The Importance of the Audience in Religious Debate

 I've struck up a conversation with a so-far polite gentleman on another blog I frequent. Out of courtesy to the blog's owner/operator, this gentleman, a Christian theist, asked me if I'd like to continue the exchange of thoughts in a PM format..i.e."email". I declined that offer because I don't believe that either party's mind will be changed in such exchanges. On the other hand, there are people on the fence out there who are experiencing honest doubt right this second who could therefore benefit from observing exchanges between theist and atheist, judging for themselves whose arguments best stack-up and align with what we call "logic". I, of course, contend that my arguments best align with logic. If I didn't, I wouldn't have these beliefs. And it should be noted that I changed my mind once, I'll do it again under the right circumstances.

It is for these reasons that I'm happy to keep the exchange of thoughts going right here; right now, in a public format.

Moving right into things, this gentleman, heretofore called "UE", had this to say....

 I'm not here to tell you what you should think, just to express my own views. So I couldn't believe most of what you have said because for me it would be contrary to evidence and logic.

I can appreciate that. Thx. However, I contend that you are implicitly telling me what to think, since you are a Christian and Christianity claims to provide the answers to life's greatest questions, including how we and the universe have come to exist. And furthermore, there is a threat of bodily harm as a consequence hanging over my head if I don't adopt this belief, which would require me to start thinking the way that you think if I want to avoid this (supposed) consequence.

UE goes on...

I think differently to you:

1. I think a claim about you having cognitive dissonance is on about as sure a foundation as a claim that all christians do.

2. I think all of us have a blend of objective and subjective beliefs, and I am not convinced on the basis of this discussion that I have any more subjective or less objective than you.

3. Non-belief doesn't require blind faith any more than christianity does, but many unbelievers have it just as many christians do. I would need more "blind faith" to disbelieve than I would to believe - that is why I believe.

4. I don't believe I am using a God of the gaps argument for I base my views on the latest science. When the science is updated (science of the gaps???) I will update my views, just as scientists do.

5. The fact that there are differences between our relationships with others and my relationship with God doesn't say one bit about the aspects of the analogy which I used. All analogies fail at some point, but the important thing is to test them at the point in which they are being applied.

RE: 1. Strongly disagree. Whatever resultant skepticism I have due to cognitive dissonance, that skepticism is applied evenly and across the board. For instance, I disbelieve the supernatural claims of all religions. Conversely, the Xian theist makes an exception for the supernatural claims of Christianity, while they are at least skeptical of the supernatural claims of opposing religions, if not dismissing those claims out of hand. Therefore, my "foundation" as described above leaves less room for error than that of a Christian, who doesn't apply skepticism comprehensively.

RE: 2. Strongly disagree. Once more, the "foundation" on which your chosen brand of religion rests is, in part, due to your compartmentalizing your beliefs. My critique of theistic claims is therefore at least more objective than yours, because I reject them all, whereas, you reject all but Christianity's supernatural claims. If you cannot (or will not) concede this self-evident point, then conversation on the matter is pretty much pointless.

RE: 3. You are essentially saying that "non-belief" and "Christian belief" are on equal grounds, so I have both a comment and question, with the question being first: Are you suggesting that "non-belief" is on equally flimsy grounds as Christianity? Or are you conceding that non-belief is right up there with Christianity in being plausible??? It seems that one or the other must be true. My comment is this: Assuming that "non-belief" requires "blind faith", feel free to explain how your non-belief that "Poseidon" controls the tides requires "blind faith", assuming you agree that gravitational pull controls the tides, not "Poseidon".

RE: 4. You seem to be implying that there is no conflict between modern science, and Christianity and its bible. How you could tell me such a thing with a straight face is, idk, astonishing to me. In any case, the bible is chalk full of heinous scientific blunders. There is not a "firmament"(a dome) holding up the "water" in the sky. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, one scrap of scientific confirmation for any of the following:

talking snakes, talking vegetation, coming back from the dead, virgin births, giants, unicorns, witches, people who can heal disease with bird's blood, and the list goes on. One scientific theory is that the universe has always existed in one form or another. Have you "updated" your view on "creation" with that theory? I'll wager that you haven't.

RE: 5. I agree that analogies aren't perfect nor are they meant to prove anything. They are used to illustrate a point or comparison. Well, I still maintain that your claimed "relationship" with an invisible, inaudible, non-corporeal, immaterial being is not on equal grounds with that of a "relationship" we have with our friends and family. I also adamantly disagree that the latter type of "relationship" requires "as much faith" as the former. So, in my view, the analogy falls short of being analogous with your premise.

   But suppose your principle is true - that we can't call something an answer if it raises another question. Then that rules out science. All current events and states can be explained in terms of laws and previous states, and in the end, all science starts at the big bang, which you have already admitted you cannot explain. So since we both agree that science does in fact explain lots of things, the principle you applied to God cannot be true.

Here's the glaring difference: Science admits when it doesn't know something, in this case, how the universe came to be(which shoots down your "science of the gaps" hypothesis).  If you can't explain how "God did it!", then at the end of the day, the only honest answer is "I don't know" when it comes to an explanation for the existence of the universe. So, yes, you most certainly are using a "God of the gaps" argument when you are asked to explain how the universe came to exist and you answer, "God did it!". And furthermore, "all science" does not "start at the big bang". This idea that, well, science either knows everything, or it knows nothing at all, is an ill-conceived idea. "Science" doesn't pretend to know why an over-ripened apple falls to the ground. No, science knows and can explain how "gravitational theory" works. Science isn't answering that question with another question as you are when you answer with "God did it!" to the question of how the universe came into being.

So it remains true to me that God is a better explanation than no explanation and I could never accept your reasoning to negate that because it is based on a wrong principles and bad logic.

Here you are being self-refuting, as you are conceding that, rather than pleading ignorance..i.e..saying "I don't know", you'd rather plug that gap in your knowledge with a "God", and further, you call that a "better explanation", when it really explains nothing at all. Ironically, you are employing the very "bad logic" that you accuse me of using when I admit that I don't know something. I suppose it would also be "bad logic" if I should lose my car keys and say, "I don't know where my keys are", and it would be "good logic" to say... "Gremlins must have taken my car keys again!", because, after all, the latter is a "better explanation" than none at all. If that seems amiss or silly to you, then good, you immediately know how your reasoning sounds to me. 

Ad Hominem: Revisited

ad hominem: adjective 

1) appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather to one's intellect or reason
2) attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument

Ref: Dictionary dot com

In the wake of posting my last article, it seems that there was a bit of backlash from the female Christian blogger who read and remarked on another article by a Christian Pastor, an article which was essentially Pt. 1 of a sermon titled, "The Pathology of False Disciples".

Putting that sermon aside for a sec', said Christian blogger evidently saw something I had written on her own blog, subsequently leading her back to my blog.

**I now interject that I have gone on record many times to say that Christians and Christian beliefs are a big source of my blogging subject matter. I mean, there is always plenty of material to work with, and recently had been one such time** 

Moving on, the Christian blogger came here and took issue with what I had written on my last blog post, suggesting that I overlooked the context of who the bible verse was talking about. But instead of addressing it here, she did so on her own blog. Note, I don't mind being straightened out if I'm actually in error, as trust me, I'm the last guy on earth who wants to sit here and defend my errors.

So, the Christian blogger contended that in "John 6" there is a "crowd" that (supposedly) witnessed Jesus and his (alleged) "miracles", and these people "spiritually defect", despite (allegedly) having seen those "miracles" firsthand.

Cutting to the chase---there are 9 points that were referenced on this Christian blogger's post, each one describing characteristics of "false disciples", AKA, "spiritual defectors". Again, as to not defend my errors, I am willing to concede that "John 6" deals with the people of that time period, and specifically, the "crowd" mentioned. Let the record show that "Atheists" are not... repeat, NOT mentioned.

Now, here's what I'm not willing to concede: I'm not willing to concede this notion that the sermon in question isn't talking to today's Christians about today's "spiritual defectors", E.g...what signs to look for. It most certainly is. What I'm also not willing to concede is that, of those whom today's Christians count as "spiritual defectors", former believers who've turned "atheist" aren't included. Christians most certainly do include the former-believer-turned-atheist as a "spiritual defector", as I've been told, point-blank, that I was never a "True Christian" by many a believer. Thus, my conclusion on this matter is that there was some equivocation going on in my being corrected.

But right now I want to get back to "ad hominem": In the Christian blogger's retort, which BTW, consisted of three short paragraphs, I count three ad hominem attacks. She could have corrected my "context" error without saying that my "outraged reaction" was "set on 11". She could have pointed out the "context" without calling me a "sneering internet atheist". And lastly, she could have pointed out the "context" of the biblical passage without telling me that I should not expect to use her blog as a "forum" for my "expertise on all things", and BTW, the latter is both ad hominem and a strawman fallacy.

An expert on all things? Hardly. But do I know my fallacies? Yes. And I have a good reason to know them. And if there's any "expert" on my own experiences with Christianity and its "Christ", mark my words that this would be me, not you(Christian blogger). That, in a nutshell, is my argument against this lecture on the "spiritual defectors".

And BTW, I don't moderate comments here. Anyone is invited to use reasoned arguments to contend a point or make their case.

The Pathology of a True Believer

Disclaimer: This article is a spin-off of an article mentioned on a Christian blog I recently linked to, and the article is entitled, "The Pathology of False Disciples". I won't provide a link because, unless you are a believer it will likely only infuriate you, and this is especially if you are a former believer. Nonetheless, for anyone curious to see the entire article, you can paste the title into your browser, and the article in question will likely pop up.

 For now, the Christian blog I mentioned happened to provide the tell-tale signs of a "spiritual defector", which are the following....

...are attracted by the crowd. The bigger the crowd, the greater their interest.

...are fascinated by the supernatural.

...are interested in earthly or physical benefits.

...are indifferent to worship, (true worship)

...seek prosperity; money, bread, health, satisfaction

...makes demands on God. They want a mechanism to manipulate God to get what they want.

...do not find their desires fulfilled in Christ because they have no appetite for the bread of life.

...don't understand divine revelation because they can't. They prefer lies.

...have no interest in embracing the cross and no tolerance for a crucified savior

Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry half the time, but there you have it.

I'll deal with them one by one in red...

1)  attracted by the crowd. The bigger the crowd, the greater their interest.

Um, what "crowd"? Theists currently out number non-theists in my country. As for my "interest", I am interested in what it most likely true about the world I live in. 

2) fascinated by the supernatural.

'Sorry, I don't believe in the "supernatural" no matter how much the good Pastor and his brethren in Christ jump up 'n down and insist that I do believe in it. If anything at all, I'm fascinated by the people who believe in the "supernatural", and in particular, those who claim that an invisible, conscious creator-being exists and cares about what I believe, what I eat, what I wear, and what positions I use in the bedroom. That sort of claim fascinates me, yes.

 3) interested in earthly or physical benefits.

Yup. Just like you, if you are a Christian reading this right now. I'm doing whatever it takes to survive, just like everyone else. For example, I'm interested in physically returning home to my family every day, so I wear a seat belt when I drive to increase the odds that this will happen. Now, do Christians not wear seat belts, or something? I also get frequent physicals as "preventative" medicine, because I want to stay here as long as I can to be with the people I love. Sooo? what?....only Atheists get check-ups, then?  

4) indifferent to worship, (true worship) 

:raises hand::  I'm actually indifferent to both "true worship" and "false worship". That's right, I don't think it's reasonable to "worship" that which I don't believe exists. Now, if you want to talk about the time that I used to believe in a "God", okay, I worshiped as much as the average worshiper.

5)  seek prosperity; money, bread, health, satisfaction

Like the astute among us know, to have even the very basics in life requires money. And if our health doesn't matter, then good grief, I guess nothing matters, does it? This again raises the question of why Christians get physicals and go to doctors if they aren't seeking "health". And about "satisfaction", are not Christians seeking satisfaction by worshiping "God"? Methinks my hypocrisy meter would be pegging right now if I had such a thing.

6) makes demands on God. They want a mechanism to manipulate God to get what they want.

What I "want" from any "God" out there is one thing, and one thing, only, which is this: The evidence that would convince me of his/her/its existence, and BTW, he/she/it would know exactly what that evidence would be if he/she/it is "omniscient". Once I'm convinced of such a thing?..fine, then people can talk about pretend to know the ways in which I want to "manipulate God".

7)  do not find their desires fulfilled in Christ because they have no appetite for the bread of life.

I have an appetite for acquiring true beliefs, and by extension, discarding false beliefs. If "Christ" is the "bread of life" and it can be demonstrated in some meaningful, objective way, fine. At that point I will have to reconsider my position. Until then?.. I do not now, nor will I ever, accept "because I say so" or "because the Bible says so" as "demonstrable evidence". Please-oh-please let it penetrate.

8) don't understand divine revelation because they can't. They prefer lies.

Actually, what I prefer is consistency over double-standards. For instance, I contend that I understand enough about "divine revelation" that I can dismiss, out of hand, the proposition that Muhammad sat in cave and took dictation from the Almighty Allah, and I'll wager that Christians won't have a problem with me doing this. I reject the "divine revelation" that Moroni buried some magical, golden tablets in the side of a hill, and again, this is because I understand enough about "divine revelation" to reject "Mormonism". IOW, "divine revelation" isn't necessarily evidence, and any Christian who is consistent must concede this.

9) have no interest in embracing the cross and no tolerance for a crucified savior.

Guilty! I no longer have an interest in "embracing the cross", whereas, I once did; and I no longer believe that there was any "savior" or anything to be "saved" from, whereas I once did. It would logically follow that since I no longer believe those things, that I wouldn't embrace those things. But that's not what the "True Believer" is contending. No, they are contending that I never believed or had tolerance in the first place, which is their way of dismissing my experiences out of hand without giving it a nano-second of consideration, which will be the inspiration for my response/spin-off, beginning right now:

The Pathology of a True Believer:

..."True Believers" frequently attach the word "True" onto "Christian"..i.e.."True Christian", erroneously  thinking that when/if someone counters what they believe to be the universal ideal of what "Christian" means to them, that they, the "True Believer" are uniquely legitimate, while the person they've dismissed is not legitimate. It should be noted that the type of Christians who do this would never, ever, ever allow anyone to tell them that they aren't a "True Christian". Funny, that.

..."True Believers" frequently tell former believers that they never "truly" believed in the first place(or were never "truly saved"), which, if you think about it, produces a pretty damning dilemma, which is, it implies that "True Believers" cannot change their minds. Yes, once a "True Believer", always a "True Believer". Once a "True Christian", always a "True Christian". So much for that whole "free will" rigmarole, I guess.

..."True Believers" believe that since they view themselves as rotten to the core, that, oh, then everyone else is rotten to the core, by default. Moreover, if the "True Believer" believes that "Jesus" has been good to them, then they will not accept that "Jesus" hasn't been equally "good" to every believer. IOW, "True Believers" contend that if a former believer contends that "Jesus" was not "good" to them, never mind being completely AWOL, then they never knew "Jesus" is the first place. Again, it's a case of the "True Believer" taking his or her magic "be gone" wand, and waving it in the face of former believers.

..."True Believers" contend that everything...EVERTHING is in "God's hands". If that's actually true, then my apostasy, being a "thing", would mean that this, too, is (presumably) in "God's hands". Yet, curiously, you will frequently find the "True Believer" bloviating on the matter of my apostasy, usually in the form of ministering, which, at best, would be to second-guess the mind of God.

Conclusion: In my experience with "True Believers" who are vocal about their version of "Christianity", they are consistently hypocritical, condescending, and most of all, they are mistaken about their beliefs. The central tenets of the "Christian Faith" are covered and debunked throughout this blog.

Shalom!

ADDENDUM: I have been informed by the owner/operator of the Christian blog that I linked to that the context of the above-mentioned 9 characteristics are attempting to describe "the crowd" from the biblical passage "John 6". In other words, it's for the people who (supposedly) witnessed Jesus' miracles, but "defected" anyway. This is equivocation. As if we are to believe that the good Pastor's sermon is merely a "history lesson" and that there isn't an underlying "moral" that's applicable to today. 'Not buying it. Today's "True Believers" say the exact same things about today's former believers, AKA, "false disciples", including, those who become atheist.

Willful Ignorance: Honor it?

Anyone who's familiar with the popular networking site Facebook probably knows that one of its main uses is to share famous (or not so famous) quotes on one's own timeline, or in some cases, on other people's timelines. This, more often than not, is done to let people know where you stand, whether that be politically, spiritually, or whatever the case may be. The quote above is from a woman named Sanaya Roman. Without doing any sort of search, my guess is that she is some sort of "metaphysical" proponent, whether that be an author, a practitioner, a guru, or maybe even all three. Then again, she may be none of the above. But it's really not important, because I want to address the content of the quote.

  If we take her quote at its face-value, it seems very compassionate, empathetic, and even attempts to be reasonable. It's very "Live and Let Live"(another quote). She says, "There is no one 'right' way to grow". 'Sounds reasonable and diplomatic enough, doesn't it? Sure. But yet, we must assume something right away, and that is that the person who's presumably about to "grow" actually wants to "grow". In order to grow, it seems to me that the very first thing required is that one must be able to entertain the notion that one could be wrong about where they're currently at. Incidentally, when I was a bible-believing Christian, at some point I must have considered the notion that I was wrong, because I'm no longer a believer. Moreover, I am still open to the idea that there could be an invisible, conscious, creator-being, but if there is, with as much confidence as I can tell you that "square circles" don't exist, I can tell you that the deity delineated in the pages of the "Holy Bible" does not exist. The reason in a nutshell for how I arrive at this, is that said deity's attributes are mutually incompatible and that this deity defies, and often times, spits directly into the face of logic.

Logic

So, about "logic". There might very well be different paths, yadda, yadda, when it comes to personal growth. I don't think anyone would argue differently. However, there is only one "logic". There is not "his logic", "her logic", "their logic", "your logic", etc. 

Thus, if we can agree that finding out what is actually true about the world we live in is an integral and necessary part of growing and expanding our horizons, then we have to think logically. And before I go further, by definition, "faith" is agnosticism, at best. At worst, it is an intellectual cop-out and a reason to stay willfully ignorant. Theists who harbor and profess belief on "faith" are not applying logic evenly nor comprehensively. For instance, they are not applying the same "logic" that they use to determine that the other guy's "god" is a figment of their imagination, so in actuality, they are not using logic at all. There is no, "Well, by Christian logic, Hell is real, and I'm right!". 

With all of this being said, if someone wants to remain on a "path" that keeps them willfully ignorant and/or has them compartmentalizing their beliefs, that is certainly their right, a right which I support. However, I do not feel that I should necessarily respect the "path" they've chosen, as Ms. Roman admonishes us to do. I do not find anything "beautiful" about willful ignorance, and I will not "honor" the person who is at a place in life where they say that I deserve to be burned with fire 24/7 for all of eternity because I don't believe as they do. Surely such beliefs are the exact opposite of "inclusive"? 

In closing, Ms. Sanaya, while she is attempting to teach compassion and tolerance, she is forgetting (or ignoring) that some of the "paths" that people are on cause division and make the world a more unsafe place than it needs to be. And if these "paths" lead people to a place that they have no intention of leaving, then I'm afraid her quote misses the mark. No one can "grow" in faith.              

Something Different

Yours truly on bass back in the early 90's, "grung" era. Around this time I was cohabiting with an 80's rocker g/f of mine. Ha.. she was so jealous of my hair. 'Funny stuff. It was "wash 'n wear"..i.e..no curling, teasing, or coloring. A lil' Aqua Net up top for some height, and I was good to go. In this video, though, I'm sportin' a doo rag. This is a song off of our 3rd studio album, "Strange and Beautiful", the first album that we actually covered a few songs, one of those being this song, "The Chant", the other being *"Sympathy for the Devil" by the Stones. Noooo, not "Stone Temple Pilots", the Rolling Stones...i.e...the guys who make me feel and look like a spring chicken. Anyway, I reluctantly gave in to doing covers, and, well, we spruced this one up pretty good, I guess. The background "singers" on the recording were actually Patti La Belle's background singers at the time(trivia, I'm loaded with it).  I guess I don't need to point out that the two Caucasian hotties aren't the aforementioned singers? The vid's producer brought them in to twerk, I suppose to get more dudes to watch the video. Although we are known for being pioneers of the Progressive-metal movement, this album was a departure from that style. To explain why would require a novel.

* was intended as a single, so it won't be found on the album.    

Set to Fail: Why God's Plan Won't Work.

Imagine that you are "God".

Okay, so....::dum-dee-dum-dee-dum::... you're God, and one day.....no, wait, scratch that.....you haven't created "days", yet.

Okay, here we go. At one point in time you are...........awww, crap!.....you haven't created "time", yet! You're timeless, after all. Cripes!

Okay. Relax---breath in.

So, resuming----once upon a time when time didn't exist..............Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >: (

Okay, screw that part. Here: Nothing but you existed, and you were bored out of your mind back when nothing but you existed. There.

So, back when nothing existed but you, you decided to create a Universe(and don't anyone dare tell me that contemplating is a temporal act, dammit!). But anyway, you're all.. like, "Eh, a Universe with just a bunch of dark matter and black holes isn't very exciting", so you decide that you want to create some creatures that will worship you and sing you songs. Songs about you, of course.

So, there you are, seated at your cosmic drafting table out in the middle of nowhere, and right away something occurs to you: You realize that not all of your hypothetical creatures will be convinced of your existence, because after all, you are invisible, immaterial, and noncorporeal. You realize this bit of crucial info' because of course you are "omniscient"(in case you've forgotten)

But then after ruminating on that thought for a short period of non-time, you think, "Screw it", and you go ahead as planned.

....::Poof! ::....(or however You did it)

The Universe exists in all of Your Glory. As for where you'll put your future worshipers, you decide to put them in a remote corner of the Universe in their own little galaxy along side the other 125 billion galaxies that you created. You are a conservationist, after all, and what better way to save space.

Possessing the Highest IQ imaginable, you realize that you don't want "robots". No, you want creatures who will choose to believe in and worship you of their own volition. So, you will endow your creatures with what you call "free will".

....::fast forward into the future::...

One day while you were looking down on Earth checking the progress of your Earthlings from the Heavens, you notice a ruckus. Lo and behold, there are some of your creation that worship other gods, and even some of them who don't believe in ANY gods! You're like..."Whaaaaa?!?!?!?!".

Angrier than a deaf person tryin' to play Bingo, you right away go back to your drafting table to come up with a way to fix this major snafu without subverting your creation's "free will".

Bingo! You've got it!...thee Ultimate Plan. You'll call it......::sound the trumpets::....."Salvation"!

In an nutshell, "Salvation" will go like this: You will send an angel to inseminate a female Earthling with Divine sperm. The offspring of this out-of-wedlock, one night stand will be 100% Earthling, and 100% You(God). You will make a deal with everyone, telling them that you will arrange to sacrifice this "mini-me" of yourself, and that this way, no one will have to suffer the consequences of not believing in you. The only stipulation is that everyone needs to accept this free gift blood sacrifice by Roman-style execution, and all will be saved. This is a brilliant idea if you don't say so yourself, because non-belief is something that you find highly offensive, as well as worshiping and singing to other gods. You are a jealous god, after all. You even go by the name, "Jealous".

Excited to implement your Plan, your own offspring is sacrificed just as planned.

...::fast forward 2000 years::....

Again, you peek in on the progress of things, and you are flabbergasted. There are still people worshiping other gods, and there are still people who don't believe in ANY gods! "How can this be!?!?!?!?", you wonder.

Being everywhere at once, you look in on a conversation taking place between one of your followers and one of those stupid non-believer people. The non-believer, who's named after a snake, no less, types to one of your followers...

If God knew from the onset that not everyone would believe, then logic says that some people are fated to not believe. It's inescapable. Thus, it doesn't matter how perfect "God's Plan" is, it is set to fail by the fact that God is Omniscient

Projecting: Misconceptions About Atheists

Sometimes if I'm drawing a blank on blog topics I'll get ideas when making the blog-rounds. Most of the time the ideas come directly from Theists, namely, Christian Theists. There's never really a shortage of material, actually. And then of course, if Theism didn't exist there'd be no reason for A-theism and the "controversy" that arises from the topic. Ponder that a minute and tell me that you don't see just a wee bit of irony? Yup, if not for Theism, I'd be forced to talk about other things, things that in all likelihood wouldn't ruffle feathers nearly as much as when discussing Theism.

 But alas, Theism is alive and well. Well, scratch that.....it's alive, but not really doing so well. Secularism/Atheism is on the rise(and as it happens, so is knowledge and scientific discovery). Anyhow, today I'm covering misconceptions about Atheists, and we can start with the word, itself: The "A" prefix when attached to the word "theism" means without. A-theists don't have theism, hence, Atheists don't harbor a belief in "God"/gods. For any Christian onlookers, please note that the following proclamation, Atheism is not:

"I believe God doesn't exist!"

Notice that the aforementioned proclamation is not the same as this one: "I don't believe in God". Apparently, a lot of the reason that Theists have this mistaken notion is because they project their own beliefs about what "Atheism" is onto Atheists instead of acquiring it from Atheists. Doing so, it's easier for Theists to shoot down Atheism(or so they think). They can then say things like, "Well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist!". This, of course, is fallacious reasoning, as they are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Addendum: when it comes to the Christian god, specifically, one can prove its nonexistence with every bit of assurance as one can prove that "square circles" don't exist. Sadly - or luckily, depending on how you look at it - the redactors of the Bible flubbed up big time when they assigned their Protagonist its various "Omni"-characteristics. I have various posts on this very subject.

Moving on, here are several more misconceptions that Theists have about Atheists:

•  Atheists are lonely

I'm only speaking for myself, here, but yes, sometimes I feel lonely. But trust me when I say that if I do feel lonely? ....it's not because I'm missing or longing for an individual whom I cannot see, hear, or touch. No. Usually, finding good company resolves any loneliness..e.g...friends, family members, scantly clothed women serving beer and chicken wings, etc. And then of course, there are some times in life that I want to be alone. Being alone and being lonely are not necessarily the same. 

• Atheists are unhappy

It could very well be that there are some unhappy Atheists. Yes, just like there are some unhappy Christians; just like there are some unhappy Muslims; just like there are some unhappy Scientologists; just like there are some unhappy Hindus, and on and on. IOW, people are people are people, and people become unhappy at times. That's just life as a human being. But just because of the fact that Atheists, too, are unhappy at times, that doesn't mean that they are unhappy a greater percentage of the time than anyone else. And perhaps most importantly of all, even if Atheists were the most miserable, wretched people on the planet, this would not make Theism true. Such thinking on the part of Christians and other Theists is a prime example of a non-sequitur.(fallacy)

• Atheists are big meanies and enjoy attacking other's beliefs

Again, I can only speak for myself, so I'll start here: Suffice it to say that I am not too thrilled about the fact that the people whom I trusted the most indoctrinated me with a certain belief-system, and subsequently, I wasted roughly 2/3 of my life believing something for which there is not only no objective evidence for being true, but mounds of evidence that it is false. So, while "enjoy" probably isn't the right word, I do admittedly find a certain amount of satisfaction in exposing superstitious, legendary thinking. Not because it rips the carpet out from under those who are brave enough to question their beliefs and follow their doubts; not because I'm trying to convert everyone to Atheism, but because I believe that, over time, it will make the world a less dangerous place if superstitious, legendary thinking is weeded out. I just don't want the children I'm raising(or anyone else's children) to grow up in a world where people are superstitious enough to think that they're going to have an orgy with some 13 yr-old virgins in the clouds, but smart enough to build an atomic bomb. In a perfect, ideal world, yes, one could say that kindness and respectfulness should come first when discussing the issues. Okay, but at what cost? Surrender? Complacency? Some beliefs just don't warrant our respect. 

• Atheists just want to sin! 

This is perhaps the most aggravating, and I'm going to say it---it's one of the most idiotic misconceptions among Christians. For starters, "sin" is defined as going against what "God" says/commands. Welp, I don't believe in the Xian god(or any other). Thus, it would be silly of me to believe I could offend or go against someone I don't even believe exists. Secondly, since when can we just cease believing in something that we're convinced exists, supposing that we wanted to avoid the consequences of that something? For example, if I said, "Well, guys, I'm going to stop believing in crocodiles because I want to swim in the Nile River!", and then I had someone video tape me paddling around the Nile River amongst dozens of 15ft + long crocs', you would think I was totally nuts, yes? IOW, if I was genuinely convinced that "sin" was something that had a referent in reality, I'd still be a Christian. But alas, I'm don't believe "sin" has a referent in reality, so that is one of the reasons I'm an Atheist. I'm not an Atheist because I "want to sin". Absurd. 

• There is nothing stopping an Atheist from killing and raping!

Yes, there is. Firstly, there's these things called "laws".(And BTW, "rape" is not listed as a "sin" in the Bible. In fact, it's condoned, as long as the rape-victim marries her rapist). Secondly, there is the lawful taking of a life(e.g..self-defense/war), so, not all killing is "wrong". Lastly, if I know that I don't want my loved ones harmed unnecessarily, I can figure out that I'd better not harm someone else's love ones unnecessarily. 'Pretty simple concept.

• Atheism is a religion  

Like "off" is a TV channel

•  Atheists believe in nothing

That's strange, because I believe in all sorts of things..e.g...love, food, tattoos, coffee, Reese's Cups, equal rights for women, topiary, freedom, music, logic, shopping, turtles, cougars, Sela Ward, irony,  laughter, science, Jupiter, Negra Modelo, yogurt-covered pretzels, horror movies, and a 'few' more :) 

I may add to this list as time goes on. 

Exploring Faith and Trust

Recently the age-old topic of "the meaning of life" came up in the blog rounds. One gentleman chimed in, saying that it would be difficult to answer that question "apart from faith". I came back, pointing out that some people simply lose faith in "faith" because the answers that religion and its respective holy writs give are lacking(at best, lacking). His very next words were, "Who said anything about religion?"

Now, even if I knew not one thing about this gentleman, I feel that it would be quite reasonable of me (or anyone else) to infer that he meant his religious "faith" by his initial remark. I mean, that's one of the biggest things, if not thee biggest thing, that religion provides attempts to provide to its adherents..i.e..the sole, entire meaning of our existence. But alas, it was not my first encounter with said gentleman. No, we had previously exchanged thoughts a half a dozen times or so, and the one thing that I did know about him is that he was a believer in Christianity. Considering all of the above, this, I maintain, is why I concluded that he meant "faith" in a religious context. Notwithstanding, I apologized for making the "assumption", albeit, more or less adding the above..i.e..why it was reasonable for me to assume he meant "faith" in a religious context. But he came back, offering that....."people find meaning in all sorts of faith".

I don't know about anyone else, but this just sounds, I don't know........okay, it just sounds odd to me. It sounds as though he was attempting to conflate "faith" with the word "trust"---IOW, trying to get away from the common connotation of "faith", which, in a religious context, is **believing without seeing; believing, unquestionably, in lack of evidence, and in some cases, believing in the face of evidence to the contrary. But when he added.... "People find meaning in all sorts of faith", then citing "love and kindness" as an example of the object of one's "faith", this confirmed my suspicion that this fellow blogger, while he may be well-meaning and sincere, he was conflating the words "faith" and "trust". The two words are not mutually inclusive. The latter is something built up over time and is something that is based on repeatable, demonstrable results. It is built on a proven track record. The former is employed when there is doubt or uncertainty, albeit, this doubt/uncertainty is rarely acknowledged in circles of the very religious proponents who profess to have/employ "faith". In those instances, it's like wanting their cake and eating it, too.

For those religious proponents who are honest enough to admit that their "faith" means this**, above, they often times like to tell Atheists/nonbelievers that they, too, have "faith" in some things---for instance, "science" and "man". Again, this isn't "faith", but trust. Science is provisional, so for that reason it doesn't deal with absolutes. Nonetheless, it is, to date, the best method for determining what is actually true/real about the world we live in, and, so, I and other Atheists trust it. Science just does not require "faith".

As for "kindness", if we as humans know how we like to be treated, and normally that is kindly, then we can reasonably conclude that our fellow human beings like the same. If we know that avoiding unnecessary harm increases the chances of our own survival, then we know that we shouldn't cause unnecessary harm to others. This doesn't mean that we trust every individual, since we are individuals, after all. Some individuals are amoral, and much of the time this can be directly attributed to mental illness. I certainly wouldn't trust Charles Manson to watch my kids, and I couldn't manufacture enough "faith" to be at ease with the idea.

As for "love", it depends on which kind. I think unconditional love, by definition, should be trustworthy. I can, and do, trust it, for the most part. Romantic love? Ha! Not so much. I would say that romantic love requires a least a bit of "faith", at least until a good track record is established. But even then, all it takes for a good, romantic love relationship to be destroyed is for one person to change their mind.  

Ways that Atheists Can Stand Up for Rationality

The other day on a popular networking website I saw a link to an article, titled: 15 Ways Atheists Can Stand Up for Rationality. Actually there was a flub-up, as there are two # 10s, so it's really 16 ways. But in any case, for now I'm only covering the first 10.

The Author, Jeffrey Tayler, prefaces the article, saying....

I’ve often wondered how the term “New Atheism” gained such currency. It is a misnomer. There is nothing new about nonbelief. All of us, without exception, are born knowing nothing of God or gods, and acquire notions of religion solely through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason

I'm glad that he added the bit about indoctrination and how it usually occurs at a specific and crucial time in life..i.e..before we have the ability to reason. And note, many times, this is even before we have any theory of the mind..e.g..ages 2, 3, 4 yrs old. This type of indoctrination applies mainly, but not only, to religion---religions such as Christianity and Islam, for example. In order for the data to "stick", it is crucial that it be taught when the subject is young, naive, trusting, and impressionable. If, for example, Christian parents tuck their 4 yr-old into bed each night and make it a ritual of having their child kneel at the bed, close their eyes, clasp their hands together, and say, "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep", etc., etc., sooner or later the child's going to wonder who this "Lord" guy is, since mom and dad are constantly talking about him as if he's just in the next room down the hall. Needless to say, the child isn't likely to get an unbiased answer if they should ask. I sure as hell didn't get one. But then again, I was just a kid, so I can only kick myself in the butt so much for allowing myself to be duped.

 For a brief run-down, here's how the indoctrination process works: Children, by nature, are very trusting. I mean, if children can't trust mommy 'n daddy(who are the people they love and deal with the most), then who in the hell can they trust? This whole indoctrination (brainwashing) process is a part of religion that I find deplorable, and make no mistake, it is nothing less than child abuse(especially if the child is taught the doctrine of "hell"). At first, the child might be taught prayers and little hymns such as, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so", etc. Naturally, if the child grows up telling themselves, "Jesus loves me!"; and if the child grows up firmly believing that "Jesus" is watching over them, then guess what...they will look for the signs that it is so...i.e..subjectively validate it to themselves.

But many times it's not a "sign" at all, but a claim to actually see "Jesus", literally. Again, timing is crucial, and if we examine the times when these "sightings" occur, we see precisely how subjective validation works. If something traumatic happens and someone lives to tell about it, when statistics might suggest that they shouldn't have lived to tell about it, many times "Jesus" is (claimed to be) spotted at that precise moment, at that precise location. 'Funny how that works, isn't it? There was one story where "Jesus" saved the day, and when asked what "Jesus" looked like, a witness said that he had "blue eyes"!

You don't need three guesses to figure out which country this "sighting" was in, do you? Here's a hint---it wasn't in Jesus' old stomping grounds, the Middle East. Then again, one "sect" firmly believes that "Jesus" did in fact come and stomp around America. I guess I'm waiting for reports of  "Jesus" having an Ipod and a tattoo of Moroni on his bicep. It's only a matter of time.

Moving right along, here are the first 10 of the ways that Atheists can stand up for rationality. Any remarks of mine will be in red:

1.     “Let’s say grace!”

No, let’s not. When you’re seated at the family dinner table and a relative suggests clasping hands, lowering heads and thanking the Lord, say “No thanks. I’m an atheist. So I’ll opt out.” Nonbelievers have every right to object when being asked to take part in superstitious rituals; in fact, if children are present, they are morally obliged to do so. Courteously refusing to pray will set an example of rational behavior for the young, and contribute to furthering the atheist zeitgeist.

If I'm with family at dinner and a prayer is said, I merely keep my eyes open and put my head down. My family knows I'm an Atheist, so no need for me to announce it at dinner. On special occasions I might make what I call a "Secular prayer" after the traditional prayer is said.

2.  “Religion is a personal matter. It’s not polite to bring it up.”

No, religion is fundamentally collective, and since time immemorial has served societies in fostering union, but also in inciting xenophobia and violence (especially against “unchaste” women and “impure” minorities), often on a mass scale. Nonbelievers need to further advance the cause of rationality by discussing it openly; doing so, as uncomfortable as it may be at times, will help puncture the aura of sanctity surrounding faith and expose it for what it is.

I actually agree with the author's response, here. Personal beliefs turn into collective beliefs, collective beliefs more often than not lead to actions, and actions have consequences. A personal "truth" is fine and dandy, and all, and I suppose it would be redundant to state the obvious when it comes to what is subjectively true---that is, that whatever one believes is true to them---but alas, this totally misses the point because the minute that any unfalsifiable, subjective truth endangers the masses, either directly, or indirectly, it is my right and even my moral duty to call that belief out. Example: Once upon a time there were 19 hijackers. It was each hijacker's subjective, "personal truth" that the creator of the universe, "Allah", would reward them with dozens and dozens of virgins if they would just kill some infidels(non-Muslims). This little subjective truth of theirs isn't/wasn't falsifiable, just like claims to see "spirits" and "ghosts" aren't falsifiable. While one subjective belief is clearly more dangerous than the other, we are implicitly being asked to believe these sorts of subjective truths on crap-to-nonexistent evidence. 

3.  “You’re an atheist? I feel sorry for you.”

No, please rejoice for me. I fear no hell, just as I expect no heaven. Nabokov summed up a nonbeliever’s view of the cosmos, and our place in it, thus: “The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.” The 19th-century Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle put it slightly differently: “One life. A little gleam of Time between two Eternities.” Though I have many memories to cherish, I value the present, my time on earth, those around me now. I miss those who have departed, and recognize, painful as it is, that I will never be reunited with them. There is the here and now – no more. But certainly no less. Being an adult means, as Orwell put it, having the “power of facing unpleasant facts.” True adulthood begins with doing just that, with renouncing comforting fables. There is something liberating in recognizing ourselves as mammals with some fourscore years (if we’re lucky) to make the most of on this earth.

'Love his response here. Nothing to add. 

4.  “If you’re an atheist, life has no purpose.”

A purpose derived from a false premise – that a deity has ordained submission to his will – cannot merit respect. The pursuit of Enlightenment-era goals — solving our world’s problems through rational discourse, rather than though religion and tradition – provide ample grounds for a purposive existence. It is not for nothing that the Enlightenment, when atheism truly began to take hold, was also known as the Age of Reason.

Not only does a purpose derived from a false premise not merit respect, but if you live according to someone else's "purpose",  in the case of  theism, "God's Purpose", then guess what.... you have no purpose of your own, in which case, you are technically in the same "purposeless" boat in which you like to place Atheists. Again, the irony is thick.

  5.  “If you abolish religion, nothing will stop people from killing, raping and looting.”

No, killing, raping and looting have been common practices in religious societies, and often carried out with clerical sanction. The catalogue of notorious barbarities – wars and massacres, acts of terrorism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the chopping off of thieves’ hands, the slicing off of clitorises and labia majora, the use of gang rape as punishment, and manifold other savageries committed in the name of one faith or another — attests to religion’s longstanding propensity to induce barbarity, or at the very least to give it free rein. The Bible and the Quran have served to justify these atrocities and more, with women and gay people suffering disproportionately. There is a reason the Middle Ages in Europe were long referred to as the Dark Ages; the millennium of theocratic rule that ended only with the Renaissance (that is, with Europe’s turn away from God toward humankind) was a violent time.

Morality arises out of our innate desire for safety, stability and order, without which no society can function; basic moral precepts (that murder and theft are wrong, for example) antedated religion. Those who abstain from crime solely because they fear divine wrath, and not because they recognize the difference between right and wrong, are not to be lauded, much less trusted. Just which practices are moral at a given time must be a matter of rational debate. The “master-slave” ethos – obligatory obeisance to a deity — pervading the revealed religions is inimical to such debate. We need to chart our moral course as equals, or there can be no justice.

Right, nothing will stop people from killing, raping, and looting(assuming that all people will suddenly get the urge to kill, rape, and loot if it should be established that one's religion is false). Nothing will stop this from happening, except, gee, I don't know... maybe the laws prohibiting these things and the respective consequences for doing these things??? Now, laws and consequences are obviously not a fail-safe, guarantee that criminals won't commit crime, no. But look!...neither is belief in "God", "heaven", and "hell" a fail-safe guarantee that there won't be crime! 

6.  “Nothing can equal the majesty of God and His creation.”

No need to inject God into this. “Creation” is majestic enough on its own, as anyone who has gazed into the Grand Canyon or the night sky already knows. While paddling a pirogue down the Congo, at night I often marveled to the point of ecstasy at the brilliance of the stars, the salience of the planets against the Milky Way – just one of the many quasi-transcendental experiences I have had as an atheist globetrotter. The world is a thing of wonder that requires no faith, but only alert senses, to appreciate.

 7.  “It is irrational to believe that the world came about without a creator.”

No, it is irrational to infer an invisible omnipotent being from what we see around us. The burden of proof lies on the one making supernatural claims, as the New Atheists have tirelessly pointed out. But here again the New Atheists are really doing nothing novel. Almost 200 years ago, the British poet Shelley, in his essay “The Necessity of Atheism,” noted that “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.” This was clear to him even before we had mapped the human genome, discovered the Higgs boson, or even invented the telegraph.

Yes.....the burden of proof lies on the one making the supernatural claims. It can't be said enough, because this is one thing that the theists, "mystics", and other proponents of the "supernatural" of today constantly fail to show they understand. And what I've found, is if they cannot "get" this very basic truth about how logic works, then the more likely they are to pile on other fallacies..e.g...non-sequitur, begging the question, and on and on.

8.  “I will pray for you to see the light.”

Not necessary, but do as you like. Abraham Lincoln noted that, “What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.”

Not only unnecessary, but quite idiotic and even counter productive if we consider that the "God" to whom people pray is supposedly things like "Sovereign" and "omniscient".

 9.  “If you’re wrong about God, you go to hell. It’s safer to believe.” 

Pascal’s wager survives even among people who have never heard the name of the 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician. Leaving aside whether blatant self-interest would please a god demanding to be loved unconditionally, which god will save us from hell? The god of Catholicism? Judaism? Islam? Doctrines of all three Abrahamic faiths prohibit entry into paradise for adherents of rival confessions.

Not to mention, any deity worth the title "God" would surely know if I'm pretending to believe just to avoid a consequence.

10.  “Religion is of great comfort to me, especially in times of loss. Too bad it isn’t for you.”

George Bernard Shaw noted that, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” A few shots of vodka will do for me, and are more to the point.

After the passing away of his son, Lincoln, in dire need of solace, nevertheless remarked that, “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”

I address(ed) this mindset in my post, "Caught in the Crossfire". In short, if it makes someone comfortable to believe that their deceased loved ones still exist in the clouds somewhere, fine. But if this yet-to-be-proven belief gets caught in the crossfire when exposing the parts of religion that clearly cause harm, I'm essentially saying too bad; not my problem(and I don't apologize for it). It's not that I'm cold and heartless; it's that I understand that sometimes damage must be caused for the greater good. I'm raising kids and I don't want them to grow up in a world that could come to an end over who worships the right invisible being, aka, "God". If they become ill, I don't want them running to a "magnet therapist"; I want them to seek treatment from a real, medically trained doctor who can prescribe, real, proven-to-work medicine. And finally, if they should ever want to know the answers to life's greatest questions..e.g..how we got here, where we get our morality, etc., I want them to use ALL of their resources and go where the scientific evidence leads. In the case that there are unanswered questions, which of course there will be, I want them to feel fine about saying "I don't know". What I do not want them doing is simply plugging those gaps in knowledge with "God did it!", which BTW, answers nothing at all until you know how "God did it!".

One More Rotation!

It's been one more successful rotation of our planet(Earth) around our star(the Sun). So, without further ado....

 Happy New Year!!!!!!!! 

When I think of the fact that the sun is just a one of a bazillion other stars out there, and just like every other star, it will eventually use up/burn up all its energy, and thus, no longer be able to support life here on earth, it's inescapable that this paints a rather grim picture for those of our fellow human race who will inhabit this earth just up to before that end.

WARNING: this is where I start to actually look at things from different a perspective and point out things that are unpopular and not very palatable, so, if you are bothered by people who do this, now's the time to navigate away. On the other hand, if you value different perspectives, even if this happens to point out things that are unsettling, please do keep reading, and join me in deep thought.

When talking about the Sun turning into a "red giant"..i.e..the next-to-the-last phase before it totally burns out, this of course is assuming that something else doesn't wipe out the human race first. There's always a chance of a giant meteor hitting Earth, or just plain overpopulation and the using-up of the necessary, natural resources that sustain human life..e.g...food, water, etc. And then of course there's also the very good chance that we'll blow ourselves up over who worships The One True God one of the many invisible, and to date, unproven story-book characters whom many people believe watch over us and want demand our worship. BTW, if this isn't cause for concern, then IMO, nothing is. This is why I scratch my head when people continually ask me why I talk about religion so much. Uh, really?

In any case, the real eye-opener is that people of my former faith..i.e..Christianity, believe that the end is imminent and near, and get this, many of them(all?) actually welcome it!  This, of course, is because they believe that "Jesus is coming soon" and that he is going to take his followers with him to "Heaven", and the balance will remain on Earth for a period, or get sent straight to "Hell". It really depends on who you ask, or which bible verse you pick.

Before I get to the point and the light at the end of the tunnel(and yes, there's a light at the end of the tunnel for nonbelievers), I'd like to make a few little observations:

1) in no other aspect of day-to-day living do we think of the word "soon" to mean two THOUSAND years. No, and to illustrate the absurdity, try reading the following and let "soon" mean just one year:

Kids, let's try to finish this milk up! It expires soon! 

Okay, honey-bunch, I'll be home soon! 

Me: Hello? IRS? When is my refund check coming? IRS: Soon!

Enough said.

2)   in hypothetical two, above, where I raised the issue of overpopulation and the depletion of natural resources, let's look at what would happen if the Biblical Garden duo, "Adam & Eve", had not eaten the infamous "forbidden fruit". Okay, in Genesis, God told Adam and his better half that if they eat the fruit that they'd surely die. Die, as in, the opposite of live. So, we can logically conclude that, had they not eaten the fruit, they'd live forever. Now, try to imagine what living on Earth would be like, if, from the time Adam and his lover got fruitful 'n multiplied, that no one's offspring ever died!

LOL! Oh, my goodness! 'You think the mall's crowded now? 'You think the line at Space Mountain is long now?

Hopefully you can see the absurdity.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel for Atheists:

Since science tells us that the sun will eventually burn out and expand and that this expansion will likely gobble up the orbits of Mercury, Venus, and Earth, think of all the potential human life that will never be born and get a chance to live. Trillions, and trillions, or better yet, an infinite amount of potential "individuals" who will never know what it even means to live, love, and everything else. For Atheists, yes, it is rather a bleak notion that we'll lose everything, and more importantly, everyone we've ever loved. But on the other hand, we're here, and we have the privilege of spending time with those we love right now, whereas, most individuals will never get that chance. Of course, those "individuals" will never know the better, but that's moot, because we, the living, do know.

Merry Christmas!

Do I celebrate Christmas? Yes.

Am I a Christian? No.

How is this possible, one might ask? Simple. I celebrate Christmas as a cultural holiday. Yes, just as I disbelieve in "Christ", well, at least I disbelieve in him as the born of a virgin, miracle-working, crucified and resurrected "Son" of the Creator of the Universe, I also disbelieve in goblins and leprechauns. But despite my disbelief in goblins and leprechauns, I still recognize Halloween and St. Patrick's Day as cultural holidays. Yup, I attend Halloween parties and I drink green beer, and I don't feel weird about it. For this reason, I do not feel that I and other nonbelievers are being inconsistent or weirdos for decorating a tree and hanging stockings for Christmas---IOW, celebrating the cultural aspects of the holiday.

While of course, belief in Santa and his reindeer-powered sleigh is no longer in the equation, it still brings back pleasant, childhood memories to put up lights and decorate a tree. There are a few things that I miss about my childhood at Christmas time..e.g...leaving cookies and milk for "Santa", making a list of the things I want, etc., just as there are things I miss about believing in "God". For instance, I miss the comfort that the thought of being reunited with my deceased loved ones gave me. I miss believing that "God" was looking out for little ol' me and would answer my prayers.....well, sometimes.

 But alas, my missing the cookie and milk ritual and having my prayers sometimes answered doesn't mean that "Santa" or "God" have referent in reality, nor does it mean that the right amount of will power will work in forcing myself to readopt belief in either guy. There is just no amount of will power that can get me to believe in that which I find unbelievable. Only evidence can change my mind. This, of course, will sound dogmatic and "closed-minded" to some readers. 'Sorry, I can't help that, other than to maybe prompt you to ask yourself what you'd say to the person who called you "closed-minded" or "dogmatic" for disbelieving that "Poseidon" controls the tides without any evidence that it is so, and actually, plenty of evidence that it is not so.

This is how we know that non-belief isn't always a "choice". When a "bell" rings, we cannot "unring" it. When we learn to recognize the misses as well as the "hits", we cannot go back to ignoring the misses. When we get the courage to put intellectual honesty ahead of "faith" and sometimes even happiness, we cannot go back to doing things the opposite way. When we understand what subjective validation does and how and why it works, we cannot go back to a "group-think" mentality. When we learn that we just can't trust our feelings or "intuition" 100% of the time when it comes to what is true, we cannot go back to trusting those things.

Anyway.....

Happy Holidays and/or Merry Christmas to all!

Caught in the Crossfire

collateral damage: noun Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation

 I am going to preface this post by saying that I readily concede that there are millions of good, kind, considerate, intelligent Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other faiths, who inhabit this planet. IOW, there are millions of reasonable, smart, loving religious proponents out there, who, thankfully, are less stringent than their fundamentalist counterparts, and who, thankfully, have an innate sense of empathy and "right" and "wrong", in which case, these people then realize that it would be wrong and down-right dangerous to take any book that says that it is just fine to KILL anyone and everyone who opposes or who attempts to lead them away from their chosen Faith, literally. This goes for keeping and beating slaves; this goes for pelting rebellious kids with rocks; this goes for stoning to death any newlywed woman who is found to not be a "virgin" on her wedding day.... and generally, this goes for any other clearly moronic and insipidly harmful act found in any book.

Saying this, two books come to mind: 1) The Holy Bible 2) The Holy Qu'ran.

Since I live in a country that is predominately Christian; and since I was born into a family of devout Christians, which, subsequently, led to my being raised to be a Christian, I am going to focus on Christianity and its Christians, but in this case, the liberal variety, many of whom are the type of people that I just described above.

As I've said in the past, I have many friends and family who profess Christianity, people whom I love and with whom I get along just fine, no problems. We simply agree not to discuss religion or to attempt to convert each other. With that out of the way and brought to the forefront---and with my complete, on-the-record acknowledgment that these people are things like kind, compassionate, and yes, intelligent---I do, however, believe that each one of them compartmentalizes his or her beliefs, and I have no qualms about saying so. This is not....repeat, not ...some derogatory judgment with the intend to flame anyone. No, it is merely pointing out a demonstrable, observable fact about them, and about all Christians. It is precisely the same thing that I did in my former days as a believer in Christianity.

To encapsulate, Christians know, in a practical, day-to-day-living sense, that "Allah" has no referent in reality and that Muslims are mistaken. They know that the "God" that a Muslim prays to several times a day is a complete figment of the praying Muslim's imagination. Christians know that "Muhammad" did not sit in a cave somewhere in the Middle-East jotting down the Will and Testament of "The Almighty Allah", and afterwards, hopped on winged pony and flew off into the clouds. No, that is just myth and the ramblings of mere mortal men. Christians know all of this.

So, like it or not, there is a bit of a common ground between Christians and Atheists after all, specifically, that both take the same stance when it comes to "Allah" and the "Holy Qu'ran".

Now, where does the difference come into play? Where does the compartmentalization come into play?

It comes into play right here: Atheists feel the exact same way when it comes to the claims of Christianity as Christians do when it comes to Islam. IOW, Christians make an exception for their own brand of mythology, AKA, compartmentalizing.

So........

Dear, Liberal Christians,

This is precisely why, when your fundamentalist, Evangelical counterparts attempt to tell us with a straight face that they believe that a snake, donkey, and shrub at one time spoke the human language; that it rained frogs sometime in the distant past; that a "firmament" holds up the sky("water"); that "demons" cause mental illness; that bird's blood heals leprosy; that dinosaurs never existed(or hitched a ride on the "The Ark"); that all non-Christians will spend an eternity in a "Lake of Fire"(AKA "Hell")......and the final splintering blow to our intelligence, that the universe, the earth, and all life on it, were created "as is" just a few thousand years ago, it is for this reason that they get the reactions that they get from us Atheists/Agnostics/former believers.

As you know - or as you should know - the scriptures that delineate the above are all false, and demonstrably so. You, as a liberal Christian, must square-up the above falsehoods with your Faith(and they aren't the only ones, BTW). I know all-too-well how you don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water", because I was there---I wanted to hang on to Jesus and (what I believed was) my relationship with him. The fear that this life is all there is, frankly, scared me sh*tless, albeit it, I'd never have admitted it back then, just like many of you likely won't admit the thought scares you now. Of course, there's nothing to fear, because when death comes, we won't know that we are dead, nor that we had ever lived. But this is for another discussion.

So, for those of you liberal Christians who harbor a conviction and who intend to hang on to your faith, unquestionably, I am sorry if, when discussing the issues, that y'all's more-lenient, broad perspectives of Christianity get caught in the crossfire when/if we Atheists are taking your fundamentalist counterparts to task for their assertions, beliefs, judgments against us Atheists, etc. However, you should know that this just isn't going to change, nor should it. There is a war going on, yes, but it's not some spooky, supernatural "Spiritual War" between a "God" and a "Devil"; it is a war against legendary thinking and willful ignorance. When we are in any other war, there is what's called "collateral damage". This is inherently part of war and it happens when fighting for what's right.

While such damage is unfortunate - and in this case, while good, compassionate Christians get caught in the crossfire(I contend that you don't need "Jesus" or Christianity to be "good" or "compassionate", but this, too, is for another discussion) - please do not expect things to change anytime soon. And furthermore, I really, really wish you'd take just 10% of the time you spend taking issue with us Atheists, and spend that time calling out your own fundamentalist counterparts, instead of tip-toeing around them or letting them go unchallenged. I realize that some of you challenge them, but it doesn't happen enough, and you are implicitly giving them a "thumbs-up" when/if you remain silent.

Sincerely, a concerned *Agnostic Atheist

* the two things aren't mutually exclusive, for anyone wondering. 

Drawing the line: Who, When, and Where?

When it comes to the topics of religion and politics, noting, some religious folks derive some of their political views directly from their religion, any blogger who's not reading their own blog, exclusively, knows that discussions can sometimes get very heated. After all, we are talking about our most deeply-held, core beliefs.

In some instances, the people with whom I discuss these topics claim to possess the knowledge that I will suffer, and suffer greatly, if I do not come to see things their way and adopt their views. Specifically, I'm talking about people who profess to be "Christian", and of those, I'm talking specifically about those of the Evangelical flavor. And of course, I refer to the doctrine of "Hell".

But today I'm not going to vent on or get into why I believe the doctrine of "Hell" is despicable and should be denounced on every level. No, today I'm going to talk about when, where, and why we should draw the line when attempting discussion with Christian Evangelicals, which, more often than not, leads to us having to listen to them call us things like "trash", "wretched", "dumb", "blind", "destined for Hell", "never really saved", "closed-minded"...and just today I heard a new one, "Satan's little choir". These are a few of their favorite things to say when ministering to us.

For those who know me and my disdain for the doctrine of "Hell", they probably know straight away that if someone attempts that sh*t on my own blog, that, while I may attempt to reason with them at first, that this benefit of doubt will soon wear off if they keep at it. IOW, on my own blog, I don't draw the line at the very first sight of the risk of coming across unkind or "combative". No. I will likely go back and forth until the proselytizing visitor just accepts that his or her arguments for why people like myself are going to go to "Hell", and worse, that we deserve it, aren't unconvincing, and that they do not scare me one iota. But again, this is me on my own blog. So, what if we're a guest on someone else's blog and we encounter the above-described type of Evangelical Christian?

The way I see it, I have two choices: 1) I sit back and say nothing, or 2) I take them to task on their assertions. For me? Choice #1 is something that I not only find extremely difficult, I would contend that it would be borderline immoral for me to just turn a blind eye to it, much in the same way that if I saw a child being abused and turned a blind eye. Devil's advocate: "Well, Boomslang, what if you're not on your own property?" Answer: I don't see a difference, from where I sit.

Of course, analogies are never perfect; they are only meant to illustrate a point. Make no mistake, I would, yes, bust up a child-abuse in progress, even if it wasn't on my own property. But in contrast, "You're going to Hell, you dumb, Satan-worshiping Atheist!", are just words, albeit, very insulting words. So, if I encounter the latter scenario while on someone's else's blog, where, then, should the line be drawn, assuming discussion between opposing views is permitted? Where is the line drawn between taking someone to task, and being "argumentative"? Where is the line drawn between not backing down, and being "combative"? Where is the line drawn between an Atheist voicing his or her opinion, and him or her being a "militant Atheist"? Where is the line drawn between discussing.... and debating? Anyone?

One of my new readership touched on the topic of the danger of "over-generalizing", saying that being "silent" and "over-generalizing" is a false dichotomy. I agree with this. There is middle ground there. I would never deny this. But if we can agree that generalizing for practical purposes is useful, then I'd like to know where the line is drawn between useful generalizing..i.e..generalizing, not to prove anything, but to make a point, and "over-generalizing". Who draws that line and how is it determined where it is drawn?

Disclaimer: This is honest inquiry meant for discussion. I'm not "baiting" or looking to "one-up" anyone. I genuinely believe it is important for Atheists and Theists to understand one another.        

Never Fear! Dr. Quantum is Here!

You've been waiting for it, so wait no longer and brace yourself, because it has now been scientifically proven that consciousness transcends the physical brain! And this isn't New Age mumbo jumbo, either; it's the real deal(this time). If you're wondering which evidence I speak of, then wait no longer.

Without further ado, I present to you, straight from an article on "Metaphysics" shared on Facebook , the clear and undeniable evidence that our personalities can exist independently of our physical brains(never mind that if our brains become traumatized or diseased that we can't recognize people we've known our whole lives....so, shhhhhh) .....

(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour of quantum objects. Consciousness collapses the wave-form of a quantum object and brings it to a state of particle existence. When not observed, it smears out through space as a non-local wave. It is only once a conscious observer comes along does this wave-form collapse into a particle, and even THEN it can only be measured as probability.

Wow! Did you hear that?!?! He/she/they, said, "Consciousness collapses the wave-form of a quantum object" And not only that, but then it, "brings it to a state of particle existence"!!!!

My first concern would be, I wonder if this was cut 'n pasted, or if it's in the author's own words. If it's the latter, then I wonder what he/she/they have as a source, besides a YouTube video of a cartoon guy named "Dr. Quantum" illustrating the double-slit experiment:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

The author goes on....

(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour and thoughts of other people. Not only does conscious intention effect individuals through what is called "remote influencing", when enough people get together and focus on one idea, it effects the social and psychological behaviour of entire cities and states. Mass meditation has been proven to even reduce crime rates in the cities the meditation is happening in.

Yes, "remote influencing", such as when the religious come together and "pray", we know that their collective "conscious intention" effects the target of their "prayers" with perfect success(except when it fails).

 (Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on):The flow of electrical currents. Collective consciousness has a provable and repeatable effect on the flow of electrical currents within random-number generators (REGs), as proven numerous times at Princeton university and published in peer-reveiwed journals time and time again:

I wonder if it was reviewed as well as the spelling was reviewed, above? Oh, well. Let's not nit-pick. On other hand, let's not accept Facebook pages as the "peer-reviewed" part, either.

(Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): The behaviour of biology and DNA. Spiritual healing and the sending of conscious intention has had effects on plants, human DNA, and even animals. And no, this is not because of placebo. Animals do not know that positive healing energy is being sent their way, and neither does isolated DNA in a test tube:

And the evidence for this? Well, of course.....it's a pretty picture.....

(click or copy link into browser if you really want to see the unmistakable evidence)

 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=248998745240364&set=pb.171274739679432.-2207520000.1368586239.&type=3&theater

Well, I guess that settles it, doesn't it?

 (Consciousness has had proven scientific influence on): Self-healing and disease through shift in consciousness (placebo). You think you are going to get healed, move into the space and attitude of being healed, and then you end up undergoing biological and psychological transformation:

Positive thinking and power of suggestion, depending on the extent/severity of the ailment, can produce a positive effect on the subject. Tell them they're taking a sugar pill? Kiss those results goodbye. 'Nothing "metaphysical" going on.

 What does this all tell us about the nature of mind? It tells us that consciousness can NOT simply be the software of the brain. It cannot be derived from chemical and mechanical processes if it has causal effects on the external world. Consciousness is a non-local field that gets filtered through our brains and nervous systems, and that all of creation and matter arises out of. 

Spoken like a true disciple of  Deepak Chopra...i.e....throw in a few fancy, scientific-sounding words..e.g..."non-local", "quantum", and voila, meaningless "woo" for.... I don't except that this life is all there is, damn it!

And finally there's......

 You don't have consciousness. You ARE consciousness.

Yes, you ARE consciousness! Well, unless you're unconscious.

Convictions & Dogma: Not Just for the Religious

      Just like the religious have convictions and who dogmatically cling to their beliefs, there are people from the "metaphysical" camp who have and do the same. While it should be pointed out that some "metaphysical" therapies used in conjunction with modern medicine seem to work, there is, to date, zero objective confirmation that these therapies work independently(excluding placebo effect), and in fact, people can become sicker and even die from using alternative therapies exclusively. Considering this fact, it is beyond argument that such pseudo-science should be denounced on every level, despite that there might be a small percentage of people who aren't charlatans and who honestly believe that what they do "works". The former people know it's a bunch of bullshit, yes, yet, they choose to capitalize on bilking the gullible out of their money. Despicable? Yes. But for now, I want to focus on the latter group - that is, I want to focus on the small percentage of metaphysical practitioners who genuinely believe that their "powers" have a referent in reality and who passively give way to the former group. So, the reasons they believe it? Well, of course, because they want to believe it. But mostly, because of the testimonies of their "patients", which is subjective validation. When confirmation bias is wedded to subjective validation, it is a recipe for self-deception.

      As I said in the title, dogmatism isn't exclusive to the religious. Just like a Pastor or Minister is convicted to his or her beliefs and may have a vested interest in defending those beliefs, since, let's face it, their career and livelihood depends on it, the metaphysical practitioners have the same vested interest in defending their beliefs. For years and years I had engaged in conversation/debate with a Christian woman named "Karla". I eventually bowed out of the conversation because it was clear to me that she was deluded, and happily so. In 2-3 years, this woman's very best evidence for how she knew she was "right" about Christianity was that she had seen a family member's arm lengthened with her own eyes. There's no way it could be trickery/self deception, because her "feelings" confirmed it was "real".

      Well, for close to a year, I've been in an exchange with the "metaphysical" equivalent of "Karla". This woman, who calls herself "The Duracell Bunny"(but prior to this name she had taken a name that was highly suggestive of being one who has powers---think, "Miss Cleo"), is just as dogmatically attached to her beliefs as any religious person I have ever encountered. Sadly, this women creates more head-desk moments than "Karla" did. Why? Because she claims to understand what good and bad evidence is, but yet, at the end of the day this amounts to her paying lip-service to it because she offers the same horrible, flimsy, anecdotal evidence, over and over and over, ad nauseam.

Here is some of what she purports to do:

• claims to work with "energy" as it pertains to metaphysical practices such as TT(Touch therapy) and "distant healing", and even has the school credentials.('got Seminary?!).
• claims to "connect" with deceased people and various animals---and when I say "connect", I mean she claims to "communicate" using ESP. In other words, she claims to be a "spiritual medium".
• claims to diagnose various medical conditions..e.g..."kidney problems", and if the person is close to dying, she can "predict" when they'll pass.

      I attempted to point out to "The Energizer Bunny", heretoforth TEB, that her "evidence", which is largely her clients - IOW, other people who can testify that her powers "work" - is no more credible or convincing than the fact that Karla the Christian can testify that a man at her church lengthened her relative's arm. It is no more credible or convincing than when someone gets a reading from "Cleo" and says, "Wow!....how could she have possibly known that about me?!?!"

      To the critical thinker, of course the more likely explanation for the former example is that the man is a charlatan who uses and counts on subjective validation. In the later case, the more likely explanation is a cold reading, which again requires subjective validation. BTW, when I asked Karla why the spiritual healer she met hadn't reproduced his powers in a clinical setting along with a control, she made excuse after excuse after excuse..e.g.."You wouldn't believe it even if I had video or X-rays", yadda, yadda. Well, TEB's excuse is that there isn't enough time or money to prove her "powers" in a scientific setting. So, in lieu of the evidence that might actually change my mind, she's taken to writing daily posts on her blog(i.e..her online diary) describing personal anecdote, after personal anecdote, after personal anecdote. She even posted a YouTube video of a cat that is (allegedly) "soothing a baby to sleep" with its paw. And although it is written along side the video......

Please watch and tell whether this still has anything to do with natural and/or conditioned behaviour or not, 

...her mind is made up, a priori; she is convicted to her belief that certain animals have spirits with which they can communicate and relate to humans. 

       So, like clockwork, TEB has no credible evidence for her fantastic claims other than that which convinces the already-convinced. This "evidence" is useless to me, and since she cannot get that part through her cranium, I made my blog "invitation only" and I stopped attempting to break through to her on her blog(at least for the time being), which makes her "hyper".

      But where evidence is concerned, I need to back up, because I made proving her powers as easy as anyone could possibly make it. That is, in the past I offered, in the way of challenge, to have her tell me something about a deceased friend that only he and I would know. Welp, much to my unsurprise, she failed. She couldn't do it, citing a few general tidbits that could easily apply to anyone...e.g...."He played a practical joke once!"[paraphrased]. Next I wrote down a number between 1-100 and sketched an animal on a piece of paper and slid it underneath a desk lamp where it still sits, undisclosed, waiting for her to use her "powers" to disclose what's written. What did I get? More excuses.

      In closing, the following is how The Skeptic's Dictionary describes "Subjective Validation":

 Subjective validation is the process of validating words, initials, statements, or signs as accurate because one is able to find them personally meaningful and significant. Subjective validation explains why many people are seduced by the apparent accuracy of pseudo-scientific personality profiles. Subjective validation deludes everyone from the housewife who thinks her happiness depends on her blood type or horoscope, to the FBI agent who thinks criminal profiles are spot on, to the therapist who thinks her Rorschach readings are penetrating portraits of psychological disorders.

Subjective validation is an essential element of any successful cold reading done by astrologers, palm readers, tarot readers, mediums, and the like. The sitter in such readings must cooperate. Fortunately for the medium, most sitters are usually eager for the reader to succeed and are willing to work hard to find personal meaning in whatever the reader throws out. In a successful cold reading, the sitter will be convinced that the accuracy of the reading was not due to her ability and willingness to cooperate but rather to the powers of astrology, palmistry, tarot, or mediumship.