I'm a Pepper, He's a Pepper, We're a Pepper, Be a Pepper, Wouldn't you like to Be a Pepper, too?

Okay, jingles aside....what about a Skeptic? Wouldn't you like to be a Skeptic, too????

Case in point: We're all skeptical of someone else's claims/someone else's beliefs. The Mormon is skeptical of the Catholic's claims, the Catholic is skeptical of the Muslim's claims, the Atheist is skeptical of the claims of all three of the above, plus, any other claims held on the same sorts of "evidence".

Nearly always, this "evidence" falls into these three categories:

1. Divine revelation(revealed knowledge, usually via "holy writ"..e.g..the Bible, the Qu'ran)

2. Personal testimony(the personal experiences of the claimant, especially, the resultant "feelings")

3. The claimant's sincere, fervent belief that they are right(especially that they cannot be mistaken about 2)

Back to skepticism, namely, that of any belief held on the above-mentioned "evidence". If the Theist is going to come along and label me a "skeptic", then I guess they're going to have not mind looking misinformed at the very best. Not that it isn't perfectly within someone's right to look misinformed, mind you, but the person granting me full ownership of the sphere of thought known as "skepticism" really shouldn't wonder why we Atheists/rationalists find it extremely difficult to take them seriously. I mean, if my interlocutor cannot grasp the most basic of things - and this issue of what it means to be a "skeptic" is one of those things - then I essentially have two choices, which are walking away, or banging my head on a desk.

You cannot induce a "light bulb" moment in someone. You just can't. Many Atheist bloggers learn this the hard way, especially those Atheists who are former believers.    

Suffice it to say that consistency is very important. As for science, it is science's job to be consistently skeptical. Why? Because being skeptical weeds out error. If we, ourselves, don't apply skepticism comprehensively, across the board, etc., then we are leaving ourselves wide open to being duped, whether that be by the next guy's religion, the newest fad "money-maker" from the New Age camp, or the vacuum cleaner salesman at our front door.

And then of course, we can be duped by our own desires, emotions, and feelings, as well. If I, as a former believer, was duped by my feelings in the past, then I owe it to myself to make sure that I don't allow my feelings to dupe me again, especially considering that I wasted so many years being self-deceived, years that I'll never get back. 'Seems like that goes without saying, but for some incredibly irritating reason, some people don't "get" this.

When I catch myself wasting time I become irked and agitated. Guilty. Time is more precious to me now that I know it's limited. And please note that when I say "I know", it's in the colloquial, practical sense of the word...e.g..."I know gremlins don't hide my car keys". Now, do I have life's greatest questions all figured out? Lol! Good grief, no....of course I don't! Notwithstanding, if you were to ask me this....

 "Hey, Boomslang, do you have explanations for the things which your former Theistic beliefs at one time supplied?

...you will get a resounding, unapologetic "YES".

E.g...

"sin"-  imperfection inherent in being human

"heaven" - imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to overcome the observable fact that he dies just like every other living thing

"hell" -  imaginary "place" that ancient man created in his ignorance and to control the masses

"afterlife" - imaginary state of existence for those who cannot fathom nonexistence

"soul" - legendary hokus pokus for "personality"

"God" - self-projection/argument from ignorance

"devil" - deflecting responsibility/scare tactic

"evil" - sh*t happens. Sometimes we're responsible, other times we're not

"Thou shalt not kill" - duh?

That more or less covers it. I don't need to know for 100% certain if some other "God" besides the Christian one exists, or not, nor do I need to have an answer to that question any time before I expire. I also don't need to have an answer for whatever happens after my brain dies, albeit, the available evidence points to "nothing"---nothing happens. Furthermore, I know enough about myself to know that I'd never be able to "R.I.P." knowing that my loved ones are sad that I'm gone and/or that they're suffering in some way. But that's just me.

So, aside from the total lack of scientific evidence that I will exist in or on "clouds" and that I will have the wherewithal to take time out of my busy, perpetual existence to chat with the living, this whole notion of a "spirit world" that exists in a "metaphysical" realm - literally, beyond physical - is, in and of itself, also nonsensical and actually quite preposterous.

This brings me to back to applying skepticism evenly and comprehensively. Most if not all Theists are guilty of applying skepticism selectively, but yet, this is to be expected to a degree since we know that Theists compartmentalize their beliefs. But believe it or not there are a select few who are capable of ditching one set of worn-out, no longer applicable beliefs by applying a good dose of skepticism, while retaining equally unsubstantiated beliefs by omitting that very same skepticism. In these rare instances, I suppose that in some ways it makes sense if these people want to lurk in the shadows and not venture far out their respective internet microcosms. The problem is determining if someone is sincerely questioning, or merely feigning it to keep other possible reasons undisclosed. We have to be cautious.

Since time immemorial, people have believed all sorts of unfounded, ridiculous things. But it should be noted that not all of these ideas are rooted in the supernatural. For instance, people of color(sadly, even today referred to as "niggers") were once prohibited from drinking out of public water fountains. In this day and age we hopefully agree that such a prohibition is (and was) just plain ridiculous. But yet, at some point, someone evidently ridiculed that ridiculous notion, got firm in their stance, gave a crap less about calling out people's deeply held convictions, and things eventually changed.......for the better.           


Leaving a few thoughts...

If one is skeptical of my being "a skeptic", then they are, by definition, a skeptic, too.

If one is unwilling to tolerate my intolerance of certain beliefs, then by definition, they, themselves, are exuding intolerance.

All in the Delivery?

Here is scientist and author Sam Harris' thoughts on the subject of death and dying. He speaks succinctly with a scientific background, but also, it appears as though he is being as kind as he can possibly be....well, considering the subject.

Now, how many proponents of a mind/body "duality" do you think will actually change their minds and  position when it comes to a "hereafter" after having seen this short video? How many Christians will change their minds about "Heaven" and "Hell", or how many New Agers will change their minds about there existing some sort of "spirit world" or universal "energy", the latter of which they co-opted from actual physics; the former of which they co-opted from religion(hence the hodgepodge of "science" and religion that is "New Age")

I will wager that the answer is precisely zero. I would further contend that the reasons that the above-mentioned people won't change their minds after watching this short video are many, but one of those reasons is not the way in which Mr. Harris conveyed his thoughts. People who are willing to change their minds about their core beliefs have to be in possession of a few things before anything else can happen, one of which, is doubt. But doubt, alone, doesn't always lead to the next thing that is necessary, which is this: The ability to entertain the notion they could actually be wrong, and this is especially when it comes to being wrong about one's personal experiences. 

Some people might readily concede that they have doubts, and/or, they might have altered/updated previous views, but this sort of admission, alone, is not any sort of precursor or guarantee that they will eventually do a 180. And of course, when it comes to deconversion from theistic beliefs, not all people do a "180". No, some people only do a 45, or a 60, or a 90. IOW, something is preventing them from applying skepticism comprehensively.

I contend that, nine times out of ten, it is personal experiences that keep proponents of the supernatural clinging to their core beliefs, beliefs that, in a practical sense, we know are likely mistaken based on what we do know via science. If someone is not going see the error of their particular sphere of thought because of personal experience, there is little to nothing that can be done until/unless they are first willing to admit that those personal experiences can in fact be deceiving them. Moreover, people who deconvert from theism but who still hold onto some of the fringe metaphysical aspects of theism have a tougher time I think, because they then have to square-up how their personal experiences misled them in their former supernatural, theistic beliefs, but how those experiences are not misleading them in their current situation. To be in such a position, a real quagmire for some, requires what's called compartmentalization.

Chances are, if one compartmentalizes, they are experiencing at least some cognitive dissonance. What the person does with that dissonance varies, but one thing is for sure, the final outcome cannot be predicted. In all my years in observing and participating in these sorts of discussions, I've yet to see a "One Size Fits All" approach that will elicit a "light bulb" moment in the believer.

IOW, in terms of results, I've not seen a significant difference in one's approach..e.g...passive and compassionate, versus direct and aggressive. For me, it all depends on the person on the other end. Of course, just ridiculing the person isn't going to accomplish much, because they shut down. On the other hand, I will not say that ridicule in conjunction with good, well-supported arguments is not effective. Although not a proven method by any means, we know that ridicule works in some cases, simply because we all remember what it was like to be a teenager. It's called "peer pressure".

Just Because I love It.....

So, without further ado.....

Being Right

It's been a while since I've posted here. As I state in my "about" section, I mainly blog about religious matters. Likewise, when I venture out into the blogosphere, I naturally tend to read blogs that deal with religion and its various philosophies. I'm letting the record show that I do not do what I do in this pastime called "blogging" for the same reasons that a lot of other bloggers do it. For example, I do not do it to become a popular spokesperson for "Atheism", or for anything else, for that matter. I do not do what I do to see if I can outdo my site's "activity" from last month, or anyone else's blog activity. I just don't care that much about that sort of thing. Here, on my own blog, I can jot down my thoughts, if for no other reason, just as an outlet for self-expression. Other times it can be for trivial things, and yet, other times it can be for having a critical look at other views out there. There is no "One Size Fits All" way to blog. If there is and I missed it, I'd like to know who the arbiter of that is.

Moving on, I learned the other day that some bloggers might regard my blog as "dead". Hmmm. Okay, well, people are of course free to think that, but from where I sit, if I have only one reader, then my blog is very much "alive", thank you very much. And anyway, even if it were "dead'", who's to say it cannot be "resurrected"(no pun) at some point?

While I've touched on multiple topics in the past, I've never really dedicated an entire post to what it means to be right, that is, to possess views that align with reality(a working definition), that which reality I contend is an objective one. And what I mean when I say "objective" is that, irrespective of what we as conscious, thinking beings all think about the universe, the universe will go right on being the universe no matter what we think; it doesn't care how we regard it.

Slightly tangential---in the "New Age" movement, there's a few gurus who are proponents of this notion that our "consciousness" actually creates reality. I disagree with this, but this is for another discussion.

Right now I want to talk about being "right", so I should probably get this part out of the way first:

I believe that I am right when it comes to my being an Atheist. Furthermore, I'm not going to sit here and apologize for that.

Why won't I apologize for it? Simple, because it is natural for everyone to want to be right and to think that they are right when it comes to having the correct view(s) of reality. The alternative would be, what?... to knowingly harbor incorrect views of reality? I think so. So, who would admit that they have false views of the way that the world works?

While the answer is probably "nobody", I contend that this doesn't preclude people from knowing that they're likely wrong, but clinging to their current position, despite that. But let me be clear: No person, regardless of their religious (or non-religious) persuasion, is exempt from or incapable of this behavior, including me.

 Since it's impossible to know each and every person's motives, we can still look at people's motives, as a whole, to get a general idea of a group's thought-process. That said, I contend that, by and large, theists use apologetics, not to convince us non-theists that we're wrong, but more so to convince themselves that they are right. Christians, and in particular, those who are forthright and vocal in their stance(e.g..Xian bloggers), more than likely use apologetics to quell their own doubts. I'll get to the evidence of this in a minute.

The other day I heard it contended that Atheists are just as capable of bias as Theists are. It was argued that, like theists, namely Christians, Atheists become Atheists because of the perks and benefits. This is especially interesting, since it was an Atheist who was contending this. Now, I'm not a stranger to this argument; I've heard this "corollary" attempted before, but it's rare to hear it from a fellow Atheist, especially a former Christian turned Atheist.

Speaking only for myself for the time being, you can wager a lot of money that I did NOT "become" an Atheist for emotional reasons. At first, I fought it tooth and nail, every step of the way. This is not to say that I didn't have some of the same doubts that I contend your average believer has, but those doubts were intellectual. It was, without a doubt, my emotions, not intellect, that kept me a believer in spite of those nagging doubts. And this it getting to my point.

One day I decided to explore the reasons that people "become" Atheist, and at the time, I (mistakenly) thought that being an Atheist is something that you just "do" by one's own will. Bzzzzt. Wrong. In hindsight, which, as they say, is "20/20", I saw(see) that Atheism is a result or conclusion. It is not something that you just wake up one day and "decide to become".

I silently lurked over debates/discussions between Christians and Atheists. Being "on the fence", my emotions wanted to see the Christian put forth the more reasonable, logically-sound argument. If I was "wrong" as a Christian, this meant that I'd cease to exist one day and that the day would come that I'd never see the people I love the most ever again. It would mean that I spent a great portion of my life believing a lie. It would mean that the inner "voice" in my head that I thought was "God" at the time, is really just my own imagination; my own conscience.

IOW, there's a lot at stake for those who actually think about the future and how/if their loved ones will be a part of that future. This is not to say that there aren't any people who might not ever think about that sort of thing. To me, that would be bizarre, but, whatever, that's just my opinion.

In contrast, if the Atheists were wrong, then I could rest assured that I'd see my love ones again one day, albeit, one can never be 100% certain that they are "saved".

Much to my dismay and displeasure, I had to finally admit that the Atheist's arguments, as whole, were more logically-sound than the Christian's arguments. I hated this fact, at first. I began checking out sites like TalkOrigins Archive. I was slowly seeing that Evolution better explained the reason for the diversity of life we see on Earth than the "In the Beginning" narrative of "Genesis".

Over time there were more chinks in my believer armor.

Fast forward

The "bell" has been rung and I cannot "unring" it. My intellect finally had to give way to my emotions. It is precisely because of this resultant sphere of thought that I can sit here and contend that Christians, as a whole, are not as objective of researchers as that of Atheists as a whole. Evolution is a fact of science. It is every bit a fact of science as that of "gravitational theory". You don't hear people going around saying, "Do you believe in gravity?", and there's a reason for this.

Now, that being said, there may very well be those Atheists who were never theists who only look at what science and Atheism has to say on the matter. These people are essentially doing what I just charged that Christians do. But as for those Atheists who are former Christians, we've been on both sides and we know what both sides have to offer. I know what Ken Ham and William Lane Craig have to offer. Today, I reject it, because, as an Atheist, I, yes, have Googled what other Atheists are saying. Guilty. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm ignorant of the other side of the issue. So, to the person or persons who assert that I, as an Atheist, am just as guilty as Christians of things like subjective validation and confirmation bias, I say that you are mistaken and misinformed.  

Now onto how I know I'm right: For starters, I don't claim to know that I am right in any absolute sense; I only claim to be right provisionally. That, right there, shoots the first hole in the every popular corollary that "Atheism" is just the other side of the "Theist" coin. Let's remember, theism claims to be the be-all/end-all when it comes to "Truth" and reality. The method with which I conclude I am right about how reality works and/or what it entails, is science. Science is provisional; it is self-correcting. Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Although not perfect, science is, to date, the most reliable way to know how reality operates. This is not to say that poetic wisdom cannot be gleaned from Theism and religion. It can. But I'm talking about epistemology and what we can know about objective reality, and in this reality so far, I've yet to any evidence (or even good reasons) to believe that any invisible, conscious beings created and oversee this universe.

It could be stated...... Atheists are biased, too!

Yes! Busted! It's true. I'm biased. Yup.......biased to want to know what's actually true about the world I live in, regardless of how I feel about it. IOW, yet one more hole in the "Atheists are just other side of the same coin" corollary. We know that science-supported information is out there and is accessible to most every Christian Theist. Christians, by and large, choose to either ignore this information, or employ apologetics against it, both of which I contend are to keep themselves convinced.

It could be asked...... aren't Atheists just worshiping another type of God..i.e..science?

To my knowledge, no Atheists congregate at temples, read from holy writs, or point to any mandates when it comes to morality.

This is yet a third hole, and for now, the last, in the tired "Atheism is just other side of the same coin" corollary. This corollary is demonstrably false on many levels. Yes, we are all human, all biased, and all prone to error, etc., but that fact doesn't make it a fact that all beliefs are equally plausible. It also doesn't make all methods for obtaining truth equally reliable.    

Cyber Space

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong when it comes to what happens when our time is up here on Earth, that we "live on" in the memories of those who knew us is at least one thing that theists and atheists can agree upon. Yes, when I expire, my remaining friends, family, and various relatives will have memories of me up until the time that they expire. In other words, after a few generations I will be long-gone and completely forgotten.

Or will I?

Enter the advent of the world wide web and internet:

Being fortunate enough to live in a time of technology and modern scientific advancement, I can voice my opinion and various facts about myself in "cyber-space", where, there(here) I can "live on" much longer than if I was born in the dark ages when man thought that the Earth was shaped like a pancake and that "evil spirits" caused mental illness. So, I'm lucky, I'd say. Of course, when I say "live on" I don't mean as in remain sentient and consciously aware. No, what I mean is that "pieces" of who I am and what I stood for will "live on". Some of the "pieces" that will "live on" will be in the music I made. Consider that analogue tape and vinyl wear out over time. Digital? It's forever, baby. As long as the Earth sustains life, bits and pieces of  "me" will live on. This is exciting.

So, I can, for the most part, choose in which ways I'd like to be remembered. For starters, I'd like to be remembered for having stood up for "truth", and please note, not "Truth" with a capital "T" as in some sort of special, "Divine", objective "Truth", but simply, "truth" as in what is most likely true about the world in which I live(lived). I'm talking about knowledge that is practical, not "absolute".

For instance, it is most likely true that I am responsible for my own actions, as opposed to one alternate hypothesis out there that posits that there is an invisible, evil "Antagonist" who lives in the center of the Earth and who coerces me from time to time to commit "evil" deeds. I contend that is it most likely true that my imperfections are due to my human nature, and not due to the notion that a few thousand years ago two human prototypes ate a piece of forbidden fruit offered by a talking snake in a magical garden. Do I know these things to be "True" in an "absolute" sense? No. Do I know them to be true in a practical sense? Yes.

With that being said, I can and do say that I'm sorry for all the times that I used poor judgement and it hurt others. And in the event of my premature death, you can mark my words that everyone I knew, and many more who never knew me at all, will be directed to this blog. Isn't sad that we must die before we truly get people's attention and/or the recognition we sought while alive? This is especially true of artists and musicians.

Back to imperfection and human nature: For any person I wronged in my lifetime, let the record show that I only need(ed) the forgiveness of two individuals, and let it be known that neither of those individuals are an invisible, intangible, inaudible character from an ancient book of fables. No, the two individuals from whom I need forgiveness, are, 1) the person I offended, and 2) myself. But even here there are some stipulations. For example, I'd have to believe that whatever relationship might have been ruined because of me would be worth saving. What I'm saying is that people change over time, or sometimes you just find out that people were never the person you thought they were in the first place.

So, in the case that I believe that a situation is screwed up beyond repair, including for reasons other than any problem that I might have caused, I just may not bother trying to fix things. That is my fundamental right.

Bottom line, I was in charge of my own life. But of course, we are only "in charge" of our lives insofar as we are free to choose to go against our most desired outcome. I maintain that we aren't always free to do that, if ever. But this is for another discussion. For now, suffice it to say that there are times that we are put in a position through no choice of our own, and it could land us in a place where we don't stand a chance. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we've all been there. I mean, we're all human, after all.

With that out of the way, perhaps the one thing for which I care to be remembered the most is being(having been) a good "dad". In my case, I was a guy who was "elected" by two little girls to be their "dad". At the time, they were 3 and 4 yrs old, and in retrospect, they more than likely reached out to me because their biological father bailed out on them and their mom for another woman and that woman's kids. It started out with casual things such as buying them ice cream cones and taking them to the zoo, and then it became a little more involved, for instance, attending "Doughnuts for Dad" day at school. The thought of those girls sitting alone in the cafeteria having to watch the other kids sitting with their dads disturbed me. Welp, I wasn't about to let that happen.

But make no mistake, they "rescued" me as much as I did, them. This, however, is about as much as I'm willing to offer publicly about my role as a "dad", since, while I'd like to believe that people are trustworthy, I have come to learn that not all people are when it comes to shared information.
 
Moving on, I'd also like to be remembered as someone who could make people laugh and/or make people think. I fully recognize that in doing the latter I offended (scared?) a lot people by talking about religion. I cover this topic thoroughly in my post called Caught in the Crossfire. In a nutshell, I make(made) no apologies for putting the Christian philosophy and its central tenets under the microscope. I believe that religion, and in particular, religious beliefs held on "faith", are the bane of humanity, even some of the moderate types. I believe this because the moderates enable the wack-job fundamentalists. You might disagree, but remember that someone on the other side of the planet would like to see you dead for holding religious beliefs that directly oppose theirs. That's a real problem, and let's just say that ministering to atheists is not part of the solution.

Lastly, I'd like to be remembered for the guy who asked those of his immediate family and friends who still profess Christianity - including in-laws, cousins, sisters, uncles, nephews, etc - to remain consistent with their "faith", that is, as long as they are going to remain with it and extol its teachings. I would personally like to invite my Christian family and friends to chime in and let those of my non-Christian readership know why I deserve to be right where I'm at, which, if they believe in and uphold the doctrine of "hell", then they believe that at the moment I expire(expired) that my torment will begin(has begun) and it will never end.....EVER. You know who you are, so please, no down-playing. If you feel the focus of my death should be my life, not my death or what I believed, then you would be underscoring my point all of this: What matters in life is people, particularly letting those who we loved and cared about know how we felt about them. Note, I could have been better at this at times. But will we ever feel like we've done/said enough?  

Note, for those Christians who believe that I don't deserve to be in "Hell", please do feel free to tell the audience why you continue to at least implicitly support my eternal torment by remaining a "Christian". While it's true that I, myself, spent 2/3rds of my life believing in a literal "Hell"(remember, Jesus spoke of no other subject more), I changed my mind. For those who missed it, I believe the doctrine of "Hell" is abhorrent, repugnant, and immoral, and it should be denounced on every level.

I know, I know....controversial, provocative, etc. Just remember, if African-Americans had not been  controversial and provocative they might still be prohibited from drinking out of public water fountains. Oy vey.
  

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.