Dear RW Christians,

I present to you, the Law of Unintended Consequences:



...OR, we could just allow the Separation of Church and State to become the residing principle by which we protect everyone's Religious Freedom.  You know, that way NO ONE will end up saying, "Why are you exposing MY KIDS to this nonsense?" no matter which religion they follow, or don't.

This insanity can end any time you want it to, Christians. What's it gonna be?

The Radical Gay Agenda

Now that the Hall of Fame posts are up to date, I want to post some stuff about LGBT Rights, some of the recent victories, some of the disgusting backlash, and some other semi-related stuff that I've come accross that I want to share.

First of all, HOO-RAY for the Supreme Court Striking down DOMA! And hoo-ray for their deft handling of the Prop 8 case. Of course, it would have been nice for them to have struck it down outright as well, but doing it the way they did prevents establishing the precedent of CITIZENS defending unconstitutional laws, and really, makes it so that NO ONE can say that the court 'over-reached.' In fact, they dealt only with precisely the issue in front of them, staying well within the bounds or Constitutional Law and Precedent, and reached precisely the correct conclusion - in both cases - with precisely the right reasoning. (Leaving the door WAAAY open to strike down State Prohibitions in a later case, using Justice Kennedy's same reasoning.)

The wierd thing is? Had the State of California actually decide intially to DEFEND Prop 8? And then APPEAL the Lower Court's decision to overturn it? Then the Supreme Court WOULD have had the standing to strike it down, thus invalidating ALL OF THE OTHER State's homophobic marriage statutes! Isn't that amazaing? Because California did the RIGHT THING in NOT defending this abomination of a law... OTHER State's still get to discriminate!

THAT'S what you call "unintended consequences." Funny how things sometimes work out, especially considering the backlash the Godlen State would have gotten if they not only DEFENDED the law, but then APPEALED the decision to strike it down! And yet... If they did? Well, shoot, we might have Gay Marriage in all 50 States Rigth Now!

Which leads me to another milestone in the fight for gay and transgendered equality...

Did you realize that in 29 States it remaines perfectly legal to fire someone for no other reason that being Gay? Add another 5 where it's legal to fire someone for being Transgenered. Now Congress is attempting to do something about that with EDNA. And in respose to pointing out all of the media's misinformation about EDNA, MMFA poster santovicente had this to say:

And so it begins. Getting married ain't nearly good enough. Now, we gotta put up with all sorts of laws making it illegal to not like queers.

Now... I put up his post, because I would like to share my response, which I'm rather proud of, before MMFA decides to take it down. (And they really should! LOL)

You're a right royal prick, aren't you?

No, "getting married" AIN'T enough, you festering boil!

"ENOUGH" is being treaty EQUALLY. Not be DISCRIMINATED against. To have ALL THE SAME INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS as ALL HUMAN BEINGS have and are entitled to, you bucket of sweltering pig's vomit!

Personally, I wonder what would be enough for YOU? Concentration Camps and re-education centers? Maybe YOU'LL be satisfied when you'll be able to go through your day without ever having to deal with anyone who's the slightest bit different that you are, you pimply pustule.

THEY are human beings. YOU would be little more than an APE, IF I wasn't such a wildlife enthusiast.

Now... Putting aside the well deserved rant and artistic vitirol, there is a serious point to make here.

In MY VISION of a perfect world, all people get to enjoy the great opportunity and quality of life that this great coutry offers, and get to participate in the great democratic political process REGARDLESS of whether they are Black, White, Red, Brown or Yellow, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Gay, Strait, Bi-, Pan-, Cis-, Trans-, Able-Bodied, Handicapped, Autistic, Blind, Deaf, Mute or Fluently English Speaking. In MY perfect world, ALL PEOPLE enjoy all of the great things that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness have to offer.

Um...

What does THIS ASSHOLE'S perfect world look like, I wonder? What is so terrible about MY vision, MY ideals, MY 'perfect world' (OURS, really, but you get what I'm saying) that causes scumbags like him to recoil and lash out with hate and venom every time we take one small step closer to it? Seriously!

What are they offering that is so wonderful? What... We all get to enjoy life so long as we do everything just like them?

This isn't chariceture, and it's NOT rhetorical. I want to know what these fuck-nuts on the Right, these Religious Funny-Mentalists have against the idea that ALL human life - ACTUAL human life - is sacrosant, and that no one person's rights are greater than another's, and thus no one has the right to take anything away from another. What the fuck is so WRONG with that? What the fuck is wrong with them? Becuase I cannot even understand, let alone abide, the way these people "think!"

Another MMFA Piece, was this Washingtom Times Piece from Elaine "Shrieking Harpy" Donnelly, saying (among other things) that "Mr. Obama has used the armed forces to deliver on political promises to his homosexual base, and traditional military families are about to pay the bill." This is part of a larger column arguing (falsely) that extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples is somehow going to harm "traditional" military families. Basically that these good old, hard-working Christians are going to have to foot the bill (negligible though it may be) for treating Gays like human beings.

And again, I bring it up, because I would like to share my response:

Um... SO FUCKING WHAT?

The abolition of slavery came with a cost too.

We don't treat our fellow human beings with equality because it's cost effective, we do it because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, YOU HORRIBLE BITCH!

(What can I say... I was in a ranting mood today!)

But seriously, again: What the fuck is wrong with these fucking people? What they hell is wrong with treating HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS like HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS?! What part of "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" do these genetically defective mental midgets not fucking understand?!

There were others, but I'm all ranted out now. I hope you enjoyed reading that, and if I've offended your sense of Christian Morals, please feel free to go fuck yourself. Anytime.

I'll leave you with this EXCELLENT video. I almost wish that Anonymous had the intitive (and the balls) to set up some manner of account so he could keep postiong, becuase this directly debunks a lot of what we we used to argue about - the idea of CHOICE and whether or not one is "born that way." As I've said before: Science WOKRS. Yay SCIENCE. (Sadly, I am not planning to re-instate anonymous posting any time soon unless Blogger fixes their spam filter, BIG TIME. There was just too much crap getting through.)

Not as thunk as you drink I am!

Remember folks... everything the Bible says is both fact and truth!

Amen!

I've always believed that morality exsists independantly from Religion, but I've never seen it put so perfectly.

For William & my recent "Anonymous" friend...

See? I told y'all that the MetaPicture has awesome stuff!

Great!

...As soon as they end their ban on atheists, I might start supporting them again!

Still, progress is progress.

Another Brilliant Piece from Cracked....

It suffers rather a bit from the "false balance" problem... I don't care what they say, you simply cannot compare Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck objectively and conclude that both are "full of shit," implying an equality there.  That's just nonsense.  One makes a well-reasoned argument, based on evidence and principles, while the other just MAKES SHIT UP.  Beck's problem is not that he's Conservative, but rather that he's a PARANOID PSYCHOTIC.  Being CONSERVATIVE is the LEAST of his mental illnesses!

All the same, I think this article does a pretty darned good job at showing WHY WE SUCK SO BAD AT DEMOCRACY.

My Reply to Steeve

(Ed Note: If there is a tone of voice that you can use when you read this that sounds sincere, rather than snarky, please use it.  I'm not pulling any punches, but I want everyone to know that I have a great deal of respect for Steeve and his views - most of which I SHARE, at least politically speaking.  So I hope that he takes it as a sign of my respect for him that I'm not holding back here!)

This post picks up form a conversation that left off back in March of this year.  The post started out with me presenting some of the latest (at the time) examples from Bob Carrol's "What's the harm?" section of Skepdic.com.  This section covers everything religion from Voodoo to Islam to Christianity to Scientology, but the examples I sighted both came from "Christians." One was of a boy starved to death, the other of children being beaten to death, all in the name of bringing them "closer to God" or some such thing.  And I expected that most people would say that, "MY religion is not like that!" And sure enough no one really stepped up to defend the practice. (Obviously.)

But as the piece evolved, I came to a realization: That if you take ANY person, no matter how religious they are, if you find some who they would consider "more religious" than themselves, they'd also inevitably think that other person was a little crazy as well.  And this judgment would become stronger the greater the difference in religious zeal.  The Atheist thinks the twice-a-year Church goer is a little crazy. (Just a little.)  The twice-a-year guy thinks the once-a-week guy is a a little crazy.  That guy thinks the guy with his kids in bible school is a little crazy. That moderate guy thinks the fundamentalist is a little crazy. The Fundamentalist thinks the Cultist is a little crazy.  And the Cultist thinks the Terrorist is a little crazy.  Line these people up by religious faith on the X-axis, and plot their judgment of the next guy down on the Y-axis and you'll find that amount of crazy you are, is some positive function of how religious you are.  Not a very encouraging thought, for pretty much ANY believer, but think about it. I don't think you can deny the observation, even if you don't appreciate the implication...

Think about someone who you think is significantly more religious than you are. 

Don't you think they're at least a little crazy? 

The thing is that no matter where you are on the spectrum, this holds true!  (OK, yeah, I don't know who's to the right of some guy who's strapping a bomb to himself, with the intent of blowing his crazy ass up and taking as many people with as he can, but... well... You can't deny the man's FAITH now, can you? Misplaced though it may be, this man has FAITH on a level I cannot even comprehend. In that case? No one is more Religious and no one is more crazy!

Anyway, that was the gist of the original post.  And my final question was, since we can all acknowledge the increasing level of insanity that it brings, and with so many well-documented example of demonstrable and unnecessary harm, bloodshed and death being caused by EVERY religion under the Sun...

Why do we need it?  What good does it do that we couldn't accomplish without it?

Now a LOT of really good comments came out of that post.  Some agreed with me (Kevin Kelly, TomCat)some took issue with me to varying degrees. (JLarue) and that's all good.  That's why I DO this blog, in fact. I particularly liked poser Kimberly's statement that "going to church doesn't make me a Christian anymore than standing in my garage makes me a car."  I really liked that. LOL

But the most intriguing, and by far the most frustrating (LOL), comments came from poster Steeve.

In response to my request that, "I would really like for some moderate, liberal defender of religion to try and convince me of it's inherent goodness." He replied:

No can do, because a religion is not a social club or a set of rules. It is a truth proposition. I'll debate the truth of my religion with you all day long. If it's true, I don't really care how good it is. Reality is reality.

OK.  I can accept this.  After all, I don't believe in the Scientific Method because it's GOOD.  I believe it is, but that's not why it serves as such an important part of my life's philosophy.  I hold in such high esteem because it is the WAY that we determine what is TRUE. (Or... at least what should be accepted as FACT.) And as Steve says, "Reality is reality."

But is Religion "reality?"  Does it really satisfy any objective measure of the "truth"?  Maybe to Steeve.  And I'm willing to let him have that much.  But it being the truth from his point of view is no more profound than me saying it's NOT the truth from mine.  One of us will have to do better.  Now, in addition to Bob Carroll's 'What's the harm' section of Skepdic.com, I could refer to Joe Sommer's website (another member of my Hall of Fame) and his article "Why the Bible is Unreliable" which calls out logical contradictions, claims disproven by scientific evidence and moral position that not even the most hard-core fundamentalist would still consider to be 'moral.'  (And for the whackos that DO, I'll refer you back to Bob Caroll.)

So there: I've done better. And with all due respect to poster Steeve, and much is due, either a whole lot more is needed, or I'm forced to conclude that what you call "reality" is what I call "Shit you made up" or "Shit you happen to believe."  Unless there some objective truth or facts to support it, you are playing VERY hard and fast with the definition of the word "reality."  Granted, we do all live our own respective realities, but I only expect anyone else to see the one reality that we all share.  And that is NOT one described by religion - it is one that quantified and defined by Science.

He replies:

Do you actually need to be CONVERTED to simply accept that other people think that Christianity is reality? Your original question was along the lines of "given that religion is crap, how is it justified?" The correct answer is "Well, I don't think it's crap."

And I went on to reply that I didn't just say "religion was crap." I pointed out that it does DEMONSTRABLE, TANGIBLE HARM. Then, I asked if it did any GOOD. I also asked whether or not that same GOOD could be done without all the mental baggage: asking me to believe many things that have been proven false AND asking me to condemn things that I don't see as wrong.  I'm keen to let anyone believe anything they want provided that (1) it is not the answer to a question already answered by science (like... the earth is 4000 years old and dinosaurs and man lived side-by-side, for example) and (2) does not do harm.  And whether it's a dramatic as beating a child to death or merely denying two gays the right to marry or a rape victim the right to terminate the resulting pregnancy, there is no shortage of harm being done. 

You want to talk about souls, heaven, hell, the afterlife, God...? Fine.  I won't tell you you're wrong, because I can't proove you wrong.  But I have no reason to concede that you're RIGHT, because you can't proove it either.  If you want to believe it's "reality?"  Knock yourself out.  But that kind of "Reality" - the kind that each one of us has, and which is distinct for every person...? is hardly anything profound.  At that point, "reality" DOES simply mean, "Shit I made up, that I REALLY BELIEVE."

Now, while this all sound very hostile and confrontational, I want to reiterate that I RESPECT whatever beliefs of this kind any of you may hold.  HOW, you ask? Simple: If you don't expect me to live in your reality, I won't expect you to live in mine.  BUT... when something is PROVEN by Science, it's time to accept it.  And when HARM is being done to another, it time to STOP it.  That's all I'm saying.

A simple "Separation of Church and State" issue, really.

Now... Steve DID say that he accepts evolution, rather than Genesis as a literal story.  Fine. Good.  But it's just after that where he really loses me:

I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because that's where the real evidence in the real world points. Anyone who can show that the real evidence in the real world points somewhere else is welcome to, but as I started to show in my previous post, it's been nothing but decades of failure by all of the best minds in the business.

I will say to Steeve exactly what I have said to EVERYONE who's ever said something like this.  First of all: WHAT "real evidence in the real world?"  All you've got is a STORY written by someone trying to get you to WORSHIP them! (Or, OK, worship as they do.) It's still no more than a fanciful claim at that point!  There IS no "evidence." Just a claim, made in a book that's already been shown to have gotten it wrong MANY, MANY times!  Second: It is not up to me to prove that it DIDN'T happen.  YOU'RE the one making the positive claim.  You're the one who has the burden of proof.  I say it's impossible, and I've got every single atom of Science that has withstood public and peer scrutiny over the past 2000 years on my side.  I got the billions and billions of people who have died in the past 2000 years who DIDN'T come back from the dead to establish the null hypothesis. And there is no evidence to support the positive claim.  Null assumption? "X" didn't happen, unless you can show some evidence that it did.  And someone else merely making the claim and having a lot of people believing it is NOT "evidence."

And it was about this point that the famous meme from Steven F Roberts came up.  I paraphrased, but it goes like this:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

The way I said it was:

Many religions have resurrection stories, virgin or divine births, fulfilled prophecies, etc... I see no reason to reject some and accept others, just based on the number of people who believe them.

And this is a critical point.  Because that is really all that's being presented as "evidence." Lot's of people believe in the Bible.  Well... Lot's of people believe in the Koran.  But Steeve doesn't.  Lot's of people believe in the Tora.  But Steeve doesn't.  Lot's of people believed these claims when Siddartha Guatama made them.  But Steeve doesn't.  And lots of people believe in Shiva, Vishnu, Kali, etc... But Steve doesn't. 

So if Steeve expects me to accept the claims made by Christianity, after BOTH OF US have rejected them when they were made by everybody else... I'm going to need a damned good reason to accept it this time around.  If there's nothing NOVEL about what's being proposed and no more EVIDENCE to support it? Why on earth should I treat it any differently than I did the LAST time I came across the claim?

Now... I may have missed something at this point because he then says:

You should look into Christianity again, if you're so inclined, because you can't explain its origin. You still believe the grafted-on myth thing, which is historical and collapses on inspection. The definitive work on this is here.

I don't know who's telling you to believe Christianity because Bible stories are unique or because there are lots of believers, but they're wrong, and they're not me. They haven't posted on this thread. Yet you're arguing with them.

 
OK... so to be fair, maybe I was misrepresenting Steeve's position or what he was saying of putting words in his mouth.  OK. I can accept that.  But... at no point was I offered any OTHER reason to believe what was being claimed.  Maybe it ended up being a strawman, but I don't see where else I was supposed to go with this.  And I don't think my points were being addressed either. 
 
He DID offer me a link to a work that he recommended.  But I didn't end up buying the book, which he describes thusly:
 

That link should have been more about what the atheistic community needs to argue with, not what you need to argue with. It would be a prohibitive time investment, and I don't have the slightest idea if the book would be of any value to you.


It's sort of a compendium of everything that's historically knowable about what the earliest Christians thought about the resurrection. He draws on essentially everything available that's relevant to that topic, although that topic is so narrow that 2/3 of what's relevant is the bible. The argument is of the form "what could have caused this belief to emerge in the way that it did".

At this point, I forced to conclude that we ARE in fact missing each other's points.

I don't CARE what "the earliest christian thought about the resurrection."  Especially if 2/3 of the work references the Bible.  The BIBLE is what's under scrutiny here.  So it can't be used as evidence to support its own claims.  Whether they believed it the way it's described today, or slightly differently, is irrelevant.  That will not answer the question, "DID IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN?"

And it does not answer the question of why I should accept THIS CLAIM on the basis of no more than a BOOK, when it's been made before and I've rejected it on the basis that I had no more evidence that (1) The Claim, in (2) a Book that (3) a lot of people believe.

Steeve...

This may not be what you offering me as a "Reason to believe" and it may not be YOURS, but I've just gone back and read the comments, and you don't offer me anything else!

I'll say it again: If you get something good out of believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, than fine.  I'll let you have it.  In fact, I'll fight, kill and die for your right to.  I will still hold that:

1) There is not inherent good done by Religion that could not be accomplished with all the mental baggage.  (Believe in Genesis, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Miracles, etc...)

2) There are no necessary rules of morality that are part of Religion that are not part of a Secular Humanist philosophy.

3) Science is contradicted and harm is being done.  This is a FACT, and even you - who I truly do respect, and who's input on these matter I truly value - have done nothing to tell me why I shouldn't let this PISS ME THE FUCK OFF!

and 4) The Steven Roberts quote:

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

In particular, I don't see where you even tried to address this, let alone "thoroughly destroyed" it (in our "little religious war" as you claimed.  But I'd love to see you try.  And I wouldn't ask if I wasn't truly interested.

So HIT ME (or Misters Carroll, Sommers and Roberts) with your best shot!

In defense of secular humanism. (not really)

NOTE:  I wrote this earlier today.  I stand by the overall point, but I was in a pretty pissy mood at the time and it comes through in the tone.  Even so, I don't plan on changing it.  So... "Bitter Rant Warning" I guess.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I’m getting a little tired of hearing about miracles lately. And I’d like to share two particularly egregious uses of this term lately that really irked me in this regard.

The first one was a story that we heard this past weekend. We were hanging around with some conservative, religious friends of ours. (Nothing extreme mind you, they’re good people and a great family with wonderful kids – just decidedly conservative and definitely religious.) ANYWAY, they were telling us a story about a friend of theirs who’s child recently had a heart transplant. Now, we’re talking about a YOUNG CHILD here – 8 or 9 years old? He’s on their son’s baseball team. Last year he couldn’t even run the bases due to his heart problems. (They let him hit, but let someone else pinch run for him.) And just recently, after the transplant, and after the recovery, etc… he hits a home run and runs the bases by himself.

Now is that an AMAZING STORY? Yes. MOVING? Yes. Bring a grown man to tears? YES. And this kid met Tiger infielder Brandon Inge while he in the hospital, and Inge, after hitting a home run himself in a game for the kid himself, WAS brought to tears in the dugout. So it DID, in fact, bring a grown man to tears! Hey: It’s a truly inspiration story! To go from planning the kid’s funeral arrangements to watching him hit a home run a run the bases and living a good, strong, healthy life? It’s amazing. I’m still floored by it, even as I write this. But something she said has stuck in my craw every since: “You just don’t see miracles all that often.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ve said many times that I respect people’s faith and this time was no different. I have no problem with people having FAITH, but in saying this was a MIRACLE, she was effectively crediting God with his survival. But the REAL reason this child is alive today is because DOCTORS went to school, DOCTORS learned how to perform this procedure, DOCTORS did research to develop the procedure, PATIENTS died when the procedure was still in it’s infancy… What I’m saying is, that MANY, MANY people hade HUGE sacrifices of their time, their money, their talent and in some case their very lives, in order to make this moment possible. That this child was even alive, let alone thriving, was an amazing HUMAN accomplishment. So please pardon me if I’m not bending over backwards to thank God for it. The only hand that God played, if any, was in giving that poor kid a bum ticker in the first place. If anything, HUMANS intervened to either defy God’s conscious will, or else fix what he failed to get right. To “thank god for the miracle” is to dismiss all the WORK and SACRIFICE that so many HUMANS did to make it happen.

Now… you might think that I’d be more accepting of the invocation of the word “miracle” as it relates to THIS STORY, about an 11 year old girl with Asberger’s Syndrome, lost for 4 days in a snake infested Florida swamp being found and rescued alive and well, save for some scratches and bug bites. And it was just dumb luck that the guy who found her even did so! So that was LUCKY. And it was LUCKY she wasn’t bitten by a snake. And it was LUCKY that she wasn’t eaten by an alligator. And it was LUCKY she didn’t fall and break her leg, or hit her head, or drown. And in [Obi-Wan’s] experience: There’s no such thing as LUCK. So why can’t I concede this one? With all that LUCK (or random chance working out in her favor) leading to her survival, why can’t I concede that God intervened? Why can’t I call this a MIRACLE?

Simple. Because in doing so I would have to conclude that God is evil.

How do I reach that judgment? Simple. Where was God a few months ago in Haiti? Where was God every time a child DOESN’T survive something? Where was God when my children were born with Autism? Where is God when all these children die as their idiot parents try PRAYING and FAITH HEALING in rejection of MODERN MEDICINE? Where was God back when our species’ infant mortality rate was 50% in the first year of life? Where was God’s guidance when the Church was deciding what to do with pedophile Priests? Where was God when my Grandfather died of esophageal cancer six months after retired, after busting his ass his whole life to provide for his family? Where was God two years ago when my very dear friend – a regular churchgoer, I might add - from a brain tumor? If that’s God’s work? FUCK God.

To credit God with ACTING in any one case, is to say the he consciously chose not to act in every other case. And if we accept this, I would find it very odd that God seems to favor us more and more as a species as MEDICAL SCIENCE improves, even as we become LESS RELIGIOUS. Does God just like babies more now than he did a century ago? Is a 0.1% (or whatever it is now) infant mortality rate do to GOD’S work – or HUMANITY’S? (I think the answer is there is obvious, and I’m going to punch you if you conclude otherwise!) Not only does God show seem to favor us more and more (sarcasm) as medical science improves, but he even seems to favor CONUTRIES these days that do more medical research, regardless of their native religion or level of belief. One’s faith, one’s religion, has nothing to do with it. Antibiotics don’t wok any better or any worse in Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, Buddhists or Atheists. And no group is any more or less likely to get a disease or survive a disaster. The only factors than make any difference all – modern infrastructure, medical science, civilized society, etc… – are all the result of purely HUMAN endeavor.

And what’s more, I see this all as a SERIOUS indictment of intelligent design as well. As I look around, as I learn (and realize) more about how both our species and our societies evolved, I can not help but reach the conclusion that this DID in fact all come about randomly. I can see and accept NO OTHER explanation. Between all the things that go wrong with our bodies and minds in terms of disease, all the peril we face from the natural world, and how we destroy each other with war and poison each other with pollution… I’m sorry but this is just not the work of an INTELLIGENT designer.

The “I” in ID, if anything, stands for INCOMPETENT.

If there IS a God, or some other form of DESIGNER, either he’s stupid, or he’s evil. No one would deliberately design such a weak, vulnerable, irrational species like ours, and put it a world as fraught with danger as this one, unless they were either C-Students, or Psychopaths.

And THAT’S why the above examples aren’t miracles. These kids didn’t survive BECAUSE of God’s work. If he’s up there at all, they survived despite his capriciousness and/or incompetence. (Evil or Stupid – take your pick.) Believing otherwise is no more than a comfortable delusion that dismisses the work of the flech and blood HUMAN BEINGS that REALLY made these “miracles” happen.

Open call to all you religious moderates out there: 'Splane dis to me...

I had planned to do something on the budget, but I came across a couple of items in Skepdic that I just HAD to deal with.

Please take a moment to read THIS and THIS.  Now, lest you think these are anomolies, let me assure you that there are TONS of examples of this kind of gut-wrenching outrage throughout Skepdic's "What's the harm? Archive"

Now I've made no secret here about my disdain for organized religion.  And I already know what your very first answer to me will be; and this will be the same wether you are perfectly moderate and reasonable or standing in middle of a field with your underpants on your head, waiting for the mothership:  But we're not LIKE them!  They're CRAZY!

OK... Here's the thing... It occurs to me that there is basically a 1:1 (perhaps greater) correlation between how religious you are and how crazy you are.  Very Religious = Very crazy. (See above) Not an extremist = Not very crazy.  And of course, crazy people never KNOW their crazy,  but if you ever consider someone MORE RELIGIOUS than you are, do you ever notice how they usually also seem a little bit crazy, at least compared to you, from your own POV?

So here's my question...

Knowing that the degree of one religiosity is directly proportional to their insanity, why should anyone want to have this force in their life at all?

Please tell me why this is any different from saying, "Oh, I only use a little Cocaine.  Just to make me feel a little better.  I'm not going to be like those crazy Coke-heads, screwing up their whole life."

Tell me how that statement is any different!

Tell me why any good that comes from religion, can't come independently of the insane baggage they ask you to carry!  And yes, some churches ask you to carry very little, but why should I carry ANY AT ALL?! 

I have never noticed a positive correlation between how religious one is and how good a person they are.  Biggoted, hateful, judgemental and downright batshit crazy? Yeah, all those things seem to increase with one's religious zeal.  But charity?  A non-judmental, unconditional love of your fellow man?  Nope.  NEVER seen that. Even though Christ seemed to embody it, his loudest followers seem to be allergic to it. 

And don't think I'm just bashing Christianity here!  Islam has all the social and philosophical problems of Christianity, and then some.  And they have just as many more crazies as you'd expect, given their greater overall zeal!  How about Hinduism?  I'll say this for them: They don't take converts.  You have to be BORN a Hindu.  (I guess the whole reincarnation thing gets messed up otherwise.)  So I respect that they don't go around prostelytising and trying to force everyone else to covert to their way.  That takes a lot of the disfunction out of it.  OTOTH, the amount of absolutely absurd stuff you'd have to belileve in order to REALLY believe is as many times greater than it is Christianity and Islam as their number of Gods is!

(And BTW... if you pick and choose what parts of any religion you will accept and which parts you'll ignore: WHY BOTHER?  You're not following that faith, you're just MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG!  And you can do THAT without the damned Church! In fact, from the POV of most churches, YOU ALREADY ARE!)

So in closing, I'll say it again: I truly don't judge anyone for believing whatever they want, as long as it's kept out of the science room, out of our laws and out of my face.  And I'm putting this out there in all seriousness.  This is NOT a rhetorical question! I would really like for some moderate, liberal defender of religion to try and convince me of it's inherent goodness. Because the way I see it, if the Amount of Crazy you are is "X" times the amount of Religious you are, why would I want "X" to be anything but ZERO?

The Atheism / Religion Argument

"I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well."
~Stephen F. Roberts

I saw [the above quote] posted by TBONE today on http://mediamatters.org/columns/201001050042




Before I go any further, let me say that I am not a “true” atheist. I'm solidly agnostic. God might or might not exist. I don’t know, and can’t know, therefore it would be reckless of me to CONCLUDE anything. What I DO know is that the most learned theologian in the world today, knows no more about God(s) than I do. All they have over me is a vast repertoire of knowledge regarding what man has believed about God(s) over the centuries. And seeing how much it’s changed? Why on earth should I believe in merely the most recent one to come along? If 500 years from now, Scientology becomes the dominant religion in the world, I hope that the atheist of that day are able to read this: I WAS AROUND WHEN THEY WERE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF KOOKS AND CULTISTS AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, IT’S ALL BULLSHIT.

And in reality, it really is ALL bullshit. Every religion ever concieved asks you to believe something that's either impossible or at a minimum something that there is no evidence, at all, to support.

But the opening quote is arguably the best way to debate atheism with a religious person. Or, if they’re not buying it, try this:

1) Ask them if they believe in ZEUS, RA or ODIN. Not worship now, but do they believe in the existence of these deities as actual, living entities?

2) Once you both agree that the idea of ZUEA/RA/ODIN being REAL is absurd, ask them WHY, and remind them that their reason should not be one that could be applied equally to God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah /etc…

3) Flip it: Ask them for an argument supporting the exsistance of God (etc…) that could not be used equally to support the exsistance of Zeus (etc…)

It logically can’t be done. To argue for the exsistance of something without evidence is to accept the theoretical exsistance of ANYTHING... without evidence!

Believe in Angels? What about Demons? Why those and not Goblins, Unicorns or Leprechauns?

Well... I know why. Because that would be absurd, right?

(See three step process above)

Now... in truth? I don't care what YOU believe. I really don't. Believe whatever you want. I won't mock; in fact you'll find I'll be very respectful of it, just as long as you don't try to call science, or history and for God's sake don't try to use the government (or the schools) to force me (or my children) to go along with it.

That's all we ask. If denying you the right to wage war on our non-belief constitutes us waging war on your belief, then so be it. I'll just list that among the millions of absurd things religion asks that you believe.

Friday Fun: Atheist Motivational Posters

Som of my favorites from http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/453/collection-of-atheist-and-atheism-motivational-posters/. BTW, I'm not truly an atheist. I believe that true atheism is every bit as arrogant as religion is. But if I'm going to form a null-hypothesis, in the absence of any other tangible evidence, Atheism is the only reasonable position.