.
^not
Let's talk about probability. Imagine that you see a shooting star. What are the odds that it would fall right then, where it was? What are the odds that you'd be there to witness it? What are the odds that it would happen at all? I wouldn't be of an inclination to point to the sky and say "There! There will be a shooting star at x time in this location." and bet on it. The odds are (no pun intended) astronomical.
For another analogy, a shorter one to your relief. Image you've got a dice which has pseudo-infinite sides. Those are the odds of a planet in the space to support life, with all conditions given. The odds are 1 in pseudo-infinite. If the dice misses the mark, the life-supporting planet does not happen and no one is there to contemplate it.
Now I move on a bit. In dismantling a creationist argument, I'll use the Bible (talk about ballsy). Take the parable of the sower. The number of seeds is the number of "candidate" planets for life in my analogy. Those odds are in error, because several dump trucks (or more) full of incredibly small seeds would be required for the odds to be correct. Anyway the seeds which are sown in inhospitable environments die, the same with the "candidate" planets. Then there's the one (group) of seeds which lands in the right place, there's a "candidate" planet which winds up in the right place.
A candidate planet would be one with the chemicals needed for life. It would require an atmosphere. It would require to be the correct distance from a star. These are but some of the requirements for any planet which could support a carbon-based life form.
There are only a few place on earth which are naturally suited to human life. I live in Maine, annually we get a fair bit of snow. It would be a harsh environment for humans to survive in. Several people each year die in the snow. If a god made this planet for life, it did a poor job of it.
That's all only on our planet. As has been flouted by many people, the Andromeda galaxy is moving toward our own and will collide with ours in about 4.5 billion years. If that's finely tuned, then the god is malevolent.
The one problem we in the educate- I mean, secular community have is the origin of life. The difference however is that we're not interested in just slapping a 'magic' label on everything which we don't understand. Imagine where science would be without skeptics - it wouldn't be.
^not
Let's talk about probability. Imagine that you see a shooting star. What are the odds that it would fall right then, where it was? What are the odds that you'd be there to witness it? What are the odds that it would happen at all? I wouldn't be of an inclination to point to the sky and say "There! There will be a shooting star at x time in this location." and bet on it. The odds are (no pun intended) astronomical.
For another analogy, a shorter one to your relief. Image you've got a dice which has pseudo-infinite sides. Those are the odds of a planet in the space to support life, with all conditions given. The odds are 1 in pseudo-infinite. If the dice misses the mark, the life-supporting planet does not happen and no one is there to contemplate it.
Now I move on a bit. In dismantling a creationist argument, I'll use the Bible (talk about ballsy). Take the parable of the sower. The number of seeds is the number of "candidate" planets for life in my analogy. Those odds are in error, because several dump trucks (or more) full of incredibly small seeds would be required for the odds to be correct. Anyway the seeds which are sown in inhospitable environments die, the same with the "candidate" planets. Then there's the one (group) of seeds which lands in the right place, there's a "candidate" planet which winds up in the right place.
A candidate planet would be one with the chemicals needed for life. It would require an atmosphere. It would require to be the correct distance from a star. These are but some of the requirements for any planet which could support a carbon-based life form.
There are only a few place on earth which are naturally suited to human life. I live in Maine, annually we get a fair bit of snow. It would be a harsh environment for humans to survive in. Several people each year die in the snow. If a god made this planet for life, it did a poor job of it.
That's all only on our planet. As has been flouted by many people, the Andromeda galaxy is moving toward our own and will collide with ours in about 4.5 billion years. If that's finely tuned, then the god is malevolent.
The one problem we in the educate- I mean, secular community have is the origin of life. The difference however is that we're not interested in just slapping a 'magic' label on everything which we don't understand. Imagine where science would be without skeptics - it wouldn't be.
The horrible oppression of Christians in the U.S.
I was always told about how Christians are prosecuted and oppressed worldwide, and they are in some places. But I was told that they are in the U.S., what a ridiculous notion. The 76% of adult Americans who are Christians as of 2008 feel oppressed by the awful 14% who disagrees. I'd love to make note of the fact that also in 2008, the secular movement atheists and agnostics COMBINED. The secular movement which so horribly influences the fine institution of religion. The secular movement which is corrupting children. Again I say combined, Atheists and Agnostics account for 1.6% of the American adult population. Let's put it in terms of geography.
1.6% Atheist/Agnostic
74% Christian
The population of the united states also as of 2008 was about 304,375,000. Which tells;
4,870,000 People Atheist/Agnostic
225,237,500 Christians
That's approximately 46:1 Christians to Secularists. Now for the geography part.
The U.S. is 3,717,813 square miles of which 3,536,294 square miles are land. You can see where this is going.
63.7 Christians per square mile on average.
1.4 Atheists/Agnostics per square mile on average.
These numbers are rounded. By state as of 2010(and this won't work out perfectly due to the two-year gap in population data);
California-37,253,956 (27,567,927 Christians, 596,063 Secularists)
That is more secularists than the entire population of Wyoming. Forty-nine times the number of Christians to the population of Wyoming.
Let us now assume that somehow religion is being oppressed despite the majority. I'm sorry... I just can't see how they could even make this claim.
1.6% Atheist/Agnostic
74% Christian
The population of the united states also as of 2008 was about 304,375,000. Which tells;
225,237,500 Christians
That's approximately 46:1 Christians to Secularists. Now for the geography part.
The U.S. is 3,717,813 square miles of which 3,536,294 square miles are land. You can see where this is going.
63.7 Christians per square mile on average.
1.4 Atheists/Agnostics per square mile on average.
These numbers are rounded. By state as of 2010(and this won't work out perfectly due to the two-year gap in population data);
California-37,253,956 (27,567,927 Christians, 596,063 Secularists)
That is more secularists than the entire population of Wyoming. Forty-nine times the number of Christians to the population of Wyoming.
Let us now assume that somehow religion is being oppressed despite the majority. I'm sorry... I just can't see how they could even make this claim.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Then why are there still monkeys?
Were we descended from monkeys I'd agree with this. Fortunately I've never heard anyone with a suitable education on the matter make that claim. In my discussions with creationists I've tried my best to persuade them of common ancestry, but never to much avail. Most creationists have it drilled into their heads by fellow creationists and creationist apologists (who should know better). My point for now is the ignorant question "If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?". The answer which I touched on earlier is that we evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys. We're closest in relation to the great apes, having 23 pairs of chromosomes to their 24. Not only are our chromosome pairs so similar in number, but our 23rd chromosome is identical to the great apes' 23rd and 24th chromosomes fused together.
I do sincerely hope that I am wrong when I postulate that this defense is an intentional ignorance. I rather would hope that education is possible, but my results in personal discussion have been rather distressing. Some of the apologists, as I mentioned earlier should know this. The people in the church should know this, but more on that later. I cannot claim to be fully educated, with currently an incomplete college education but that should attest to the ignorance of this argument.
When I used to go to church, I watched a video series based on the fallacious nature of evolution. Needless to say that the video series was quite disingenuous. It had a tendency toward circular logic which disgusted me and pleased the teachers of the class.
I do sincerely hope that I am wrong when I postulate that this defense is an intentional ignorance. I rather would hope that education is possible, but my results in personal discussion have been rather distressing. Some of the apologists, as I mentioned earlier should know this. The people in the church should know this, but more on that later. I cannot claim to be fully educated, with currently an incomplete college education but that should attest to the ignorance of this argument.
When I used to go to church, I watched a video series based on the fallacious nature of evolution. Needless to say that the video series was quite disingenuous. It had a tendency toward circular logic which disgusted me and pleased the teachers of the class.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
You know there's a problem...
You know there's a problem when the better part of society respects ignorance over education. The excuse is faith and it's sort of like the matrix. The more you can disbelieve, the better you are. To have faith in God, one must disregard science. Science which we can observe is put down for faith and people consider this a good thing.
You know there's a problem when there's an organized and well-funded movement saying that science is a conspiracy. It's by the devil or just scientists. One way or the other science makes up these strange lies for the express purpose of REBELLING AGAINST GOD! Can you believe it? The nerve to knowingly falsify data. What's more is that all of the scientists in the world have to be in this. Everyone knows that we look out into space and God is just standing there waving to us, but those damned scientists making up those pictures of stars and galaxies and shit.
You know there's a problem when an entire political movement is based on religion. The conservatives and more to the point, tea party-ers. The tea party is the most awful political movement since the popularly known Nazi regime. One of the major things which separates the tea party from the Nazis is that at least the Nazis had balls. The tea party is every bit as bigoted and hateful. Come to think of it the tea party is even more aggressive religiously. No, they don't have gas chambers (yet), but they're got network TV and they're not afraid to lie through their asses to publicly ostracize anyone who disagrees with them.
You know there's a problem when people will vote for a candidate based entirely on their religious beliefs. If I had a dollar (inflation, ya know?) for every time I've heard "...But at least he's a Christian." I'd be in the zone. That explains for a lot of the conservative candidates. Who would really vote for these people? But at least they're Christian. Honestly though, one must publicly claim to be Christian to be elected in the U.S.A. In seven states, the state constitution prevents atheists from holding public office. This is a repugnant practice.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The not a stamp collector
This whole video has many errors, but I'll only get into one of them for now, this one. I'd suggest stopping at 3:37, it's the end of what I'm talking about.
So, theists will sometimes content that atheism is a religion. There's an argument which goes like so "Atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.". That's a fair enough point in my opinion, but MrMinistryMan disagrees. Point by point here;
"This is a terrible analogy that does not fit our situation in any way."
It's not a terrible analogy. Bear with me for this, a theist believes in a god whereas an atheist does not believe in a god. He makes the assumption here that an atheist believes there is no god. The distinction is subtle, but present. Think of it like this: you've got no evidence that there's a piece of paper in front of me, thus you may withhold belief. You would be irrational though to believe that there certainly is no paper in front of me. Now substitute "God" for paper.'
"The person who is merely not collecting stamps has no stance on this matter of stamps."
That is not necessarily true. I personally don't collect stamps and I find collecting stamps to be a dumb thing to do. I consider it a waste of time unless the stamp has monetary or historical value. But in that case it's not just stamp collecting. In a like fashion, I don't believe in God. I think belief in God is irrational. I think it's a waste of time. It is possible to not partake in something and yet have an opinion of it.
"The only way this analogy could really fit is if they started saying "STAMPS DON'T EXIST"."
That's just plain ridiculous. We've got evidence of stamps, we've all seen stamps. Hell, most of us use stamps on a fairly regular basis. Stamps are easy to observe and we've got plenty of evidence for their existence. I then submit that you're off your rocker, with all due respect of course.
So, theists will sometimes content that atheism is a religion. There's an argument which goes like so "Atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.". That's a fair enough point in my opinion, but MrMinistryMan disagrees. Point by point here;
"This is a terrible analogy that does not fit our situation in any way."
It's not a terrible analogy. Bear with me for this, a theist believes in a god whereas an atheist does not believe in a god. He makes the assumption here that an atheist believes there is no god. The distinction is subtle, but present. Think of it like this: you've got no evidence that there's a piece of paper in front of me, thus you may withhold belief. You would be irrational though to believe that there certainly is no paper in front of me. Now substitute "God" for paper.'
"The person who is merely not collecting stamps has no stance on this matter of stamps."
That is not necessarily true. I personally don't collect stamps and I find collecting stamps to be a dumb thing to do. I consider it a waste of time unless the stamp has monetary or historical value. But in that case it's not just stamp collecting. In a like fashion, I don't believe in God. I think belief in God is irrational. I think it's a waste of time. It is possible to not partake in something and yet have an opinion of it.
"The only way this analogy could really fit is if they started saying "STAMPS DON'T EXIST"."
That's just plain ridiculous. We've got evidence of stamps, we've all seen stamps. Hell, most of us use stamps on a fairly regular basis. Stamps are easy to observe and we've got plenty of evidence for their existence. I then submit that you're off your rocker, with all due respect of course.
God's ultimate "Fuck you!"
So Christians claim that people have free will. Any dispute? Anyway, God is allowed to intervene whenever he sees fit. We're supposed to praise him for that. But when he doesn't intervene? When he allows something evil or painful to happen, "Oh, God can't do that, it would interfere with free will.". But he can help Tebow win football games according to 43% of people polled. So free will can be used when it's convenient, and discarded when it's not.
God is also supposed to have a plan, he know all that's happened, will happen and is happening and he has a freaking plan. Now imagine you setup people as chess pieces and they weren't allowed to talk or look around, only move how they thought advantageous. Now imagine that you're playing the chess game. How would you be able to hold a plan with your pieces moving in such discord? The other issue here is, if God knows the future... How then is it possible for it to not be predestined? That's like me saying, in five minutes you're going to go outside and be hit by a car, but you've got free will and don't have to, but you will. How is that different from predestination?
So free will aside, in fact taking free will into account. God created us to be curious, and put a magic tree of death in the middle of the so-called perfect habitat for humans. That's equivalent to putting a mouse trap loaded with peanut butted in a pet mouse's tank and expecting them not to go for it. Then, to spike curiosity, God tells us not to eat from or even touch the tree. So what's running through any humans mind? "I wonder if...". So then a talking snake appears (Maybe they'd been sampling some of the herbs in the garden.) and tricks them into eating the fruit. God shows up pissed and curses the entire race which he loves so damn much. So now we all have to endure sin because God in his all-knowing love screwed us over.
I erred in the above paragraph. I said that God cursed an entire race, but he cursed an entire planet to death. God must really like those apples. God cursed the serpent by making it slither (as opposed to?) and "eat dust". God set the snake against people and vice-versa. God made childbearing painful and dangerous for no apparent reason but to be a dick. We have to work for food now, which considering the alternatives, really isn't that bad. But this is quite a malevolent move from a supposedly omnipotent benevolent being.
Then God has the nerve to say repeatedly that he's just. Do any of these actions seem just? Would a court pass this punishment? On to Leviticus, where almost everything is punishable by death, is that just? How about wiping entire cities off the map in various ways (not that we don't do that, but this is a loving god...)?
I then have to submit that the "God" of the Bible is probably the devil. I mean, think about it. God wipes out cities, dooms entire planets to death, wipes out cities, dictates the stoning of children for disrespect, the list goes on... Does that sound like a loving god? Does that sound like a devil?
"I realized today that I am God, I prayed and realized that I was talking to myself."
God is also supposed to have a plan, he know all that's happened, will happen and is happening and he has a freaking plan. Now imagine you setup people as chess pieces and they weren't allowed to talk or look around, only move how they thought advantageous. Now imagine that you're playing the chess game. How would you be able to hold a plan with your pieces moving in such discord? The other issue here is, if God knows the future... How then is it possible for it to not be predestined? That's like me saying, in five minutes you're going to go outside and be hit by a car, but you've got free will and don't have to, but you will. How is that different from predestination?
So free will aside, in fact taking free will into account. God created us to be curious, and put a magic tree of death in the middle of the so-called perfect habitat for humans. That's equivalent to putting a mouse trap loaded with peanut butted in a pet mouse's tank and expecting them not to go for it. Then, to spike curiosity, God tells us not to eat from or even touch the tree. So what's running through any humans mind? "I wonder if...". So then a talking snake appears (Maybe they'd been sampling some of the herbs in the garden.) and tricks them into eating the fruit. God shows up pissed and curses the entire race which he loves so damn much. So now we all have to endure sin because God in his all-knowing love screwed us over.
I erred in the above paragraph. I said that God cursed an entire race, but he cursed an entire planet to death. God must really like those apples. God cursed the serpent by making it slither (as opposed to?) and "eat dust". God set the snake against people and vice-versa. God made childbearing painful and dangerous for no apparent reason but to be a dick. We have to work for food now, which considering the alternatives, really isn't that bad. But this is quite a malevolent move from a supposedly omnipotent benevolent being.
Then God has the nerve to say repeatedly that he's just. Do any of these actions seem just? Would a court pass this punishment? On to Leviticus, where almost everything is punishable by death, is that just? How about wiping entire cities off the map in various ways (not that we don't do that, but this is a loving god...)?
I then have to submit that the "God" of the Bible is probably the devil. I mean, think about it. God wipes out cities, dooms entire planets to death, wipes out cities, dictates the stoning of children for disrespect, the list goes on... Does that sound like a loving god? Does that sound like a devil?
"I realized today that I am God, I prayed and realized that I was talking to myself."
Shining intellect of YouTube 0
Person 1:
I hope you guys know WHAT JESUS DID TO SAVE OUR LIVES with that cross. Read the bible and check it out.
I hope you guys know WHAT JESUS DID TO SAVE OUR LIVES with that cross. Read the bible and check it out.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Internet discussions
I think I may start posting conversations with people I have online. I'll obscure their name for the sake of respect. I'll also comment more on what I was trying to say. Could start as soon as this evening.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
What a weasel, Rick Santorum cleans up the anti-Romney content on his site. He's not yet officially endorsing Romney, but he's backed down from opposing him so strongly. What is there really to say?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Religion quiz
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Atheism is a religion?
"Yes, atheism is a religion, just like not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Moosinat0r
Need more be said? Ok, fine... This feller thinks atheism is a religion, and he's got a post to back it up! I'm going to copy some of it for quotes, but if you want the whole of his argument, it's right here.
We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidentiary to their presuppositions. Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.
So everyone but the party in question knows it's true. Sounds like a patently poor argument. So we need to accept the premise that we belong to a religion to determine if our religion stands up to Christianity, I'm in. Atheists do not claim neutrality, agnostics do. Some agnostics don't call themselves such, but a neutral position on theism can only be called agnosticism. Atheists have picked a side, agnostics are on the fence. Who really (other than theists) attempts to deceive themselves? It seems this really is a patently poor argument.
They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
On the contrary. Everyone has a different worldview, but I know that's not where this is coming from. The skeptical atheist believes only in what can be observed. The evidence has led to materialism. Sure, we then see everything through materialism, point being... They (plural) are like a guy (single) wearing dark yada yada...
You should have said something more like "The/an atheist is like a guy...". The problem with this is that creationists are the ones lacking in evidence. The atheist is more the person who chides another for wearing dark sunglasses and saying that the sun is not out.
They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Wait a second... Orthodoxy is a generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice. Not killing people is orthodox. Most people share that orthodoxy. "No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny." I'm going to assume that "truth" is erroneously used in place of "true", because otherwise it makes no sense. That in mind, the ending statement holds water. When we subject God to scientific scrutiny, we get no evidence for it's existence. Evolution, while our understanding of it is incomplete, is a much more verifiable theory than God.
They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
Our own brand of apostasy... According to Webster's Dictionary...
1:renunciation of a religious faith
2:abandonment of a previous loyalty
About Antony Flew, his conversion is unsure. He was in a mentally declining state when this all transpired. His book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind is suggested to have been primarily written by Roy Abraham Varghese. Even if he'd committed apostasy, it's no more a proof of faith than my changing in preference from Coke to Pepsi. That analogy is flawed, because the two are so similar, but the second definition of the word 'apostasy' should be taken into account before making claims such as this.
They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
Prophets, that's just ridiculous.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
I (and likely many other atheists) cringe at the word messiah being used in such a manner. Darwin did provide an atheistic explanation of what is and how it came to be, this no more makes him a messiah than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs for revolutionizing the computer. There's some controversy as to how religion came to be, my opinion is that it was needed in history to control the illiterate population. Most people in the Middle Ages, for instance, couldn't read (at least they couldn't read Latin. I'm far from a linguist or linguistic historian). The pope could though, and they were the only people with access to the Bible. The clergy had the tendency to use their power to make people do as they wished. This is, in my opinion the cause for religion.
They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
I first want to point out how well God did with those prayers for Christopher Hitchens who, in case you've been living under a rock, is quite dead. They actually are asking for atheism to be given respect as well as to share the good news. There is no god! Theism is an antiquated social construct which must be eschewed in the name of progress.
Of these, none scream to me 'Religion'.
Moosinat0r
Need more be said? Ok, fine... This feller thinks atheism is a religion, and he's got a post to back it up! I'm going to copy some of it for quotes, but if you want the whole of his argument, it's right here.
We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidentiary to their presuppositions. Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.
So everyone but the party in question knows it's true. Sounds like a patently poor argument. So we need to accept the premise that we belong to a religion to determine if our religion stands up to Christianity, I'm in. Atheists do not claim neutrality, agnostics do. Some agnostics don't call themselves such, but a neutral position on theism can only be called agnosticism. Atheists have picked a side, agnostics are on the fence. Who really (other than theists) attempts to deceive themselves? It seems this really is a patently poor argument.
They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
On the contrary. Everyone has a different worldview, but I know that's not where this is coming from. The skeptical atheist believes only in what can be observed. The evidence has led to materialism. Sure, we then see everything through materialism, point being... They (plural) are like a guy (single) wearing dark yada yada...
You should have said something more like "The/an atheist is like a guy...". The problem with this is that creationists are the ones lacking in evidence. The atheist is more the person who chides another for wearing dark sunglasses and saying that the sun is not out.
They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Wait a second... Orthodoxy is a generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice. Not killing people is orthodox. Most people share that orthodoxy. "No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny." I'm going to assume that "truth" is erroneously used in place of "true", because otherwise it makes no sense. That in mind, the ending statement holds water. When we subject God to scientific scrutiny, we get no evidence for it's existence. Evolution, while our understanding of it is incomplete, is a much more verifiable theory than God.
They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
Our own brand of apostasy... According to Webster's Dictionary...
1:renunciation of a religious faith
2:abandonment of a previous loyalty
About Antony Flew, his conversion is unsure. He was in a mentally declining state when this all transpired. His book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind is suggested to have been primarily written by Roy Abraham Varghese. Even if he'd committed apostasy, it's no more a proof of faith than my changing in preference from Coke to Pepsi. That analogy is flawed, because the two are so similar, but the second definition of the word 'apostasy' should be taken into account before making claims such as this.
They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
Prophets, that's just ridiculous.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
I (and likely many other atheists) cringe at the word messiah being used in such a manner. Darwin did provide an atheistic explanation of what is and how it came to be, this no more makes him a messiah than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs for revolutionizing the computer. There's some controversy as to how religion came to be, my opinion is that it was needed in history to control the illiterate population. Most people in the Middle Ages, for instance, couldn't read (at least they couldn't read Latin. I'm far from a linguist or linguistic historian). The pope could though, and they were the only people with access to the Bible. The clergy had the tendency to use their power to make people do as they wished. This is, in my opinion the cause for religion.
They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
I first want to point out how well God did with those prayers for Christopher Hitchens who, in case you've been living under a rock, is quite dead. They actually are asking for atheism to be given respect as well as to share the good news. There is no god! Theism is an antiquated social construct which must be eschewed in the name of progress.
Of these, none scream to me 'Religion'.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Atheists have no regard for life?
According to many Christians, atheists have no regard for life. Let's take a look... I'll start with martyrdom, unlike atheism, Christians are to feel proud to lose their life for God
Matthew 10:39
1 Peter 4:16
Revelation 20:4
There are verses which imply that martyrdom is not to be sought out, but it remains that it is a great privilege if it cannot be avoided. There's a real regard for life.
2 Kings 2:23-24 Elisha tries out his new powers on 42 kids, what awful deed had they done? Called him bald.
Joshua 10:28-42 Joshua wipes out 7 cities.
11:8-12 Joshua wipes out 20 cities.
Judges 3:15-16 God and Barak massacre the Canaanites.
9:23-57 God sends an evil spirit and kills over 1000 people.
12:4-7 42,000 killed for mispronouncing a word.
1 Samuel 5:1-12 God smites a lot of men with hemorrhoids in their "secret parts".
6:19 God smites 50,070 people for looking at his arse, I mean ark...
2 Samuel 24:15 God kills 70,000+ because David called a census.
That's nowhere near the entire list, but I'd be here all day. God's regard for life only goes as far as his patience, which apparently, isn't saying much. It would then follow that God's followers should have a similar mentality, and many do. Take the majority of the conservative party, with the "give em hell" attitude, 84% of conservatives are Christians.
Now, who has no regard for life?
Matthew 10:39
1 Peter 4:16
Revelation 20:4
There are verses which imply that martyrdom is not to be sought out, but it remains that it is a great privilege if it cannot be avoided. There's a real regard for life.
2 Kings 2:23-24 Elisha tries out his new powers on 42 kids, what awful deed had they done? Called him bald.
Joshua 10:28-42 Joshua wipes out 7 cities.
11:8-12 Joshua wipes out 20 cities.
Judges 3:15-16 God and Barak massacre the Canaanites.
9:23-57 God sends an evil spirit and kills over 1000 people.
12:4-7 42,000 killed for mispronouncing a word.
1 Samuel 5:1-12 God smites a lot of men with hemorrhoids in their "secret parts".
6:19 God smites 50,070 people for looking at his arse, I mean ark...
2 Samuel 24:15 God kills 70,000+ because David called a census.
That's nowhere near the entire list, but I'd be here all day. God's regard for life only goes as far as his patience, which apparently, isn't saying much. It would then follow that God's followers should have a similar mentality, and many do. Take the majority of the conservative party, with the "give em hell" attitude, 84% of conservatives are Christians.
Now, who has no regard for life?
A few major religions, Most to least harmful
Ok, so in this post I'll list a few Major religions, the most harmful at the top. I'll list some traits of the religion and perhaps create a character for them.
1. Christianity. Around 2.2B adherents. Christianity beats out Islam very slightly for the more vast hold it has on the planet. Christians are masters of deceit, they're so good that they've fooled even themselves. The Christian is a big hairy burly man who rapes one in the ass while smacking them with the Bible and yelling "Take it!". They'll shove it down one's throat, up one's ass, pretty well any conceivable place they can. When that fails they take to legislation. Despite Christians being the vast majority in America, they claim to be persecuted. If ever there were a group to want to be victims, it's Americans, it's Christians. The paramount of over-privileged, over-tolerated, over-respected groups is American Christians. Yet they whine so much about how they're marginalized.
2. Islam. About 1.57B adherents. Islam is a harmless religion. Harmless but for... Extremists who tend toward suicide attacks, genital mutilation, misogyny, the list goes on to end with plain dickishness. They share the deceit with Christians, what makes them dangerous is that they're less lazy than the average Christian. The Muslim is actually close to the stereotype. He's of middle-eastern complexion, wears a turban and blows his opponents up. Muslims and Christians share so much, but feel so apart. Muslims as a group are hated by Christians and many of them return that hate.
3. Mormonism LDS. About 14.44M adherents. The church of latter-day saints (LDS), may seem like a small movement in general, but considering it's under 200 years old, it's spreading uncomfortably quickly. What's more disturbing yet is the patent incredulity of the belief system. Basically, there's a never-ending cycle. There were once a bunch of spirits or intelligences floating around in nowhere, then [a] God(dess) comes along and offers them a chance to ascend to be like him/her. Satan however tricked some of the spirits into going with him. Mormons believe that black people are cursed for going with Satan. The ones who went with God, however, were put on earth to be tested. If we pass the test, we may become gods and goddesses of our own planets and the process repeats. This is so delusional as to be in itself harmful.
4. Chinese Folk Religions. 400-500M adherents. Varies in the degree of harm.
---
These may be dangerous to their constituents, but seem to be less dangerous to unwilling people.
5. Hinduism. About 837M adherents.
6. Unitarian Universalism. About 630K adherents. This is pretty much just accepting everything. It's major fault is the promotion of apathy and ignorance.
7. Wicca. About 1M adherents. That much belief in the power of will can have serious psychological effects.
8. Rastafari Movement. About 700k adherents. Bitch please.
---
9. Buddhism. 400-500M adherents. There are some omni-theistic tendencies, but they're less common. Buddhism to my understanding is a philosophy more than a proper religion. That gives it the sole right to the bottom of the list which should be classified "Just why?". Philosophy doesn't need another name.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
That Christians try to get out from under the burden of proof...
It's honestly disgusting. I'll use the teapot argument, it would then be my job to prove it's existence. To disprove it would be impossible because it's so very unlikely as to be deemed impossible. When presenting a pseudo-impossible argument it is to the party which presents that argument to prove it. I'm not saying that God can currently be proven, if he could I'd be writing tales of his love (or hate). But if I say that I reject the teapot, I do not have to prove the teapot non-existent, because the "evidence" for the teapot is so very scanty. Maybe there's an old book about the all-powerful teapot. But the teapot still cannot be proven, only alluded to. I'd even take compelling evidence instead of all-out proof. That's all the evolution has, yet I largely agree with that. There is, however, no evidence for God, teapots orbiting planets, fairies or the like, and I'm sure you don't believe in the invisible pink dog next to me which no one can see, touch, hear, smell, or even (god forbid) taste. But hey, it's there, it tells me how to live my life, has written an erroneous book, and it helps me with all aspects of my otherwise meaning life. I tell you it's there damn it! Stop doubting... Oh yeah, poochie says that if you don't believe that it exists, it'll chew on your balls for eternity. So yeah, believe in spot here.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
A few arguments refuted
Our current lack of knowledge pertaining to the origin of the particle(s) involved in the big bang is no more disproof of evolution than a lack of knowledge of where God came from is disproof of theism. Which, however is more likely? A particle of currently unknown origin, or an all-powerful being who has been there forever with no cause?
The argument that things need causes but for one exception is ridiculous. A good theory doesn't have exceptions strewn haphazardly through it. When the theory of evolution is taught we don't merely accept that the universe exists, we attempt to discover why. With the competition we have, however, there should be no need...
Atheists have/need more faith than Christians. Not only does that mean that we have more of the basis of religion than religious people do, but it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous because there's evidence on our side of the argument, something which religion cannot boast. Faith is belief without evidence, why would we need that? We have evidence without belief.
Atheists have no morals. That's unfounded, and as such, bullshit. Atheists are some of the most moral people I know, because they have to account for their actions instead of Jesus taking the heat for them.
We need God for purpose/happiness in life. I'm happy to report that this too, is complete garbage. I have a sense of purpose and I'm relatively happy. I don't need God for that.
The argument that things need causes but for one exception is ridiculous. A good theory doesn't have exceptions strewn haphazardly through it. When the theory of evolution is taught we don't merely accept that the universe exists, we attempt to discover why. With the competition we have, however, there should be no need...
Atheists have/need more faith than Christians. Not only does that mean that we have more of the basis of religion than religious people do, but it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous because there's evidence on our side of the argument, something which religion cannot boast. Faith is belief without evidence, why would we need that? We have evidence without belief.
Atheists have no morals. That's unfounded, and as such, bullshit. Atheists are some of the most moral people I know, because they have to account for their actions instead of Jesus taking the heat for them.
We need God for purpose/happiness in life. I'm happy to report that this too, is complete garbage. I have a sense of purpose and I'm relatively happy. I don't need God for that.
Monday, April 2, 2012
The cosmological argument
The basis of the argument is;
All forms of random crap exist.
Random crap must have a cause.
The universe is made of random crap.
Thus the universe has a cause.
That cause must be God.
The other version is more like;
Random crap exists.
Random crap which exists has the potential to not exist.
If something has the potential to not exist, yet it does, it was caused.
There cannot be an infinite number of causes for random crap. No infinite regression.
Thus there has to be a cause for random crap.
That cause has to be God.
Does matter have the potential to not exist? I mean... It could not be here, but what purpose would that really serve? I've got a notepad in front of me, it exists. It could not exist, but odds are, I'd just have a different notepad in front of me. I don't see how that can strengthen an argument.
I don't see why the acceptance of an infinite god who's always been there is no problem, but some energy or matter which was just "always there" is ridiculed by the religious community. Ok, so random crap has to have a cause, because it cannot make itself exist. So using Occam's razor, the best explanation is God.
I think the "When in doubt, chalk it up to God." mentality is dangerous and I don't think it should remain our way of describing things we don't understand rather than endeavoring to learn.
All forms of random crap exist.
Random crap must have a cause.
The universe is made of random crap.
Thus the universe has a cause.
That cause must be God.
The other version is more like;
Random crap exists.
Random crap which exists has the potential to not exist.
If something has the potential to not exist, yet it does, it was caused.
There cannot be an infinite number of causes for random crap. No infinite regression.
Thus there has to be a cause for random crap.
That cause has to be God.
Does matter have the potential to not exist? I mean... It could not be here, but what purpose would that really serve? I've got a notepad in front of me, it exists. It could not exist, but odds are, I'd just have a different notepad in front of me. I don't see how that can strengthen an argument.
I don't see why the acceptance of an infinite god who's always been there is no problem, but some energy or matter which was just "always there" is ridiculed by the religious community. Ok, so random crap has to have a cause, because it cannot make itself exist. So using Occam's razor, the best explanation is God.
I think the "When in doubt, chalk it up to God." mentality is dangerous and I don't think it should remain our way of describing things we don't understand rather than endeavoring to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)