You are currently browsing articles tagged atheist.
CHAPTER IV. MAKING NO SENSE OF IT ALL
Ego Problem
Humility must be my plan.
Worship Jesus as much as I can.
He wants me to praise him!
(Why did Mary raise him
to be such an arrogant man?)
Lost Cause
Lord God made a pretty bad bet
sending Jesus to settle my debt.
He who died for my sins
can just do it again
‘cause I ain’t stopped committin’ ‘em yet.
Intercession
Sweet Jesus, you know I adore you,
but plenty of folks lived before you.
You came late to the scene
if you know what I mean.
Have mercy on them, I implore you.
J.C., you have always been kind.
Here’s a thought that I hope you won’t mind.
You could hold make-up classes
to save all their asses
and get yourself out of this bind.
Holy Arithmetic
I can picture the Heavenly Host -
But a Father, a Son and a Ghost?
How one dude can be three
is a mystery to me –
That’s the puzzle that puzzles me most.
Heavenly Choices
Some problems with heaven disturb me.
Won’t those stuffy Believers perturb me?
Do I get a new body?
Do I get to be naughty?
Or will God and his crew try to curb me?
Lord, you’ve promised no sorrow or woe there.
And the angels put on quite a show there.
Here’s the question complex:
Do the angels like sex?
If it’s no, then I don’t want to go there.
Fishers of Men
(Fish? Or Cut Bait?)
Christ said, Fish for men in the sea!
I’ve taken his words literally.
But I cast my net down
and I pull up a clown.
That advice isn’t workin’ for me.
The Gospel, According to Mason and Dixon
In the South there are Christians galore.
These people adore keeping score.
Being gay is a sin,
if you’re poor you can’t win,
if you’re black they subtract even more.
The Savior, who sees this as well,
thinks His lessons were clear as a bell.
These folks aren’t worth savin’
the way they’re behavin’ –
I’m sendin’ ‘em all straight to Hell.
J. C. Is O.K.
J. C. was a very cool dude –
way ahead of his time (which was crude.)
We could use him these days -
the Progressives would praise,
but Conservatives might come unglued.
But Is God A Republican?
That question is worth some debate.
Democratic ideals aren’t so great.
Jesus talked about caring
and giving and sharing
but strong folks need someone to hate.
Our wealth we must never deplete.
All these hand-outs could spell our defeat.
And when things go awry
blame some devilish guy.
That’s the sensible way to compete.
God Talks with Al Gore About Global Warming
You – and your science – are small.
You forget whose controlling it all.
I hate to defy you
but if I want to fry you
I won’t need those charts on the wall.
Diagnosing the Christian Deity
This case is exceedingly odd.
The guy’s got his shorts in a wad.
His delusions are grand
and he can’t understand
his name is not Almighty God.
Though he talks like a happy high-liver,
his tantrums can make a man quiver.
Mood swings are excessive -
he’s passive-aggressive,
makes promises he can’t deliver.
Sometimes he’s quite a cajoler –
more often a nasty controller.
Today – a cool sage.
Tomorrow – hot rage!
This God-boy is clearly bi-polar.
The Fundamental Facts
Evolution is really quite odd -
a theory we cannot applaud.
You find scholars impressive?
These fools are obsessive -
and EVIL for challenging God!
Poor Darwin did not recognize
that Truth must descend from the skies.
Let me ask once again:
Are you monkeys or men?
Good men never monkey with lies!
Riddle: Where In Hell Are We?
The heat from this place can be felt
when your brain does a gradual melt.
It’s quite large, but feels tight
when you don’t behave right.
Give up? It’s your own Bible Belt!
Another Riddle
Christians have put their own spin
on manners and morals and sin.
There’s not much they miss,
but with angels they guess
How many can dance on a pin?
Why Won’t God Reveal Himself?
I used to enjoy blind-man’s-bluff,
hide-and-seek, and other kid-stuff.
But this Hider’s still hidin’.
that’s why I’m decidin’
This game has gone on long enough.
Devilish Logic
Sometimes I express my frustration
with a world full of cruel devastation.
Then some church-going jerk
tells me: Satan’s at work!
But God is in charge of salvation!
Pastoral Counseling
If you think you’re a miserable sinner,
and your prospects for Heaven grow thinner,
Don’t despair; just BELIEVE!
God has tricks up his sleeve.
He could still declare you a winner.
Free At Last!
I have prayed, I have bowed, I have scraped.
My brain has been washed and reshaped.
Now this 3-in-1 God
is revealed as a fraud.
Thank the Lord, I have finally escaped!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I humbly thank and dedicate this outrageous little book -
To my dear dad, who loved Limericks, and who would be sitting high in Paradise, if only it existed.
To the dedicated church and Sunday school preachers and teachers who did they best to imbue me with their versions of Truth.
To my mother, who was always mercifully silent on such subjects.
To my three deeply moral and highly irreverent sisters.
To my honest old aunty who, on my Lutheran confirmation day, looked me straight in the eyes and said, “You don’t really believe all that crap, do you?”
And to many God-fearing Christian friends who have helped me to understand how seriously I reject their view of this world and whatever lies beyond. Such faith leaves me in a state of shock and awe.
- PeachTree Grandma
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
CHAPTER III. GETTING THE WORD OUT
The Council of Nicaea
(Or: The Value of a Good Editor)
Boys, you’ve written a good, strong beginnin’
Now follow with plenty of sinnin’.
We need rape, we need war,
and a whole lot of gore,
and nothin’ that’s written by women.
That virginal twist was inspired.
What talented fellas I hired!
A bush that is burnin’
will keep pages turnin’
but poetry sure makes me tired.
Your description of heaven is swell.
Let’s expand on the fires of hell.
Boys, we’re nearly all done
and I do hafta run –
Do you think that this damned thing will sell?
Editing Genesis
Okay, fellas, gimme a break.
I’m a writer myself, for Christ’s sake!
That garden, I’ll buy -
and a weak-minded guy -
but you can’t keep the talking snake!
Editing the Virgin Birth
That’s an awfully bold fiction we’re shovin’
on people who understand lovin’.
But keep it! That story
leads Mary to glory,
along with the Bun in her oven.
The Easter Story (First Draft)
This chapter’s in really rough shape.
It reads like the work of an ape!
Can we leave this alone?
Empty tomb? Rolling stone?
A dead guy who makes his escape?
Nah, it won’t need a whole lot of fixin’ –
We do have one huge contradiction:
Nobody can rise
From a violent demise.
Let’s label it Creative Fiction!
The First Rejection Note
Such stories! How did you conceive ‘em?
You must have been tempted to heave ‘em!
Some tales are so wild
they would boggle a child.
Did you really believe we’d believe ‘em?
Acceptance – At Last!
I can’t say it doesn’t have flaws,
but we’ll publish this thing, just because
these words will control
the most miserable soul.
Yes, you’ve earned our respect and applause.
Human beings want to feel they are blessed.
Who wants a reality test?
Simple rulebooks are fine
to keep masses in line
but a guy in the sky is the best!
Public Relations
(Slogan: Truth or Consequences)
This Book contains God’s holy story –
a message of peace, hope and glory.
Anyone to reject it
is gonna regret it!
By God, make the consequence gory!
Things Get Ugly
Here’s my quick-and-dirty rendition
of a horror they called Inquisition.
Things got tougher and tougher -
but many must suffer
when God fortifies his position.
The Reformation
(Or: Martin Luther, the Decider)
Some say I am just splitting hairs,
but this Bible needs further repairs
so peasants can read it –
they’re the ones who will need it –
they can’t go through life unawares!
Pompous words are a problem to me.
They’re not user-friendly, you see.
Now, the miracles stay –
those are needed today –
people like magic acts, I agree.
That cannibal stuff needs revision –
I don’t care if I suffer derision.
Eat BREAD and drink WINE
or you’re no friend of mine.
That’s my answer! My final decision!
Next and last, Chapter 4 tomorrow!
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
Continued from Chapter I. Written by PeachTree Grandma.
CHAPTER II. THE NEW TESTAMENT
The Not-So-Immaculate Conception
Christian girls know that sex is taboo –
so many fun things they can’t do.
Mary sinned and she hid it.
She said a Ghost did it.
(Don’t know how she sold that, do you?)
Finding the Christ Child
Have you tried to follow a star?
That tactic won’t get you too far.
A star will elude
and you’ll have to conclude
that wherever you go, there you are.
Temple Elders Discuss the Boy Wonder
“My God, but this kid takes the prize.”
“I can hardly believe my own eyes!”
“I say that he’s fakin’!”
“Bets need to be taken!”
“A wise-ass? Or wonderfully wise?”
The Groupies
Twelve disciples – not one with a mate –
hanging out with The Lord until late.
I make no suggestion -
I just raise the question:
Do YOU think those cowboys were straight?
The Apostle Paul’s Conversion
(Or: A Funny Thing Happened on the Road to Damascus . . .)
There once was a tyrant named Saul.
That king wasn’t Godly at all.
God said, Presto! You’re blind!
Now maybe you’ll mind!
And that is how Saul became Paul.
Paul’s Advice Regarding Marriage
(Or: How to Douse Your Passion in a Jiffy)
After that, Paul was pretty uptight.
Hot sex really gave him a fright.
“Better marry than burn!”
That’s what he’d have us learn.
(I’m not too convinced he was right.)
Magic Trick #1: The Wedding at Cana
With the wine gone, the guests got abusive.
Jesus said, Please don’t think me intrusive.
I’ll make everything fine –
I’ll turn water to wine!
(That’s a miracle I could make use of!)
Magic Trick #2: Jesus Feeds the Multitudes
A boy with five loaves and three fishes
tried to satisfy everyone’s wishes.
Jesus looked to the sky,
shouted out MULTIPLY!
And behold! He filled hundreds of dishes!
Cheap Tricks (#3 and 4):
Jesus bragged, I don’t know if I ought-er -
but I can raise up your dead daughter.
What’s more, if you like,
I can take a wet hike.
Watch me! I am walkin’ on water!
Jesus Expels Money-Changers From the Temple
When money-men counted their loot
Our Lord had to give ‘em the boot.
Oh, what would he say
about Wall Street today?
Holy Moses! This place is a hoot!
On the Road to Emmaus
Down the road two disciples were goin’
when a spook up ahead started glowin’.
That’s our dead friend, J.C.!
He’s alive as can be!
What a sad lack of faith we’ve been showin’!
Cleanliness is Next to Godliness
His robes were as white as the snow -
quite a trick in the desert, you know.
Jesus knew how to groom
from manger to tomb –
as the Hollywood movies will show.
Jesus Is Finished
A Limerick is not the right format
for death – so I will not explore that.
God asked him to die
And he had to comply.
Oh, why was he such a damned doormat?
Next up, Chapter III!
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
A dear reader of mine wrote these witty limericks about the bible. She asked that her identity be anonymous and took on the pen name “PeachTree Grandma”. She tells me her grandchildren are having their brains washed and spun-dry in a fundamental Christian school every day, plus church on Sunday, which breaks her heart. These delightful writings poke fun at the ludicrous bible stories, enjoy and please comment below if you have the time. I am certain she would appreciate feedback. 
THE UNHOLY SCRIPTURES:
Summarized and Pulverized
by PEACHTREE GRANDMA
FOREWORD
This was written from utter frustration
Now I’m sending it out to the nation.
Freethinkers, unite!
We must fight for the right
To engage in some sane conversation.
CHAPTER I. THE OLD TESTAMENT
In the Beginning
Modern scholars, who claim to be bright
say the world wasn’t built overnight.
That thinking must go.
This is God’s Magic Show –
fast-moving, designed to excite.
First act was a lighting display,
Making sunshine was mere child’s play.
Then he strung up the stars,
and the ball we call ours.
(He’s holding those strings yet today.)
Wind and water were next; after that,
forms of life – tall and small, fat and flat.
He performed for six days,
then He needed some praise
so He pulled YOU and ME from his hat!
Paradise Lost
Eden was such a fine place,
but Adam and Eve fell from grace.
A forked tongue was to blame –
yes, a snake brought them shame.
God hissed, What an utter disgrace!
And God’s heart continued to harden.
He was not in the mood for a pardon.
I’ll make you aware
that your bodies are bare,
then kick your butts out of this garden!
High and Dry
It’s your duty, Noah! Don’t shrink!
Go build me a ship that won’t sink.
Bring the critters aboard!
Don’t complain to the Lord!
You’ll get used to the almighty stink.
Bring some dinosaurs too – don’t forget ‘em.
They might go extinct if we let ‘em.
Bring extras! I fear
we have meat-eaters here
and it wouldn’t be wise to upset ‘em.
Forty days, forty nights they all float.
They get off on a mountain remote.
What? You think it’s a fable?
Well, swim if you’re able!
You don’t get to ride on our boat!
Joseph and his Dandy Coat
Joseph’s dad liked him better than best -
Gave him clothes that outdid all the rest.
Said his mean, jealous brothers,
If we had our druthers,
we’d put this young buck to the test.
Let’s throw his ass down a deep well!
That’s something he won’t live to tell!
But God helped him out –
(This gets lengthy, no doubt.
Short version: It all turned out swell.)
Jonah Gets Lucky
A whale swimming deep in the sea
sucked in Jonah as slick as could be,
Spit him back – a whole man!
(Swallow that, if you can
but it sounds pretty fishy to me.)
Daniel Gets Lucky Too!
Now picture this scene: (I’m sure tryin’!)
A boy and a ravenous lion.
The kid’s in a huddle,
the beast wants to cuddle.
(Do ya’ think it’s the lion that’s lyin’?)
Shadrak, Meshak, and Abendigo
Three fellas with weird-sounding names
got a chance to go dance in the flames
They should have been torched
but they weren’t even scorched.
Why CAN’T God keep playing these games?
A Towering Truth
Some Biblical types were hardscrabble.
The worst were no better than rabble.
They hollered in tongues
at the top of their lungs.
and that’s how we got the word BABBLE.
David Slays Goliath
His slingshot was merely a toy
and David was such a small boy.
Yet he killed a giant tall
with no trouble at all.
(Now a tale that tall I enjoy!)
Biblical Hussies
A. Delilah Cuts Up
That girl is a Biblical floozy.
With partners she’s never been choosy
Sampson falls in her lair.
She cuts off his hair –
(Read the story – it’s really a doozy!)
B. Salome Cuts Down John-the-Baptist
This hussy sure knows how to swish.
King says, Darlin, what is you wish?
She says: John-Boy – DEAD! I want his fat head!
Cut it off! Bring it here on a dish!
C. Lot’s Wife Is Petrified
God declares: Soddom’s a hole!
Better leave before heads start to roll.
Straight ahead! Do not halt!
Or I’ll turn you to salt!
But that woman has no self-control
Moses Leads His People Out of Egypt
The desert would have to be crossed,
though the map and directions were tossed.
They wandered and wandered,
four decades they squandered.
Their leader was hopelessly lost.
They found moral guidance, however –
ten rules to confuse us forever:
Don’t be crude! Don’t have fun!
Worship Me, or you’re done!
All in all, quite a useless endeavor.
More About Moses and Those Blasted Commandments
Moses hiked up Mt. Sinai alone
to follow a light he’d been shown.
He and God had a talk;
God wrote rules on a rock.
(Who says nothing’s written in stone?)
Manna in the Desert
When travelers were in a bad way,
God used to throw manna, they say.
Many folks are still needy,
but God’s gotten greedy.
He’s tossin’ no biscuits today.
Moses Parts the Waters
Did you know the Red Sea can divide?
Make a passage that’s straight, dry and wide?
There isn’t much to it,
but in order to do it,
you have to have God on your side.
Once all the good guys have passed through,
here’s another cool trick you can do:
Close that ocean up tight!
It’s a rib-tickling sight
when you drown all the clowns who pursue!
Chapter II: The New Testament is up next!
The Unholy Scriptures: Summarized and Pulverized used with permission by LiberatedMind.com
CNN interview with Massachusetts Priest who thinks that anyone who helped cover up the rape of children participated in criminal acts.
Read more on the Case for Arresting the Pope
This article was brought to my attention last week. “Why Humanists shouldn’t join in this Catholic-Bashing” by Brenden O’Neill.
I disagree with O’Neill on a number of views:
1) O’Neill suggests that two factors need to be considered in the Church’s sex scandal “the backward cult of victimhood and the 
dominant ‘new atheist’ prejudice against any institution with strong beliefs.” I can agree with the first observation that the victims, young children would have been terribly confused as to what to do after being raped. Their parents told them to trust priests and that priests are there as representatives of Jesus, whom they have been told is someone they should worship. Does a child tell her parents, another adult, who does she trust? And when she tells someone, do they believe her? And IF they believe her, do they have the guts to questions their own pastor or religious environment enough to raise a stink?
The second suggestion that there is a prejudice against an “institution with strong beliefs” misses the point of atheism. An atheist’s stance on religion is “show me the evidence”. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fantastical religions like the Catholic church who believe that they have to eat Jesus’ actual flesh and blood in order to live in a unproven “heaven” after they die comes with no empirical evidence. That is simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fantastical claims, believed strongly but completely unsupported by evidence. There is no prejudice against strong beliefs, there is simply an intolerance for fantastical beliefs with no evidence for their validity.
2) O’Neill takes issue with the manner in which the Church’s sex scandal has suddenly come out all at once. He states: “the fact is that sexual abuse by priests is a relatively rare phenomenon.” With 5% of the priesthood being reportedly involved in child molestation, this amounts to an alarmingly high number of priests with often multiple victims. Keeping in mind the “victim mentality” we can gather that there are unreported cases out there that may add to those numbers. Regardless, the point in all this is not “how many” but “how”. How did the Catholic Church handle the 5% of it’s ordained members who raped children? We are now learning, as has been long suspected, that Pope Benedict was for 20 years in charge of disciplining priests that were out of bounds. He was the head guy when it came to handling child abuse cases. He most likely knows more of the intricate details about what priests was moved where and how many children were reportedly raped than any other church official today. This is inexcusable.
To his credit, O’Neill does add: “Of course, one incident of child sexual abuse by a priest is one too many. ” If this were a public school instead of the Catholic Church, would you hear these same arguments? Oh, only 5% of school teachers rape children, not everyone, no big deal. Oh, they didn’t prosecute the rapists and just moved them from one school to another, no big deal. My guess is that from all groups of people you would see a completely different tone, calling for resignations, public apologies and restitution for the victims.
3) This next bit makes my stomach turn: “very, very small numbers of children in the care or teaching of the Catholic Church in 
Europe in recent decades were sexually abused, but very, very many of them actually received a decent standard of education.” Seriously? Would he like to tell that to Jonny who was raped by his kindly school priest. Well, kiddo, you were sexually assaulted at a tender age and will likely have social issues as you get older, take to drugs to get away from the painful memories and have to go through years of counseling in order to be somewhat normal again, but you did receive a great education! This argument is your classic “The end justifies the means”. We can evidently excuse the most heinous crime in our society because the same people that committed those crimes gave our children a “decent standard of education”.
4) His next move is to downplay the severity of the victim’s pain. Perhaps this author has never met an abuse victim and does not realize how overarching the damage can be. When not dealt with properly, it can ruin a persons entire life. Blaming the victims for not talking about their childhood trauma until they were older and perhaps actually then able to deal with the public aspect of their abuse is utterly shallow.
5) Next O’Neill attempts to drag Dawkins into this by quoting his statements suggesting that there are many more children who are mentally abused by priests and religious than there are children abuses physically by them. Dawkins is not suggesting that this is a worse form of abuse, but rather that is it far more prevalent and there is no concern in society for the mental abuse of children brought up to “fear” god and be threatened with eternal fire and brimstone should they disobey their elders. Blind obedience is considered a lauding trait in the religious upbringing. A child is told to do what is asked of him without question. Such a curious mind is labeled as a “doubter” or a “rebel”. Questioning the quackery of religious assumptions should be encouraged, not negated by parents or teachers.
O’Neill suggests that if we start recognizing childhood indoctrination and threats of hell as mental child abuse, we will have to require religions not to indoctrinate children and only begin teaching them until they are “at the age of reason”. Mental child abuse is wrong, no matter what the goal. If a parent were to mentally abuse their child for the purpose of turning that child into a Communist, would polite society be ok with this? Well, the parents want that of their child, so it is ok. No it is not ok! Children are not property and should certainly not be labeled as Communist, Democrat, Republican, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim… Children should be allowed to decide for themselves what they think once they reach the age of reasons. Labeling a child according to his parent’s strongest beliefs is entirely unjust.
Quotes taken from http://spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8360/
“A” week has been going viral on the interwebs! Get your “A” on this week by posting this picture as your profile pic from March 29
to April 6th 2010. The campaign’s website is http://www.aweekonfacebook.com/ Where you can download the image directly and find links to the A week facebook page.
“Good without God? Imagine Facebook with ‘A’s all across the site showing the world is full of people who are ‘good without God’ and don’t need religion to influence their lives. Imagine the interest we can generate during ‘A’ Week On Facebook if 1,000s of people take part. Imagine… you can be a part of making a difference…”
Christopher Hitchen’s book The Missionary Position was published in 1995, right around the time when my 10 year old brain 
was being spoon fed Catholicism and my mother was telling me how saintly and wonderful Mother Teresa was. It is for this reason that I am now just able to read this revealing book on the hypocrisies and depravities of Mother Teresa. Having met Mother Teresa himself and tour her poor house in Calcutta, Hitchens offers a glimpse into the derisive nature of her work and her heavy hand in politics and money all over the globe.
Hitchens demonstrates how Mother Teresa became a world fad, accepting monetary donations exceeding $50 million over her career. “Mother Teresa’s global income is more than enough to outfit several first-class clinics in Bengal. [Her] decision not to do so, and indeed to run instead a haphazard institution… is a deliberate one.” (p.41) Not only did she run her “hospitals” and poor houses without basic medical supplies, pain medication or knowledgeable physicians, she left nearly all of the $50 million in “donations to the poor” in New York bank accounts, only withdrawing to help pay for elaborate altar chalices and convent building projects.
Hitchens explains why Mother Teresa, despite her inability to funnel donations where the poor needed it most, received so much attention and monetary support: “The rich world likes and wishes to believe that someone, somewhere, is doing something for the Third World. For this reason, it does not inquire too closely into the motives or practices of anyone who fulfills, however vicariously, this mandate.” (p. 49)
Mother Teresa apparently carried a similar obsession with sex, as does the rest of the Catholic celibate. She insisted that women submit to their husbands when approached for sex, as this was the way god intended. On the political front, she was extremely vocal against abortion in all circumstances (even rape). Mother Teresa would not tolerate birth control, even when the use of condoms may have prevented HIV transmission between husband and wife. Hitchens comments on her outspoken agenda against the science of reproduction: “It is often said, inside the Church and out of it, that there is something grotesque about lectures on the sexual life when delivered by those who have shunned it. Given how much this Church allows the fanatical Mother Teresa to preach, it might be added that the call to go fourth and multiply, and to take no thought for the morrow, sounds grotesque when uttered by an elderly virgin whose chief claim to reverence is that she ministers to the inevitable losers in this very lottery.” (p. 59)
Even more shocking was her financial entanglement with Mr. Keating, one of the greatest con artists of the 1980s. Mr. Keating donated a quarter million dollars to Mother Teresa at the height of his financial scheme. The money donated was money stolen
Mother Teresa with Charles Keating
from American families who thought they had invested their savings for retirement. Mother Teresa met with Keating, showered him with praise, gave him a cross that he kept with him continually and even more astonishingly, wrote a letter to the judge on Keating’s case when the man was on trial for fraud in the United States. The Deputey District Attorney wrote Mother Teresa back, asking her to return the fraudulent quarter million dollars Keating had given her in order to help rectify the lives of those whose money Keating has stolen: “You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart – as he sentences Charles Keating – and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience?”(p.70) Mother Teresa never replied.
These sound bites are just a small taste of the dirt Hitchens has dug up on Mother Teresa. A brief read, this took me only 2 hours to read, but the content is something you are hard pressed to find honestly laid out anywhere else. The Missionary Position.
Letter to A Christian Nation was the first of Sam Harris‘ books that I picked up. Gathering assumptions from the title, I anticipated 
a book geared towards the religious infiltration into American politics. I found a bit of that mixed into Sam’s book, but even better I found his straightforward approach to tackling American fundamentalists brilliantly refreshing. Written in the first person, Letter to a Christian Nation bluntly points out the hypocrisies American fundamentalist Christians show in opposing Muslim fundamentalists. Before doing this, he compactly brings down every major dogma of Christianity, laying the ground work for the final punch at the end. He rightly suggests that in order to combat the religious nonsense that drives Muslim suicide attacks, American Christians need to turn that finger around and examine their own radical, exclusive belief system.
The entire read took me 2 hours. Afterward I said aloud: “Yes, I absolutely agree.” After sitting in contemplation for a moment I decided that it had been the best use of 2 hours in a long time to be enriched with the viewpoint Harris’ offered. It is one of those books you feel like handing out to a fundy in your family who thinks their religion is the end-all, be-all and everyone else can go suck it. It is almost as satisfying as knocking someone so pig-headed like that over the head with a board and shouting: “wake up you idiot! you do nothing but isolate yourself from reality!” Intellectually satisfying.
Get a Letter to a Christian Nation or read Sam Harris’ other best seller: The End of Faith.
Another brilliant article by Christopher Hitchens. This one deals with the outdated and very useless 10 commandments of the Judeo Christian religions. He brings up many fabulous observations about how the bible actually has four versions of the 10 
commandments within the Old Testament and how the first 4 commandments have nothing to do with how to behave but rather demand that its followers grovel before their god. Here is an excerpt from his Vanity Fair Article:
“There is in fact a good biblical precedent for doing just that, since the giving of the divine Law by Moses appears in three or four wildly different scriptural versions. (When you hear people demanding that the Ten Commandments be displayed in courtrooms and schoolrooms, always be sure to ask which set. It works every time.) The first and most famous set comes in Exodus 20 but ends with Moses himself smashing the supposedly most sacred artifacts ever known to man: the original, God-dictated panels of Holy Writ. The second edition occurs in Exodus 34, where new but completely different tablets are presented after some heavenly re-write session and are for the first time called “the ten commandments.” In the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses once more calls his audience together and recites the original Sinai speech with one highly significant alteration (the Sabbath commandment’s justifications in each differ greatly). But plainly discontented with the effect of this, he musters the flock again 22 chapters further on, as the river Jordan is coming into view, and gives an additional set of orders—chiefly terse curses—which are also to be inscribed in stone. As with the gold plates on which Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon in upstate New York, no trace of any of these original yet conflicting tablets survives.” – Christopher Hitchens
Audio taken from a Q&A of Richard Dawkins.
There is a great new organization set up to support non-theistic candidates
for public office. If you are a non-theist and need assistance running for a political office, consider contacting EnlightenTheVote.com
I hope to see them promoting non-theist candidates on their site and helping the growing majority of non theists in America have a prominent political voice. Atheists are now at 15% of the total American population, more than Jews, Gays, and many other much smaller total populations with large voices in American politics. Stay informed and sign up for their email alerts.
Sam Harris, author of [amazon ASIN="978-0393327656"]The End of 
Faith[/amazon] and[amazon ASIN="978-0307278777"]Letters to a Christian Nation[/amazon], explains how Human morality is best explained by science and not by religions. Listen to his interview on California public radio.
Today you can learn how to do just about anything by using the internet, even how to become Atheist. On WikiHow, you can DIY yourself to Atheism by challenging your superstious notions.
To introduce the topic, WikiHow provides an excellent explanation of what an Atheist is. Clarified here is the true meaning of atheism, which is a basic rejection of god-claims. Some atheists take this a step further and claim definitely that “there is no god or gods”. I fall somewhere in between. I reject the claims about gods, and given the body of evidence in nature, science and my own experiences I am more confident that there are no gods than I am that there might be gods. In the same way that I cannot disprove the claim that Leprechauns exist, I cannot disprove the claim that god exists. However, the likelihood of god existing is on par with the likelihood of Leprechauns existing. I am willing to change my position if provable, repeatable evidence was provided for a supernatural entity.
BigThink recently interviewed English comedian Steven Fry. Fry responds to questions about his opinion on religion, atheism and homosexuality.
Fry brilliantly notes that living as a humanist/naturalist, he is compelled to live a fulfilled and vibrant life. Without the promise or wish for another life after this one, the naturalist and atheist strives ernestly to do the best they can in the here and now.
Quoted from Alternet.org:
“Debates over faith often leave non-believers holding the bag: look like a jerk or leave the debate unfinished and apparently concede defeat.
The only thing that would make atheism a true article of faith
would be if atheists said, “Nothing you could possibly say, nothing I could possibly see or experience, no evidence you could possibly provide me, could ever convince me that my atheism was wrong. My belief in the non-existence of God is an a priori assumption; it is unshakable, as constant as the Northern Star.” And I have yet to encounter an atheist who says that.
Finally—and maybe most crucially of all:
When we speak out in any way about our atheism—and when we continue to organize, and to make ourselves and our ideas more visible and vocal, and to generally turn ourselves into a serious movement for social change—we are accused of being hostile, fanatical, rude, evangelical, bigoted and extremist.
But if we don’t speak out, if we don’t organize, if we don’t forge ourselves into a powerful and visible movement…then the bigotry and misinformation and discrimination against us will continue unabated.
Why this is untrue and unfair: We really can’t win on this one. Even the most mild forms of atheist activism and visibility result in believers accusing us of disrespect, intolerance and forcing our beliefs on others. If we do something as mild and unthreatening as putting up bus ads saying “You can be good without God” or “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” you can bet good money that plenty of believers will get worked up about how those terrible atheists are insulting Christians and other believers. The purest act of visibility—the simple act of standing up and saying out loud, “Atheists exist and are good people”—is treated as another example of the offensive, dogmatic, in-your-face extremism of the atheist movement.”
Since Haiti was hit by the earthquake I have been patiently waiting for any religious person I know to excuse god for the disaster and blame 
“mother nature”. I didn’t have to wait very long. Haiti’s misfortune brings up the blaring inconsistency in religion, especially the monotheistic religions: the problem of good and evil.
Pat Robertson, Christian TV evangelist was so disabled by this conundrum that he publicly claimed the reason Haiti suffered such great misfortune was because they had “made a pact with the devil”. For Pat, this was a sufficient explanation for the recent Tsunami, Hurricane and now Earthquake that has brought this country to its most desperate hour.
Haiti serves as a prime example of the problem of “good and evil”.
Naturalists point out that if a god who is claimed to be omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) controls the universe, by definition such a god must take credit for EVERYTHING that happens, not just the good stuff. Such a god would know that an earthquake was about to happen and have the power to prevent it from happening. With this information about the omnipotent, omniscient god, we must conclude at least one of the following:
1. Such a god is intrinsically evil by allowing the disaster to hit
2. Such a god does not exist (omnipotent, omniscient)
A theist will disagree here and say that god does not control the evils in the world because Adam and Eve sinned and the rest of humanity must suffer because of their sin. This leads us to conclude that the omnipotent, omniscient god has no sense of what constitutes a “just” punishment for the “sin” of two humans. We must also consider that if the theist’s argument that “evils like Tsunami’s are not god’s fault” rests on the existence of two storybook characters in Genesis the argument falls apart. We begin to doubt the historical accuracy of the Adam and Eve story because it is embedded in a creation myth that sets the earth at 10,000 years old, having been fashioned in 7 days by a sky-god.
But most importantly, the counter argument to those who say “evil is the devil’s doing, not god’s” places the omni-god in a position of NOT being omnipotent. If the omni-god is not in control of nature, this by definition deems him not omnipotent. This leaves us to conclude that the omni-god is either:
1. Not actually omnipotent or
2. Unjust in dealing out his punishments and hence, if he be doing the punishing for Adam’s sin, he IS responsible for earthquakes and natural disasters (omnipotent)
This past weekend I listened to a Catholic homily by a deacon who was trying to help his congregation understand how to reconcile god with the Haiti earthquake. His best shot was to tell a little story about a mother in Haiti who dug her children out of the rubble of her home and saved their lives. All three of her children lived (after extensive medical surgury and the science of medicine). She told reporters that “now she knew that god loved her”. The deacon pointed out that good can come of such atrocities like this women who finally knew that god loved her. He failed to bring up all the other thousands who perished or the other mothers whose children were crushed and killed. Did ‘god’ love them? It was perhaps the weakest argument of the century. What a fickle god Christians daily defend.
Don’t pray or wish that Haiti be helped, do something to help. Donate to a non-theistic charity organization dedicated to helping Haiti.
The history of the celebration of Christmas is not surprisingly devoid of anything Christian.
The Winter Solstice is the real ‘reason for the season’, and it belongs to everyone. When man first looked up into the sky and began to take note of the patterns of the celestial 
bodies, Winter Solstice has stood as a turning point in the seasons.
Many of the Christmas traditions that American Christians celebrate harken back to distinct pagan origins. The tradition of bringing a tree in the home and decorating it was practiced by pagans in northern European countries who celebrated the Winter Solstice or “Yuletide”. The evergreen, holly and ivy were some of the few greenery that could be found in the cold winter. They were used as part of the winter solstice celebrations. The Yule Log gets its name from the Norse god, Jul. In recognition of the return of the sun, fathers and sons would bring home large logs, which they would set on fire. Also around the time of the winter solstice, Romans observed Juvenalia, a feast honoring the children of Rome.
Winter Solstice was a month long celebration in the month of December that celebrated the turning of days from getting shorter to getting longer because of the earth’s rotation on its axis around the sun. In other words, the reason for the season is the axial tilt of the earth, to put it bluntly.
On December 25th the Romans celebrated the birthday of Mithra, the god of the unconquerable sun. Mithra, was an infant god said to have been born of a rock. However, when Christianity began to spread, the Christians simply adopted the pagan holidays and laid a Christian “reason” for the celebration over the existing celebration because they could not stop the festivities. The actual date of Jesus’ birth is never mentioned biblically and in the time when Jesus was born birthdays where not celebrated.
So athiest, humanist and non-theist, feel free to celebrate on December 25th.
Do it in thanks to the mythical gods and fairy tales if you wish: Santa and Jesus and Mithra alike, but say “Happy Solstice!” with a drink in your hand, for that is the way it all began.
It would be ok if O’Reilly really was clinically insane, but downright ignorance is no excuse. Christmas was originally a pagan holiday called the Winter Solstice when people celebrated the day on which the period of time when the sun shone during the day began to increase. When the Christians began converting Pagans to their religion, they superimposed a holiday celebration of Christ’s birth over the celebration of Winter Solstice. This was done only after many failed attempts to stop the converts from celebrating in their pagan traditions. Easter is the Christian’s attempt to hijack the pagan holiday of Summer Solstice. Even O’Reilly’s blond commentators think he is crazy. Wow.
A Fellow blogger in Arizona has subjected herself to the theatre of the Catholic Mass and wrote a blog about how the experience compares to watching a boxing arena or an army unit doing drills.
Most of the church stood in a very long line to receive the Eucharist. This is the moment where I felt a little better, because I saw that there were other people not going up to get the piece of bread. I doubt they were atheist hanging out in a Catholic Church like I was, but it was nice not being the only person that wasn’t following along with everyone else for a change. Individualism seems to be a little lost in a Catholic Church. read more
We’ve all heard it before. The classic argument from a theist’s perspective on why a god must have created our universe. I can’t tell you how many times religious people have said to me: “well, can you think of one example where something comes from nothing in the universe?”
They are correct in noting that “something cannot be created from nothing” within our known universe, as far as we have been able to demonstrate through
Hubble Deep Field: thousands of galaxies
scientific inquiry. However, when considering the big bang and the origins of our known universe, we cannot apply the laws of physics WITHIN the known universe to that which act OUTSIDE the known universe. Before the start of our universe, it is plausible that other laws of “physics” governed and dictated how our universe singularity began and where the energy and material originated from.
There is also a notable phenomenon observed in quantum mechanics. Particles composed of quarks such as protons, neutrons, positrons, etc have been observed popping into existence from nowhere and leaving again just as fast. Such particles “appear” in a vacuum where no other matter or energy exists. At the quantum level, even empty space is not truly empty but is seething with activity; particles are constantly popping in and out of existence everywhere. In pair creation, a particle and its antimatter partner seem to “appear” (see Bosons). This is cutting edge quantum mechanics research. The Large Hadron Collider in Switzlerand was built and is just recently up and running in the search for the Higgs-Boson particle.
We cannot apply the laws of this universe to that which acted outside of the universe. The laws that hold true within the bubble of our universe may not govern outside the bounds of this universe. 
It is plausible that there are endless numbers of other universes “floating” about and our universe is just one of them. Within each of these multi-verses different laws and properties may govern the interactions within. This “Multiverse theory” is the leading theory in the scientific cosmology community, though it remains untested and still a speculation. (Though this speculation is based on other observations and evidence of how our universe operates). It is probable that the “laws” that act outside our bubble universe commonly call into existence something from nothing. We cannot say with certainty so it is irresponsible to jump to a conclusion without the ability to test or prove it to be false or true. This applies to the multi-verse theory and the theory of a god or gods.
Watch this 10 min video where Dr. Michio Kaku, a leading cosmologist explains the multiverse theory:
Comedy is funny because it pokes fun at the truth. From DisInfo.com:
“This satirical infomercial, which had been on YouTube for months, was pulled by Youtube, who deemed it “inappropriate content,” only after it skyrocketed into the top three topics on digg.com and began accumulating tens of thousands of views. Upset by the censorship and implications, several youtube users have re-uploaded or ‘mirrored’ the video in protest.”-DisInfo.com
I hesitated to post this for many months because it made the human race so deplorable (similarly to what Gulliver in Gulliver’s travels felt like after living with the Whinnem). But here it is. Knowledge is power. Just don’t get to down on humanity and do something uplifting after you watch it. Volunteer or donate to a charity to cheer yourself up
And take it all with a pinch of salt… use your critical thinking skills.
A new group has sprouted up to provide support for recovering religionists. It is a sort of AA for non-theists who need support in overcoming mental abuse as a child or religious follower.
RecoveringReligionists.com offers support to those whose families might not welcome them anymore as an atheist or who might want the social aspect of an organiziation without the mythology.
Leaving religion is full of potential problems, both emotional and practical. How do you tell your elderly parents? How does it affect your marriage? How do you break the news to your religious friends and what if it disrupts the friendship? How to deal with child rearing issues? Who can I talk to about my feelings without being told, “You just need more faith.” Like you just need to be a little more gullible. Recovering from Religion talks about all these and more.
Founded by Darrel Ray, author of the “The God Virus“, RR is a grassroots type organization that is started locally by atheists who wish to meet other atheists and help newcomers transition from a supersitious life to a naturalists way of thinking. Currently there are 9 groups across the US. To start a group in your area, visit the website for further details.
This article in defense of god’s “omnipotence” was brought to my attention and I took note of how the author went through great lengths to stretch reason to the breaking point. It was too irresistible to let it go unanswered from a skeptic, as the author deems it his mission to address the many flaws in “omnipotence” that skeptics have pointed out.
He shoots himself in the foot right from the start by admitting to assuming that a god exists and then assuming he knows the characteristics of said unproven being. But we will let him get away with it, or there would be no fun to be had.
The author goes on to set up a straw man argument against omnipotence by saying that skeptics say that god cannot be omnipotent because god is unable to create a scenario where he is unable to do something. What he fails to address is some basic flaws in the definitions he offers of what his god is (both omnipotent and omniscient).
Omniscience is “all knowing” or “infinitely wise”. Omnipotence is “having unlimited power”. “If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.” – Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) The author of this article fails to address these irreconcilable characteristics of said god.
The author continues with an argument that the attributes of god are “simple” because he says “god is actual” and has an “unchanging nature”. Basically he is stating that god is simple because he exists and does not change. How we equate existence and static being to simplicity, is unclear. What he means when he says “simple” is also unclear and the purpose in doing so is not explained.
Continuing on, he poses another straw man argument by saying that skeptics point out that god cannot sin and therefore is not omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. This guy suggests that god CAN sin, but he chooses not to do so. Yet from there he goes on to state:
In fact, it is my belief that God’s omni-benevolence (God’s all-goodness) prevents him from sinning
He suggests here that god would probably sin if it were not for this omni- part of him that stops him from doing what might otherwise come naturally. Which seems absurd to me. Isn’t sin the act of offending god? So wouldn’t it be impossible for god to sin against himself? Self contracting reasoning here.
The author then poses this question when making his point about a god who chooses not to sin and then considers the alternative:
Could you imagine a “God” who stopped refraining from sinning and started raping, pillaging and destroying randomly? Certainly this is not the Christian God!
Well, I am glad you asked. I don’t have to imagine that god. People already worship him! Let me introduce you to the Judeo-Christian god who in the Old Testament commands his followers to pillage, commit genocide, take more than one wife, and kill each other when Moses catches them dancing around the golden bull. This god killed every first born child in Egypt and did not stop Jepthah from killing is only daughter as a sacrifice to god for his help in winning a genocide battle against a neighboring tribe. The Christian god is a murderous, two faced mafia boss whose twisted ways are well documented in the bible.
And here I will let this author contradict himself again:
a skeptic might suggest that if the above definition is true then that still means that a human can steal candy from a baby but God cannot. Does this suggest that we have the power to do something that is impossible for God? Yes, in a sense this is true. We have one power that God does not: we can sin.
Next, the author tackles the problem of evil. He presents the skeptics’ argument:
P1. Evil exists in the world
P2. God is all-good and all-powerful and all-knowing
P3. An all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God should only create a world of total goodness
C1. Yet P1 conflicts with P3 so we must conclude that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist.
He suggests how to solve this logical argument by denying any one of the 3 premises. He admits the difficulty in denying P1 and P2. So he resorts to rejecting P3 with this justification:
God allows evil to exist so that the highest form of good can exist.
Essentially he is stating that the highest form of good is reliant upon the existence of evil. Which logically makes evil more powerful than good. Tell that to the child who was raped by his parish priest at the tender age of 9. Tell that to the starving children in third world countries. Tell that to the family of people murdered by the KKK. Go ahead and tell them that this evil is good for them in the long haul.
Next, the author states:
evil is not a tangible thing; in a way evil is not a reality like goodness
He expounds on this fallacy by saying that evil is the absence of goodness and therefore goodness is a thing and evil is a non-thing. This is a logical fallacy. “Good” and “evil” are words humans use to describe events and behaviors. Neither is a tangible thing and neither is the absense of the the other. These terms can change what they describe as a society evolves and grows. For example, slavery was a good thing in the bible and was condoned by god, but today we recognize slavery as an evil form of human repression. These terms can also be applied to the same act with varying circumstances. For example, the act of killing someone can be called both good or evil depending on the situation (aggression verses self defense). Good and evil are not tangible things, rather they are words used to describe behavior and circumstances.
In a final hurrah, he attempts to dismiss all evil as originating from another mythological being called Satan. So we have a “good creator” who is unproven who created Satan. Satan (an unproven mythological scapegoat) choose to disobey the “good creator” and hence became powerful enough in his rejection to spark a whole bunch of other evils.
…the free choice of the devil to refuse submission to the divine will lead to a corruption and a dissolution of the natural powers of Satan’s will. In a metaphysical sense, the will of Satan was corrupted by his choice to disobey God. This was the beginning and origin of all evil: for the choice of Satan lead to a corruption within the very will of Satan.
He then goes into the mythology of angels and their ranks, powers and how they cannot be forgiven like humans, which is why the devil cannot repent and go back to heaven. All unproven scapegoat ideas to excuse the problem of evil. Make up some “evil force” character who takes the blame for all the stuff that we don’t want the “good force” taking credit for.
Finally, the author pulls out the big creation myth guns and says that all humanity must suffer the evils of this world because Adam and Eve sinned big time when the talking snake convinced them to eat forbidden fruit in god’s garden right after he created the world in 7 days. Right. So babies have to die horrible deaths from crippling diseases because some bloat 6,000 years ago couldn’t find another piece of fruit to snack on?
Either god is omnipotent or not. If he is, then the bad stuff that happens is part of his knowledge/plan. So the child who died last year at the hands of her religious mother because the parents wanted to pray away her diabedes instead of seek medical help was all part of god’s plan. And the starving children who die every day are part of the plan of the omnipotent god.
This author is essentially saying “God does the good stuff and nature (and Satan) does the bad stuff”. An omnipotent god controls EVERYTHING by definition, even the evil and suffering. So next time you hear of a priest raping a young child, make sure to thank god for it (because god has a “greater good” in store for that molested child and can justify letting a priest follow through with rape).
“Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
ArizonaCOR (Coalition of Reason) is a new non-theist group that is the culmination of some very vibrant, active meetup groups melding together in the Phoenix area. ArizonaCOR recently put up their website through the generous support of UnitedCOR.org and the American Humanist Association and they are hitting the streets with a huge billboard campaign. .jpg)
The campaign is designed to let Arizona residents know that “coming out” as a non theist shouldn’t be scary. There are more non-theists today than every before and the number is increasing exponentially. But finding the support to “come out” as a non-theist can be difficult when a person is surrounded by religious family and friends, many who threaten connections with those who think differently.
Having moved to Phoenix last year from Minnesota, the religious climate for Arizona is not surprisingly much greater than in Minnesota. The majority of Arizona’s residence is comprised of migrants from other parts of the country with about 1/3 claiming origins in Minnesota. (Yes, the winters there really are worth leaving behind). Arizona also has a high percentage of retirees living in the warm arid state. Being a “red state” also lends Arizona to being a religious suspect. Despite the odds, I managed to find non-theist friends through meetup.com and ArizonaCOR.
Here is some local news coverage on the billboard’s debute:
This article in the World Net Daily blows the big scare horn on gay marriage being legalized in America. Evidently some groups are concerned that gay marriage is a slippery slope to legalizing polygamy. Lets take a closer look.
1. Currently, polygamists do live in America and practice polygamy, a large majority of them being Mormon, a modern offshoot of Christianity. The multiple wives of these polygamy families claim single parent status on their taxes and welfare. This results in the polygamy families receiving thousands of tax payer monies to pay for their many children’s welfare on account of all but one wife being single with little or no income.
It is well known that a handful of mormon polygamy families live soley off this government money, the husband of all the wives collecting their government paychecks and acting as a stay-at-home father to all his wives and children. If the United States made polygamy legal, it would not have to pay the welfare checks of these polygamy families.
2. For the Christian readers, we have a bit of polygamy in the good old bible. You don’t have look too hard to find all the many wives of so and so and of god bestowing the plunder of wives upon a conqueror. Here is just one obvious example:
“And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8: And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things” (2 Sam. 12)
If polygamy was good enough for the heros of the bible, why should we turn our noses up at those who choose to practice polygamy in the silence of their own private lives? As an Atheist I could care less whether something is or is not in the bronze age storybook, but to some it could be difficult evidence to pass up.
3. The last thing this article tries to do is beg the question. They say, well if people can have sex with someone of the same genitalia or with more than one person, what is to stop the law from granting incest or bestiality to be constitutional?
To answer this we back up a few steps and recognize that people in the gay rights groups and pro-polygamy groups are not asking permission to have sex in the manner in which they choose. They are asking for equal rights between legal adult citizens of the USA. In the context of granting equal rights for men and women (human beings) who are members of the society of the USA, we recognize that animals are not included in this criteria of consideration for legal status. An animal is not a human being of consenting age and could therefore not be considered a valid partner in the legal status of a civil union. For two human beings to get married requires a few basic things: legal citizenship, consent, and declaration of intent. An animal cannot meet these requirements. It is not required however to show your genitalia in order to obtain a civil union, and such a requirement of showing sex or sexual preference is discrimination (as society has deemed today) and hence the reason for the gay rights movement. Incest on the other hand, is performed in this country already, mostly through rape. Consensual incest could be made legal if we again changed the criteria for marriage by not requiring consenting adults to be unrelated. This would be a decision made by society if it deemed that was something of value to the society. Which leads me to my final point:
4. Marriage and Civil Unions are not RIGHTS. They are statuses that our society has devised to provide a set of privileges to consenting adults who agree to enter these legal agreements together. For example: the speed limit for Highway XZY is 55 mph. This law was enacted by President Eisenhower during an oil shortage. It was thought that if everyone would drive slower they would conserve fuel. This law made sense at the time and society agreed to it by enforcing it and obiding by it. Since then, cars have become more efficient and often are more fuel efficient when cruising at 70mph.
We have also made them safer so as to sustain accidents at these higher speeds. The top speed limits on Highway XYZ hence are changed to 70 mph reflecting the new societial and technological circumstances. Society agrees by enforcing the new speed limit and abiding by it. Likewise when civil union was devised in the early workings of the USA, the opinion of society was that such a priviledge was between a human with a penis and a human with a vagina. Today, society disagrees with the criteria of the 1800s and votes to change the law to reflect new societal and technological circumstances. We understand now through the use of MRIs that the brains of gay men show similarities to those of heterosexual women. We also understand that the people who institutionalized marriage back in the 1700s also thought that slavery acceptable. As a society, we make the law. If society finds reason to believe that consensual incest is a benifit to the group, then it will change the critieria for the priveledge of marriage to reflect such an agreement of change. There are no absolutes. If the entire population of the world was killed off and the only remaining survivors to populate the earth were blood relatives, I’ll be damned if they don’t have some incest right then and there. Heck, if Adam and Eve really were the first and only humans on this planet, who do you suppose Cain and Able had sex with? 
Atheist nations are the most peaceful nations!? But aren’t all Atheist’s devil worshipers who love to drink human blood and destroy religion??? If you are talking to your neighborhood religious nut about atheists, you certainly might have heard such accusations. Atheists are actually peaceful creatures with no “god” or ‘righteous religion” to defend against other religions and gods. Atheists are excellent promoters of peace because they see more commonality among humans than differences. Atheists also find it more probable that the life we live here on earth is the only one we have (no afterlife) so they go about making the best of it with humanitarian efforts.
Fellow blogger at Epiphenom as an excellent compilation of data for this peacful outcome for atheist nations.
Not suprisingly, New Zealand ranked on top the 2009 Global Peace Index. New Zealand also happens to be the most non-religious country on planet earth. No wonder I have been aching to live there…
A recent article in New Scientist gave us a glimpse into the family feud between Christian Creationists and Christian Evolutionists. Not suprisingly, each side puts up a website designed to give credibility to their side of the story.
What tickles me pink is that both sides look indistinguishable from the standpoint of a scientist and atheist. Ultimately, Creationists argue that “god created the universe as it appears today out of thin air” while their friends on the other side of the mud flinging fence say that “god created the circumstances for the known universe out of thin air.” Ultimately, they are arguing for the same thing (that a magic man did it), while throwing spit balls at each other over where to place the magic man in the history of the universe. It is no different than seeing a peach on the ground underneath a tree and agreeing with your friend that Zeus made that peach fall, while arguing with your friend over whether or not Zeus put it there on the ground or whether he put the peach tree there to make the peach to fall on the ground.
Let’s be fair to the Creationists though. The reason they must defend the bible’s position that the earth is 6,000 years old and that humans are all decended from one man and one women is to defend their entire religion. If the creation story is just a myth, a story, a nice little bedtime tale as the modern Christian believes, then what is the point of Jesus? According to the bible, Adam and Eve sinned by eating an apple, thus making God upset. God then sent himself in the form of Jesus to placate himself for that little Eden upset. You may agree that even if the Eden/Creation story is true, that circular reasoning sounds like bullshit, however this is what 75% of Americans are told sounds reasonable. So, to defend their religion, the Creationists are forced to argue against evolution in order to keep intact the entire POINT of their religious following. That Jesus came to die because of what happened in the Creation/Eden story.
Being a outspoken Facebooker and Blogger, I get a fair amount of email. This one shocked me because of the author’s uninformed disposition. The name has been changed to protect identity.
Kara:
I’m sorry if I’m bringing up a touchy subject with you, but a mythical deity? How can you think or say that Jesus Christ is mythical? Just look all around you at everything and everyone, even your beautiful Arizona couldn’t have just appeared. Someone had to create it; and that was God. And this is the greatest weekend in the history of the Catholic Church, when we celebrate Jesus’ life, passion, death, and resurrection! How and why did this change in religion come about? Again, sorry if this is a touchy subject, but I’m very surprised. You were raised Catholic, attend a Catholic University.
What is Astrophysics? Never heard of it! Lol! Well, I hope everything works out for you. And I will keep you in my prayers!
Chrystine:
Thanks for opening up discussion. This is by no means a touchy subject and something that I am happy to talk about with others.
Having been indoctrinated with religion, I was given a chance to think for myself upon entering college and found that religion does not stand up to the microscope of logic and reasoning.
The universe and the small planet we call earth are all a result of the “big bang” and the aftermath of that. Life began on earth in the microbial stages billions of years ago and evolution has taken life to what it is today. Through technology we have been able to find over 1 billion galaxies in our universe. Each of those galaxies has aprox. 1 billion planets within it. Therefore, there is 1 billion billion planets (at least) in our known universe. If you say that the chance of an earthlike planet being formed is a 1 in a billion chance, you still have 1 billion earthlike planets that could have formed. The odds are rather high, even for a probability equation. None of this gives evidence to a sky-god.
You say “someone had to create it; and that was God”. Why did someone have to create it? Why is that the only option? Just because we do not understand something does not give us credence to shove a god into that crack of the unknown. Religion has operated in this sense for many years. we didn’t understand lighting so Zeus must be throwing it down. we didn’t understand rain, so God must be opening flood hatches to dump water on us. we didn’t understand the sun and moon so we worshiped them. the church was convinced the earth was flat, and then that the earth was the center of our solar system. Wherever science honestly says “we don’t know the answer, but we are looking for evidence of the correct answer” religion steps in and shoves god into that gap. That is otherwise known as “God of the Gaps”. I have yet to see provable, repeatable evidence for any type of god.
Kara:
Hmm… If you couldn’t guess already, I don’t agree with you in the least. The Catholic Church is my everything and I will do my very best to defend Her. From what you’ve wrote above, you have studied this and I have studied my Catholic Faith, but you’ll have to give me a little bit to gather my thoughts! But, in reaction to the “big band” theory you believe in, (I hope this doesn’t come across as sarcastic) but saying that the world just “became” or “came into exsistence” is like saying that a dictionary is the product of an explosion in a printing factory. The Book of Genesis, says it all. It takes you through day by day of how God created the universe. Now all of the information you gave above of the billions of galaxies seem to be information from within the big bang theory and therefore, I don’t believe it. As for evolution, do you believe that we evolved from apes? Because if you do… why are there still apes on this planet? Adam, the first human being, did not just come to be. God created him from the dust of the earth. That is why on Ash Wednesday, at the beginning of Lent, we have ashes placed on our foreheads and the words “Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return” are said. God then created Eve, from Adam’s rib. From Adam and Eve came the rest of the human race. There are some things that we need to just believe and not always have an exact reason or logic for. Again, in the Bible Jesus Christ said: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.” The supernatural things throughout the Catholic Faith, for instance: The Eucharist, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell, Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven are things that a human cannot wrap their mind around and will go absolutely crazy trying to figure out. This is where God, Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church come into play. Seminarians, Theologians, Priests, Deacons, Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes have studied this and questions like these for centuries and the only way any of this world can be true is if someone supernatural created it. Which brings me to the question: “Where do you believe that people go after they die?” We don’t just cease to exsist. Depending on the way we live out life, we will go to Heaven and spend eternity with Our Almighty Father, Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saint and angels, or we will go to Hell and burn in fire with the devil and his followers. And yet there is hope for those who die with sin still on their soul. These people go to Purgatory and are purified from their sin and then will be taken to Heaven. Those are my thoughts and belief’s. I have many more but I don’t think Facebook has the capacity to hold them all!
Chrystine:
The bible says the earth is 6,000 years old. Science and evidence through carbon dating and zirconium dating have dated the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. Astrophysics has established that it has been 13.7 billion earth years since the big bang. all these numbers are supported by evidence, repeatable math equations, fossil records and physics. arguing against it is the modern equivalent of saying the earth is flat.
Humans did not evolve from apes. do some research on this from non religious science sources. Humans, Neanderthals and apes and chimps evolved from previous lines of now extinct ape like ancestors. That humans somehow evolved from monkeys is the uneducated reply to evolution.
You claim god created the universe. Prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What is your proof that something happens to humans after death? Humans have created the allusion of eternal life because death scares us. Our brains do not know what it is like to not exist. However I did not exist for billions of years before I was born and I imagine I will be just fine not existing for billions of years after I die. There will be no “me” to be sad or concerned about it either.
How Evolution works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY
Kara:
Well, for my point of veiw this hasn’t really been “fun”, because I’m worried about your soul. I’m glad you enjoyed it though. Again, I must say I’m extremely shocked at your change of religious beliefs. God bless you Christine and I will pray for you. AND I will also come up with form of proof for you in the future! And then we shall continue this discussion! Talk to you later!
Chrystine:
If you can prove that I have a soul, I will let you be worried about it. Please do not pray for me, as it is a true waste of time and will amount to nothing. Instead, educate yourself and branch out from your comfort zone. It is refreshing outside the box. I look forward to your proofs, though I must warn you I haven’t found one yet that has held up to logic. Let me leave you with this little gem:
In The God Delusion, Dawkins discusses evolutionary by products. The example he chooses to use is a moth flying into a flame as a demonstration of what we see as abject stupidity. Why would a moth deliberately fly into a flame?
This is not an example of natural selection….it is an example of natural selection gone wrong. Moths evolved to fly at night by using celestial objects as guides: Keep the light source in a certain position and you can navigate, much as we do with a compass which points north. Dawkins notes that it was not until comparatively late in evolutionary history that there was anything like artificial lights to throw off the moths. We see only the moths who get distracted by the flames. We do not see millions of moths who merrily go on their way without self-immolating themselves.
So, what is the Darwinian answer to religion? Dawkins sees it this way.
“My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff-edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.”
Dawkins then continues:
“Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-produce is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents and elders whom parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot know that “Don’t paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo” is good advice but “You must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains will fail” is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions sound equally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience.”
The Jesuit maxim “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man” clearly understand the net result of this principle.
Benjamin Franklin was a man who despised organize religion and the notion that if we cannot explain something, god must have done it! Early on in his life he put together a list of principles by which to lead his life, which he later disclosed in his autobiography.
His “Plan” was made up of 13 virtues, each with short descriptions:
1. Temperance: Eat not to dullness and drink not to elevation.
2. Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation.
3. Order: Let all your things have their places. Let each part of your business have its time.
4. Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e. Waste nothing.
6. Industry: Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. Sincerity: Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice: Wrong none, by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation: Avoid extremes. Forebear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness: Tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes or habitation.
11. Chastity: Rarely use venery but for health or offspring; Never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
12. Tranquility: Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
13. Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
I heartily agree with #1-12 and partially with #13. The tale of Jesus has some good “morals to the story”, just as many children’s fables do. I agree with Franklin in this regard. You cannot blame the character Jesus for the crimes of all of his followers and religious sects. He is just a poor guy trapped in a story, no harm done initially.
I am very vocal on facebook about my opinions on current events and religious idocity. I commonly post videos and links about science or atheism. Harkening back to my days as a homeschooled, brainwashed catholic, I have a good handful of “carry-over” facebook friends that undoubtedly shuffle through my outspoken linkage on the FB. As a result, i get a lot of personal messages (as well as public ones) from people defending their religion or challenging my atheism. I love this sort of dialogue, however there have been a few nasty ones that resulted in me being taken off a friend list (yes, like in gradeschool). Here is one of the best (name has been changed to protect identity).
Ann:
You’re entitled to think what you want about God, but to make gross generalizations about religion promoting ignorance or a lack of understanding really is just that, ignorant, and it’s also malicious. I follow God because he’s the reason the universe exists in the complexity of the organization that it does. There has to be a reason all this matter is here in such minute organization and with so many defined laws of nature. What I’ve learned clicks with the teachings of Christ. I study theology, science and the Bible to understand my faith and search for the truth more than I study material for my career or anything else I read for fun. So before you make generalizations knocking everyone else’s faith just because you had a bad experience with yours, please keep in mind that everyone has reasons for their faith, some better than others. Not everyone understands their own faith, and that’s tragic. I know you know what God’s teachings are, and you know those aren’t the problem in this world. Religion has done vastly more good than evil. People are the problem, godless ones just as much as people of faith. The act of following God, when it’s done the way God wants us to, is not the problem. I sincerely hope you find your way back to God, but until you do, please refrain from insulting everyone else’s faith.
Chrystine:
Thanks for opening up discussion.
You speak of knowing that a god is the starter of the universe. How do you know this? I am a reasonable, rational being and when presented with evidence or proof, I accept the claim provided the evidence is provable and repeatable.
You say you have faith, but what is that? Faith is believing in something that has no evidence or proof. I do not see that behavior as commendable. Here we are back to my status message. Religion makes a virtue out of not knowing something, assuming an answer devoid of evidence and calling it the truth. On top of this, religions start wars, control others who disagree promoting hatred, cover up child rape, deal in hoards of money through mega churches, and even discourage science at every crossroad; ALL in the name of a god.
Until the claim for a god can be proven, I will remove myself from superstitious groups and challenge those who blindly follow groups that promote ignorance and human suffering on so many different levels.
George W Bush once said that God told him to start the war in the middle East. In normal society, people who hear voices in their head telling them to harm others are committed to a mental institution for treatment. Somehow if the voice hearer claim a sky god was the voice, then we let them obey those “voices in their head” and even defend them.
Ann:
I wasn’t trying to open up discussion about this. I have reasons for following God and you have reasons for being an atheist. Like I said, you’re entitled to think whatever you want. But you can think it without hurling insults at religion and making gross generalizations about Christians. I try to follow Jesus’ teachings and he never promoted hatred, covered up child rape or dealt with hoards of money or started wars. I took you off my friends list because I was just sick of seeing it. It’s bigotry and you’re using some nasty stereotypes. I’m tired of seeing it so I took you off my friends list so I won’t have to. I was just hoping you would realize what you’re doing.
Chrystine:
that’s fine. I understand that u can’t defend what u think and it is easier to make me go away than argue your side.
Ann:
This isn’t about defending what I think, it’s about you being nasty and offensive. I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you because it would be like what they say about wrestling with a pig. You only get dirty and the pig likes it.
Chrystine:
I have a hard time understanding what is offensive about logic and reason. If you find it in you to insult me by comparing me to a pig that is your prerogative.
—–
And here is where I was removed from her “friend list” and conveniently ignored without reply.
Sam Harris, prominent author and outspoken American atheist has just launched a new website project call “The Reason Project”. It is a great resource for articles and tools to equip you and others with reason and knowledge.
In the 2008 year I came out to my family as an atheist. I agree with some atheist homosexuals I know that coming out as an atheist can be more taboo in some families than finding out one’s son or daughter is gay. Perhaps it means that people truly understand that a person is unable to alter their sexual preference, unlike one’s religious or non religious standing.
It did not help my family to console them with the notion that they to a certain extent are just as atheist as I am; I just take it one god further. As in most families, news such as this spreads like wildfire. I was fairly certain that every one of my extended family members knew I was openly non-theistic by the time a family wedding took place. My partner and I flew back home for the event, so our arrival was packed with family and friend visits.
To my astonishment, many people who would never wish to open their mouth and let the word religion spill out of it, approached me with religious questions or topics on atheism. 5 family members of mine and 1 family member of my partner engaged in discussion with me on the topic of atheism. 3 friends also spoke in length about religion and atheism. Although, I may have instigated the conversation of a one or two of those. I was pleasantly surprised by the whole visit. At the family wedding I was the atheist magnet, ushering out questions from family whom I suspected were not on the religion merry-go-round, but have not yet made the move to “come out”.
I can only encourage those who have not let it known how they stand to friends and family to be the voice of reason. If you can defend your position, can defend your worldview and competently debate claims of sky-gods, you will be a vital resource to others who might not yet have the knowledge or courage to be a lighthouse for others in your circles of friends and family. You might be as pleasantly surprised as i was that weekend. Your odds are growing just as fast as the percentage of non-religious Americans increases (8% in 1999 to 16% in 2008). At that rate, we might catch up to Europe’s 48% non-religious sooner than you know!
View this “map of war” to get a visual of how many nations have overthrown the middle east. While you are watching, recall how many conquering nations did so in the name of their religious sky-god.
Understanding why the Catholic church does not allow men to marry is a sticky, muddled mess. It is one of the few differences between the Eastern Byzantine and Roman Catholic branches that split in the Great Schism. In a nutshell, Catholic priests cannot be women because Jesus had a penis (so all priests must have penises like Jesus). Also, priests cannot use their penis for masturbation or sex (in or out of marriage) because the are “brides of Christ”… or grooms of Christ… wait, is that gay? The result is a large population of gay and straight men who cannot help themselves “beat the demon out” and run about horny as toads, many of whom prey on little boys or have secret affairs like our friend Fr. Cutié. Yes, that is his REAL last name.
Fr. Cutié was caught this week by the the tabloids getting cozy with a lady friend. He is a mega-catholic-church priest who was adored by his sheeple, I mean flock, and has a strong media presence on EWTN and in the Spanish community. [read the full Times Article]
The “bride of Christ” code words that are thrown around to describe a priest’s celibacy vows reminds me of so many Christians I know who have a love relationship with Jesus or God that is indistinguishable from a crush on a teacher or pop star. “God is love”, right? To anyone who has had to listen to a virgin, celibate priest’s sermon on how to have a good relationship, I feel your pain. You hear them at weddings all the time. It is akin to asking the Amish how to improve the battery life on your Prius.
Fr. Cutié is just another in the long line of religious hypocrites who say one thing and do another. The very types that this Jesus guy supposedly came to do away with. Celibacy in the church is a joke, and I care naught if it remains as is or changes to allow marriage. One thing is clear: human biology is strong and our DNA wants us to pass on our genes. The unnatural state of forced celibacy does more harm than good in repressing those needs rather than addressing them as parts of the human function. We eat, we sleep, we breath, we have sex.
Recently, the NOAA published these photos taken by a guy in Idaho. They are a very rare phenomon that require very specific conditions to form. It looks designed, doesn’t it? It looks like man made them or a sky-god was playing in the snow. Nope! Just natural causes APPEARING to look designed (just like evolution). Enjoy!
Watch the Debate: Included is Christopher Hitchens. Around the 30 minute mark, the Christian panel says that atheism (or as he likes to call it anti-theism) is for the intelligent, the strong and the well connected of thought. He then asks Hitchens why he is so opposed to Christianity which offers (easy) answers for the weak and unintelligent. Enjoy the response!
Hitchen’s book “God is Not Great” presents a detailed look at why religion spoils everything. The extent of logic and examples he presents concerning many different religious cultures and how they commit atrocities will shock even a moderate atheist. His chapter on child abuse and religion was particularly revealing. He describes in depth the torture inflicted on young children through female circumcision in many religions (including Islam) and male circumcision in the Judeo-Christian religion (among others).
I highly recommend this especially to those who wish to know more when demonstrating to the religious how religion does more harm than good. The minimal “good” that religion produces by no means justifies the increasing number of large scale demonstrations of greed, manipulation and bloodshed incurred by religion. I’ll let Hitchens take it from here and plug his own book:
The next 5 pages I will condense into one post, as they are all in the “God Caused” category and there is little else to say about all of them as we have many times previous to this debunked the arguements building up to this point, making the claims rather devoid of logical foundations. But anyway, here we go:
The main arguement for tying Justice to a god is summed up in the line:
..since all humanity accepts the knowledge that some events and standards are better than others—even though cultures may differ on what those events or standards may be—there must be an ultimate Source of such thinking, even if the absolute standard has become distorted over time.
This sort of “reasoning by popularity” stands to prove nothing in the way of what is supposed to be perfect “First Cause”. Saying because a behavior or standard of human interaction is common among humans because God put them there is absurd. This would be like saying
Most humans agree that they like sugar, therefore there must be a god who also likes sugar.
or
Most humans have a fear of pumas, therefore there must be a god who also fears pumas.
This is the argument:
The very fact that we can love and be loved (by God and by others) is yet another proof of a Creator’s love.
Again, they are using a human emotion/action/ability to argue that the “First Cause” cares about humans and made them like itself. The same could be said about hate. Other animals, as far as we can tell, do not carry resentment or hatred for others. Humans can hate, destroy and torture like no other animal can. If we use the same logic as the ICR to say that “God is love” because of the extra-ordinary way humans are able to love, then we should also say that “God is hate” in the same extra-ordinary way that humans are able to hate.
Here, the ICR argues that atheists have no purpose in life because they think they are here only for the time they spend on earth, and nothing comes after death. They go on to say
Humans in particular seek a “reason to exist” and for the most part find it difficult to accept that we are simply here to consume the earth’s resources and die.
Here we have to ask if seeking a reason for existance merits there to be a reason beyond our existance. An atheist will tell you that the reason for your existance is to exist. Once you are done existing, you are done existing and there is no “you” to worry or be sad about your non-existance. You did not exist for trillions of years before you were born and that didn’t seem to bother you. Why should not existing for trillions of years after you exist bother you?
They go on to say that not having religion causes problems without offering an iota of evidence, stats or logic to back up the claims:
Such hopeless beliefs drive many into lives of debauchery and hedonism, and fill the couches of psychologists and psychiatrists all over the world. Teenage suicide is alarmingly high, and the therapitst themselves continue to manifest one of the highest suicide rates in civilized countries. Scandals abound among the leaders of world business, politics, and churches.
I could say the same about religion. Relgion causes wars, hatred between peoples, and encourages discrimination of women, atheists, homosexuals and people of other religions. Religions regions of america order the most cable porn, cause child sexual abuse by clergy.. religion even encourages people to pray instead of seeking medical help, resulting in their death or the death of their child.
The ICR here tries to say that God is the law of entropy. Because things natural degrade to a state of less energy or order, they assume there must be a creator without providing evidence, math or logic to back it up. Simply drop a bottle of milk and you’ll see what they are getting at.
Everyday experiences, such as broken watches and spilled milk, remind us that order does not happen by itself. In fact, our entire universe teaches us that same truth. The earth’s rotation, the moon cycle, and the changing seasons are just a few of the ordered processes observable in nature. These processes don’t happen randomly but are divinely caused by God.
The last sentence is the clincher. Because of Darwin’s research, it is incorrect to say that nothing we know looks designed unless it is designed. “Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting prodigious hights of complexity and elegance.”-Dawkins These accomplishments of natural evolution manifest goal-seeking behaviour that “rewards” the process with survival and the continuation of the species and designs.
The last one, God Caused Wisdom is arguably the most absurd gap of logic in the entire “God Caused” portion.
To the extent that humans have any wisdom at all, much less the wisdom necessary to understand a meaningful amount of the working of the universe, the very fact that we can understand at all is more amazing than the marvelous physics of the universe! How can an immaterial mind, residing inside a human body, made mostly of water (along with other constituent elements of the earth), comprehend anything, even this sentence?
The ICR is pulling a classic “it’s complicated therefor it must be supernatural”. The irony of statements like this is that our brains thought up the word “wisdom” and the created the sentence. Our brains find patterns and meaning in our surroundings for survival and we can visual see inside the procesees of the brain with a machine that we created with our brains! Wisdom, or the ability to know and understand, is a lable humans give to a function of the brain. The brain, being the only organ in the body that is aware of itself is unique and highly evolved, however that does not prove or even suggest that a supernatural sky-god exists. If brains were so special and self-awareness so unique a thing, why does every living creature have one and monkeys one very similar to our own? Did god run out of blue prints or ideas and decided to make humans with the same genetic mold as monkeys? Why is it that we share 99.9% similar gene makeup with monkeys?
DNA is like code for living things. This DNA can be turned on or off as demonstrated by science. We see evidence of human evolution from a tailed animal or fish in the womb when a fetus has a tail early in devolopement. Through science we are becoming more versed in the workings of our world and the processes that shape it. Religion is just trying to catch up by taking science and inserting “god” into the unknown gaps of science that is being explored today. Religion runs behind science cleaning up all its blunders in history when religious leaders have been certain about the earth being the center of the solar system or they have been certain that god punishes sins with contageous diseases or when they were positive that the earth was 6,000 years old according to the bible. After they clean up their messes, they run ahead of science as say the have the answers for the unknown portions.
As an ex-catholic and professionally trained musician, I substitute as organist for local catholic churches in my area. I find ample opportunity to have a good internal laugh listening to the deception and misinformation that flows from pulpits. Let me explain:
In The God Delusion, Dawkins 
discusses evolutionary by-products. The example he chooses to use is a moth flying into a flame as a demonstration of what we see as abject stupidity. Why would a moth deliberately fly into a flame?
This is not an example of natural selection….it is an example of natural selection gone wrong. Moths evolved to fly at night by using celestial objects as guides: Keep the light source in a certain position and you can navigate, much as we do with a compass which points north. Dawkins notes that it was not until comparatively late in evolutionary history that there was anything like artificial lights to throw off the moths. We see only the moths who get distracted by the flames. We do not see millions of moths who merrily go on their way without self-immolating themselves.
So, what is the Darwinian answer to religion? Dawkins sees it this way.
My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff-edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.
Dawkins then continues:
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-produce is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents and elders whom parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot know that “Don’t paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo” is good advice but “You must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains will fail” is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions sound equally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience.
Recently I played an Easter Vigil service at a mega catholic church. They did the whole candle lighting bit where the entire place was dark and the only light emitted was from each person’s candle and one giant 4 foot tall candle on the altar. At this point in the service, I had started zoning out until a large moth flying about caught my attention. I watched it with intrigue having just read the part in Dawkin’s book about moths and religion. It flew in and out of a beam of artificial light that shone on the priest reading something from the altar. Then it got distracted by the giant man-sized candle on the altar. It promptly flew over to the candle and immolated itself right there in the flame. It was a very fitting display to myself and anyone else who might have known the resemblance to the moth’s suicide and the horrible side effects of religion on humanity.
The Jesuit maxim “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man” clearly understand the net result of this principle. Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
The next sections of the ICR attribute causality of the things we appreciate to a god. The first deals with “God Caused Beauty“. The entire argument states that beauty is a ration and emotional reaction to the world around us and that we hunger for beauty:
That such a hunger exists only in the human being is a wonder in itself! The flower is not impressed with its own majesty; it merely exists with no conscious awareness. The chimpanzee does not gaze longingly on the enigma of the Mona Lisa, nor do the stars muse on the heavens they themselves grace.
First of all, we do not know for certain whether other animals see and appreciate the world in similar ways as humans. They certainly are not at a cognitive level where describing, labeling and recreating beauty is within their power, but that is not evidence for the lack of appreciation. Secondly, through evolution, humans are conditioned to seek what we describe as beauty in nature. It is a survival mechanism when hunting for colorful fruit or lush streams to drink from. We see “beauty” in the opposite sex as part of an attraction mechanism that is involved with natural selection. “Beauty” is a human observation given to visible things around us that we take pleasure in. If the human race evolved to what it has become today but on the planet Mars, we would think red skies and barren desert landscapes were beautiful. Things are what they are regardless of the human qualitative descriptor.
In fact, all humanity eschews destruction and random chaos as “ugly” and attempts to mask death with various levels of cosmetic disguises, and this speaks to the realization that some sights and sounds are not beautiful, and thus there must exist a standard of perfect beauty.
This deduction does not follow. The human perspective on human actions as positive or negative does not require that there be a standard of perfect beauty. The author here is using human attributes as proof for a supernatural perfect being while asserting that humanity is itself imperfect. Perfection does not equal existance.
The next “step” in the ICR proof for a god is in the The Logical Implications. I find it difficult to continue at this point because everything argued in this portion rests upon the premise that there is undeniably one “First Cause” for the universe. In my previous three posts on ICR, I have provided numerous fallacies in this line of reasoning where the ICR has failed to offer scientific evidence to support their claims. At this point, the ICR giddily slides down the path of defining this “First Cause” with human descriptors and emotions:
The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite.
The First Cause of endless time must be eternal.
The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.
The First Cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent.
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.
The First Cause of spiritual values must be spiritual.
The First Cause of human responsibility must be volitional.
The First Cause of human integrity must be truthful.
The First Cause of human love must be loving.
The First Cause of life must be living.
Basically, the ICR is trying to charactarize the “First Cause” according to what was produced (the universe and humankind). If we are going to follow this logic and define the “First Cause” (FC) by what it caused into being (let’s give them the benifit of the doubt for a moment), then we have to consider the entirety of what was caused.
Lets go piece by piece. Energy, ENDLESS Time and Space are the three existant things that are attributed to the FC. The FC is said to be omnipotent, infinate and eternal because the FC created these three things. All three of these deductions are baseless and without proof, however the ENDLESS TIME example is the most out of order. In the “Time, Space, and Matter” portion of the argument, the ICR claims that the FC created time. Moreover, they say that:
Time is not eternal, but created. To ask what happened in time before time was created is to create a false paradox without meaning.
The self contradition alone is enough. In the first part of your arguement you cannot say “A is not B, but C” and then later on say “B is A therefore D.”
The next three FC premises about omni- offer no logical proof or deduction. The most obvious one to pick apart is ” The First Cause of spiritual values must be spiritual”. Considering the ICR claims to be scientific, they do not offer any law of spiritual values. Where did these values come from? Are they universal? How do we know they are spiritual? There are many assumptions made that are not explained because there simply is no explaination that could hold water.
The next three speak to the human characteristics of the FC:
The First Cause of human responsibility must be volitional.
The First Cause of human integrity must be truthful.
The First Cause of human love
These three only cover the positives of humanity. If we accept the blanket argument that the FC is a reflection of the charactaristics of it’s creation, then we cannot stop with the positives. We must continue on:
The FC of human violence must be filled with malace.
The FC of human hatred must be angry.
The FC of human greed must be selfish.
The list could go on and on… and much of it would be supported by verses in the Christian bible where the god of abraham kills over 2 million people through the course of the “good book”, is described as a jealous god, and we constantly hear about the “rath of God”.
The last ICR claim is the kicker:
The First Cause of life must be living.
That is akin to saying “the cause of death must be dead”. As we see in the physical world, many things cause something else that does not share the same property to itself. For example lets examine a fire buring from wood. The wood is the first cause and the fire is the life. Pretend for a moment that you are in a hypothetical world that cannot perceive the existance of wood, but you can perceive the flame and heat from the fire when the wood burns. Through your observations, you deduce that the flame seems to be coming out of nowhere, there fore the cause of the fire must be fire. The logic is full of holes. Things are not always as they seem:
In the ICR “Time, Space and Matter” we encounter first a few of the flawed proofs I address in the two privious posts. After this, they continue with:
Many scientists today conduct their research based on their presupposition or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world—that which can be seen around us—and thus they do not accept that any ultimate Cause exists.
That is correct. However, ICR seeks to scew this position in order to later justify themselves as scientists. Objective science seeks to understand how the universe works without inserting an agenda. Science finds proof and presents it to speak for itself. Today there is no way to know how the bounds outside our physical universe operate. Scientists do not assume that nothing exists outside of the universe, however it does assume that nothing we know of exists outside of or acts upon our physical universe. There simply is no evidence to suggest there is an outside force manipulating the physical universe and we have no way to go outside of it to look. Therefor, science says “we don’t know until we know” and leaves it at that. Religion comes along and fills in the gaps with a supernatural being without evidence. let’s continue…
Scientists at ICR hold to the presupposition that the “uncaused First Cause” is the Creator who exists outside of the physical creation He made. Time is not eternal, but created. To ask what happened in time before time was created is to create a false paradox without meaning. There was no “before” prior to the creation of the triune universe of time, space, and mass/energy.
A true scientist does not hold presuppositions. Scientists have “givens” (things that have been previously scientifically proven as true) and conduct observations and experiements to find the answer to the one “not given” in an equation or question. “Physicists have long struggled to understand what time really is. In fact, they are not even sure it exists at all. In their quest for deeper theories of the universe, some researchers increasingly suspect that time is not a fundamental feature of nature, but rather an artefact of our perception.1” In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. Einstein presented the argument that space and time are entangled as space-time. Time is just one of 13+ dimensions of the universe that we can perceieve.
Finally, the proof takes a giant leap without proof:
Yet even more amazing (and the universe is amazing) is the historic fact that the Creator-God, after purposefully creating the time-space-matter universe, chose to enter it in the God-human person of Jesus Christ—for the sole purpose of providing a means by which humanity could have a personal relationship with the Creator.
1. Just because something is amazing does not default it to unknowable. We used to worship the sun and moon because they were amazing and mysterious to us.
2. Jumping from saying there must have been a “First Cause” to saying that we know for a fact that that first cause PURPOSEFULLY started the universe, still cares about it, is a MALE, and wants to have a personal relationship with the one species out of trillions on a tiny planet out of billions in a tiny solar system out of billions is a very LARGE assumption to be making without repeatable evidence.
Let’s visit Flatland with Dr. Quantum to get an idea of how dimensions like space-time can be limiting on the human perception and may just be an illusion:
This is the first in a series of posts addressing the issues with Institute for Creation Research (ICR) “proofs” offered on their website. This post deals with the “Everything Has a Cause” proof.
The line of reasoning they offer is very short and in a nutshell, they argue that because everything has a cause (cause and effect), all that exists harkens back to the “First Cause”.
Eventually, we must face the question of the original cause—and uncaused First Cause. … Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.
At this point, they are logically correct and in line with science. So far what we have been able to assertain through scientific research is that the big bang was a singularity where all the energy and matter in our universe today that comprises all the elements, dark matter, solar systems and tiny planets like earth were all compacted into that singularity. Science so far has not been able to answer the question of what came before that singularity “burst” into our expanding universe. This is where they go awry:
This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything).
Basically they are saying that either one thing caused the big bang or the universe is perpetual and no one thing caused the universe to be set in motion. What they do not provide is how we get from saying we know the universe had a starting point to saying there are only two options for its beginning.
Why does the law of causality lead to a choice between only two alternatives? There could be multiple events or things that caused the universe to begin, not just one. It is possible that whatever caused the universe no longer exists or perished in the prosess of the birth of the universe. It is also probably that outside of our physical universe bound by certain laws of physics and causality, these laws do not hold true or other laws might exist. There are many more probably theories on what existed before the start of the universe:
Hartle–Hawking state
Brane cosmology
Chaotic Inflation theory
Mulitverse
There is currently no way of knowing that which is outside of our physical universe and how the “outside” operates. Also, conjuring up causality and then saying “here are your only two possibilities” does not defunct the answer to the option that offers singularity.
Follow: