One God Further

Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

2010-07-02T15:20:00.002-05:00

Courtesy of America's Finest news source

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.
Enlarge Image
Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.
"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."
According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.
"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."
"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."
According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."
Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."
"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.
Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.
"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."
Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.
"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."
"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

Absurdities in Genesis: Resurrection!

2010-05-07T13:09:00.005-05:00

So, I'm trying to get back into the habit of updating again, so I think I'll start with some easy stuff.

This comic suffers from what I call desperate relevance, which is a problem that in my experience seems to be plagueing the Christian community, particularly those with the inerrantist view. Just look at them trying to conflate things like expiration dates with the mythical fruit in the garden. Sure, you may say they're jut trying to be cute or funny, but this isn't even clever. It is simply desperate. They have nothing relevant to say, so they slap a meaningless picture trying to make a joke, which barely gets a chuckle if that. Hell, even the Kid in the picture looks like he's rolling his eyes.

So, lo and behold it took me two seconds to come up with what I think is much funnier:

Mr Mabus Vs the telemarketers

2010-05-06T12:58:00.002-05:00

Random, I know. For context see discussion here

***********************************
The Death of telemarketers at hand!
************************************

Telemarketers don't even believe in *SALES*!!
Lacking completely *ANY GROUNDING* in economic theory!

**
The Premium package is a Lie!
************

This package has nothing wanted *BY CONSUMERS* simply being an upsell item boosting REVENUE without actually givng anything!

Saleseople, see the folly of the SHAKY GROUND you stand on. The *ECONOMY* of your method of business could come CRASHING DOWN at any moment...TODAY!

If I were as ugly as *JOHN MEYNARD KEYNES* I'd believe in active fiscal policy too.

The CONFLICT BETWEEN KEYNSIANISM AND MONETARISM destroys the very ethos of the telemarketing!

Holy Crap I've Been Busy

2010-01-12T08:58:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the disappearance all, I've been crazy busy at work, I've been planning a wedding (which may get scrapped for purely financial reasons), and most of my internet time has been sucked up into the World of Warcrack.

All in all though, things are getting better, and calming down a bit, so I may actually post more often. Shock! Awe!

All in all though, its been fairly quiet on the religion front for my part. I've not seen much politically that has shocked me, and other people like Personal Failure and Ziztur seem to get to the good stories significantly faster than I find them. I'll find something. Might even get that book review done.

Once again, I am alive

2009-09-03T09:09:00.002-05:00

Wow... its been way too long since I've updated this. The problem is, I usually update this when its slow at work, and it hasn't been slow for about 3 months. I do plan on getting back to the blog, I swear. It isn't a dead blog, and I am hoping I will get back to very regular updates. The only issue I'm running into right now is material. The subject of religion, irreligion, counter-religion, non-religion, has been pretty well covered by many people, so its often difficult to feel like one is bringing fresh material to the plate. As a result I'm considering doing some things more anecdotally, and going more into the history of religion. That is of course once i really get things moving here again.

Because of Real Life(tm) I haven't been able to do much in terms of research for quite some time, and its about time I dusted off my academia.

I'm Back

2009-07-14T07:35:00.002-05:00

Well, apparently I really needed a break from the religion topic, because a couple weeks off has done me wonders of good. It really is an interesting thing, because no matter how important it is to keep fighting the ideas of religion and theocracy, sometimes we need to step away. This seems particularly evident when one is surrounded by it. As many of you know, I live in Texas, and as far as religious saturation that's about as deep immersed as you can be in the US outside of Salt Lake City.

More than anything I think I tried to put out too much content too quickly and became a bit obsessive for a while. Hopefully things will start to pick up, but we'll see. I am still planning on doing my reviews, there have just been some life setbacks that have kept me from really getting into a new book.

Absurdities in Genesis: Don't Look, Your Irony Meter Will Explode

2009-06-25T10:12:00.002-05:00

You're not serious... really? I mean wtf people? That's right, once again its the vast scientific conspiracy where there's a virtual consensus of nearly 100% of all the people who know what they're talking about that fossils can be dated. No, creationists have it right, and are NEVER twisting the facts or ignoring information to make their idiotic holy book right, despite all the contrary evidence.

I really will never understand how they think the idea of a massive global conspiracy of scientists is supposed to work. I mean, a large percentage of these scientific conspirators are Christian. How do you reconcile that? Oh, wait. That's right, the no true Sc... errr, no true Christain argument, that's right.

But really, what's the point? Once, again, After Eden is never funny, and never really informative except as a reference on the insanity of the fundies.

Personal Health

2009-06-19T08:11:00.004-05:00

At the beginning of this year I finally committed myself to getting healthier. I was, and am still significantly overweight, but since January I've actually managed to drop from about 289 lbs to 263. I realize this is completely unrelated to my blog's subject matter, but I'm actually rather proud of this fact, since meeting my first goal would be getting down to 260.

You're an Atheist Because You Want to Sin

2009-06-11T08:07:00.002-05:00

This has to be the thing Christians say to me that causes me to roll my eyes the highest and hardest. I mean, aside from the obvious problem that I, and pretty much all atheists, don't believe sin exists as a moral affront to a God we do not believe in, the entire argument on that basis is completely insconsistent.

I'll put it simply: If I wanted to sin and have no repercussions for it, I'd be an evangelical.

Sounds completely contradictory, right? Counterintuitive?

It certainly goes against the spirit of "the law," but according to the wackaloons in the evangelical mindset, as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (Grace only theology) then you're cool. So, if I were trying to avoid repercussions for so-called sin (since you say i really do believe in God by implication) why would I choose the option where I don't really get away with "sin" in the end over the option where I get to sin all I like and get rewarded at the end of the race?

Absurdities In Genesis: Stupidity at its Finest

2009-06-08T10:25:00.005-05:00

Alright... I think its no secret that I hate AiG's After Eden comic series, but this one in particularly im oddly amused by, but not the reason they want me to be. The main reason is the skin coloring on these characters, because they look grey, almost decaying corpse-like. And the second is the look on that guy's face like the banal crap the woman in the comic is spouting is somehow not only interesting, but shocking.

But really, the absolute best thing about this is it reminds us all that Christianity's greatest enemy is not atheism, but Christianity. All these denominations and silly doctrines and dogmas, and they all contradict each other on the basis of things like literalism, catholicism, protestantism, faith/works bs etc. The fact that the Christian comunity will never be organized as a single unit and is in fact undermining itself through group infighting on these issues as well as trying to steal members from each other only leads to disillusionment and apathy to the church as an organization.

It's no secret that this pleases me. Sure, education and understanding of philosophy and science contribute greatly to the growth of atheism and agnosticism, but I think we can give a good share of the credit to the Christian churches themselves as well.

Post Frequency

2009-06-02T10:25:00.001-05:00

Regrettably, due to a significant increase in workload my post frequency will be staying lower for a while. I plan to continue posting regularly, just probably not every day, since I can pretty much only find the time during breaks right now.

I will be doing my new book review probably starting in early July.

Crazy Christian Lies

2009-05-30T12:23:00.002-05:00

Thanking Slacktivist for the Link to the Site...I just had to say, I love this shirt. I mean, its so completely true. Except when it isn't.

I Got... Physical Mail

2009-05-29T19:24:00.003-05:00

So, today I got in the mail a copy of both Ray Comfort's You Can Lead an Atheist... (complete with illegible "Autograph") and The Atheist Bible courtesy of an anonymous donor to Ray Comfort's ministry. Since I have not gotten ahold of the next book I will be reviewing yet, my plan is to look through The Atheist Bible and, if there's anything notable, ripping the hell into its points while waiting to get ahold of the other book. Money just hasn't been there for adding to the blog of late. Just the way things go sometimes.

McLeroy Nomination Rejected... Barely

2009-05-29T09:58:00.003-05:00

So, its finally an almost respectable day to live in Texas. While I'm extatic that this guy won't be leading the SBOE, I'm highly perturbed by the margin by which the block was able to occur.

Ah well... take the victories where you can find them in Texas.

Darwinius Masillae: Seriously Overblown

2009-05-21T07:55:00.003-05:00

Everyone's already heard all about Darwinius Masillae the 47 million year old primate fossil. While I agree with scientists that the find is incredible, particularly in its age and completeness, I have to agree with PZ Myers on this one. Incredible as the find may be, its not a missing link, and there really aren't any missing links. We already know pretty clearly that evolution happened. Its obvious when looking at even partial evidence. This find doesn't make or break the ToE, it simply adds to the growing list of transitional forms that creationists pretend don't exist.

I've said it before, but I'm no scientist. I simply find this subject fascinating, mostly due to the denialism and the recalcitrant idiocy of the fundy camp. Frankly though, I get far too frustrated with "teh stoopid". I mean, working on these people and trying to get them to understand that their claims about science and whatnot are wrong and ludicrous is completely a waste of time. They don't understand because they don't want to. We make concessions regarding the fact that we don't claim to have absolute knowledge god doesn't exist etc, and they will always twist it around into a claim of something its not. The cognitive dissonance is so harsh it hurts. So, I'm not sure I'll be dealing directly with the tools on their own blogs anymore, but that doesn't mean I'm done here.

Quickie Post

2009-05-14T08:47:00.002-05:00

Your holy book "prediciting" that Christianity would face opposition and persecution with its doctrines against the status quo and being militantly evangelist is roughly as prophetic as me watching you walk into the rain and telling you you're going to get wet.

Absurdities in Genesis: Well, shit... that was quick.

2009-05-13T10:51:00.004-05:00

So... yeah. Just post that I'm on a brief hiatus and BAM, I land on AiG and see this:

I mean... really? Come on, this is just beyond pointless. Do these whackjobs completely lack any understanding for what a metaphor is?

Derka derka. I mean, lets be honest here, nobody outside of various animistic pagan groups are you usually going to find someone who literally considers the earth their "mother." For the rest of us it is an obvious metaphor with clear implications regarding what the Earth is to us as a species, and to us as a biosphere. The earth takes care of us by providing us with what we need to survive, and we should be good children and not defile her. Whether you believe it is god causing those crops to grow or placing those animals there is of no consequence, nor does it detract from the metaphorical implications.

The only conclusion i can come to is completely unsavory and that is that these people literally believe that doing -ANYTHING- without the mention of god is implicitly bad or explicitly trying to deliberately sideline their god which is completely ridiculous with things like this that have, in common parlance, no religious connotation any more than me saying "goddamnit" means I believe in god.

And this is the kind of semantic bullshit that frustrates me about the religious debates. They nitpick the stupidest things, but then so do some of ours. How many times has an atheist tried to throw the "bats aren't birds" thing into an argument? The only classification systems that humans still use weren't even codified till thousands of years after the bible was written. Its silly semantic crap. I mean, pi=3 is a valid complaint, and so is the "pillars of the earth" and such. But lets keep it on the level here. If you want to argue semantics, they're going to keep throwing them back.

Taking a week off

2009-05-13T10:48:00.002-05:00

Having made it to my hundredth post I'm going to take a little time off from the blog so I don't burn myself out. It'll give me some time to get my creativity back up. Might do some posts if I see something that screams needing a response, but other than that, I'll still be on SMRT.

100th Post: The Septuagint and Eternal Punishment

2009-05-11T12:18:00.002-05:00

So, I'm already at my 100th post. Arbitrary marker, I know, But I decided I'd make this an interesting one. I want to discuss eternal punishment with you. Why eternal punishment? Because eternal punishment in hell is one of the most commonly used methods of intimidating people into believing the lies of evangelical christians.

The evangelical christians love the idea of eternal hell. It puts the impetus on a potential convert to either choose to believe or be potentially tortured forever. Its a great big initimidation con, and no doubt gets alot of weak converts from those who are afraid of that potential torture. That said, even so, I will set out to show that the idea of everlasting punishment is not only ridiculous as a doctrine, but completely unbiblical.

In this instance we should look at both the New and Old Testaments, but first the new. Yeshua, in those scriptures, which as best we can tell were initially published in Greek used the words Aionoios Kolasis to describe the eventual comeuppance of sinners and unbelievers. Now, while kolasis does equate to some kind of punishment for a crime or the rehabilitation, aionios is a bit trickier,a nd far more at odds with the fundies.

Aionios means "long enduring" based on all the greek sources that I can muster. It does not imply everlasting, and can be as short as a few years or a few centuries, but it is not eternal even in its implication. The term aionios is used dozens of times in the Septuagint (which Yeshua quoted from) in fact, and every single time it is in its meaning of "long enduring" not eternal. At least, not until you get to the New Testament where translators in the late Roman era and early middle ages decided that it meant eternal.

Highly conservative churches of course hate this idea, because it smacks of Origen's ideas about universal salvation, and of course, if you're going to be saved in the end regardless, alot of people aren't going to back the church, and the church's purpose of getting people to their salvation is completely shot, and many people would lose their purpose of living while not actually having to contribute productively. The very idea of universal salvation was very prevalent in early Christian communities, in fact, and even Augustine makes note of such doctrines and their popularity.

So, maybe I've misread something, but I cannot find anything to dispute this. Even if hell were to exist, I would not fear it because I would know it to be only for some time. Of course, as I don't believe in hell at all I fear it even less. But I highly recommend hitting fundies with that one every once in a while, as they really need a reality check, and watching them twitch in the throes of their cognitivie dissonance can be terribly amusing.

While I was researching all this I came upon a book called The Jerome Conspiracy which I recommend people check out. Its not a long read, and puts this all in a more comprehensive narrative. I actually wish I had come upon this source first, since most of my information is also therein.

god is not Great: To Sum it All Up

2009-05-08T22:37:00.002-05:00

So, that's everything I'll be covering for god is not Great by Chrisopher Hitchens. Anyone who wishes to look back at the archives to see all the various parts can go here.

Overall the book was good. Hitchens is really an excellent writer, easy to read and never goes too cerebral. This I found to be positive mostly because it made the book very accessible while at the same time communicating some very complex ideas. Generally speaking I enjoy Hitchens' style. He's very matter-of-fact as well as putting forth a certain acerbic surety that gives the book a powerful and distinct voice.

That is not, of course, to say that the book is without its flaws. As was stated in various individual chapter reviews its often lacking as far as scholarship. That's also a side effect of what Hitchens did to make the book more accessible. Hitchens isn't really a historian or a scientist; Hitchens is a Journalist, and that's the style that works for him. Its a visceral, easy to pick up style that excludes nobody. However, due to his lack of background as a scientist or historian the arguments often lack alot of the punch that proof might provide, and the very limited citation I would also consider a weakness.

The biggest weakness though, i'd probably say is that it tries to tackle too much for its scope. Its not a long book, only about 280 pages, but he tries to cover 3 holy books many world religions, and arguments both for and against them. This is really just too much for anyone in my opinion. I fully expect Hitchens to write more on the subject in the future, but I'm really hoping he'll choose a more focused method in his next attempt.

In the end it was enjoyable. In most cases I tend to agree with Hitchens which actually made it difficult at times to to be critical of him, but I think in the end I did a fair job with it overall. Please feel free to criticize or comment. I'd really like to know what people think of the final product.

god is not Great chapter 18 & 19

2009-05-08T10:21:00.002-05:00

The final two chapters of god is not Great are interesting, although in the end sadly not terribly poignant. Hitchens discusses the history of rational conflict with religion which is sadly a very short history due to a shortage of well known atheists throughout history. In the final chapter Hitchens mostly discusses the need he feels for a new enlightenment, basically like Europe had in the 17th through 19th centuries.

Hitchens is a competent historian, but is by no means a professional in the field it would seem. He makes good points in discussing the accusations against Socrates, as well as the writings of Spinoza. But in the end the chapter has little choice but to fall flat. There's plenty of discussion going on, but regardless we have no way of knowing what historical potential atheists really believed, and whether they were in fact atheists. None that I'm aware of actually professed atheism. Now, while we could certainly assume someone like Spinoza was a proto-atheist, at the same time I think its important to recognize something Dawkins said as I feel it applies here: parpaphrased, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Now, I don't like parroting Dawkins, but I feel that was an incredibly salient point he made. We can speculate about the beliefs of anyone: Spinoza, Socrates, Adolf Hitler, Thomas Jefferson, L. Ron Hubbard. It makes no difference; we can never know any of it for sure. Hitchens even recognizes this, and because he recognizes it, I'm glad he can see the weakness in his discussion, but am at the same time rather disappointed that he ended the body of the book with something without much punch, as this would have definitely been a great place to put one.

When he discusses the need for a new enlightenment, it is pretty much just a call to rational minds. He proposes that, unlike the previous enlightenment, today we have the potential and knowledge available for a kind of mass enlightenment, exponentially more powerful than the first. I've probably blown that up a bit, because it reads very utopian and Hitchens is not a Utopian thinker. That said, it makes a good point, but is not realistic. The religious will continue clinging to their holy books and their gods, and the world will continue to move forward. While I certainly believe the world will change with religion continually falling behind and losing ground, I certainly don't see a major shift in the very near future. Maybe in the next couple decades.

Final analysis later today...

Amusingly Sad

2009-05-08T08:38:00.003-05:00

So, back in the very beginning of this blog I made a post regarding a particularly idiotic creationist moron. Apparently the genius that he is, Sye decided to make a covert post on there 2 months after I originally posted it. I don't check the archives for random comments terribly often, though every once in a while I find something. My nihilism discussion pulled in a troll that I never even noticed until this morning, and that was only a day after the post had slipped beyond my usual viewing.

But really, why would anyone bother posting 2 months later? I could easily have gone months without noticing that even peripherally. Frankly, Sye isn't really worth my time, but I replied anyway. I'm sure he'll be back.

Creationist Tool "Venomfangx" Stopped for Fraud

2009-05-07T11:17:00.005-05:00

So, apparently the avid Youtube creationist VenomfangX has managed to get himself into some serious trouble. I think its terribly appropriate considering this guy pretty much idolized Kent Hovind. Amusingly enough, his website was also taken off line, get this -by his parents-

I'll admit I have not really watched any of his garbage all the way through, but just what snippets were posted by Thunderf00t on his videos. Still, I'm more than pleased to see this little fraud get shut down, even if he has already started a new channel.

Source: Rationalwiki

New Poll Posted

2009-05-07T10:27:00.002-05:00

Ok. The new poll up is regarding the fate of Ray's book once I've read it.*

Be aware, my girlfriend has now made the offer to attempt to read 5 chapters, and if she can't read it I will not be punished mentally for a month for desecrating it ala PZ myers. Please vote, I'm always interested in what you guys have to say.

*This is a non-binding poll. In the end I will decide, though your votes, particularly if overwhelming may convince me in a direction.

god is not Great Chapter 17: The "Case" Against Secularism

2009-05-06T08:32:00.002-05:00

As the title makes clear, in chapter 17 Hitchens will go into the only major argument that the religious use against secularists which Hitchens has yet to address in the text: The old argument of how bad regimes like Hitler and Stalin et al. were, while claiming that the very problem stemmed from Atheism.

I think anyone reading this can think of a hundred reasons why this is a ridiculous argument, form the fact that Hitler and the Nazis under him were a pseudo-religion of german superiority, or Hitler being a Roman Catholic, to Stalin creating a similar cult of personality. These of course are the most common counters which are espoused by those such as Richard Dawkins use in their writings.

While Hitler notes things of this manner in passing, when he discusses Hitler he focuses not on the religion of Hitler himself, but of the relation of religions with hitler. Most notably he goes into the early, somewhat uneasy, relationship between the Nazi government and the Vatican which later become much more mutually supportive. It think it was a good tactic to use as it gives Hitchens a clear direction away from the Dawkins approach, but it also puts things back to the religious. If religions prevent this kind of thing, why didn't they here? Hitchens even goes into some of the fabricated stories of the great resistance of the clergy and religious and why they were obviously fraudulent.

He goes on to discuss other rulers' pseudoreligious regimes like Kim Jong Il, as well as the ancient God-Kings of the middle east. Overall Hitchens tears apart the argument, showing our morality to be a human trait again, not a religious one.

It was an interesting chapter, but not entirely necessary for the argument, and in part it feels tacked on because of it. Worth reading nonetheless.

Chapter 18 & 19 tie into each other, and I will be reviewing them together, hopefully on Friday.

Back From the East Coast

2009-05-05T11:20:00.002-05:00

So I got back into town last night. Overall it was a good trip, although I'm always made slightly uncomfortable around my family on the east coast. The whole lot of them are pretty devout in their religious beliefs, and this has always been a bit of a sticking point for me. A good number of them are Nazarene, a few are Mormon and all of them are Christian. Needless to say I was obligated to attend a church service in honor of my Great Grandmother which preceded her birthday celebration.

This wasn't too bad, it was a fairly traditional congregationalist church, meaning they weren't hardcore evangelicals. Just more regular protestants. The amount of Hymns always make me uncomfortable when im with my family because I simply do not sing them because I will not sing praises for something I do not believe. Even so, it doesn't stop some of them from wondering about me because I'm the only one in church not singing, and the only one who doesn't take communion, etc.

Only my immediate family knows about my faith or lack thereof, but its always on the odd side not being part of the group at a family function.

But, all that aside, at my great grandmother's birthday celebration at the tables they had little churches made out of the material from those stress squeeze-ball things. I'm putting up a picture as soon as I have one. Also, we picked up one extra that if someone wants it, I may give away at some point.

It's good to be back. I'm looking forward to more great discussions.

Spontaneous Analogy That I Had to Write Down

2009-05-03T17:45:00.003-05:00

I was thinking about this particular Comfortian argument:

If you go before a judge, convicted of a crime and you say to the judge, jusdge, I know I have been found guilty but since you are a good and fair judge, I believe you should let me go, being that you are so good and fair. What do you suppose that judge would say to you? They might give a slight chuckle but they would likely say, "because I am a good and fair judge, I cannot let you go free. I must see that justice is served and if I let you go free it would show me to be corrupt."

And thought to myself: How would a Christian argue that analogy if one added this line?

"But your honor, during your last campaign I brought you thousands of votes through my campaign contributions and my faith in your capacity to judge, as well as my understanding of how much you sacrifice for justice!"

How should the judge reply?

Away For a Weekend

2009-05-01T09:27:00.004-05:00

I don't usually post on weekends anyway, but I did want to tell people who stop by regularly that I will be gone for the weekend. I will be in Pennsylvania near Philadelphia and Elizabethtown. I'll be out there celebrating my great grandmother's 100th birthday.

I will be trying to get ginG done within the next week so I can move on to other projects. I will probably take a week or two off before starting in on Ray and read a novel or two in the interim. Don't worry, I won't be reviewing novels here. Just wanting to read something fun before touching Comfort.

As for my format this time around...

I expect God Doesn't Believe in Atheists is broken up into chapters unlike his most recent book which, while it has chapters uses an easy to break down Q&A format. I intend for this review to once again be comprehensive, but unlike my ginG review, I expect it will be alot more sarcastic and possibly melodramatic. We'll see. The book sounds awful enough that I expect I'll be doing whatever I can to make it fun.

god is not Great Chapter 16: Is Religion Child Abuse

2009-04-30T12:39:00.002-05:00

This chapter, which is almost a direct continuation of the previous chapter focuses largely on the things that religions do to children. Overall, Hitchens makes some very good points, although my larger personal opinion is noted in a recent entry, Hitchens goes much further than I did.

He starts with the psychological, delving into the issue of things like Hell. Terrorizing children witht he prospect of eternal torture and damnation for disobedience and religious infidelity. I too wonder how many children have been harmed by these and similar practices by well meaning, and not so well meaning authority figures.

As Hitchens demonstrates, the institutions of religion have long understood how impressionable young children are, and that the key to having a hold on the adult is to indoctrinate him as a child. Overall, when it comes to the psychological damage section Hitchens writes a good piece, but in this exercise was well overshadowed by Dawkins in The God Delusion.

Regardless, Hitchens goes next into discusssing the physical abuses children suffer as a consequence of religions. He points out, of course, the issue of circumcision first as it is perhaps the most obvious. I can't help but agree with Hitchens, particularly with regards to infants. There is no good reason to mutilate a child's genitalia without their having a say in it, or even more importantly, without their even ever having known of the option to say no. It seems immoral to make a decision like that which is basically irreversible.

One place that Hitchens goes that is not covered in others (to my memory) is the masturbation taboo and the psychological and sexual repression that comes with it. Overall, a small section but somewhat poignant.

Overall the chapter didn't provide alot that was new, or illuminate much. It was a good read, but I would still stand by my personal opinion as stated previously.

Eugenics: Nobody Was Innocent

2009-04-30T09:31:00.004-05:00

Quoited from Pevensie15: "Eugenics was done by ignorant atheists, who should have read the Bible!"

Ignorant assertion for the win!

I already replied to him on his blog, but as usual he completely ignores my points, probably because the kid has nothing even resembling a cogent answer.

Now, Aj there has raised what is really an obnoxious lie common to the fundamentalist Christian position. Eugenics was certainly an outgrowth from the ideas of evolutionary theory, but that does not make it inherently atheistic. Studies of various hominids yielded information regarding things like general skull measurements and other empirical qualities that led people to start applying those measurements as benchmarks regarding what races were more evolved than others. This was done worldwide, from bible believing American Christians, the British, The Chinese, Japanese, etc. Its association with the Nazi agenda simply hastened its departure from acceptable science.

Were there Atheists involved? Hell yes. Was it racist? Damned straight. Denying that would be revisionist claptrap like claiming Hitler wasn't a Christian (forgive my Godwin* breach). Now, I've pretty much come to expect this from current fundamentalists since they generally only know what they're taught which is usually a very white-washed version of history painting Christianity as some kind of heroic underdog despite being the establishment for about 1500 years in the west.

The second part of what AJ says really bothers me and shows palpable ignorance of the Tanakh. The bible supports outright genocide of non-believing neighbor nations and encourages erradication and/or enslavement. You know what, AJ, you're right. Reading the Bible would have stopped them from starting Eugenics. It would have encouraged outright slaughter rape and enslavement instead. Good point!

Of course, we all know that those Christians involved in Eugenics weren't true Scotsmen... err Christians. Right?

*Thanks ExPatMatt and Beamstalk

Poll Completed!

2009-04-29T19:42:00.003-05:00

Ok. So, now its over... and with 50% of the votes you have all condemned me to reading Ray Comfort's God Doesn't Believe in Atheists as my punishment for running an Atheist focused blog.

Anyone who has anything in particular they'd like covered or focused on in the review I will certainly consider any suggestion. I will also be putting up a new poll probably next week regarding the Pharyngulation of the garbage book.

Just for the record, if I decide to do a poll for my next review Ray Comfort will not be an option.

The Brick Testament

2009-04-29T16:57:00.002-05:00

The Brick Testament has reached an all time high with its 4 newest stories.

This guy is a lego genius.

Religion as Child Abuse. My own thoughts

2009-04-29T12:38:00.003-05:00

I wanted to discuss my opinion on this argument separate from my analysis of Hitchens' presentation of it in god is not Great. This is mostly because I think it deserves more space than being intertwined with my analysis. Hopefully I will be posting a review of that chapter tomorrow, but I was inspired to write this instead for today.

The argument that religion being put forth to children is child abuse, and I am very much of two minds about that position. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion presented the argument in a way so as to demonstrate that there are no "Catholic Children," or "Marxist Children," and such trying to justify that religious indoctrination of children is immoral and abusive. I agree with this insofar as I think deep indoctrination of children into just about anything is wrongheaded and an affront to reason as it pushes the child in a prechosen direction before they have developed the reasoning skills to comprehend the enormity of the decision.

But then I also have to disagree. Indoctrination is a loaded word in this case, and is particularly poignant when applied to religion. That said, at some point we have to think about where can we draw a line at what values and beliefs parents can instill in their own children. While I, and no doubt many people reading this, view religion as a hostile and caustic influence in the world the parents of the religious children literally believe they giving them "truth" whatever that may be. The same goes for a parent instilling capitalistic values, or stoic values or, whatever values, beliefs, and opinions you may wish to look at.

Do we draw the line of abuse at obviously harmful values, like racism and bigotry? Or do we start dictating the majority status quo with the ability to decide what is abusive? Take it to the courts? But any of these options bothers me. I'm not currently a parent, but someday I intend to be; I would not want the government or some other external authority telling me I could not teach my own child from my own experiences and values. So i'm really at a loss here. We can't just limit it to religion since that's far too narrow, and hardly the only indoctrinating philosophy category available.

I personally think it to be impossible to not indoctrinate children, even unintentionally. If, as parents, one does not teach their child, the child won't learn anything. Its also natural that in any environment a young child will learn by adopting something from the actions, words, and habits of his or her parents. Children from different backgrounds will obviously develop differently in this respect, but we can't really expect every religious parent to stop all religious habits to protect their child and give him a free development without influence. Its not realistic, and its questionable whether it would be moral.

So, is religion child abuse? Possibly. But I personally don't see that there's anything that can be done to stop it as a whole without violating a thousand other rights, and that I'm not ok with.

Intelligent Design and the Echo Chamber

2009-04-28T09:53:00.003-05:00

I'm sure I'm not the first one to write on this, but I can't help but making note; It seems to me a very odd phenomenon that the only people who argue for the idea of intelligent design are religious. And beyond that, not only are they all religious, but they are almost all evangelical Christians, with a few fringe Jews like Ben Stein. The fact that this is almost an exact match to the same group of evolution deniers (other than the muslims) is rather telling when you look at it from a scientific and sociological perspective.

The largest part of this group is what is commonly called an echo chamber. They all tell each other what they want to hear while bouncing their own ideas back at each other and keeping any dissenting opinoin out. But this group never looks outside the chamber to make the obvious conclusion: If we're the only ones who don't believe something and we all happen to share one certain belief system, perhaps its not the other side that's closed-minded.

Of course, that would be an admittance of severe cognitive dissonance that the average fundamentalist simply cannot accept. It's world-shattering in their view after all. But when we look at modern evolutionary theory which is generally accepted by (non-fundamentalist) Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Shinto etc. you have to look at that and wonder how the recalcitrant deniers of evolution can possibly make their case when they are basically the lone voice of dissent. If their absurd dating was correct certainly someone outside the echo chamber would have come up with something supporting it, but that's never the case. And then, of course, the ones outside the echo chamber are considered to be either consipiratorial, or just plain closed-minded.

I think its important to avoid an echo chamber mentality, wchich is why I listen to dissenting media quite a bit. I like to make sure I'm analyzing the other side which gives my personal convictions a stronger basis through reasoning. For example, I hate Michael Savage. I think he's an ignorant alarmist who is riding solely off of sensationalism. But I listen to him because every once in a while an interesting point pops up that I can't reasonably dispute. Then i research the claim and see how valid it really is. If it is, I've learned something. I may come a to a different conclusion than that asshat, but I did learn something. When you're in the Echo Chamber its rarely learning something new. Its regurgitation of what you already believe, and what you want to hear.

I think that's valuable for many skeptics and rational thinkers. Many of us do fall into the same problem, but to a less severe degree. Luckily, particularly with evolution, the facts and science are very much on our side. But that's not always been the case, and while most of us are open-minded to new theories and ideas, but we need to keep it that way.

And that doesn't mean giving pseudoscientific garbage a fair shot. Homeopathy, ID and such are pretty much objectively garbage. But even so when a reliable source presents dissent we need to (and usually do) listen.

Absurdities in Genesis: Close But Not Quite

2009-04-27T15:18:00.003-05:00

This one kinda hurts my head, but more because its so close to having a semblance of truth to it, then it just fails miserably. Sadly it demonstrates an absolute zero understanding of what argument from incredulity is. The pictured "evolutionist," were he anything but a poor caricature would point out that given enough time and possibilities the potential for our evolution becomes far less improbable, and becomes much more about how we evolved, not about the probability of whether we evolved.

Of course, that's why argument from incredulity is a fallacy. If i roll a 1 billion sided die, every result has a 1 in a billion chance, but when I roll a 426,325,201 I just beat 1 in a billion odds of rolling that. If we know something happened against probabiliy we want to know how. We already know whether it happened or not.

As an aside, their artist has a really weird obsession with those lame ass fish that people put on their cars. I mean just in the last month we've had the one above, as well as this one, and just this year so far there's those plus this, this, this, this, and this. I mean really they do about one a week, and almost half of them for the year feature those stupid things.

Poll: Last Chance

2009-04-27T10:11:00.003-05:00

Last chance for those who care what I review next. only about a day and a half left on that poll. Be sure to vote if that's of interest to you.

Forgot to bring my copy of ginG to work today, so sadly cannot do more reviewing today.

Archaeology, History, and the Bible

2009-04-24T10:19:00.006-05:00

I apologize that I will not be citing sources here, but I am at work.

Fundamentalists have made some pretty fantastical claims about the historicity of the bible. They love to say things like, "Archaeology has never contradicted the bible," and "historically the bible is the most accurate book ever written," and plenty of other nonsense. But does it really hold up? Of course not.

Firstly, lets look at what the bible gets right, because there is a significant amount that it does do well. It is an excellent reference on the cultures of Israel and Judah, including their religious practices, their social customs, as well as their laws. Also, after the unification of Israel and Judah (reunification is as best I can tell ahistorical)it is a reasonably good history.

Archaeology has confirmed some of the history, including the existence of Jericho, the existance of Nebuchadrezar of Babylon, and other bits of information that we can confirm. There's even a possibility (if dubious) that two cities potentially analgous with Sodom and Gomorrah were discovered.

But what has never been proven? Well, lets start with anything supernatural. There is no real evidence other than legendary of even the existence of Moses or his supposed miracles, let alone any evidence of divine intercession at places like Jericho. Search as they might, archaeologists have found no proof of Solomon or David beyond the biblical legends, and have also shown that if Solomon was real his empire was greatly exaggerated in the biblical texts. Archaeology has also shown no evidence of inhabitation at oasis in the Sinai desert where the Israelites supposedly stayed for 40 years. If they were there, surely there would have been something left behind, but there are not even pot sherds. The history of egypt has never recorded the mass use of slaves, let alone any record of an entire nation of Jews enslaved. In the real world, egyptian monuments and great buildings were mostly public works projects as evinced by discovered workers' camps.

The problems in Genesis alone are innumerable for archaeology and historians alike. It is obvious to the historians who know that many of the legends of Genesis were cribbed off of earlier successful civilizations' mythologies, like the sumerians. This is particularly obvious in things like the ages of the patriarchs and the Sumerian kings, as well as the tower of Babel.

But what should we take from this?

Actually, its very telling. not so much saying that the bible is inaccurate, but it tells us that archaeology is confirming exactly what we should expect it would. The supernatural claims remain unsubstantiated, but the cultural cues and traditions, which the authors would have been very familiar with are relatively accurate. And this is of no surprise, yet fundamentalists treat this as if it were some amazing proof of the bible's accuracy. Its inevitable, when a book is written within a culture that those cultures specifics will be available. This is not proof. It is not even evidence. It is simply the way archaeology works.

I'll use an analogy.

If I were an explorer in India, and discovered an island off the coast (sri lanka) and went there, discovered that the cultural details and such conformed to what was written in the Ramayana. Should I then conclude that Ravana the demon lived on the island and that Rama went there to save his wife Sita from him? No, of course not. It means a text written within the context of a culture follows the norms of the culture, and the mores of the culture. It speaks nothing to supernatural claims whatsoever. This is not exceptional, this is expected.

god is not Great Chapter 15: Religion as an Original Sin

2009-04-23T12:59:00.002-05:00

In chapter 15 Hitchens takes four key points of doctrine and tradition in religions and explains in his view and experience why these are "not just amoral, but positively immoral." These four points are quoted as follows:

The doctrine of blood sacrifice
The doctrine of atonement
The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment
The imposition of impossible tasks and rules.

In the analysis of blood sacrifice Hitchens largel discusses the Judeo-Christian scriptural blood sacrifices of animals, but is quick to also discuss the ghastly story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. By Hitchens' view, whether the sacrifice was stopped before it occured or not, it does not change that such orders from a tyrannical deity do not make for a good rationale for worship. I, myself, in fact find the very concept repulsive, when the presumed intent of the story is to inspire faith and trust in God.

All in all this section was less than it could have, and probably should have been, ironically because it focused so heavily on the most well known religions. It could have benefitted gretly from a discussion of the infant sacrifice of Carthage for example, or perhaps the ever so common Aztec human sacrifices (although he mentions them under atonement). Blood sacrifice of both humans and animals is in enough religions that 2 pages is insufficient coverage in my opinion.

As he hits on atonement it is clear that it is mostly targetting the Christian traditions. He discusses the very immorality of vicarious redemption, which I agree is absurd. Nobody can take responsibility away from someone, and as Hitchens would probably say, it would be immoral for someone to ask, and immoral for me to accept. He rails rightfully against the idea that we are all as humans responsible for the torture and subsequent crucifixion of the mythical son of God, and that to require us to atone for this, and the "original sin" of Adam is like the proverbial situation of god making one sick and then telling him to heal himself. It is absurdity in the highest degree. Hitchens also takes the opportunity to take a bit of a shot at the Christian tradition of blaming the Jews for Christ's execution.

Let me pull away at that point, because it never made sense to me. The Christians (traditionally), both Catholic and Protestant (don't kid yourself Ray) have historically blames the Jews for the crucifixion. The crime of deicide. But looking deeper, what they're really saying is the Jews fulfilled Christ's purpose on Earth, since without his crucifixion he a. wouldn't have been the sacrifice he was purportedly intended to be, and b. could never have resurrected which, according to Paul is what the entirety of their faith hinges on. So, they blamed the Jews for giving them their religion. How grateful.

Onward to Eternal Punishment and Impossible tasks. I've personally discussed the absurdity of eternal punishment for temporal crimes many places, but Hitchens doesn't really delve into that. What he does do, however, is beat up on pascal's wager a bit for good measure, mention ways religions have profited from people terrified of damnation (i.e temporary brothel marriages in muslim countries, and papal indulgences) and then discuss the issues of Judeo Christian law that impose impossible restrictions on people.

He starts with the most obvious, the commandment not to covet. This is of course, as we all know, impossible. This goes also for the common argument of, "have you ever lusted?" that some evangelists love so well. If you make the rules impossible of course its impossible to meet the standard. Its a similar situation in Buddhism that I feel Hitchens is remiss in not mentioning. One of the biggest points of the philosophy is overcoming and rejecting all want, which is pretty much impossible.

This is, again, actually a very good chapter with some regrettably big flaws. It could benefit significantly from more research and historical understanding, as well as a broader religious view. While the focus on the most commonly known religions is important to the book's accessability, if your thesis is "religion poisons everything" a better universal case needs to be made.

From here, Hitchens actually segues directly into his next chapter, which is also a favorite topic of Dawkins': Is Religion Child Abuse? Should be an interesting review.

When Writer's Block Sucks...

2009-04-23T12:58:00.001-05:00

I bring you Fashion S.W.A.T!

Mostly I find it amusing to see them glibly mock the teabaggers.

In Reference to my Previous Post

2009-04-22T12:44:00.002-05:00

If we really need an anti-religion acronym for Earth Day I recommend the following:

Eradicating
Any
Recognizable
Theocratic
Hegemony

I think its a lot more amusing that way.

Absurdities in Genesis: Dominion Over the Slag Heap

2009-04-22T09:17:00.006-05:00

Really? Seriously? Do you people have any concept of what Earth day is about? Well, let me educate you a little bit...

We have one planet. Just one. Now, we have systematically since the beginning of the industrial revolution devastated the ecology of our planet, damaging, destroying, or making uninhabitable rivers, lakes, forests, plains, and just about any other ecosystem you can imagine. This disgusting lack of respect for the planet has led to mass deforestation and subsequent desertification.

Your "comic" here serves to illustrate a profound level of ignorance and complete arrogance. You think this is about your God? You, who in your anti-abortion furor claim to promote a "culture of life" are basically promoting the idea that environmentally sustainable living is an affront to your God regardless of how many will die to support your "culture of life". How utterly pompous and self-important.

Let's break it down a bit...

You say that Earth day promotes:

We exist because of the earth: This is undeniable. As stated previously, we have one planet on which to live at our current level of technology. If you can think of somewhere else we can currently exist, give me a call.

The earth is our mother: This is mostly metaphorical, and is, when used literally a bit of a pagan thing. But generally Earth day is populist, not religious.

Celebrate the Earth: Why not? Its where our crops come from, it feeds the animals that we eat in turn... Oh that's right. It doesn't explicitly mention YOUR god. Well, it doesn't explicitly remove your god from the equation either. Whether you believe god gave dominion over the Earth to you or not, if you don't take care of it, its not going to last.

Love the Earth: See above.

Why does it always have to be about your religion? If you stop and think about it for two seconds maybe you'd look less idiotic, but that might be asking a bit much. If you think Earth Day has anything at all to do with your religion positive or negative, you need more of a reality check than even the average YEC wingnut.

Pharyngulation of Ray Comfort Book Possibly Held Off

2009-04-22T08:18:00.004-05:00

Ok. So, my fiance is less than supportive of me destroying a book of any sort, even the garbage of Ray Comfort. Sadly this means that I will either not be destroying God Doesn't Believe in Atheists after I'm done with it, or doing it anyway at somewhat of a relationship cost. I'll probably put up a non-binding poll for that once the current poll is done.

god is not Great Chapter 14: There is no "Eastern" solution

2009-04-21T07:40:00.002-05:00

For the entire book to this point Hitchens has focused almost entirely on the monotheistic traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. At this point he takes the opportunity to try and demonstrate that the eastern religious traditions are no better, particularly targeting Buddhism.

What makes this an interesting chapter is how different Hitchens' focus is in his writing. While discussing the monotheisms he was very harsh (often justifiably) to the doctrines and scriptures as well as the acts of the adherents. This time, however there is basically nil as far as discussions of offensive or questionable doctrines, replaced by what I see as largely exceptions to the rules. Case in point, Hitchens writes about a clearly corrupt Buddhist retreat where the guru was encouraging wealthy attendees to give up their worldly posessions (to "the monastery" of course) and posting a sign saying "Shoes and minds must be left at the gate." Now, to be fair, Buddhism does encourage these things, but not to assuage the greed of its proponents. That will of course never stop the truly enterprising from abusing their flocks and fleecing to their heart's content.

Buddhism also gets quite its share of flak from the Japanese atrocities justified by it in a kind of Imperial cult Mahayana Buddhism. Whether this could be seen as a Buddhist movement creating a nationalistic furor, or a nationalistic furor infecting the local Buddhist sects is largely irrelevant; Buddhism was still used as an encouragement to violence and conquest no less deplorable than the Crusades or any Jihad.

But sadly this is where Hitchens ends the chapter. It would have been interesting had he gone into Confucuanism, or Taoism (having discussed Hinduism with Gandhi), but he doesn't, and that's a bit disappointing to me. He's trying to make a case against religion as a whole, and he targeted three western religions, but in depth thus far only one eastern religion. His coverage of Hinduism is brief and discussed only one man's usage of it. This chapter really could have been much more.

Admittedly, I agree with Hitchens' premise, but I do not think his writing sufficiently represents his goal. I realize it is nearly impossible to sufficiently cover every possible religion available, but in this case, more should have been done to paint a broader, if still imperfect picture.

Ray Comfort Review

2009-04-20T12:11:00.002-05:00

So, its very much looking like, with about half the votes and only a week left on the poll that I will be reviewing Ray Comfort next. If anyone here reading has a copy they would either sell cheap or lend, I will happily pay for shipping. I would just like to see if there are any copies used before I let any of my hard earned money go to Living Waters.

That said, you never know how things can change in a week, but I am planning ahead.

god is not Great Chapter 13: Does Religion Make People Behave?

2009-04-20T09:57:00.005-05:00

As is fairly obvious fromt he chapter title Hitchens this time discusses the issue of morality in relation to religion. Of course, anyone reading this is likely to already agree with Mr Hitchens that religion does not incite morality. Hitchens makes a very good case against the morality of religion in this chapter, and it is probably his strongest argument.

He uses this chapter to discuss several personages and groups as examples in support of his thesis. Dr. Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, the Christian, but Muslim backed LRA, and the Rwandan genocide's catholic supporters.

In the cases of the individuals he shows that their good acts were never founded on religion so much as raw morality, and particularly in the example of Dr. King how the religious allusions he used were from a religion that in innumerable instances had been used textually to oppose exactly what his goals were. This of course creates an inconsistency wherein the religion cannot be right on all sides, and someone is immoral either way.

He exposes Gandhi as a hypocrite in his passifism, feeling somewhat justly that he was perfectly content to let the Japanese do his fighting for him. At the same time Gandhi's efforts to keep India village based, and his status as a Hindu Mahatma directly hurt the ability for India to remain one nation after the British occupation ended. It seems a good argument from Hitchens that religion has a tendancy to color our morality and often make things acceptable that normally would not be, including slavery, inquisition, torture, and murder.

Perhaps the nastiest case he discusses is the genocide in Rwanda where, while the Vatican was likley not complicit, the Catholic population and clergy had served as aiders and abetters to horrific genocide.

It is of course important to note that Hitchens does not make the argument that relgions do not do any good. He does however heavily lean to imply that they don't do any good that could not, or would not, be done without them. And there I certainly agree with him. One of religion's most powerful aspects is by far its ability to take perfectly good people and make them capable of the atrocious.

Perhaps my favorite recounting of Hitchens in this chapter, and maybe the most telling was his brief discussion of a debate between A.J Ayer and a Bishop Butler where after a comment of Ayer's notes he sees no good reason to believe in god the bishop replies that he could not see why ayer did not lead a life of "undridled immorality." This of course speaks volumes about how this bishop feels he would act did he not believe in god, and says nothing that makes Ayer in any way immoral by fiat.

To ExpatMatt

2009-04-17T14:57:00.002-05:00

Remember this guy? You really pissed him off. Must be the thinnest skinned evangelical I've ever seen on teh intarwebz

Yeshua Was Not a Capitalist

2009-04-17T09:41:00.003-05:00

In the last few weeks I've been absolutely boggled by the number of Christians complaining about the Obama tax plan. I understand the rich whining about having to pay more taxes, but the largest percentage of the people bitching in this astroturf roots campaign are either not affected by the tax plan, or helped by it. And really, do these so-called Christians even know their own myths? Does "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" sound familiar to any of them? Does the fact that it was basically Yeshua telling people that they should pay their taxes even register?

Apparently not.

I recently listened to an evangelical broadcast saying that Christians support this so they have more money because Christians with more money are more effective witnesses. I must have done a triple take. Soooo... becoming wealthy is an absolute plus in the religion subscribing to the guy who said (paraphrased) "Give up all your worldly riches and follow me." And he meant it literally.

You can argue ephemerally that it is your God given right to be a capitalist, or to do as you like. According to you, God gave you free will, and the option to do as you like. That said, don't pretend that God told you that you should become wealthy and serve him, or that God favors Capitalism. This is a relic of the cold war mentality, and completely without merit In your own scriptures.

If anything, Yeshua was a socialist.

Linkage!

2009-04-16T12:42:00.002-05:00

This is just a plug to check out Wonkette's coverage of the "teabagging" yesterday. The commentary is excelletn.

Arrogant Atheists Indeed

2009-04-16T09:43:00.002-05:00

Atheists, probably more than any other demographic, get tarred with the epithet of arrogance. Its no mystery why this is the case, particularly with such outspoken famous atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who are so unapologetically atheistic (or antitheistic in Hitchens' case) that their confidence comes across as arrogance to those who do not share their views. Their being British doesn't help them in the States as British people are regrettably already too often smeared with an unjust label of intellectual snobbery.

But let's look at the bigger picture on rality. Atheism is a skeptical view at its heart. Atheists (at least intelligent atheists) do not claim a perfect knowledge of any of the following:

1: Is there a god and/or gods?
2: What Caused the Universe to Spring Into Being?
3: What Happens After We Die?

Atheists try and answer as best we can, and to that end we end up with plenty of "likely's" "probably's" and "I thinks" which is in stark contrast to the surety of the monotheists who claim to -know-. Now, this is not universal. Many monotheists simply claim it is what they believe, and hedge in many of the same ways as we atheists do. But the ones who claim to know, like Ray Comfort for example, are all too willing to call atheists arrogant (or insane*) for what we know to the best of our ability through reasoning and science, while they claim to know with absolute surety on the basis of their own personal convictions and no real evidence outside of a highly flawed book dating anywhere from 1400-2500 years ago (pick your poison).

And we're the arrogant ones. Ok, right, gotcha. There area arrogant people on all sides of the fence and in all walks of life. But when it comes to theological views (or lakc thereof) it certainly isn't the atheists whose beliefs are on their own arrogant. The only reason the theists consider it arrogant is because it offends their religious sensibilities that we not only don't believe in their sky daddy, but are loud about it, and proud of our atheism. I guess when you have a good argument it can seem arrogant.

*Dawkins has certainly said the same of theists, so this doesn't really offend me, but the theist grounding for such an assertion is so weak that it is basically laughable.

A Bit About Me

2009-04-15T08:47:00.002-05:00

I realized when i wrote my reveiew of ginG chapter 11 that I pretty much never talk about who I am here, but I guess i probably should, to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from when it comes to atheism and religion.

For the basics I was raised, as I have stated previously, in a Mormon household. That said, it was not terribly cultic as far as things go. While many of the doctrines were in force our family was overall pretty lax when it came to the prohibitions on caffeiene and such (alcohol was a huge no though). We were a convert family, so its not terribly odd that we were never really perfectly adapted to that lifestyle or the amount of indoctrination that some were.

Anyhow, it was an interesting way growing up. I can honestly say that for quite some time I actually believed pretty much everything that was said about Joseph Smith, the history of the church, and whatnot. It was ironically their intense teenage indoctrination program, which they call "seminary" that broke me of the spell. Seminary was basically 4 years of deep scriptural study with a preapproved church curriculum.

In addition to being a Mormon, I was also a history nut, and too many things in the Book of Mormon just didn't work. The main one that tipped me off was mention of Horses in the Americas B.C.E. From there it was just downhill, andby the time I turned 16 I didn't really believe in all the crap anymore, and shifted away into an agnostic/deist stance for awhile, and "came out" to my parents about my agnosticism the month before I turned 18. Going to university changed my perspective even more, and after a brief stint of disingenous paganism and pantheism I went full on Atheist. Having throughly researched history I'd realized that my pantheism was only half right; religions were all equal, they were just equally false.

From there I somewhat lost interest in religion until I picked up The God Delusion last November, and since then the entire subject of positive atheism and active, "out" atheism has drawn me in, and I've been going ever since. And now we're here.

I know, pretty dull stuff, but if anyone has any quesitons about mormonism or anything else up here, feel free to ask!

The Pirates of Penz... err Somalia

2009-04-14T08:41:00.002-05:00

I'm sure we're all fairly well aware of these guys by now, but I feel the need to explain something because I've been hearing this shit on right wing wacko radio for the past week almost.

Pirates are not terrorists.

Yeah, they're unsavory, they do terrible things to people, steal cargo, ships and pretty much do whatever they want, but that doesn't make them terrorists, and here's why: they aren't motivated by intimidation, but by profit. Islamofascist terrorists are motivated by intimidation, religious furor, and often martyrdom. So a terrorist wants to fuck you up to cow us, a pirate wants to fuck you up because you have shit he wants. That said, a pirate sure as hell plans on walking away from his job with his ill gotten gain, a terrorist may or may not.

People need to get this through their skulls, because labelling every enemy who is not an official nation a terrorist is both foolish and inaccurate. Now, I have no problem with having similar policies for dealing with pirates as terrorists, but in all seriousness you aren't going to see a pirate come over and suicide bomb a school. By labelling pirates terrorists we are assigning to them an ideology and objective they most likely do not subscribe to.

Oh wait, that's right. I'm talking about right wingers. Good luck on getting through their thick skulls

god is not Great chapter 12: How Religions End

2009-04-14T07:51:00.002-05:00

The title of Chapter 12 is actually a bit misleading. While it does discuss the rise and fall of a specific movement within Judaism, it could hardly be considered indicative of how religions (in a general sense) end.

Hitchens chooses Sabbatai Sevi as his subject. To those not familiar with him, Sevi was a mid-seventeenth century candidate to be the Jewish messiah. He had a large backing from people as well as Jewish religious figures, but in the end was imprisoned and forced to either convert to Islam or die (guess which he picked), and left Jerusalem never to return, dying in relative obscurity. Hitchens declares "So the Sabbatai Sevi religion came to an end," but that's not entirely honest in my opinion.

Yes, Sevi failed spectacularly in converting to Islam, and by extension he was clearly no messiah for the Jews. That said, however it was not an end to Messianic Judaism by any means, and calling Sabbatai Sevi a religion is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. What Sevi is a very good example of is how easily myths arise around a messianic archetype both within their lifetime and shortly after. Miracles were attributed to him, supposed eye witnesses vouched for him, and he had no shortage of followers. If his Muslim captors hadn't been as wise to history and the power of martyrdom as they were, we very likely could still be hearing about Sabbatai Sevi today. The parallels of him to Yeshua up until his conversion to Islam are that Stark.

All in all, it was an extremely short (4 pages) chapter that sadly didn't set out to show what it said it did. It is so far, probably Hitchens' weakest showing.

god is not Great chapter 11: Religion's Corrupt Beginnings

2009-04-13T10:15:00.003-05:00

Interestingly, halfway through the book we get to the origin of religion and the problems that spring from it. In all, this chapter was very telling, and struck a chord with me in particular because it discussed my own erstwhile denomination, the Mormon church. Additionally in this chapter he discusses two other modern religious phenomena, those being the Pentecostal Marjoe, and the "Cargo Cults" of Melanesia.

Anyone who has read The God Delusion should already be familiar with the ideas of the cargo cults and the ease in which religions can create themselves in the right situations. Hitchens demonstrates how easily in this case primitive superstitions and a simple lack of understanding regarding how something works can even over a short amount of time result in a full blown religion around such. What is terribly striking about this, of course, is the difficulty it takes for them to give up that belief once it has been shown to be a fraud, which Hitchens rightly points out, and is certainly telling as far as other, more mainstream religions are concerned. The age of thsoe religions may make their beginnings less transparent and certainly a bit more mysterious, but that doesn't mean, by any account that there is some real difference between them in their initial formation.

Hitchens next addresses the issue of Marjoe, the Pentacostal youth who was abused into preaching by age four. Hitchens goes on to explain that he finally rebelled and even later showed exactly how miracles and such are created for the unwitting observers. Its an obvious case of group encouraged delusion when the preacher admittedly knows its a fraud and demonstrates its a fraud, but people believe anyway, mostly because they want to. Marjoe is a case of showing how the charismatic movements in Christianity are absolutely corrupt, and despite even one of their own showing how its done publicly and on film they still prosper and profit off the donations of ill informed dupes.

Then, of course, Hitchens addresses the Mormons. The demonstrably man-made Book of Mormon has spawned a religion spanning the world and around ten million followers. Joseph Smith, the founder, was as most know, a polygamist as well as a con-man from his youth, but apparently was a good enough con-man to get people to believe his religion despite its obvious flaws, and his previous criminal convictions.

The benefits to Smith are obvious. He got tithing money for doing essentially nothing other than reinforcing the religious propaganda he started, and making a strict social structure with him at the top. He got multiple wives due to his so-called "revelations" from God, much to the consternation of his first wife Emma. Smith even referred to himself as a new Muhammed, showing a great cunning and understanding of exactly what his intent was from the outset.

All in all the Mormon section of the chapter packs the greatest punch as well as the most pages. And its easy to see why. Of all the religions that have arisen in modern times perhaps only scientology could lay claim to greater corruption and transparent falsehood. That said, while Hitchens does demonstrate ways in which religious movements arise, he doesn't demonstrate a universally binding necessity for corruption.

This is of course the problem with the really hisorical religions, like Judaism and Christianity where we cannot pin a single founder, and lack a good history of the events surrounding the rise. Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam suffer from the same issues in criticism.

All said, the chapter supports the hypothesis that religions are parasitic, but whether they poison everything by their very existence may be a bit of a stretch.

Buona Pasqua?

2009-04-12T17:58:00.002-05:00

I realize there's alot that could be said about today's particular religious trappings and history, but each time I try and write something it seems trite and insignificant next to the body of work on the subject. That said, I'd just like to wish all my fellow skeptics and atheists a Happy Zombie Jesus day. Hopefully I'll be able to think of something really worth saying tonight.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

2009-04-10T10:33:00.003-05:00

Apparently this has been around for a couple of years, but is new to me. Seriously though. Couldn't think of anything more original? Its pretty much an exact imitation of the Atheist Out Campaign. It smacks of despair, and a lack of creativity. And lets be honest, the Out Campaign really isn't that "creative" to begin with, but at least it was the original.

Like being an "out" Christian is an oddity anywhere in the English speaking world to begin with.

god is not Great Chapter 10: The Tawdriness of the Miraculous

2009-04-10T08:07:00.002-05:00

Chapter 10 as the name implies discusses miracles and their decreasing effect on the views of people over time. Overall, this is really nothing that any of us don't already know as rational modern people, so I expect it won't be a terribly long review this time.

Thankfully Hitchens early on defines what would be viewed as a miracle calling it "a disturbance or interruption in the expected and established course of things." This is about as fair of a definition of a miracle as one could probably come up with.

To explain his title regarding miracles being "tawdry" he discusses the typeds of people who have debunked miracle workers and magicians using laboratory conditions such as James Randi. This serves for Hitchens as a segway into criticising the sources reporting miracles, particularly the New Testament wherein he explains the problems in the miracle narratives, as well as demonstrating via Bart Ehrman's work there is significant evidence of the greatest miracles (i.e resurrection) being added well after the initial writing. All in all, once again, things all skeptics and atheists are fairly familiar with, and among the many things that make us non-believers to begin with.

Once again the part that is most interesting comes from Hitchens' personal reports and experiences. His anecdotes this time come from his experiences regarding Mother Teresa. He opens the section with an old miracle associated with her which was shown to just be a matter of film choice, and not deific preference, and then he goes on to discuss when he took position of Devil's Advocate against Mother Teresa's beatification.

This I found personally fascinating as he showed how willing people are to believe in miracles despite all evidence that something was natural; the film incident, or even more stark the recovery of a patient from tuburculosis and an uteran growth which had greater claim to the doctor's skill than divine intercession via Mother Teresa. Despite this, the subject swore up and down that it was a miracle, not medicine that had saved her.

Overall, this chapter was a bit of a reality check for the faithful, but just an amusing read for the skeptic.

For the Right Wingers...

2009-04-09T09:32:00.004-05:00

Ok guys, lets have a lesson as to why this is ridiculous. Other than the fact that the source is WND of course.

Now, let's talk history. The Declaration of Independence, being one of the founding documents of the United States, is held in high esteem on these shores as a message of freedom from tyranny, combatting taxation without representation, and a declaration of war against our erstwhile parent state. That said, the DoI cannot be repealed or negated by any act less than directly and abjectly becoming subjects under the British crown. Even then, technically the DoI as far as in legal force has never existed, and the wars which it began have been considered resolved as of the end of the War of 1812. You know. 200 years ago.

Remember, the constitution guarantees no such thing as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," or any such thing in so broad terms. It guarantees specific rights and freedoms to citizens of this nation. None of which are corporate. None of which guarantee that international oversight will never be necessary. This is of course not to mention that the DoI was written at a time when the concept of our current global economy wasn't even a blip on the radar.

And even if the Declaration of Independence were a legal document, I think most of you right wing nutters would be even more unhappy. Life as a right? Well, there goes the death penalty you're so fond of. Liberty? Can't have prisons can we? Pursuit of Happiness? I guess rape and murder and various horrible things (like *gasp* gay marriage) would be ok as long as it would make you happy.

Aren't we all glad for what the Declaration was? It was a declaration of independence from Great Britain. That's it. Perhaps you remember reading about a war regarding that document. Yes, the phrasing was beautifully Lockeian, and it was powerfully written, but its still just a declaration of war with no legal precedent setting power.

And while we're at it, what the hell is with the tea party crap? Do you even understand what the boston tea party was about? Do you understand what kinds of injustice it was a response to? Unrepresented taxation and a willingness to turn on the people violently with tyrannical force. This was not an elected government like we have today. Legitimately and legally put in place by the people. Pretending these two situations are even comparable is not just a mockery of our history, but a descent of this country into a gross self parody. Let's close with an Image comparison:

This, is the Boston Tea Party:

This, is how you guys look by comparison:

Any Questions?

Glad Nobody Considers them a Real News Source

2009-04-08T15:29:00.003-05:00

And here I thought Worldnet Daily was already scraping the bottom of the barrel for their contributors what with Chuck Norris and all. Those guys sure proved me wrong.

As a completely silly aside: The picture of Savage on that article makes me think he's going to be begging me for change on the street.

god is not Great Chapter 9: The Koran is Borrowed

2009-04-08T09:20:00.003-05:00

After a bit too long of a break due to losing track of my copy of god is not Great I'm back to reveiw chapter 9 taking me up to about halfway through the book. This time we look at what Hitchens describes as both "the most and the least interesting of the world's monotheisms."

Hitchens, in his usual style, beigns by targeting the weakest points of Islam. He alludes to the previous two chapters in noting that because of how much Islam borrowed from its elder siblings, the failure of them to be valid contributes directly to a failure of Islam. He even goes so far as to compare the supposed annunciations of the virgin Mary and Muhammed specifically as both "unverifiable and unfalsifiable."

An interesting comparison Hitchens makes is between the resistance of all three of these monotheistic traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to having their scriptures translated into the common languages of various nations. The Torah by tradition is still hand written almost exclusively in Hebrew when for liturgical use(although Hitchens notes that many, if not most, of the rituals have been abandoned) the Koran is still considered only correct in Arabic. The only one of these three that has broken out of the linguistic stasis is the Christian scripture, and the largest denomination, Roman Catholicism, only stopped doing Latin exclusively in the 1960's.

He provides an amusing anecdote of a discussion he had with someone in Washington DC where a man bemoaned the fundamentalist muslims who were (and still are) vexing the US. Hitchens gave his explanations and noted there was more proof for Muhammed than Jesus, and his acquaintance threatened him with violence.

Whether the story is true or not (and I don't see hwy he would make it up), it does illustrate well how touchy religion is. Islam in particular is reactive and much too often violent. It was born in violence, and thirved on conquest for the first few centuries of its existence after all. But if a Christian cannot withold threat of violence in defense of his own faith, how could he not expect the same of a believer in another faith?

Our author does make one claim that is of probably the most importance in the entire chapter: All three books, the Tanakh/Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran each have one common problem, that being that they were all penned significantly after the events they allude to take place, or, in the case of the Koran, significantly after they were said to have been recited. By this problem, none of the three have a good claim of authority. Each makes some claim to the divine, but none have the hard evidence needed to prove it. The Christians claim eyewitness writers of the gospels, but they were written decades after the events, and the claims of apostolic authorship are dubious at best. The Jewish scriptures claim to discuss events from well before they were written, and the evidence for their original writing dates indicates likely centuries after when they claim. The koran, worst of all three, claims it was passed on perfectly orally before finally being written down.

He concludes the chapter discussing how religions like Islam stifle inquiry regarding the religion itself, particular in these days of much greater scientific understanding where we can examine the claims more accurately. Hithens posits that this is most likely a fear of being proven wrong, which would be insurmountably detrimental to the faith.

All said, it was an interesting chapter. Perhaps his best of the three holy book chapters. He supports his thesis well, and makes many good points. All in all it was quite worth reading.

Playing With Matches Around a Straw Man

2009-04-07T10:53:00.005-05:00

Ok... what part of this is satire, and not just blatantly idiotic?It lacks understanding of the scientific method and how peer review works. Satire exposes something and is either ironic or sarcastic. This is just sarcastic hyperbole.

"Please note that this evidence is conclusive because it is going to be published in a scientific journal which is always 100% accurate."

Seriously? You think we believe that scientific journals are 100% accurate all the time? Hate to break it to you, but we all know very well that science makes mistakes. So let's try this from the reverse perspective, simply because I think we know which case is stronger.

I found a dinosaur bone. After long hours of analysis, fact checking, and reading my bible I came up with some fascinating conclusions!

Firstly, of course, I wanted to date the bones to find out how old the fossils I was dealing with are. Well, I ran some tests, and wow, guess what? The dating method said the fossils were at least 65 million years old. But then i thought to myself, no way. That's not possible. The earth is only 6 thousand years old, so I revised the dates, and decided there must have been something in the great flood that caused the apparent age to be much greater. So with estimates modified, i found the fossil was still amazingly about 5800 years old! Fantastic, its almost as old as the Garden of Eden!

Secondly, I examined the DNA of the fossil to analyze it further and found that it had DNA remarkably similar to our own! Clear proof that God designed all his creatures from a similar base. That makes total sense. So much more than common descent!

Finally, looking at the bones i couldn't determine a cause of death. I found this perplexing, but then realized it must have died in the flood. How fortuitous to find such amazing proof of the deluge. Why else would it be bured like that? No possible way could it have been because of thousands of years of sediment and tectonics andbuilding layers on layers. That's absurd.

Also, please note that this is all completely reliable because it fits within biblical interpretations of reality. I even got it posted on AiG! Also, don't worry. If any parts of the bible are contradictory its ok, because God is infallible and there has to be a reasonable explanation why it doesn't fit with actual history.

Wow. Isn't building straw men fun?

PZ Scarred My Brain

2009-04-07T08:35:00.001-05:00

with this.

I'm tempted to see about getting a copy of this, just to see how bad it is.

Absurdities In Genesis: Oversimplification

2009-04-06T14:52:00.004-05:00

So, it's looking like I'm sort of making this a regular series here, but its always interesting to see what ridiculous crap is coming out of AiG or other denialist websites. That said, its a column I kinda like doing, so will probably keep doing it until I get bored. I don't plan to focus on their articles so much as the randomly ridiculous. There are much better refutations of their articles from people far more qualified. That said, I bring you idiocy!

Does this even remotely resemble the development of modern Easter celebrations? Not remotely. AiG, or whoever does their poor comics seems to think that the celebration of Easter is based on Christianity, and not the Pagan Eostre from which the name Easter is taken. It demonstrates a lack of understanding how the fusion in Anglo-Saxon culture and European Christian culture fused.

Surely there has been a gradual shift away from the solemness of either tradition, but the cartoon itself is neglecting the primary tradition that led to its final image, as well as all the celebratory traditions that the Christian church assimilated and adapted. It is entirely disingenous, and frighteningly ignorant, not to mention that it is (once again) being foisted upon children.

This is also of course a lack of understanding as to what devolution would be. This is, in fact evolution of an idea and the culture. Evolution does not mean "better"; even if evolution did mean unilateral improvement it would not necessarily mean what one demographic wants. Now, in theory devoltution would mean reverting to a preivous state. So, wouldn't that mean full on pagan worship as opposed to a fusion of the Christian and Pagan praxes? Of course, using their definition, I'd consider that Evolution.

Should Have Said Earlier

2009-04-06T12:06:00.003-05:00

Anyone interested in continuing where I left off and lambasting the moron, his rather rarely used blog can be found here. I don't expect many if any will take it up, since he's just a really smalltime Comfort Clone, but hey, if you want to slam against a brick wall, be my guest!

Weekly Poll Reminder

2009-04-06T10:20:00.002-05:00

Just a reminder, particularly for those who may be new readers. Please vote in the poll for what I'll read/review next. As is, its pretty heavily in favor of Ray Comfort with over half the votes. Still quite a bit of time left though, so we'll see how it bears out.

A discussion I've been having...

2009-04-05T01:56:00.002-05:00

Complete tool posts:

If God really does exist and He created hell as home for sinners, then can you afford to be wrong about whether or not you will end up there? If one person believes in God and that He created hell as a home for sinners and is therefore terrified over the possibility of ending up there, and another person does not believe in God or hell and therefore lives comfortably, how can you tell which one is correct? Can you afford to be wrong? If God does exist and created hell as the destination for sinners, then not believing in Him or in hell has absolutely no effect on their existence. What if you are wrong? If a Christian is wrong, then they are wrong for their lifetime but if an atheist is wrong, then they are wrong for eternity. Are you willing to make that gamble? Are you willing to challenge the Creator of the Universe? Is it easier to believe that nothing created everything or that creation must have had a creator? You know that your house exists, it is a building and must have had a builder. Perhaps you were that builder. You know that the cars on the road exist, they too had a creator, Ford/Chevy/Dodge/Honda/etc. You know that sun exists, you can feel its warmth and see its light every day, it too was created. So is it really so hard to believe that God created everything? You know the answer.

I reasonably reply countering the standard absurdities of Pascal's wager:

Pascal's wager has never been a good case.

First of all, you have narrowed things down to only two possibilities ignoring all others. This is what is known as a false dilemma. What if the muslims are right? A muslim could present the exact same argument to you and you would think it absurd, would you not? But according to them you would be going to hell. Can you really afford that risk? Of course you can.

And this could go for any religion. Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Norse traditional, Roman pantheistic. In the end why is it your deity, of all those that have ever been created by man that would have to be right? WE skeptics and atheists believe that because there is no good evidence of deity, let alone the identity of which if any exist, why should we worship or follow any? If it is a just God then infinite punishment for temporal crimes is not reasonable, which makes an eternal Hell that much less believeable.

I have listened to and read many apologetics, but Pascal's wager is extremely weak. I would recommend building a foundation on something much more substantial than threat and intimidation, which believe it or not is exactly what the threat of hell is.

He irrelevantly retorts:

The "threat" of hell is a warning, much like road signs, it is meant to keep you from harm. I can think of no greater harm then to spend eternity seperated from all that is good. You can choose to ignore the warning signs and continue on your way, but sooner or later it will be too late and you fall off the cliff. So my question remains. How long are you willing to ignore the warnings? There was a man once who, during a massive flood, climbed up on his roof and decided to wait for a God to rescue him. After a short while, a boat came by and the occupants asked the man to come and join them and be safe from the flood. The man refused, saying that he was trusting God to save him and they went on by. After some more time passed, and the water has raised even higher, another boat happened by and again the occupants urged the man to join them and escape the flood. Again the man refused, insisting that God would save him. By now the water was almost over the roof and the man was getting nervous. Suddenly a helicopter came along but the man still refused to be rescued because he thought he would know when God would save him and a short time later, the man drowned. When he stood before the Lord, he asked, why did you not come and save me? The Lord answered, I sent you two boats and a helicopter, why did you not trust Me?

Eternal Critic said: If a muslim presented the same argument to you, you think it absurd would you not? and If it is a just God, then eternal punishment for temporal crimes is not reasonable which makes an eternal hell that much less believable.

First off, I would be completely contradicting my faith and message if I agreed with you and I do not agree. The message itself is valid and powerful no matter who presents it. Even for muslims, it is those who do not honor and worship God who are the infidels bound for hell. They honor and respect Christians and Jews, at least those who trully follow the Qu'ran and not the extremists who pervert it. My beliefs may differ slightly but I will still be going to heaven because I trust in and follow God.
Secondly, it is exactly because God is holy and just that He must punish sin and make no differenciation of it. Sin is sin and it must be punished. If you go before a judge, convicted of a crime and you say to the judge, jusdge, I know I have been found guilty but since you are a good and fair judge, I believe you should let me go, being that you are so good and fair. What do you suppose that judge would say to you? They might give a slight chuckle but they would likely say, "because I am a good and fair judge, I cannot let you go free. I must see that justice is served and if I let you go free it would show me to be corrupt." And that is based on our standards. God holds much higher standards than that because He is perfectly Holy and Just. You can claim that His ways are unfair and unreasonable all you want but it makes no difference. We are without excuse and will all have to face Him on judgment day, where He will test even our thoughts and seperate the goats from the lambs.

I reply once again:

You actually completely ignored the important part of the question. If a Muslim presented you with the argument: "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet. If you do not accept this and follow the tenets of Islam and submit to Allah's will you will be damned for eternity in Jahannam. If you do accept this you could spend all eternity in a heavenly paradise. What have you got to lose? If you choose not to believe, and are right, you lose nothing, but if wrong you lose everything! If you believe in Allah and his prophet and are wrong you lose nothing, but if you are right gain everything.

This is the exact same argument put from a Muslim's perspective. And because I know you won't accept that argument, why do you think someone should accept yours other than because that's what -you- believe? I'm not sure who taught you about Islam, but there is no ambiguity in Islam that you would be going to hell for not being a believer.

As for your claims of fair judgement you again avoid the actual question. How does one make eternal judgement on temporal crimes? If I stole a tee-shirt (random example) I would be punished based on the severity of the crime. If I steal a car, my punishment will be summarily more severe. Why would it be just to jusge a petty thief the same for all eternity as (forgive my Godwin) Hitler. Or, that being switched around, why should a great philanthropist who has contributed to the benefit of mankind and done many good works and little wrong (nobody being perfect) be punished for all time solely on not believing in something he has no good evidence for while a serial murderer in prison for multiple life sentences should be saved on the basis of one single belief in an ephemeral, unproven concept. If that's justice, any crime should be a capital crime punishable by execution.

He once again replies, hypocritcally this time, sure to point out that he is not a hypocrite despite the obvious hypocrisy of claiming Pascal's wager is gold for Christians but BS for Muslims:

In regards to Eternal Critic's comments: That is not what you said originally since you mentioned nothing of Allah or Muhammad which actually was not the basis of my original post to begin with. I will reitterate that if I rejected my argument because someone else made it, I would be a hypocrit and my argument invalid. But you are right in that I would not accept the argument as you presented it. As for your argument about fair judgment I would remind you to stop insisting on your own ideas about is fair. Sin is sin and has no place in the presence of God. HE does not tolerate sin no matter how small WE think it is, and no matter how unjust WE feel HE is. He is Holy and just and will punish ALL sin. As humans, we make our own judgments about making the punishment fit the crime but WE ARE NOT GOD!! He also gave us a precious free gift in that Christ died to take our punishment for us so that we would not have to spend eternity in hell seperated from HIM! This is GRACE and it is given to us by FAITH through CHRIST alone and not by works that any may boast but a free gift from God.
Think of it this way, if I am convicted of murdering someone for instance. The evidence is irrefutable and the case has been tried and I am found guilty. I know that I am guilty and so did the jury. The judge asks me if I have any last words before he passes my sentance. In a last ditch effect to appeal to his goodness, I say "judge, I know you to be a good and fair judge and I believe that because of that you should let me go since I have learned my lesson and it will never happen again. You are so good and fair so I think you will agree that I should be allowed to go free as this would show how good and fair you are. How do think that judge would respond? They would probably laugh at such audacity and then make it perfectly clear that it is because they are good and fair that they must see justice served. They would be corrupt if they let anyone go unpunished if they were guilty. The world seems to think that God is TOO GOOD to punish them for their sins but is exactly this,God's goodness, that will condemn them. Sin must be punished and the punishment is seperation in hell for eternity. Apart from trusting and following Christ as savior there is no escaping that punishment. But since Christ became that punishment for us and defeated death, we can go free in Him for He loved us so much.

Finally I give up, since this guy is clearly an idiot lacking any ability to reason.

Opine Silence

2009-04-04T11:10:00.002-05:00

Interesting how quiet Opine Editorials has been about the whole Iowa deal. They must still be in a state of shock. I know -I'm- terribly amused by their silence.

Just a link this time

2009-04-03T16:22:00.002-05:00

PZ Myers, still full of win.

Absurdities in Genesis Redux

2009-04-03T12:53:00.005-05:00

You too can take your family on a creationist vacation!

"Deuteronomy 6:7 tells us we are to talk about God's Word everywhere we go. Vacations should be no exception. Opportunities to see and explore God's amazing creation abound, whether at a national park, a Christian-themed venue, or a natural history museum. Places with secular propaganda can easily be turned into learning opportunities, as we learn to separate truth from error. With some preparation, you and your family can enjoy a purpose-filled vacation as you gain a better appreciation for the Creator who made all things."

But let us look into this even deeper. I know we -all- want to obnoxiously chatter about Gawd all the time. Because who doesn't want to hear about the Word!? Well, according to Answers in Genesis(see map and list), apparently only people not living in two out of seven continents! You mean there's no creationist sites anywhere outside of the North America, Britain, an two locations off those continents? You can't even get a creationist friendly site in the middle east. This has to be the only group of fundy loonies that doesn't try and sell people on trips to Israel.

But here's the really fucked up part. Most of these sites are great sites. For rationalists and scientific minded people. La Brea tar pits for example are pretty amazing. But could you go anywhere that shows the age of this world more? Perhaps the Grand Canyon. But seriously, these guys never cease to amaze me with what they pull out of their collective asses.

Presuppositionalist Arguments

2009-04-03T09:02:00.003-05:00

How do people deal with these kinds of arguments for God? I know the arguments are ridiculous because they make far too many assumptions about the necessity of deity, but how does one get that through the thick skull of a presuppositionalist? Or is it better to just ignore them?

Atheism is not Nihilism

2009-04-02T08:15:00.005-05:00

How many times have we atheists heard it said that atheists do not believe in a purpose to life, or in any kind of moral code? In other words, those who so vehemently condemn atheism often believe that atheism and Nietzsche's vision of nihilism are basically the same thing. Here I will outline some key (and obvious) differences between the two "isms."

Nietzsche viewed nihilism primarily as a philosophy of hopelessness, despair, and complete apathy. In my opinion this is an oversimplification of nihilistic philosophy, but a decent rough approximation of some of the adherents of nihilism, and also of how atheists are viewed by many (particularly fundamentalist) theists.

Moral nihilism posits that morality is nonexistent. That there is no inherent good or evil and that actions are personal in nature and reflect individual preference rather than a common value set. Its easy to see where this can be construed as an anarchistic, or apathetic view. The writings go much deeper, but this is the most basic point. Let us compare that with an atheistic view of morality. It is similar, but not the same as the nihilistic one. Atheism is primarily an individualistic philosophy in regards to morality; it does not necessitate a nihilistic world view, neither does it preclude one. An atheist is above all an individual, and morally tend to largely reflect the society that they grew up in. I have often seen legalistic views, as well as views that are focused on the what is best for the society as a whole. That said, there is no defining aspect in atheism that decrees a particular world view.

Existential nihilism is a bit trickier. Existential nihilism at its most basic premise is that life has no purpose. Life is, in and of itself fairly meaningless, and worthless, lacking any inherent value. Here, atheism and nihilism almost always diverge. Atheists mostly believe that life does have value in what we do with it; that what we do in our lives determines its value, and that having only one life, it would be a shame to waste it in apathy or doing nothing of value. Neither philosophy takes a god-given goal for life as granted, but atheism takes its (individualistic) approach towards making the individual life meaningful to society and the world at large.

This view comes largely (in my opinion)from the early 20th century view that nihilism was the opposite of Christianity. By extension the common belief is that atheism, being a rejection of God (vainly assumed to be the Christian God) not only rejects the existence of God, but also rejects anything it stands for i.e morality, charity, etc (ignoring all the terrible things about God we also reject). Yes, atheism rejects the god hypothesis, but does not reject our humanity, ethics, or personal moral principles. This, I think is why so many atheists today like the terms "rationalist" or "free-Thinker"; it separates them from the label that is so commonly used as derogatory.

So, remember. An atheist who is not nihilistic is not one who lays in bed mourning over what a waste life is and how pointless existence is. If we were, we would not have such vocal proponents as we have today, nor would the advancement of science and humanity be such a common goal among us. So remember, while nihilism is almost always atheistic, the reverse is not the norm, or even common.

god is not Great chapter 8: For real this time.

2009-04-01T12:18:00.002-05:00

In chapter 8, as noted in my previous post, Christopher Hitchens addresses the topic of the New Testament, and with it the issues of Christianity. Much like the previous chapter this does all seem somewhat abbreviated, but Hitchens nonetheless makes a good case against the veracity of the book.

The first problem, unsurprisingly is the inconsistencies in the principle documents: the gospels. He notes that they are contradictory on accounts of the virgin birth, the genealogy of Yeshua, the infanticide of Herod, etc. This alone is a huge argument against the truth and reliability of the gospels, but even moreso are historical inaccuracies like the governorship of Quirinius, the lack of evidence for a census; many things were fairly obviously hashed together after the fact to adhere to the Jewish messianic prophecies.

He does address the apocryphal and heretical and gnostic gospels in this chapter, but only briefly, but does make a good point about them. It would would have taken very little in the course of history, particular in the councils deciding what the canon would be, to have a completely different version of Jesus, and having no proof or evidence of who authored any of the texts, none is more reliable than another, especially given inaccuracies.

Later in the chapter he gives a cursory refutation of C.S Lewis' Lord, Lunatic, or Liar false trilemma for the divinity of Jesus.

That said, there's not alot to this chapter to support Hitchens' thesis overall, but he does make a good case against the accuracy of the New Testament. There's not much here to say religion poisons everything, however it gives a good picture at how well grounded the faith is, and how little it has to stand on in reality.

God is not great chapter 8: The New Testament.

2009-04-01T07:51:00.004-05:00

Hitchens in this chapter covers the scriptures which form the basis for the true Christian faith. The most difficult part is that despite his purported upbringing reading the bible Hitchens seems to have no concept whatsoever regarding what He wants from his children.

The obvious truth of the resurrection, the empty tomb story, and all the clear proofs in the gospels that they were inspired and accurate accounts of the events is completely lost on Hitchens, who opts for an insulting and derogatory interpretation of the bible, twisting things out of context to make things seem inconsistent or downright ridiculous.

Do not be fooled! Hitchens is merely a charlatan. He preaches to his anti-theist audience denouncing hell, and calling into question the authority of the canonical gospels. He even brings up the Heretical gospels neglecting to recognize the inspiration of the church fathers who selected the canon with divine guidance. He delves into the heretical Gospel of Judas and even claims it to be MORE credible than the canon.

It is truly a testimony to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that even the best atheists have to offer have such little to defeat our united faith!

Christian Radio, and Why I Listen to it

2009-03-31T09:44:00.003-05:00

In the mornings I fairly regularly listen to my local Christian radio station. Now, this may seem somewhat masochistic of me, and at times it -is- terribly painful to do. That said I have found that it can be an incredibly valuable resource when learning about how they actually think.

Apologists are their own thing. They, mostly, train themselves to fight a completely irrational battle and try to use reason. They really do. Whether it seems that way to us skeptics and non-believers is open to debate, and certainly the individual in question, but by and large the arguments they use can be very persuasive to those who do not have a strong opinion, or are not well educated on the subject at hand.

Regular fundies on the radio are another thing altogether. These guys don't know good arguments, are almost all completely based in the take it one faith camp, and most were raised in their church and have it so deeply ingrained in them that they are implacable. And this makes for some much more interesting listening. I've heard a million apologists, but these guys say what they actually think, and some of the vomit they spew is so laughable as to be very convincing of Dawkins' allegation of delusion.

Take this morning for example. After a mass-broadcast of some Alistair Begg drivel this morning the local announcer made note that (paraphrasing) "We know Jesus was the christ because of the people he touched." I think about that, and the obvious problems are innumerable. What about Muhammed? Or Siddhartha? Both of them touched thousands and their religions have explanded to gross proportions. Wouldn't that make them true?

Clearly this is an example of preaching to the choir, but it is ubiquitous on the Christian radio stations. And people listen to this, and eat it up. They actually discuss things like the "academic freedom" they want in our public schools, and how we live in a Christian nation. They actually believe that what they call the traditional (nuclear) family is not something that's existed in practicality for only roughly a century.

It is more than a bit disturbing, and I encourage others to listen, just to see what they say. Because apologists, Ray Comfort exempted, are generally not condescending, or outright contemptuous towards their opponents, but the rank and file have no such filter, and very little restraint.

The Fine Tuning Argument

2009-03-31T08:02:00.004-05:00

I was over reading Debunking Christianity and came across this particular post.

Generally speaking I like John Loftus. I think he has a lot of good points to make, and his position as a former apologist makes him an ideal candidate for making credible and pointed arguments against the Christian faith. That said I'm not sure why he posted this article, and even less sure why he thinks it makes for good apologetics, let alone sets a standard. All of the listed arguments are fairly standard, commonly debunked or irrelevant, but the one that bugs me most is the fine tuning of the universe argument.

This is a tired argument to most atheists, but it goes basically like this: Any number of factors in our universe are so specific that if they were changed even slightly human life could not exist. This is extremely simplified, but I'm sure you get the gist. Through this reasoning they foolishly assume this means that the universe was designed for human life.

Now, think about that for a minute and you'll surely see what's wrong with that assumption. The base of the assumption itself already assumes creation. By extension of its assumption that the universe was designed for human life, it automatically assumes that humans must have been designed as well. Even beyond that, assuming the environment was designed for the creature as opposed to the creature arising due to its environment is like saying legs were designed to fit pants instead of the opposite. A complete absurdity.

Fine tuning, in my estimation is one of the last refuges of a failing philosophy.

Weekly Poll Reminder

2009-03-30T15:32:00.002-05:00

Any new visitors, please remember to vote in the poll set up. The more input the better, and the more likely interested readers. Currently its looking like I'll be suffering through Ray Comfort. I'm sure any of these choices will be enjoyable froma certain perspective.

God and the US of A

2009-03-30T15:15:00.002-05:00

From time to time, usually from atheist circles we run across what I call nit-picking atheism. The little things, like a nativity scene or "In God we Trust" on the money. Or a lunatic calling The Atheist Experience to complain that a living waters ministry bumper sticker offends him and should be illegal.

Honestly, I couldn't care much less about most of these things. I mean, the pledge of allegiance deal, yeah, I dislike mostly because "under God" was a later addition, but some things really are kind of trivial. "In God We Trust" for example. Its innocuous, trivial, and barely worthy of note. This is in stark contrast to, say, ten commandments displays in court houses, which shows a bias. Money isn't biased in and of itself, only the holders can be.

Would i be sad to see all these things change to perfect adherence to the establishment clause? No, not at all. But do I think its worth fighting about? Not really. I think once Atheism is better known, and not considered by many to be a league of immoral reprobates who hate God, it might be worth addressing some of these things. But really, some of these things are so insignificant that its ridiculous to waste the time of people, oganizations, and the courts about them.

god is not Great chapter 7: Revelation: The Nightmare of the "Old" Testament

2009-03-30T10:15:00.003-05:00

As the chapter name states clearly this chapter discusses the first of the three most widely known and adhered to monotheistic books of scripture, the "Old Testament" or "Tanakh" as it is more properly known in Jewish circles.

If it was not already obvious, Hitchens is very much not a fan. In his debates he commonly targets the cruelties of Yahweh in the times of Moses, Joshua, and pretty much the whole of the time encompassed. That said, cruelties are remarkably not what he focuses on in this chapter, but inconsistencies and what he sees as signs of being a man-made book, and by extension man-made religion. He targets the Ten Commandments early as a sign of it being man-made, as other than the first few commandments, all advancing the primacy of the Jewish God, none of the more legalistic commandments are things that any society has ever had trouble condemning without the bible (i.e theft, murder). This in my analysis somewhat demonstrates that the commands of the biblical God are not unique.

Atheists often have to argue about the issue of morality and whether or not we require a deity to be moral. The fact that not all gods can exist (as some are dogmatically the only one), and all societies have morals and ethics, how could a wrong god provide morals? Clearly god is not a requirement for this. But at this point I digress...

He targets the early Pentateuch the hardest of any section. Most notably he makes sure to show that there is no solid evidence for the Exodus, the 40 year period in the desert, or a "dramatic conquest of the promised land." He demonstrates that archaeology confirms Jewish settlements in the region from thousands of years past, and well before the events of the Exodus story could have taken place.

Probably the most interesting things he targets in the books of Moses is Moses himself. Traditionally the Pentateuch was written by Moses himself. The fact that on many occasions Moses refers to himself in the third person is strange (and in Hitchens' analysis a sign of either alternative authorship or perhaps megalomania), but not conclusive. What more definitively indicates either alternative authorship, or a change in authorship is in the account of Moses' death in Deuteronomy and the use of saying that nobody knows "unto this day," reagarding where moses finally died which I belive Hitchens accurately interprets as indication of a significant passage of time since the actual events, perhaps even centuries. It would also of course be even more obviously onsensical for Moses to be post-mortem discussing a lack of knowledge of Moses' death.

In the end, Hitchens surprisingly, given his record, only notes one instance of massacre at the hands of the Israelites, and the subsequent punishment by Yahweh for letting too many survive.

Oddly enough, Hitchens shows a lot more restraint here than he does in debate. I was personally hoping for more in-depth analysis of biblical problems, but in that respect, which Hitchens knows his bible well, he is not a theologian, and the book is presented to make a simpler point that deep biblical analysis really didn't further.

Ray Comfort and the Straw-Man Version of Evolution

2009-03-27T16:09:00.003-05:00

Please note that I have already replied to this here, but really... how thick can you be Ray?

"You march ahead unchanged, repeating the same falsehoods. I'm not talking about reasonable differences in interpretation, I'm talking about outright misinformation (such as the bizarre idea that male and female have to evolve separately for each species . . . " Euphimist

It’s difficult not to be repetitive with accusations such as the above. But here goes. There are an estimated 1.4 million species on the earth. Each species has both male and female (not counting worms and a few others). Let’s believe that each species did evolve. Let's then zero in on the giraffe. After the big bang, there was a pre-giraffe animal. Millions (perhaps billions) of years pass until today, and now we have a male and female giraffe. Evolutionists believe that the two didn’t evolve separately. Such a thought is "bizarre."

I know that you think I am intellectually slow, so please be patient with me and explain to me in very simple terms where you believe the female giraffe came from, and then explain how and why the other 1.4 million species ended up with both male and female.

I look forward to your comments.

I believe this level of density is sufficient explanation as to why I don't bother posting on Ray's blog myself.

A discussion begun elsewhere

2009-03-27T08:52:00.005-05:00

The Stranger Said:

"What evidence do you find to be the strongest in favor of atheism? Note, NOT what evidence you find strongest against Christianity. I want to find out why you think you have the strongest position not why you think ours is weak."

I replied:

"Well, I'll keep Occam's razor out of it, because I'm sure you won't accept that. However, as is, I see that currently, in the last few centuries the human understanding of the universe has expanded so greatly that I find it implausible that a deity exists. It doesn't matter what deity. We know to an approximate the age of the earth, and how life evolved on the planet exempting abiogenesis, and that I expect we'll have an answer to in my lifetime.
Our science in general has stremlined, and works very well, and none of it requires the assumption of a god to be true. Even the big bang doesn't require deity.
If nothing as best we can reason requires a deity, the most reasonable conclusion is that there is none. Do I have "proof" of no deity? No, of course not. Its unfalsifiable. The same could be said of the Invisible pink Unicorn, or Russell's teapot."

The Stranger Wrote Again:

"Thanks for the information, I really appreciate your candor (as well as your calm manner). Let's view the evidence then. You say that the universe is aptly described by the laws of science so I'll use some laws to prove to you, scientifically, that the existence of God is necessary given our current understanding of the laws.
Before I do so, I'd like to make sure you understand that I'm not against you but for you. And also, as my Rhetoric professor said, "He convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." I'm not trying to convince you, but to persuade you. This entails more than logic but I'll start with logic and go from there.
1. If the universe is truly essential then it has been in existence since eternity past.
2. If the universe has been in existence since eternity past then it has been expending energy constantly.
3. If the first and second law of thermodynamics are true (For reference: First law; matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Second law: In a closed system energy loses heat) then the universe has been a closed system losing heat for this entire time.
4. If the universe were infinitely full of energy then there would be no void of space, only an infinite amount of energy in every particle.
5. The universe has finite energy within an infinite period of time.Therefore, the universe must either be finite or the universe must be getting energy from an infinite source.
Second proof.
1. If the universe is then contingent on an infinite source then this infinite source must influence the universe in more than as a battery.
2. The universe has within it intelligent creatures.
3. There is no recorded instance of non-intelligence provoking intelligence.Therefore, the infinite source is not merely actively sustaining the universe but is also intelligent itself.I look forward to your response."

I replied:

Note: If you wish to continue this, please come over to my blog polyatheistic.blogspot.com . While i appreciate having a gracious host not censoring things, my site is unmoderated, so messages require no approval.

First you make a poor assumption that the universe is essential. We know it had a beginning, therefore whether it is "essential" or not is up to debate.

You have also fallaciously concluded that the universe has infinite energy in order to make your second "proof". Most reputable cosmologists believe the universe will have an end at some point in the very distant future. As a paraphrase, although not a cosmologist, Christopher Hitchens put it quite succinctly with "nothing is the next big thing."

You also make the fallacious conclusion that "There is no recorded instance of non-intelligence provoking intelligence." This is patently false. Clearly mutation and natural selection can provoke intelligence within a species and these processes are not proven to be guided by any higher intelligence.

You're making alot of assertions, and what you need is actual evidence. Beyond that, you cannot prove that such a thing would be a deity. Even were it eternal and intelligent, that doesn't make it an individual or individuals. But then, its not possible to prove it isn't an individual, but I will err on the side of Occam here. A natural process is simpler and does not require an explanation that scientists can never possibly know the answer to. That said you will always come back to "who created the creator?" And saying its eternal is a cop out assertion without evidence of what the creator is, let alone how it exists. "

We'll see if it continues.

god is not Great Chapter 6: Arguments from Design

2009-03-26T09:29:00.003-05:00

Chapter six addresses one of the most common issues that causes division between theists and atheists. This should of course be clarified that it is mostly Young Earth Creationists who tend to make this a problem. The arguments from design, of course, state that certain levels of complexity in the universe, be it in the form of the living cell, a star, an eye, or the fact that conditions in the universe are conducive to life.

These ideas are compelling to some, but do not tend to convince most skeptics, and as Hitchens shows, if somewhat inexpertly, the science does not require the assumption of design. After some anecdotes Hitchens gets to his point starting with the eye, which has long been inaccurately described by YEC's as nearly impossible to have evolved. This is, as Hitchens argues, patently absurd due merely to the obvious evolution that we see in eyes, from planarian eyespots all the way to the most advanced eyes in vertibrates.

In this very section, though, I have to commend Hitchens somewhat as he uses a common creationist quotemine that creationists use against evolution's proponents and turns it around on them exposing it as a fraud:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

He continues the quote thusly:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

It is a common quotemine at this point, and one most atheists know pretty much on sight. But I would argue it is good to have it exposed as mining Darwin is such a common tactic, and was used even as recently as Ben Stein's documentary Expelled in particularly bad taste to link evolution with the Holocaust.

But Hitchens makes further arguments against the design hypothesis by noting how if we are designed it was by a very poor designer, using the eye again as an example citing it is in fact upside down and backwards, which seems quite inefficient.

Something he does later in the chapter is point out a favorite fallacious argument of Ray Comfort, which he seems to think trumps any belief against creation:

"Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
If you answered YES for anyof the above, give details."

Hitchens doesn't go the way I would have here, and instead of exposing the fallacy of comparing things we know were created with something that we have no proof was created he opts to explain that even if something is created it still follows evolution. He uses the examples of aircraft technology evolving gradually through trial and error. I'm not sure I like this example, particularly as at this very same time he declares that "speculation about who designed us to be designers becomes as fruitless and irrelevant as the question of who designed that designer."

He spends much of the rest of the chapter simply discussion the evolutionary theory of those such as Stephen Jay Gould. A bit of discussion of the Cambrian explosion as well as explaining the capriciousness of evolution, including its lack of pointed direction.

All in all, the chapter was interesting and informative, but did suffer from Hitchens' lack of being a scientist, and a tendancy to branch off into tangents.

New Poll

2009-03-25T18:03:00.002-05:00

I'm not even close to finished with god is not Great yet, but I want to plan ahead. If you have any interest in what you'd like to see me take on next, please place a vote. I'm interested in reading any and all of the books listed ont he poll. I don't have a write in at this time, but fully intend to on future polls. Your input is appreciated. If you wish to suggest a book for future consideration just post here in comments.

Thank you for reading!

Extraordinary claims... proof. You know the drill...

2009-03-24T13:03:00.003-05:00

One of the most common things I hear from biblical literalists is how accurate the bible is historically or, how much archaeology backs up the bible etc. etc.

What I don't understand is why people think this is a meaningful thing. We have plenty of evidence backing up many myths, but it doesn't make them any more true. Take for example the Illiad. We know there was a Troy. We know roughly around when it was destroyed. But that doesn't mean we know that Greeks tricked the Trojans with a gigantic wooden horse to get inside their gates, or that during the course of this battle various gods fought on various sides, or anything of the sort.

Compare to Jericho. We know where the ruins of Jericho are. We know it was conquered many times, so it is perfectly plausible that the Israelites did at one point as well. That said, it does not prove that the Israelites walked around the city blowing horns and god made the walls fall down.

That's why historical accuracy does not equal mythological accuracy. That said, however, there are parts of the bible with little to no backing archaeologically and historically. Genesis is a good place to start there, as is Exodus.

My favorite, though, is the book of Daniel, which by modern evidence is far more likely to be maccabean propaganda encouraging the Israelites to keep their faith against the depredations of Antiochus. The book uses various anachronisms and poor knowledge of Babylonian royal lineages, as well as bad dates. Still, there is much evidence for various happenings of the bible, but not any for the extraordinary feats.

This is of course still more than we can say for The New Testament, which is lacking even insofar as historical proof.

Rambling Thoughts

2009-03-24T09:12:00.003-05:00

Sometimes I'm really not sure what's up with this insane country I live in. There's alot to like, there really is. We have some of the best basic rights of any country on the planet, and have been exttremely successful despite the relative youth of the nation. We survived revolution, civil war, and 2 world wars. We survived political scandal and economic depression.

But now?

I'm really not sure the people are willing to do what it takes. We are currently national experiment on Keynsian economics, and I'm really wondering whether it will work. I hope it will, I really do, but I'm not unsure as to whether there was a right choice to make here. And the economy is of course the biggest problem our country is facing right now, but that's far from the only one.

We have delusional members of the right wing who have convinced themselves that Obama is not elligible to be the President of the United States. Now, I would say criticising this is a bit of hypocrisy considering the beginning of Bush II's first term. But I would also argue that Obama actually had a clear victory in his election as opposed to the dubious Supreme court decision that put Bush in power. The divisiveness is becoming a severe albatross around the necks of the nation, and while I believe firmly that dissent is patriotic, stupidity and ignorance are not.

We have two wars going on, of which one (Iraq) was based on lies and misinformation, and one (Afghanistan) which is of dubious current merit.

We let religious religious groups constantly challenge science education and be taken seriously by idiotic legislatures. These same groups want to fight against the rights of homosexuals to marry. Fiddling while Rome burns indeed.

Can we make headway on this? Yes. Will we? I hope so. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and its going to take alot of compromise from all sides of the playing field. Hopefully people will start to do so sooner rather than later, but the "wackaloons" only seem to get louder. And the lowest common denominator tends to hear loud really well.

The Constitution Doesn't Apply to Richard Dawkins?

2009-03-23T14:44:00.007-05:00

Remember, if you're an Atheist and in the bible belt, you may potentially have your right of free speech attacked. By your legislature.

I consistently love just how the crazy creationists are all about "academic freedom" when it comes to crazy ideas like ID, but as soon as it's a vocal, unabashed atheist doing it for evolution and natural selection, suddenly its worthy of wasting government funds in a time of recession to investigate Dawkins, who just happens to have waived his speaking fee for the engagement.

Could it be more asinine? They'll likely waste more money in man hours investigating this than Dawkins' original fee would have been had he actually taken payment. I've no doubt these tools wouldn't lift a finger if William Dembski were speaking, despite his complete incompetence.

My conclusion? They're scared. They are terrified of the change in attitudes in this country towards secularism, and terrified that atheists are not only becoming far more visible in society... but people now listen to them. We're still far from the majority, but this is a minor thing. Atheists have continually become a larger and larger sect of the vocal influential population, particularly in the sciences, and people who don't really understand the science being intolerant of its implications.

As if it wasn't bad enough that Oklahoma legislators tried to issue a verbal condemnation against Dawkins, this is just embarrassing. I'm glad I only live in Texas where they only fire teachers for being Atheists.

god is not Great Chapter 5: The Metaphysical Claims of Religion are False

2009-03-23T08:41:00.005-05:00

Chapter 5 opens with a particularly poignant set of quotes from religious authorities including Aquinas, Ignatius Loyola, and Martin Luther, as well as a brief part of a poem by W.H. Auden. The interesting part about these quotes is their focus on demeaning, or demonizing of reason in comparison to scripture or God.

Hitchens uses these quotes to create a segway into discussion of the roots of metaphysics from a religious standpoint. Hitchens believes, as do many (myself included) that the roots of religion come from early man's inability to explain the world around him. That cosmology and ontology, including creation stories, are simply the result of a great fabrication to come up with the best explanation possible while being completely unable to comprehend the scale of the natural world. Because of the level of understanding we now hold of the world around us, Hithcens speculates that no attempt to bring faith and science to a amiable working relationship is doomed from the outset.

He preempts the usual objection of all the scientists of history, (and today) who are theists, by making sure we understand as a reader that someone like Newton being a brilliant scientist did not make him infallible, and that he was in fact a mystic and alchemist along with being a brilliant scientist.

Indeed, this is in fact a common fallacy that creationists love to bring up more than any other group using Newton and Darwin as examples. They will often point out the theistic beliefs of Newton, or target Darwin as a racist because of the full title of The Origin of Species. It's a twisted appeal to authority that has never really worked except on the dimmest of skeptics. Attacking the attitudes and such of someone says nothing about the accuracy of their science. James Watson, a mapper of the dna molecule is notoriously a racist, but that doesn't make the DNA not a double helix. So it is with Darwin and evolution.

It seems the primary conclusion of Hitchens here that humanity has outgrown the need for a religious cosmology; we now know enough about our universe to be fairly certain that there did not need to be a creator.

This was a short chapter, but I'll close with Hitchens's response to Tertullian's "Credibile est, quia ineptum est,"(I believe it because it is absurd) as I think it one of the best ways I have ever heard faith criticized, and summed up very succinctly. A passage that I believe most theists would agree with, until the second you apply it to their beliefs:

"It is impossible to quarrel seriously with such a view. If one must have faith in order to believe something, or believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth, or value is considerably diminished."

Totally worth posting

2009-03-20T13:02:00.001-05:00

Chick Tract Hitler

Thanks Marty from Rational Wiki

Absurdities in Genesis:

2009-03-20T10:40:00.007-05:00

This is a comic that is listed under "kids" at Answers in Genesis. This site is already infamous among pretty much everyone who does not believe in a literal biblical creation story, and even more in Atheist circles.

This is obviously a particularly flammable straw man representation of any atheist. No atheist who knows his subject would ever argue like this for various reasons I will only go into on this entry if asked. What I really wanted to note was the placement of bigotry in a section marked "kids."

Christians complain all the time that atheists mock their beliefs, misrepresent their arguments etc. This complaint is commonly mirrored from the atheist side, and for good reason both sides are often right here. This kind of misrepresentation though, is exactly why people like Richard Dawkins consider youth religious indoctrination to be child abuse. They are teaching through comics not only a bad argument, but by teaching this bad argument are encouraging the children who read it that Atheists are in fact stupid.

Now, I know we have our comics, and groups, and blogs targeting Christianity, and they almost invariably say we don't understand real Christianity, regardless of the fact that many of us do. The same goes in reverse again, but when you're advertising to children your preconceived bigotries there is a problem. How different is that from a comic saying, say, Christians eat babies, which was then given away in pamphlets to children at a muslim sponsored event? People would be outraged. It would be a scandal. Is it any wonder there is so much bad blood when we train our children from a young age to misrepresent another's position or think of some views as stupid for absurd reasons?

It is one thing for an adult to an audience of adults to reason out why their faith is right or wrong rationally (admittedly i have yet to find any rational explanation for theism), and another entirely to warp their minds in the formative stages. And this goes to both Theists and Atheists.

Let's let our children learn to reason and experience, and then decide for themselves. I have no delusion that this will change anyone's mind, but still, had to say it.

god is not Great Chapter 4: A Note on Health

2009-03-19T18:24:00.003-05:00

Chapter 4, while making more similar points is much more convincing in its delivery. The premise, of course is how religion has had an effect on health. And we're not only looking at individual health, but at health in the world as a whole.

The opening salvo is perhaps its most compelling: the polio vaccine. A vaccine for one of the oldest scourges of mankind. A vaccine that has been reduced in cost to pennies per dose. And, sadly, also a vaccine that has been declared by Muslim authorities to be a conspiracy against Islamic countries by the United States and UN. It could be argued that this is a cultural paranoia, but regardless of that, it is the religious leaders who are spouting this nonsense. With the vaccine as cost efficient as it is, we could easily wipe out polio the same way small pox were. And yet, such is not the case because of fanatical religion. I have to agree with Hitchens on this point, as I can think of no other explanation for why anyone would willingly encourage the promulgation of a debilitating disease. Except through religion. Even in recent times, as in this week, the Pope while in Africa denounced the use of condoms as a protection from HIV.

This is an unacceptable reality of our world. Religion can, and does cause tragedy. This is of course not to say nothing else does, but it does tend to cause them on a much wider scale.

IN discussion of mental health he brings up one particularly common thing in Jerusalem that I think he has mischaracterized. He notes a kind of Messiah syndrome that is a common occurance among the population of Israel where one person will try and proclaim themselves the messiah. He points to this madness as a result of religion but I have to disagree. Not being an expert in psychology I would still posit that this is just a cultural/religious manifestation of delusions of grandeur not so different than someone proclaiming they are Napoleon. This is madness that likely would have manifested in some way regardless of surroundings. The surroundings and culture simply created the form.

Hitchens makes many other more minor points, but the main ones are as noted. Religion can cause horrible problems, but in truth here, he has yet to show why its anything other than deeply indoctrinated fundamentalists that are the real problem.

Thanks PZ

2009-03-19T12:27:00.004-05:00

Taken From Pharyngula

Seriously. Electronic prayer. Could there be anything worse that scammers might put out there to rip-off the religious? I find this concept interesting, but no less corrupt. I mean, does anybody in their right mind believe, even if god were real that he wouldn't give a hearty "WTF mate?" to digitized prayer. I'll give points for ingenuity and comedy value here, but nothing else.

ginG: Review

2009-03-19T08:13:00.003-05:00

I will hopefully be speeding up on my review of god is not Great, but I've been having a hard time finding a chance to really solidly read. I should have chapter 4's analysis up later today.

To Fitz and the People at Opine editorials

2009-03-18T22:27:00.004-05:00

I've read all responses there. The opinion there is too dogmatically closed-minded to be worth discussing any further. Forgive me if I feel it not worth the effort to post there, but I don't wish to give the impression that I enjoy talking to walls. You have all decided that your definition of marriage is the only one worth pursuing despite many different traditions of marriage throughout history.

There have been legitimate polygamous (polyandry in the Himalayas) in relationships that had to do with property rights. There are legitimate historical marriages that are political, as in medieval/renaissance Europe, the Roman Republic/Empire, various middle east tradition. In Heiyan Japan, the promiscuity among the courts both married and not was not only accepted, but expected. Shit, Egyptian nobility, Pharaohs in particular would marry siblings as a matter of course. While i wouldn't advocate that for reasons of genetic disease, it is a fact.

Marriage must evolve with the society. If you want to post this over there, be my guest, but I won't take part in further discussion there. This "one man one woman" garbage, with all your arguments is a weak facade lacking in any real historical impetus to cover up one fact. You are afraid of change and are personally disgusted by homosexuality. Of course, you'll deny your homophobia, but your kind always do.

edit: To those who accuse me of not arguing in good faith, I suggest looking at your own arguments from the other side and realizing how ridiculous and hatemongering they sound if you want to be taken seriously. As for the person who used the old "I won't answer your question until you acknowledge my point" remember that the burden of proof is on you to prove your lame analogy, not me. If you can't demonstrate how on an individual level same sex marriage will damage someone's benefits of marriage on a personal level, your analogy fails. Completely.

Christianity and Why I Focus on it

2009-03-18T08:15:00.009-05:00

Aside from being the prevalent religion in my area of the world Christianity, of all the major world religions (exempting Islam, which is basically the same) has the most repugnant philosophies and doctrines regarding my fate and what I deserve. Let's go through the major religions and see what their doctrines say if I don't follow their "true" path.

Hinduism: If I fail, I get to come back and try again, perhaps as an animal so I can properly live my life true to my caste. Nothing terribly offensive there as far as punishment goes. It's clearly a condescending way of controlling the lower classes by placating them with promises of potential rewards in the next life, but not too bad taken simply as a doctrine.

Buddhism: Not overly concerned with hell or punishment. Although there are hells in the Buddhist cosmology, they seem (in my limited knowledge of Buddhism) to be more concerned with the homes of demons than about the punishment of human souls. And, of course, since Buddhism takes a page out of Hinduism's book as far as reincarnation goes, its far less offensive and threatening.

Judaism: Judaism of all religions actually has provisions for non-Jews to lead what would be considered a good Godly life through the Noahide laws. While I wouldn't qualify as B'nei Noah, its a far more generous idea than any othe monotheistic religion has. That said, if the Jews are right, I go to Sheol. Just like everyone else. One thing I cannot deny about Judaism is that their afterlife is pretty egalitarian unless you were the worst kind of person, whereas I believe you are simply rendered non-existent.

Islam: If I so much as do not believe in the tenets of Islam I will be tortured for all eternity in Jahannam.

Christianity: If I do not accept Jesus Christ as God, I will be punished and tortured in Hell for all eternity.

Now. Which of these sounds the worst? It doesn't take much to see why Christianity and Islam become the biggest targets for Atheists and Antitheists. They are the largest religions, as well as the most forceful, and they really think we deserve hell. For many Christians (little reservation from most muslims), there's significant cognitive dissonance there, and they have a hard time realizing that their ascribing to and supporting of that religion means they are advocating and supporting the eternal torture of the vast majority of the population.

They don't see it that way, of course, but if I support an oppressive government who tortures and murders its people, but I take no part in those acts, am I not tacitly supporting them? Same goes for religion. The only real difference is that the adherents of religion don't see the fruits of their belief until after they die (not that I believe in an afterlife personally). Out of sight out of mind I suppose.

Some changes

2009-03-17T16:39:00.003-05:00

I made a few minor edits to the layout and side content. Any suggestions are of course welcome, as are opinions of the current setup. I'd like to make it as generally pleasant to look at as possible as well as (hopefully) providing quality content.

Random Tangent

2009-03-17T11:30:00.002-05:00

Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm fairly disappointed that The Brick Testament hasn't updated in 4 months.

Stalking Pharyngula

2009-03-17T09:45:00.003-05:00

I was over reading on PZ Myers' blog and saw this lengthy bit on whether a fertilized egg is a member of the species it could one day represent. I'm curious what others' thoughts on this might be.

I agree with the assessment of life being continuous. It spawns anew, and while death for an organism is inevitable, the act of recombinant procreation is clearly a continuation of 2 seperate organisms' partial genetic code. At no point did it become not alive, even when the individual gamete contains only half of the necessary chromosomes for reproduction.

So, here's what I don't get. By the definition of life, most "pro-life" advocates want to say that human life begins at conception. But this isn't really true since the life (as far as biology is concerned) never "started" but was, as PZ says, continuous. I think, if we're arguing about this, its an important distinction between life and cognizance. Otherwise we might as well argue that ovulation is murder and male masturbation mass murder.

I'm really not an expert on this. Thoughts?

2009-03-16T12:11:00.002-05:00

This is from sisterdanger posting in my comments here

"You know that old saying, if you can't beat em, join em.
I was reading
Comfort's blog the other day, as you know, and came to the conclusion that it
really is just a bad idea to put credible arguments on there. But I couldn't get
over the idea that "evil persists when good men do nothing" [paraphrase].

And I got to thinking that there must be a way to seize control of the
game and expose it for the joke it is. So I was reading about that study with
the little israeli kids (I think they were israeli) where they were asked if
Joshua (in the battle of Jericho, which entailed the utter genocide of all of
Jericho, and their property, cattle, holdings, everything burnt down to the
ground) was justified in doing what he did and they said yes for various reasons
all having to do with their religion one way or another (to prevent
inter-breeding, because he was commanded by god to, etc). The control group was
given the same question but had the names switched out for something like
General Lin and the Chinese Army, in which case the children by and large
answered that Lin was not justified in having obliterated this small town (I
think you'll be familiar with what I'm referencing without me having to be 100%
acurate on details).
Suffice it to say, I started to think more about this;
how when stripped of their familiar religiosity, the same scenario would become
morally different (somehow). And then I began to wonder...

What if we all created FSM Diciple characters, and posted on Comfort's
blog denouncing Christianity in favor of Pastafarianism and used their own
argument tactics to support the FSM instead of God? Surely it would have the
awesome effect of illuminating absurdity without requiring the actual work that
legitimate scientific responses does?
Not to mention, our very presence in
such a fashion would just highlight how 'not worthy' of actually accredited
argument he is.

We could adopt names like "Agnolotti" or "Anima", "Bucatini" [fits the
piratey theme] "Candale", "Macaroni" [the mormon implications on that one crack
me up], "Pastina" (I kinda like Pastina myself :)"

I have to admit I agree that this would be an interesting experiment to implement. I intend to create a second blogspot blog to join this movement and see how it goes. I'm not sure how much will be replied to, since Ray's kind of a cock and is too cowardly to allow open posting on his Blog. Anyone interested? I plan to create a hub blog for it, though it really is
sisterdanger 's idea.

Note, i don't expect anyone involved to be dedicated or put a huge amount of time in this. I look at it as mostly an experiment on how the reactions will be and whether Ray will even acknowledge his own arguments lack of sufficiency seen through another lens. My experiment hypothesis is "no". Yarrrr!

god is not Great chapter 3: A Brief Digression on the Pig

2009-03-16T10:11:00.003-05:00

As this is a brief chapter, my review of it will be similarly short.

As the title suggests, the chapter discusses the pig in the context of religion, as well as a brief discussion of other dietary restrictions. I get the feeling that this chapter has little real purpose other than as a bit of amusement on the part of Hitchens although he does take some of the issues seriously, as well he should.

He discusses in brief the genetic similarities between humans and pigs as well as the interpretations of why they pig might be so maligned by (in particular) Jewish and Muslim scripture. Sadly there is little of real interest here until the end when he discusses the problem of fanatical pig hate from muslim groups, particularly demanding the removal of innocuous pigs such as in A.A Milne's Winnie the Pooh, or the Three Little Pigs, Ms Piggy, etc ad nauseum. My favorite was that apparently George Orwell's Animal Farm is banned in muslim countries despite the pig being basically the villain.

I suppose he does make his point here. When your religion starts dictating these kinds of things, i.e attacking classic literature, or taking offense at something natural's very presence is absurdity, and downright intolerant. Anyone is free to have their beliefs, but to impose their morals and personal prejudices on the public, unless it is provable that it is to the public benefit and non-dogmatic is unacceptable. Here I must agree that even in dietary restrictions religion -can- poison anything. I'm not saying it alwasy does, but the potential is certainly evident.

Ray Comfort and the fantasy version of reality

2009-03-13T10:38:00.000-05:00

Ray comfort is going back home to New Zealand to debate his insane view of creation. And boy howdy he's got a loaded gun filled with arguments... that have been soundly refuted time and time again on his own damned blog. Here's the outline he posted on his blog annotated with my responses:

1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist.

Wow Ray. Still believing the "Nothing Created Everything" argument. Most cosmologists and atheists believe that the universe as we know is was created in what is called the "Big Bang." This is where all matter in the universe exploded in a singularity which is still expanding. However what caused the Big Bang is currently an unknown factor. There is a possibility that the universe is in a constant state of expansion and contraction and it could have happened billions of times already. We don't know the cause. Yet. This doesn't mean God is the culprit. I can still be an atheist and not know. I don't know, 100% positive there's no God. But I'm damned near sure, enough to say I do not believe there is a God, and take me out of the agnostic ranks.

2. Man can't create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer?

Cosmological theory is that all matter that is and ever will be in our universe has been there from the beginning. Once again, we don't have knowledge of initial cause, but that's not relevant here. That said, a grain of sand formed on this planet and any planet in the formation stages of the planet when various atomic particles came together. Through billions of years, water and wind erosion, chemical reactions etc we end up with sand. Its not that complicated and was certainly not an intelligent process that came up with sand, but a natural one.

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?

Let's ignore the patriarchal condescension of the words used, implying that males are the default and females therefore secondary and address the actual non-issue at hand. I will refer readers here for basics on the evolution of sexual reproduction. Ray demonstrates here his absolute lack of understanding regarding evolutionary theory here. Speciation is not spontaneous. We don't jump straight from, say Australopithecus Afaransis straight to Homo Ergaster. One species does not give birth immediately to another. It is the gradual changes over many many generations that change a species into another, and the newest members of the species are compatible with previous members of said species until the genetic differences diverge too far. Normally in a continuous population, evolution will occur while all members o f said population being compatible indefinitely. It is through long separation and genetic change that things evolve along different lines. Males and females don't "evolve" seperately. The population's males and females are not some seperately evolved phenomenon.

4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels?

Blood.

5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.

Disproven so many times that its almost insulting to address this. Firstly, there's Tiktaalik the fish with leg-like protrusions and which may have been partially amphibeous. There's Ambulocetus which is an obvious ancestor to modern whales. And let us not forget Archaeopteryx, the hybrid bird-lizard. You got some 'splainin to do Ray. And don't try the crocoduck line, its not cute, its actually rather pathetic.

6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There's a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth.

Nice assertions Ray! Care to provide any evidence that God did this? All you've proven is that there are many different types of animals on this planet. You haven't proven that God made Archaeopteryx a bird with teeth and a tail. the trouble with this argument is its a complete non-sequitur. It proves nothing, and adds nothing to the debate. Bald assertions are not evidence of God. find something scientific if you're trying to disprove science. Wow. novel idea.

7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life. The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution's many believers. Malcolm Muggeridge: "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution . . . will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future." Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion. We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers.

Let me state first, that scientists don't normally get on the cover of just about any magazine. Scientists are rarely well known enough outside their own field to be a draw for magazine sales, even for national geographic. What Ray's forgetting is that any scientist who could disprove evolution would want to do so. He would be immediately famous and a scientific icon with... well, book deals, lectures for life, and probably a nobel prize. the incentive is certainly there. Why hasn't anybody done it? Because with the given evidence they can't, and having seen the evidence it is fairly certain they never will.

Ray, if these are really your best, i have all confidence whoever you debate in NZ will stomp on and humiliate you.

god is not Great, Chapter 2: Religion Kills

2009-03-12T09:27:00.000-05:00

Alright, today we move on to Chapter 2 of god is not Great, Christopher Hitchens' literary rant against religions of all stripes.

Chapter 1 gave us a good background of our author, while chapter 2 brings some of his charges that "religion poisons everything" home even further. early in the chapter he addresses an interesting question that was asked of him by Denis Prager: He was asked if he was in a strange city in the early evening with a group of people approaching, "would (Hitchens) feel safer, or less safe, if (he) was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting." His emphatic no, demonstrated through the window of Hitchens' personal experience and knowledge was well played, and gave a good idea of why he feels as he does about religion. He goes through lists of places where such an experience could be more dangerous than any regular potential murderer.

He also cites numerous examples of where problems were only exacerbated by religious fervor, and particularly fundamentalism in various areas of the world. He uses mostly the obvious examples, such as Israel and the Middle East, as well as Pakistan and India. I don't particularly disagree with him on any point he made here. Without religious hatreds India would probably still be one country, and Israel would probably have been able to resolve its issues with its Muslim neighbors.

That's where I somewhat start to disagree though. Yes, they probably could have reslved things. But while religious fervor is certainly the largest thing spurning these conflicts onward, it is by no means the only one. There's also a cultural problem, which is simply an issue where the divergent cultures are not terribly compatible. What becomes a real problem though is deciding exactly how much of these cultural differences are religious in nature, which Hitchens I believe does insufficient thought on.

Regardless, Hitchens points out these commonly known religious issues, but also delves into other religious conflicts closer to home. As I've mentioned previously Hitchens is a friend of Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, and target of his very own fatwah; one of very few (public) attempts for a government head to put a hit out on a foreign national. Multiple people who have worked with Rushdie have died simply by association, and yet around the world the most vocal religious leaders have sided with the Ayatollah Khomeini, or said (effectively) that he should have expected it. Not, that it was reprehensible, and completely overblown, but basically that if he gets killed for it he shouldn't be surprised.

Here, once again, I agree but i don't. The (very real) threats against Rushdie were very clear, and very dangerous. They were a complete abuse of power, and barbaric in their intention, and fundamentalist in their making. That said, Hitchens has a clear Bias, claiming Rushdie as a friend. Yes, religion was absolutely the motivation for the hit called, and that is absolutely unacceptable. At the same time, free speech is a dangerous thing and we need to be ready to take the consequences of what we write. But a novel should never be grounds for murder. There should never, in fact, be any grounds for murder. Religion does exacerbate things, and has caused much death and strife in the world.

In all, this chapter was very interesting, and had alot of good interpretation. I wish Hitchens used more sources in his writing and had other opinions to cite, but one has to realize that this book is basically an opinion piece, not a researched academic paper. For what it is, I am enjoying it immensely.

Roger Scruton: Pathos piece

2009-03-11T13:28:00.000-05:00

This is taken from an article on the American Spectator, the quote in particular, including the cuts are as cut by Stephen Law. Full text can be found here.

"Like so many modern ideologies, the new humanism seeks to define itself through what it is against rather than what it is for. It is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular."

The new humanism "seems to have no consciousness of what is clearly announced between the lines of the text [ON THE ATHEIST BUSES], namely that there are no ideals higher than pleasure."

The BHA's "publications imply that there is only one thing that stands between man and his happiness, and that is the belief in God. "

The BHA is the British Humanist Association, and according to the whackaloons on the right wing they don't stand for anything. Now, if you want a discussion of the philosophical problems with this, I'll recommend you go to Stephen Law's blog. What I'm here to discuss is just the pathos of this.

This article is not really an argumentative piece. Its a pieve consisting entirely of pathos. There is nothing here that any Atheist, secularist, or agnostic would be convinced by. Clearly the piece was written for Spectator, well known as a right wing site, to further polarize against the growing tide of non-christianity. In essence, much like Ray Comfort he's making unsubstantiated claims simply in order to help convince his audience they are in the right and not alone; nothing terribly novel, every demographic does it for better or worse.

Possibly most annoying in this piece is Scruton's unending appeals to Jebus as the fundamental rock of morality, as if morality via threat was really a good thing. But by and large they eat it up! The comments show a disgusting amount of hatred for atheism and secularism. One person did bring up a good point though, and its one I don't think about too much, but it is true nonetheless. Atheists are treated in the United States as second class citizens.

To be fair, its not just Atheists. In many ways Women, black people, Muslims, Jews... well, any nonchristian really, is subjected to some discrimination. And they wonder why we don't like their attitudes, and the way they interfere in politics with their religious bronze-aged morals.

The recent decline of Christianity is telling us that the acceptance of atheism in the mainstream is coming, but I dont think it could come too soon.