tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82590145430581707532024-03-05T21:31:36.386-08:00Cognitive DissonanceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12688888324613819258noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-65584069061541468492016-12-02T14:21:00.000-08:002016-12-02T14:29:00.449-08:00Dear Republicans,<br />
<br />
If you believed a word out of Donald Trump's mouth over the last 16 months, you have been deceived. Don't believe me? That's fine. I know how difficult it is to see outside the bullshit bubble the GOP has created having once been a Tea Party Republican myself. However, "the truth can set you free!"<br />
<br />
The following is a short list of facts about President Obama's administration's success over the last 8 years. Because I know that your propaganda addled brain will SCREAM at you that this can't possibly be true, I have included my sources as well. You can use these sources and the facts contained therein to dispel the very uncomfortable feeling known as cognitive dissonance (which means having beliefs that are inconsistent with the truth and trying to maintain those beliefs despite the facts to the contrary). Everything Donald Trump said about the economy, immigration, healthcare and defense was based on an imaginary, post apocalyptic hell scape that he invented to scare you into voting for him. The sad thing is, it worked. So, in this "post truth/fact" era, as many people have described it, I'm going to spend way more time sharing facts in an effort to disabuse people of their incorrect ideas about our already great nation and it's current and *shudder* future leader.<br />
<br />
- Today's job numbers showed unemployment at 4.6% down from 4.9% the previous month (it was almost 11% when Obama too office; Romney said he'd get unemployment to 6% in his first term, Obama stomped all over that). -<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/#1e99a18b20bc" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>-<br />
<br />
- The economy as a whole has been improving for 78 straight months, we are in the longest period of private sector job growth in this countries history. -<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/09/15/obamas-claim-that-businesses-are-in-the-longest-uninterrupted-stretch-of-job-creation/?utm_term=.6b2618c40c9b" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>-<br />
<br />
- The stock market continues to set new records. The Dow Jones Industrial averages reached an all-time high of 18,292 in May, 2015. Since most Americans have 401K retirement investments in the stock market, this growth benefits millions of middle class Americans. -<a href="http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years" target="_blank">Click here for source-</a><br />
<br />
- Despite the loud (and completely false) claims to the contrary, government spending has increased only 3.3% annually, the lowest rate since Eisenhower was president. And the budget deficit (created by Republican policies like the Bush Tax Cuts) has been slashed by 2/3rds. -<a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>- -<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#4fd0317257ec" target="_blank">2nd source</a>- -<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?utm_term=.9617168bb511" target="_blank">3rd source</a>-<br />
<br />
- For 95% of American taxpayers, income taxes are as low or lower than they were at almost any point in the last 50 years. -<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-income-taxes-on-middle-income-families-remain-near-historic-lows?fa=view&id=3151" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>-<br />
<br />
- Dependence on foreign oil has shrunk due to record domestic oil production and improved fuel efficiency standards. -<a href="http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=88" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>-<br />
<br />
- Almost 18 MILLION citizens have health insurance that were previously uninsured AND The Affordable Care Act has added years to the life of Medicare. The Medicare trust fund had been on course to run out of money by the end of 2016. But due to cost savings from the Affordable Care Act and lower healthcare expenses, Medicare’s trust fund will now remain stable until the year 2030 without cutting benefits. -<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/obamacare-helped-10-million-get-insurance-gallup-finds-n78446" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>- -<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf" target="_blank">2nd source</a>-<br />
<br />
- We currently have fewer soldiers, sailors, and airmen in war zones than we did at any time in the last 12 years. Additionally, there have been zero successful attacks by al Qaeda on US soil since Obama became president. -<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>-<br />
<br />
- We now successfully catch and deport more illegal immigrants than ever before. -<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/" target="_blank">Click here for source</a>-<br />
<br />
Despite the unprecedented obstructionism and record number of filibusters used by Republicans to kill even the most routine legislation, the fact remains that the American people are profoundly better off today than they were before President Obama took office, in almost every measurable way. Period.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12688888324613819258noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-46084083036459150072014-08-21T12:49:00.003-07:002014-08-21T12:53:35.268-07:00Glenn Beck Video Makes a Resurgence on Facebook - Coincidence? I think not! <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1250064768819" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Y9OAxoEhj8sxDSOPMmDjv3NPEvT7DIYnDWHovWgmCTKmmIVv3bKScWy9rnxayjC77eY3Zjj2mufgPgXKeYNhmFoVhzBI93TCxFicDC6FG6sHTCgowuNhJ22WKZTc5kDTGWsPfSdUYjM/s1600/GBScreenCap.png" height="356" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1250064768819" target="_blank">Ignoramus and lunatic, Glenn Beck spews hatred and ignorance.</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The caption of this post, which I've seen from a half dozen people in the last fews days on Facebook reads, "<i>Oh HELL no! School children cannot pray, read their Bibles or even sing a Christmas song. Christmas and Easter vacations are now called winter and spring breaks. They are even trying to re-write the Pledge of Allegiance to remove "one nation under God". But now they are teaching our children to sing OBAMA's praises! Oh HELL no! HELL NO!</i>" How are we supposed to have a dialogue with "Conservatives" if the problems they have with our country and our government are 100% imaginary and literally do not exist? It's like arguing the merits of using unicorns instead of horses on a cattle ranch - it doesn't fucking matter - there are MUCH more important (and real) problems to address, in both the US/government and on cattle ranches.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
The FACT is, students can pray in school, they can bring/read their bibles and students can (and do) lead bible studies before and after school all over the country. Christmas songs can be sung by students and I've never heard of "Easter Vacation," it's been been called Spring Break since I was a kid. Even at my private Christian school the 2 vacations we had each year were called Winter Break and Mid-Winter Break (aka Spring Break). The reason for this is the fact that Americans have the freedom of (and from) religion and there are dozens, if not hundreds of other belief systems out there that people should be respectful of. Furthermore public schools are a government entity and they are subject to the Constitution of the United States like all government bodies are. The 1st Ammendment of the Constitution dictates (in no uncertain terms) a separation of church and state. However, students are free to practice their religion(s) in whatever ways they see fit so long as it doesn't harm anyone else, damage property or otherwise disrupt or interfere with the education process. But because teachers and administrators are government employees they cannot organize or lead religious events, prayers, Bible studies, Kuran studies, Wiccan ceremonies, Buddhist meditation or any other religious observation of any kind. That is the law and it always has been since the Constitution was signed and it became the cornerstone of our federal law(s).<br />
<br />
In regards to the pledge of allegiance and the phrase, "one nation, under God..." Those words were not a part of the original pledge of allegiance as it was written in 1892. (BTW - the guy that wrote the pledge, Francis Bellamy was a minister and he left any/all religious connotations out on purpose to avoid being divisive). In fact, "one nation, under God" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954, in response to the perceived communist threat(s) at that time. The words "In God We Trust" were added to our paper money a couple of years later (1956/1957) though our national motto has remained unchanged and is still "E Pluribus Unum," which means "Out of Many, One." Which is a motto that is far more inclusive and does a far better job of capturing the spirit of our nation and doesn't alienate or exclude people who don't subscribe to the Christian religion. <br />
<br />
As far as the song these kids were singing goes, I looked this video up on PolitiFact because I'm pretty skeptical of anything Glenn Beck has to say. To my surprise I discovered there was a thread of truth to this story, though Beck and Fox News twisted and spun it into something it most certainly is/was not. It isn't evidence of some larger, nationwide conspiracy to indoctrinate our school children as "liberals." The songs they were singing were part of a musical production the kids in this 1 school were performing as part of their recognition and celebration of black history month. They also sang songs about Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and other African American leaders who helped change the way black people in the United States are treated. The fact that Barack Obama is the first black President EVER in our nation's history is a big deal, especially to African American folks who still endure racism and discrimination and are only a few generations removed from segregation and slavery. If there were a nationwide conspiracy to compel all school children to sing songs praising any person every morning when school began I'd agree that this would be creepy - regardless of who that person was. However, in context and as a part of Black History Month, the fact that these children chose to recognize Barack Obama (this was the kids idea, not the school or the teacher's) for becoming the first African American President and for his work to unite and repair our nation is great. Finally, it's probably worth mentioning that this video is from 2009, it's been 5 years and there hasn't been any nationwide implementation of daily praises being sung to the President or anyone else during that time.<br />
<br />
I'm really curious as to why Fox News is sharing a video by Glenn Beck (from 2009), especially considering the fact that Fox fired Beck for being too extreme and called him, "crazy." In light of the fact that Beck went on to apologize for the "awful lot of mistakes" he made while working for Fox News; and said things like, "I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I didn't realize how really fragile the people were, I thought we were kind of a little more in it together." And he admitted (and I quote), "I don't give a crap about the political process, it was just entertainment."Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12688888324613819258noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-77619550341758181992014-04-07T19:44:00.000-07:002014-04-07T19:44:29.604-07:00Is it worth it?Do you feel like you're spinning your wheels when you engage in conversation with a "believer?" The following is an article I posted on my "<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/how-to-win-arguments-with-religious-people" target="_blank">Squidoo</a>" lens. If you like my blog, or even if you don't like it but you find it interesting, I'd encourage you to follow me on <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/how-to-win-arguments-with-religious-people" target="_blank">Squidoo</a> as well. Also, a little disclaimer - I realize that my "voice" has changed some over the last 3 or so years and those of you that have followed me from the beginning may notice this shift. In regards to that I can say that my anger over being deceived for so long has waned. I'm working on adopting a more balanced and objective approach to the conversation on faith - which I think is important if I want to be taken seriously. However, don't mistake the meekness for weakness; my position on and feelings towards religion (and all similar faith based belief systems) has only grown stronger. <br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.squidoo.com/how-to-win-arguments-with-religious-people" target="_blank">Is It Worth It?</a></b><br />
<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/how-to-win-arguments-with-religious-people" target="_blank">Does discussing your non-belief with believes feel like an exercise in futility?</a><br />
<div>
<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/how-to-win-arguments-with-religious-people" target="_blank">04/07/2013</a><br />
<div>
<br />
If you're one of the brave few that have stepped off the edge of the abyss and into the volatile, unpredictable realm of religiosity - then I salute you! Trying to use rational and logic to combat irrational and illogical viewpoints often feels like an exercise in futility. I doubt that very many of us that have or do engage in discussion, debate or arguments with believers have ever heard the words, "oh, you're right - my religious beliefs are utter nonsense." It is also unlikely that very many of us have seen anyone give up their beliefs and join the ranks of those of us that do not, "believe." The lack of tangible results that we can trace back to our efforts to win hearts and (more importantly) minds can be discouraging. However, I submit to you that your struggle is not in vain.<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that I can remember the exact moment I "lost my religion," it was years after the fact before I was able to look back and recognize the erosion that had been occurring in regards to my religious beliefs. Even after the fateful summer night when I walked (stormed) out of my church for the last time it was a good 12 months before I said the word, "atheist" out loud for the first time. Over the years since then I have heard/read many accounts of people who have been able to break free from the grasp of organized religion. Many, if not all of them described their deconversion as a slow process that often took years - so don't feel discouraged if it seems like nothing you're saying is getting through. In actuality, it is quite likely that you're helping that person along in their personal journey out of ignorance and delusion. "Rome wasn't built in a day," neither did it collapse in a day. Many believers have years or even decades of indoctrination to overcome, that was certainly true in my case. I was systematically programmed from a very young age to believe in, "God" in a process that can only be described as brainwashing. I was in my twenties before it occurred to me that questioning my beliefs was even an option! That might sound crazy, (and there's a good reason for that) ... because it is crazy.<br />
<br />
Multiple scientific studies have examined the brains of believers and people who describe having had "religious experiences" using MRI, CT and PET scans. In all of these studies the finding was confirmed that religion/religious experiences had a direct correlation with literal, physical brain damage. A part of the brain called the, "hippocampus" (used to regulate emotion and in memory formation, among other things) actually atrophies (shrinks) in the brains of those that identified religious belief as a major factor in their life as well as those that claim to have had "religious experiences." Additionally the degree of atrophy that was discovered correlated with a person's religious affiliation. In a study done at Duke University, the research showed, "significantly greater hippocampal atrophy among born-again Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious affiliation, compared with Protestants not identifying as born-again." This means to combat such deeply held, personal beliefs a person not only has to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination (in some cases) but they also have to contend with neurological deficits. I realize how harsh this might sound - I'm not calling religious people, "stupid," (necessarily). I am simply stating the facts, religious faith is a stubborn "virus" and very, very rarely do people realize their mistake immediately after being confronted with the facts.<br />
<br />
Keep these things in mind the next time someone quotes Sarah Palin or "Fox and Friends" in defense of their faith in "God." If you are lucky enough to have never been caught up in the throes of religiosity yourself, try and empathize with the folks you're speaking with that are entrenched themselves. The realizations a person has to contend with as they acknowledge their presuppositions are false can be extremely difficult. As a person defects from their religious worldview and transitions to a rational, empirical and factual understanding of life and the natural order of things they will need time to adjust. While the abandonment of blind religious faith/belief does means freedom from mental and emotional slavery, it also means having to face things like the finality of death, questions about their origin, purpose and place in the cosmos, etc... The "Truth" about these kinds of questions is infinitely more awesome and more beautiful than the feeble, infantile fairy tales put forth by the various religious traditions around the world. Yet it takes time to adjust to and understand before the inherent beauty, wonder and awesomeness of nature becomes clear.<br />
<br />
The conversation about atheism and religion is worthwhile, but it requires time, patience, empathy and perseverance on the part of the non-believer. If you're truly interested in being better equipped to handle the intricacies and potential pitfalls that accompany these types conversations - join me as I share what I've learned over the years as I've been engaged in this debate. If you stick it out, the reward of being the first person to see the look in someone's eyes as they gaze up at the night sky and see our universe for what it is (for the first time) - is truly amazing."</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0Seattle, WA, USA47.6062095 -122.332070847.2636815 -122.9775178 47.9487375 -121.68662379999999tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-325170819276030622014-03-13T14:05:00.000-07:002014-03-13T14:39:01.085-07:00Cosmos - Carl Sagan Would Be Proud!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.cosmosontv.com/" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsyPaGihBjq0F97dBO9x8cNzBMQgUyK16VHaHRdlTM_xIPmSiTWTe7YAwgKIqPRmVM-BRkQf34KsFSUoX8qxiGQfCpOEg-UFqvOw5H3iIEO4RBR-92tT-91S8VUgc6kWgSBS4I_2f0DLY/s1600/Cosmos_Carousel-carousel-1400x386.jpg" height="110" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.cosmosontv.com/" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3v-_PGDTck0RpXekLu3_a6VCg3pJeAgrAgPDGu_WHQcXAgLMOaNxegKhzLGcUWq15repmT040NQf74lXYK2Gjl92ehJgjGFquCGdqI2ApkpQQ1-GB-MdLdVsGK1e59ASVUW7o9tZuCTo/s1600/cosmos_101-still221.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Last night I sat down on my couch after a long day at work looking forward to watching the recording of Cosmos, (hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson) I'd made the previous evening. My hopes/expectations were high, though I doubted anyone could stir my emotions and enchant my mind the way Carl Sagan once did. Cosmos was a major catalyst of my deconversion, the picture Sagan painted of the beauty and complexity of nature, the size, scope and<i> truly awesome</i> origins of our universe and life on earth helped open my eyes. His words and the passionate way in which he delivered them cut through the fog that shrouded my mind. The fog created by more than 20 years of trying to reconcile infantile, bronze age explanations of life and the origin of our universe with what I saw through the lens of a microscope, a telescope and between the covers of books. Though Carl Sagan possessed one of the most brilliant scientific minds of all time, he never seemed condescending or aloof, his explanations of concepts like space and time were captivating, perspicuous and elegant and in my case his words were also provocative. Having grown up in an environment where "truth" was taught with a capital "T" and only being allowed to spend time with children and families from my private, Christian School and church; the concepts and ideas Sagan presented were in many cases entirely novel to me. As far back as I can remember I was taught that God spoke the universe into existence in 7 (literal days), that the earth was 6,000 - 10,000 years old and that ideas like evolution or the big bang were contemptible and anyone who subscribed to such preposterous and deplorable notions deserved mockery, ridicule and shame. Oh the irony... I am ashamed to admit that the words, "evolution is only a theory," and "there are no transitional fossils" have passed my lips. However, in my defense I can claim ignorance as an excuse. I was indoctrinated long before I reached an age where I could be held accountable for my beliefs and shielded from "secular ideas" which included most of what science/scientists had discovered about the natural order of things.<br />
<div>
<br />
Returning to my earlier comment about having high hopes and expectation for the "new" Cosmos series and my skepticism about it being as moving and impactful as the original... This is one of the rare instances when I can say I am truly delighted to be wrong! By the time Neil deGrasse Tyson was standing in the famous "spaceship of imagination" looking down on our planet from space, I was entranced. Tyson's delivery was just as eloquent, equally moving and thanks to major advances in science and technology, even more educational and informative than that of the late Carl Sagan. The icing on the cake was the moment at the end of the episode when Tyson produced Carl Sagan's personal calender and showed his name written in it. As Tyson recounted the snowy Saturday he spent with Sagan in Ithaca and the lasting effect it had on his life, I was literally moved to tears. I think because I was able to identify with the feeling of excitement and wonder that Tyson felt that day, at age 17. I might not have had the chance to visit Carl Sagan's lab or share a cheeseburger with him, but he had the same effect on my life as he did on Neil deGrasse Tyson's. He opened my eyes to the awesome and wonderful world of science, he inspired me to learn all I could about nature, he was my first exposure to the scientific method and he played a major roll in setting me free from the oppressive ignorance of religion. <br />
<br />
<br />
I'll leave you with a quote from another late, great thinker and atheist, Christopher Hitchens. As always, "Hitch" sums up my feelings in a way I only wish I could.</div>
<div>
<br />
“<i>One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.</i>”<br />
<br />
<b>See full episodes of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" at:</b> <b><a href="http://www.cosmosontv.com/">www.cosmosontv.com</a> - Hosted by: Neil deGrasse Tyson</b></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-13076749775037715402014-03-13T13:58:00.002-07:002014-03-13T14:16:12.198-07:00A Big Fat, "Fail" by The Friendly Atheist... <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFZKC11MKjA3bqIZX2kQ5kCzbJPlzb2KBbVEPjZqIzwLm3b45fyoRT5PzyqCBqp2PBP06iO4pLCdCgZy9MUOYAYNL17eUOT6zVeRLUneoMd1wZqHujRtylE-1X5t9Ic48_4GwfShw3WNU/s1600/pratheist.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFZKC11MKjA3bqIZX2kQ5kCzbJPlzb2KBbVEPjZqIzwLm3b45fyoRT5PzyqCBqp2PBP06iO4pLCdCgZy9MUOYAYNL17eUOT6zVeRLUneoMd1wZqHujRtylE-1X5t9Ic48_4GwfShw3WNU/s1600/pratheist.png" height="353" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
"<b><i><u>Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There</u>. Here’s Why I’m One of Them</i></b>" - Really..? REALLY???<br />
<br />
The title of this post (on The Friendly Atheist blog, March 11th, 2014) is offensive, misleading and downright ignorant. The post was written by a guest author, not Hemant Mehta (the host of the blog), however that doesn't excuse him from allowing such a flawed, flimsy, emotional and downright ridiculous article such as this to be posted on his site.<br />
<br />
In my experience (and abortion is a topic I've discussed with a good number of non-believers/atheists/agnostics) I've found the VAST majority are, "pro-life." To be clear I don't mean that in the Right Wing, picket sign toting, abortion clinic bombing, "Jesus loves the little children" sense of the word. I mean it in an objective, literal sense. Humanism and atheism go hand in hand in many cases, and the folks I've spoken to tend to agree that life is valuable and precious. (<i>Which makes perfect sense considering the fact that this is the only moment in all of time that we'll have consciousness and non-believers reject the notion of an afterlife.</i>) However, that does not mean that atheists/non-believers don't support a woman's right to choose, nor do they deny the fact that there are many instances when abortion is medically necessary or otherwise justifiable, such as in cases of rape or incest for example.<br />
<br />
The label of "pro-life" is misused in my opinion, that should be the term "we" (non-believers) use to describe our stance. In most cases (again speaking from my experience) atheist/non-believers value life, human and non-human, but we consider the big picture when it comes to abortion. Will the child be born into poverty, drug addiction/abuse or physically, mentally/emotionally or sexually abusive environment(s)? Can the mother/family care for the child, can they feed and clothe the child and otherwise care for him/her? Is there a birth defect that will render the child unable to experience or enjoy life, or worse, will the child suffer unnecessarily and then die a wretched death fed through tubes and kept alive through artificial means? All of these examples and many more are moral considerations that one should take into account when considering "life" in a holistic context.<br />
<br />
The religious movement that has labeled itself "pro-life" would be more correctly labeled, "pro-birth." They give no consideration to the actual life of the child or it's mother/father whatsoever, and I find such cruel indifference to suffering and misery disturbing. Although I suppose suffering and misery are sort of the stock and trade of most major religions though, aren't they? The Catholic Church made Mother Teresa a "Saint" for her "work with the poor" after all. Forgetting that in reality she was a friend of poverty and an advocate of suffering, she regarded women as little more than cattle-like vessels for birthing children destined to suffer in abject poverty the same way their parents had. She predicated these vile notions on the belief that suffering in this life led to a reward in the afterlife.<br />
<br />
I've gotten off on a tangent, the point is the author of this post not only fails to support any of the arguments their trying make. But they also accused the majority of atheists of being utterly indifferent to human life, and that is not only offensive, it's outright ridiculous. I can only hope that the backlash this article has received from the atheist community inspires the author to revisit their ideas on the subject and will attempt to undo the damage they've done by publishing something so offensive, blatantly illogical and full of holes.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/" target="_blank">Click here to view the original article on, "The Friendly Atheist."</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-24465824849655765072013-11-27T12:19:00.000-08:002013-11-27T12:21:43.476-08:00Confirmation Bias Rears its Ugly Head, Once Again.Mark Driscoll, the pastor of the Seattle mega-church called "Mars Hill" posted the following on Facebook.<br />
<br />
<div>
-<i> "A deacon at Mars Hill Church Everett was diagnosed with kidney cancer eight months ago and was given six months to live. He approached the elders for prayer after his diagnosis. They prayed for healing and for Jesus to be glorified. Recently, the man had a scan of his entire body and the results came back with no trace of cancer in his kidneys or lymph nodes."</i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
I responded by pointing out the fact that he failed to mention the months of radiation, chemotherapy, proton therapy, etc that this person underwent, and suggested that those things MIGHT have had something to do with his recovery. I got the following response to my statement from someone I know quite well that saw my comment on Mark Driscoll's page.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
- <i>" ... the basis of faith tells us that knowledge doctors etc all came from The Lord. Many good doctors will acknowledge miracles, where they come from we also know."</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; line-height: 14px;"><br /></span></i></span><br />
<i><br /></i>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<span style="color: #333333; line-height: 14px;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="line-height: normal;"><br /></span></span></span>
<u>This blog post is a word for word response to that person's comment:</u><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br /></span></span><br />
The basis of faith (when considered objectively) is to purposefully ignore any and all possibly explanations to the contrary of what a person believes (or wants to believe). In this case, the fact is science and medicine are responsible for the remission of this person's cancer.<br />
<br />
The statement/claim in this case was that prayer healed this person, not doctors/medicine, nor was there any mention that those doctors and/or the medicine/therapy he received were "gifts from god". I am challenging the notion that the reason this person has survived beyond the estimation of their doctor(s) is not because of prayer, but because of science, medicine and human beings that have devoted their lives to helping other people. While it is true that some doctors do acknowledge that things occur that they cannot comprehensively explain, and some doctors may label those occurrences as "miracles". It does not necessarily mean that the ONLY other explanation for those happenings is that "god did it". In my experience and estimation, far more doctors are offended by the notion that their 10-12 years of schooling, extensive knowledge, comprehensive expertise, long hours and hard work have nothing to do with the outcome of their treatments/patients. That instead the results are determined by the whim of an invisible man in the sky and entirely out of their hands.<br />
<br />
I heard someone say during a lecture once that about 150,000 people die each day on planet earth. If the rest of us, all 6+ billion people prayed for those 150,000 that were about to die, 150,000 would still die that day. Nothing fails like prayer. However we tragically see parents and caretakers that persist in this belief, refusing their children (or the person they care for) medical care for conditions that could EASILY be cured by antibiotics or minor surgery. And the reason they do this is because they are convinced that prayer alone can heal them. In every single one of those cases when medical attention is withheld, the child (person) dies, 100% of the time.<br />
<br />
People like James Randi (as one example among many others) have devoted a great deal of time and energy to either proving or debunking claims of miraculous healing and faith healers. Again, 100% of the time these people are shown to be frauds. They're using actors, they have people fill out slips of paper that someone reads to the person on stage through a listening device, some use "mentalist" type manipulations and the list of predatory, fraudulent tactics like that goes on and on. Not once, literally not even a single time have any of these people that claim to be able to heal through prayer and/or the power of god proven to be able to effect any kind of supernatural changes on people/the natural world. For myself and people outside the "bubble" (religious belief/faith) this is obvious evidence that the foundational claims behind these beliefs are flawed. However, for people who do believe, there is always some excuse or explanation that they can use to justify the failure of their beliefs and these kinds of claims. This lessens the often painful <i>Cognitive Dissonance</i> that occurs when religious belief/faith collides with reality and allows the person to continue on without having to question their beliefs or the foundation(s) of those beliefs.<br />
<br />
One other thing comes to mind regarding prayer/faith and healing. There have been multiple (10-12) major university studies done on prayer and its effect on and ability to heal or help people heal. In every case the results were the same, prayer had no effect whatsoever on the outcome, people being prayed for did not recover faster or to a higher degree than the people in the control group. And most interestingly, people that knew they were being prayed for did worse than the other 2 groups, this finding was confirmed by multiple studies.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is this, the reason this person's cancer is in remission and he/she has beat the odds of surviving beyond 6 months is (solely) because they received highly advanced medical care. You can call it a gift from god, but that just begs the question.... (several questions actually, but let's focus on this one). If god intended for us to have a cure to diseases like cancer, why didn't he just provide them in the bible or through some other means? Why allow such painful suffering, death and loss to continue for thousands of years while we as human beings slowly made the progress necessary in science and medicine to be able to cure them?<br />
<br />
The bible says we are god's children and that he loves us like a father loves a child. Would you withhold information from your child/children if they were suffering the way people dying of bone cancer, lung cancer or pancreatic cancer suffer if that information would certainly ease that suffering? Would you call it loving or benevolent if someone withheld information that would relieve their children from such horrific pain and a wretched death? Not a chance! So why let god off the hook? Because the bible says his ways are higher than ours and we shouldn't question his authority? Because it says that we should "just believe", regardless of how much contradictory, conflicting facts/truth/evidence we come across? That is NOT love, that is sociopathic, narcissistic, cruel, indifferent and depraved!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Epicurus said it best, thousands of years ago, when he said:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Then he is not omnipotent.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Is he able, but not willing?</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Then he is malevolent.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Is he both able and willing?</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Then whence cometh evil?</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Is he neither able nor willing?</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Then why call him God?"</i></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-34174636258270631262013-09-06T15:38:00.003-07:002013-09-06T15:38:54.117-07:00Liars, Idiots & Cowards aka Ray Comfort (and Pat Roberts, but we'll discuss him later).If hell was a real place, there would be a special place in it for the people I like to call, "liars for Jesus". These people spin and sell blatant lies and nonsense to unwitting people, often for profit or other forms of personal gain. One of my least favorite members of this club is the crown prince of inanity himself, none other than Ray "The Banana Man" Comfort. Ray is an asshat of epic proportions, his ignorance knows NO bounds! Every time the man opens his mouth, you can bet bananas to donuts that he's going to say something stupid.<br />
<br />
If you haven't seen<a href="https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort" target="_blank"> Ray Comfort's Facebook page</a>, and you're ok with having your good mood ruined you should check it out. 9 out of 10 posts are statements that are either blatantly false, shamelessly manipulated (like his videos/movies/interviews almost always are) or utterly insane. Ray spends the vast majority of his time railing against evolution. He has a new movie out called "Evolution vs. god" and every single time he puts a new post on Facebook, he plugs that pathetic mummer's farce he calls an "argument" against evolution. If you listen to what he says and/or read what he writes, it becomes readily apparent that Ray either doesn't have a fucking CLUE how evolution works, or what the word even means - or, he knows exactly what it means and he's regurgitating tired, old propaganda that has been refuted over and over and over again in order to deceive people. And I can't tell if he's just manipulating the ignorant masses of fundamentalist Christians for money, or if he really believes the shit he says. Either way its shameful, and Ray is a prime example of a "liar for Jesus".<br />
<br />
One of the most despicable examples (in my opinion) of Ray's blatant lies and manipulations is the FACT that he often edits the interviews in his films. He cuts out/rearranges words and sentences to manipulate the responses to his questions. Sometimes he even changes the questions he's asking, after purposefully misleading his victims into saying something so he can twist it later. What you see/hear in his videos is NOT what the folks he's interviewed said, in many cases, its quite the opposite! On more than one occasion people have gotten ahold of the original, unedited interviews and compared them to the bullshit Ray slaps on his overpriced DVDs, there are several on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW05npbQHVs" target="_blank">YouTube</a> for your viewing displeasure.<br /><br />I'm going to stop now and defer to the intelligent and insightful Jacklyn Glenn. She does a fantastic job of tearing Ray's "Evolution vs. god" video to shreds in her own video/vlog. Take a few minutes and check it out, but be warned, you'll need a drink afterwards, or... ten. - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0k9NyHh7TQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUravYcv6C0CopL2ukVzhzNw" target="_blank">Jacklyn Glenn on "Evolution vs. god" by the Banana Man himself!</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzGAuw7ZkSOjP4srI1S8YDnA5Yl35MTP3A86kdLFWFUvozc3Y0DnlvQzVYAhnRzG0PfEEuBliexriqdY1MegQTAfETas6K6WFLEgnOkOEcklnVsIAwMhXoj4cVkf_O9AGj0ej6mkMVgW4/s1600/Comfort+on+Evolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzGAuw7ZkSOjP4srI1S8YDnA5Yl35MTP3A86kdLFWFUvozc3Y0DnlvQzVYAhnRzG0PfEEuBliexriqdY1MegQTAfETas6K6WFLEgnOkOEcklnVsIAwMhXoj4cVkf_O9AGj0ej6mkMVgW4/s320/Comfort+on+Evolution.jpg" width="309" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-75426840118413556252013-07-25T11:10:00.001-07:002013-09-06T09:58:50.271-07:00Two wrongs don't make a right, my response to an article by Rachel Cox (LifeSiteNews.com) Rachel Cox, wrote an article on a website called LifeSiteNews.com titled "My body, my choice: So what about the choice to have a large family?" I ran across it on Facebook yesterday, and as I read the first paragraph I was shocked, I thought I'd found a valid complaint about the secular community from the religious right. I was right, however, Rachel quickly tossed any and all credibility out the window when she launched into a propaganda laden tirade about this fairy tale "abortion industry" Christians rail on about all the time.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
Having said that, I am shocked and disgusted by the responses the author cited, directed towards the Duggars. There is no excuse for heaping that kind of abuse on this family. However, as we all know by now, the internet is a “special place" where people can say whatever they want, anonymously, and so… they do. I checked the original article out for myself, and scrolled through the comments/responses. There were a lot of ignorant, asinine comments, but to say “it was very challenging to find any positive comments at all", is not true. There were plenty of encouraging, or in some cases sympathetic remarks. Anyway, the point is, the author made a valid point, people are jerks, people hiding behind anonymous screen names on the internet are colossal jerks.</div>
<div>
Her second point, regarding the hypocrisy of the folks who don’t consider both sides of the coin when it comes to the “my body my choice" assertion is also valid. It is ridiculous to assert that a woman can/should be able to choose to have an abortion and then turn around and villainize her for choosing to have a large family, or no family, etc. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, her argument devolves quickly after that… while I agree that the comments about the Duggar ladies are sexist; so is trying to legislate what choices women do/don’t have regarding their bodies, and limiting their access to healthcare. That assertion was just as hypocritical and biased as the ones made by the folks she’s calling out for being hypocritical and biased.<br />
<br />
Her arguments goes MUCH further downhill when she starts making comments like “Since the 70’s, the abortion industry has drilled into our culture that it’s not only okay to limit your children by having them killed before they’re born, but expected. They've preached that the only way women can be truly free is if they can get abortions. They've touted abortion as an integral tool of family planning that should be utilized on-demand." That kind of propaganda is utter nonsense. Those statements are not only false, but they’re nothing more than an attempt to evoke an emotional response, rather than a rational one. No one in the “abortion industry" aka, the health care industry has “drilled" the idea that abortion is a good family planning option. The message is, and has always been birth control first and safe sex, to assert that it’s “expected" that women have abortions is preposterous! Neither has anyone “preached" that abortion and “true freedom" for women are synonymous. Abortions should be an option for many, many reasons, the least of those reasons is family planning, and you’d be hard pressed to find any respectable doctor, clinic or organization that provides abortions touting them as such.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
In the end the author is just as big of a hypocrite as the folks she was criticizing. She resorted to ad hominem, demonizing the healthcare providers, she mischaracterized the “abortion industry" (not an actual thing…) and she made false, inflammatory, accusatory statements that have no basis in reality. She should have quit while she was ahead, or just stuck to the facts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/my-body-my-choice-so-what-about-the-choice-to-have-a-large-family">Click here to see the original article on LifeSiteNews.</a></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-54889936681940806812013-07-16T17:00:00.002-07:002013-07-16T17:00:24.942-07:00Eternity...My friend and personal heroes, Jerry DeWitt (author of Hope After Faith: An Ex-Pastor's Journey from Belief to Atheism) posted one of those pictures we see all the time of a sign in front of a church. Many of us see these all the time, all over the interwebs. Some are funny, some are ridiculous, many are offensive and a few are really encouraging. However, this one made me stop and think. It wasn't profound in any way, in fact it was rather ignorant, but the last line brought some old thoughts (and fears) to mind from my religious past. The sign read - "Atheists: Many on campuses - few in foxholes - none in eternity."<br /><br />The first line about there being a lot of atheists on campuses is in line with comments I hear quite frequently from religious folks. For some reason, they seem to think they're insulting us by insinuating that our education has gotten in the way of our religious beliefs/faith (for those of us that were once religious). Or, is a barrier for those who were never religious that prevents them from conversion. Let me put this in context for any readers that adhere to this idea. When you were 5 you probably still believed in Santa Claus. You saw him at the mall, you saw him on TV and in movies, and you might have even seen the weatherman on the news tracking his progress as he delivered toys to all the kids in first world countries. By the time you were 11 or 12, maybe a little older if you weren't paying attention, you had been told, or learned on your own that Santa is a myth, a legend, a fairy tale. You see, this is how it worked for people like me, the more I learned the more I realized that I could not reconcile what I believed with what I knew to be true. The things I was taught in Sunday school and at church just didn't line up with the facts historically, scientifically, archaeologically or even logically for that matter. In fact, even the bible doesn't make much sense if you read it in it's entirety or try and reconcile it with itself. Have you ever read the nativity/Christmas story in the there separate gospels it appears in and tried to lining the story and sequence of events up? It doesn't work! For example, Matthew says the angel told Joseph that he had knocked Mary up, yet in Luke the angel tells Mary was the one told about her immaculate conception (Matthew 2:1-2 & Luke 2:15). Matthew says Jesus was born in a house, Luke says Jesus was born in a manger (Matthew 2:11 & Luke 2:7). Matthew says wise men came to visit the baby Jebus, Luke says it was shepherds (Matthew 2:1-2 & Luke 2:15). Matthew says Herod was killing baby boys under 2 yrs of age and that Joseph, Mary & Jesus fled to Egypt, but Luke fails to mention that at all, in fact it puts Joseph, Mary & Jesus in Nazareth at the same time Matthew says they're in Egypt (Matthew 2:13-16 & Luke 2:39). Nevermind the FACT that Herod had been dead nearly a decade when Jesus was supposedly born and Nazareth didn't even exist yet! These are just some of the problems with the biblical account of Jesus' birth, if you're among the faithful and you believe that the bible is literally true and the word of an omniscient, omnipotent god, I'd encourage you to rethink your position on that. I digress, and am yet again off topic, let's move on.<br /><br />Regarding the statement about atheists in foxholes... this is another bit of propaganda I hear from Christians fairly regularly. Nearly 30% of men and women in the armed forces identify as "atheist" or "no religion". And though many do identify as "Christian", it's more often than not because their parents did, or because they went to church on Easter and Christmas growing up. I met very, very few "practicing" Christians in Iraq, or anywhere else while working for the Department of Defense.<br /><br />The last line is really the reason I started writing about this. The last word struck a chord - "eternity". I was a teenager before I ever really tried to wrap my head around the idea of eternity. When I was finally able to conceptualize something that resembled eternity, I became genuinely afraid. 'Afraid', you might be asking yourself? Yes, afraid. Not because I didn't want to live forever, but because I thought god might toss me out of heaven and down into hell because I KNEW there was no way I wouldn't get bored of bowing down to some shiny, bearded guy and singing those obnoxious songs we had to sing every Sunday while tears were streaming down the faces of the more, emotional gals in our youth group. That sounded TERRIBLE! I now realize that was only the tip of the iceberg. I have no desire at this point to live for eternity, even in a magical place where I feel no pain, sadness, the streets are made of gold and I have a mansion and a crown full of jewels for all my good deeds... (Does this not sound preposterous to anyone else?) Knowing what I know now, having ACTUALLY read the bible and considered the violent, abhorrent, immoral, misogynistic, brutal content objectively (aka not making excuses for, and justifying god's behavior, or the behavior of his followers) I would NEVER bow down to such a monster! Eternity is an awfully long time to be forced to do anything, especially something so asinine as worshiping a supposedly "all powerful" being. He must be pretty damn insecure if he needs his measly little creation to bow down to him for ETERNITY! I still can't get over how long that really is... I might be alone in this, but the idea/concept of eternity is something I find very strange.<br /><br />If you're religious and you've never taken the time to genuinely consider what it would be like to live forever, and ever... and ever. Stop, go somewhere quiet, sit down and think about it. Not only is the idea of eternal life ridiculous (and obviously a product of our fear of death) but it's also quite overwhelming. If you're not religious, and you've never considered the implications of eternal life from the perspective of someone that is (religious) I'd encourage you to do the same. Put yourself in their shoes, try and think about god the way they would (make excuses for his behavior, ignore the contradictions and pretend what the bible says god does is "love") and think about what eternity really means. Crazy shit, eh?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-18666487944276159892013-07-10T11:39:00.004-07:002013-07-11T11:39:03.942-07:00The 4th of July, celebrating the birth of a SECULAR nation. Dan Barker and his life partner Laurie Gaylor joined (started?) the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) after they left "the church". Dan Barker was an evangelical pastor, missionary and musician. He worked full time as a pastor for years, and was quite successful writing music and musical theater programs for children. Over time, Dan began to recognize the lies and propaganda that he was sold/told, and was now propagating to the members of his church, and the folks who bought/heard his music. After a long struggle he reached a point where he had no choice but to reject Christianity based solely on the fact that the premises were not true. This is a conclusion that anyone brave enough and honest enough will reach if they take the time to investigate the claims of any/all organized religions. Anyway, I'm way off topic, Dan wrote a book titled, "Godless" about his journey from faith to reason. There are a couple other books by Dan I would recommend as well. "Losing Faith in Faith" and "The Christian Delusion - Why Faith Fails" which he wrote with another friend of mine, John W. Loftus, also a former evangelical Christian.<br />
<br />
This past 4th of July, the FFRF put a full page ad in newspapers around the country. In the ad, they quoted many of our founding fathers, framers of the Constitution and other great men who helped shape the United States as a nation. Contrary to the popular myth put forth by the Christian church, the US is not and was not a "Christian nation" in any way, shape or form. The United States exists because of religious persecution and poor government by religious bodies/institutions. The United States has and always has had a secular Constitution. There was a purposeful separation of Church and State by the framers of the Constitution, and again, contrary to popular myth, the framers were not "Christians" for the most part. The few that were religious, or that did claim association with the Christian church did NOT subscribe to any of the ridiculous tenets/notions that we find at the core of evangelical Christian churches today. A few were Anglican, a few were Quakers, a few admitted to being "deists", which means they had a loosely held belief in a god, but didn't claim to know much beyond that about god... I didn't know any of this before my apostasy, and I find it striking how many American citizens aren't aware of these facts either. It reminds me of what Joseph Goebbels, the head of the Nazi propaganda department once said - “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."<br />
<br />
Often, when I bring this up in conversation with "believers" I get a lot of excuses, or vaguely veiled insults. So let me give you one last example that should put this issue to rest. Assuming you're a reasonable person, who is influenced by facts/truth. In article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli it states - "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified UNANIMOUSLY by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. Many of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution had a hand in wording this document. There should be little or no doubt whatsoever that the US is not, in any sense, a "Christian nation."<br />
<br />
All that to get to the point, the reason I am sharing this is because I want people to see the reaction these ads got from Christians. The backlash is laced with fear! This is what cognitive dissonance looks like. This is what happens when you confront lies with the truth. It's painful for the individual experiencing it, and it's equally painful to watch from the outside looking in, especially since I was once EXACTLY like the people who responded to these ads. Lastly, I'm sure I don't have to point this out, but the responses from these "Christian" folks are ANYTHING but "Christian" and they're certainly not patriotic. I hope, for the sake of our children and our country we can dispel these myths and eradicate the irrational thought and behavior that's elicited by adherence to lies as a core belief system.<br />
<br />
Take a moment to read the responses from the followers of Jesus and his religion of love...<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151715888274728.1073741827.99536044727&type=3">https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151715888274728.1073741827.99536044727&type=3</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-60040426961528552792012-11-26T11:42:00.002-08:002013-12-11T18:02:07.671-08:00The non-existent war on Xmas.... ;-) Many, many people suffer from the misconception that Christmas is a Christian holiday. In truth (actual, factual truth, based in reality, using recorded and corroborated historical accounts) Christmas stems from Pagan fertility rites and practices which predate Christianity and the supposed birth of Christ by many centuries. So you see, Christmas, in truth has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Many of the things we associate with Christmas, such as decorating trees, singing carols, and giving gifts are rooted in the traditions of non-Christian religions (Paganism predominately). Furthermore, the date of December 25th has nothing to do with Jesus' birth, even the biblical stories of Jesus' birth indicate he was not born during the winter months. The reason we celebrate Christmas on December 25th is because it is the date that the winter solstice was traditionally celebrated on in ancient Europe. Romans historically celebrated the winter solstice. This celebration was about "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti", the day of the birth of the unconquerable sun, which took place on December 22nd. The winter solstice held the promise of the return of springtime and earthly renewal. In Roman history, this was the time of Saturnalia, honoring the God of Agriculture, for the week before the solstice, and Juvenilia a feast in honor of the children of Rome, around the same time. On the 25th of the month they celebrated the birth of the sun-god Mithra. Masters and servants traded places temporarily, and everybody had a rocking good time. It was during Saturnalia that the tradition of exchanging gifts was established. They gave one another gifts which were intended to bring good luck. The Romans placed an enormous amount of pressure on the early Christians to rejoice along with them, and around the time of the fourth century, they began to celebrate Christmas around the same time. It was inevitable that Christians should make a connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son. In a side note, if you compare the Pagan god Mithra with Jesus, you will find they have a great deal in common. A virgin birth on Dec 25th, they both performed similar miracles, both died and came back to life 3 days later and the list goes on. The fact that Mithra predates Jesus certainly lends credibility to the assertion that Jesus was nothing more than Mithra co-opted by Christians. <br />
<br />
In the Middle Ages, Christmas was a raucous, drunken celebration which resembled a carnival. Poor people would go on a Christmas"trick or treat" around the richer neighborhoods, causing them misery if they didn't get what they wanted. Many other pagan traditions have been incorporated into Christmas. Yule was celebrated by the Norse in Scandinavia around the time of the winter solstice by bringing in large logs for the fire, in recognition of the eventual return of the sun. It could take as much as twelve days for the log to burn down. Meanwhile, the Norse would feast. The holiday usually lasted through January. The Germans did not so much celebrate as honor the winter solstice. They believed that their god, Oden, flew through the sky at night passing judgment on his people. Generally, they would stay indoors during this season. When the Germanic people were converted to Christianity, their winter festival was naturally adopted as a celebration of the birth of Christ. To the pagans, evergreens served as a symbol of winter's inability to stop the cycle of renewal. They were important fertility symbols which were highly revered by many cultures, including the Germans and the Celts. They helped to soothe the pagans' fears that the sun would never return, and that winter would reign eternal. The Druids tied fruit to the branches of live trees, and baked cakes in the shape of fish, birds and other animals, to offer to their god, Woden. We also inherited the tradition of kissing under the mistletoe from the Druids. All of these practices, many of which are still incorporated in the modern celebration of Christmas had their origins in Pagan traditions that pre-date the purported birth of Christ by centuries. Anyone willing to take the time to study the history of Christmas can see how Christianity took over the celebration as it marched westward and, if they're willing to be honest, must admit that Christendom has no original claims to anything having to do with Christmas, other than the name of course.<br />
<br />
Many people mistakenly state that "Jesus is the reason for the season." They do so, because they believe people have lost sight of the true meaning of Christmas. It simply isn't true. Christmas can be celebrated as completely secular because ultimately it is not a Christian holiday. Christmas goes beyond religious and cultural differences, and addresses something universal in all of us. For this reason it has become popular in non-Christian countries such as Japan. The truth is that Christian and pagan traditions have a great deal in common. The real need behind all of these traditions was to find a source of joy, happiness, hope, goodwill and generosity. There was a need to find ways to cope with our fears about the darkness and cold of wintertime, and to celebrate the return of the sun and the longer days of spring. In fact, Christianity and pre-Christian pagan religion have a great deal in common. Various pagan religions shared the Christian practice of worshiping a god-man who could offer salvation in the form of heaven or condemnation in the form of hell. The concept that a son of God could be born of a mortal woman is seen in many different religions spanning the globe. These concepts are universal, except to those who are extremely divisive and have a tendency to pick nits, such as fundamentalist evangelical Christians.<br />
<br />
The ACTUAL war on Christmas was waged over the last 2,000 years by Christians, and, as you can see they won. Now every year we have to listen to people complain endlessly about this imaginary "war on Christmas", and how we've forgotten the reason for the season. While it's true we have as a society forgotten the actual origins of Christmas, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. The ire expressed by the religious regarding things like nativity scenes and other religious displays on public/government property is also misplaced. I find it ironic that they (Christians) claim that they're victims of religious oppression yet have no problem whatsoever forcing their religion down our throats. The separation of church and state guarantees not only the right to practice whatever faith one chooses, it also guarantees the freedom FROM religion as well. Which is the right to choose not to practice any religion whatsoever, and to be free from being forced to observe or participate in the practice/observation of those faiths. Not being able to force everyone to observe and celebrate the way you think Christmas, or Easter or whatever should be celebrated does not amount to religious intolerance. And lastly, now that you know that Christmas has NOTHING to do with Christ whatsoever, please stop bitching about it, and apologize to any Pagans you happen to run across for stealing and destroying their holiday, and for murdering hundreds of thousands of them throughout the last 2,000 years when they wouldn't pretend that their holiday involved a magical Jewish baby that fathered himself with a virgin in a town that didn't even exist at that time (Nazareth). <br />
<br />
And for those of you that will undoubtedly bury your head even deeper in the sand after reading this, here are my sources, which you can confirm for yourself if you like. We have limitless information at our hands in this day and age, put it to good use, please!<br />
<br />
Dennis Bratcher, "The Christmas Season." The Voice. URL: (http://www.crivoice.org/cyxmas.html) <br />
<br />
"Saturnalia." History.com. URL: (http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=1253&display_order=1&sub_display_order=2&mini_id=1290)<br />
<br />
"Christmas - An Ancient Holiday." History.com. URL: (http://www.history.com/minisites/christmas/viewPage?pageId=1252) <br />
"Christmas." Encyclopedia Brittannica. URL: (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9082431/Christmas) <br />
<br />
Ruth Reichmann, "Christmas." URL: (http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/xmasintr.htm) <br />
<br />
Alan Williams, "The History of Christmas," URL: (http://www.christmas-time.com/cp-hist.html)<br />
<br />
"ALL ABOUT THE CHRISTMAS TREE." URL: (http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm)<br />
<br />
"An Outlaw Christmas." URL: (http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=1254&display_order=1&sub_display_order=3&mini_id=1290)<br />
<br />
Mary Dawson, "Stories Behind the Christmas Carols." URL: (http://www.musesmuse.com/00001238.html)<br />
<br />
Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts, "Christmas Carol Surprises." URL: (http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/christmascarol.htm)<br />
<br />
Diane Relf, "Christmas Tree Traditions." URL: (http://www.ext.vt.edu/departments/envirohort/factsheets2/landsnurs/dec90pr3.html)<br />
<br />
Greg Kane, "Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth." URL: (http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html)<br />
<br />
Ted Olson, "The Real St. Nicholas." URL: (http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/christmas/nick.html)<br />
<br />
Royce Carlson, "The Pagan Origins of Christmas." URL: (http://www.zenzibar.com/articles/christmas.asp)<br />
<br />
"Who is St. Nicholas?" URL: (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=38)<br />
<br />
Jennifer Claerr, "The History of Christmas and Its Pagan Origins" URL: (http://voices.yahoo.com/the-history-christmas-its-pagan-origins-646539.html?cat=74)<br />
<div>
<br />
And last but not least! Wikipedia, "Christmas" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas)<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-23553801014076761912012-10-13T19:17:00.001-07:002012-10-13T19:17:49.403-07:00The flip-flopping Religious Right.<br />
Here's a prime example of the "flip-floppery" of the religious right (see the link at the bottom of the page). I have noticed that many, if not all of my religious friends who would have taken a very hard line on Mormonism prior to Romney's nomination have now softened their stance considerably. Last night after Billy Graham endorsed Romney, he removed all negative references to Mormonism from his website, which previous defined it as a cult and utterly condemned it in no uncertain terms. I find it funny, and quite frankly pathetic that a group of people that hoots and hollers about how concrete their principles are and preaches that truth is not relative, nor subject to change are so quick to modify those principles at the drop of a hat, as long as it suits their needs. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the emperor has NO clothes!<br />
<br />
I'd bet dollars to donuts, if by some strange twist of fate the GOP nominee or the GOP nominee for VP had been gay, a large majority of the Chick-Fil-A loving homophobes would have changed their tune the same way they have in regards to Mormonism.<br />
<br />
I think the rabbit hole goes even deeper, personally. I don't believe for one second that most of the people supporting Romney like the man, believe anything he says, or have any faith in his ability to lead or fix the myriad of problems facing our nation. I think they're just so caught up in the anti-Obama mass hysteria and have bought so deeply into the propaganda that they'd elect a goat if it could verbalize the GOP party lines. This, coupled with the fact that they're so willing to bend their supposedly concrete religious/personal beliefs is an indication of how weak, feeble minded and pathetic the GOP constituency has become. Oh, and let's not forget the fact that large groups of people declared Romney and Ryan winners of the debates in spite of the fact that they lied their way through both of them and offered almost nothing in the way of concrete plans to fix the problems we're facing as a nation. It's a sad, sad state of affairs... The GOP has devolved into a party of sheep and lemmings.<br /><br /><a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking-billy-graham-endorses-romney-then-scrubs-site-calling-mormonism-a-cult/politics/2012/10/12/51106">Billy Graham endorses Romney, changes website in regards to Mormonism, no longer calls it a cult.</a><br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-6952417684891212862012-09-07T01:12:00.000-07:002012-09-07T01:12:17.081-07:00What I'd like to say to my friends & family on Facebook and Twitter.It's really quite pathetic that many of my friends and family are utterly unable to engage in polite, fair argumentation when we disagree about something. This has become even more evident during this election season. Being pretty liberal, socially, my ideals clash with those of my religious friends and families on a regular basis. I am not afraid to engage them in discussion about these differences, I usually (not always) do so politely and in the hopes of having a thoughtful, well informed discussion. The problem is however, a great many of them simply cannot do so, they are totally unequipped and unprepared. They have such firm beliefs and they state them so very passionately that it appears they know why they believe what they believe. However, when I challenge them to substantiate or defend their beliefs, the conversation usually implodes. Accusations of "hate speech", ad hominem, red herrings and straw men begin flying about like farm animals in a category 5 tornado. I hear things like "get off your high horse" and other indicators that these people feel like their being talked down to. What this indicates to me is, is that they're not very well informed and their ideas and opinions are not well supported. It indicates fear, insecurity and ignorance regarding their beliefs, opinions and positions. <br /><br />What follows is what I would like to say to my Facebook friends specifically, and a few of my Twitter followers as well, I would do so, but I'm afraid I'd be left friendless by the end of the day... So here it is for all of you to enjoy! I'm sure many of you have had similar experiences as well, so I hope some of you find this encouraging.<br /><br />My hero, Christopher Hitchens said this while doing an interview and discussing writing in a journalistic sense, he was speaking to "Bloggers" when he said this: "Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you." <br /><br />I subscribe to every idea of Mr. Hitchens' stated here. Particularly the portion in the middle which says - "Don't be afraid to thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." <br /><br />Hitchens was rarely silent, it's one of the things I admired most about him. He engaged in almost constant debate and discussion with those he disagreed with or that disagreed with him. He refused to let ignorant, evil or vacuous assertions slide when others might have looked the other way for the sake of avoiding conflict. When he said "seek out argument and disputation for their own sake", he was acknowledging that there is inherent value in these things. You can gain a lot of perspective, learn something new, recognize flaws in your own thinking, persuade someone to adopt a better, healthier or more beneficial position, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on. However, for whatever reason people seem to conflate disagreement with disrespect, or "hatred" or other negative motivations that they aren't, necessarily. Even if a conversation becomes heated, it doesn't have to digress into something negative or harmful, though it certainly can. <br /><br />Far too few people these days are brave enough to engage, and far too many people take disagreement personally. Folks, we're all adults here, we should be able to share our ideas and disagree with each other and walk away from it knowing that we're better off for it in most cases. For those that can't engage in a disagreement without resorting to ad hominem (attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument or the facts contained therein) than maybe it's time to grow up a little bit? Read a book on logic and critical thinking, try to avoid emotional, knee jerk responses. THINK before you speak. These are all things adults should be able to do. <br /><br />Lastly, as a disclaimer and in the interest of holding myself to the same standard, I should acknowledge that I am not perfect at exhibiting all of the traits I've listed as valuable or virtuous when it comes to conversation, arguments and disputation. I have biases, I recognize that fact, and I do everything I can to minimize those in my arguments. I am also rather quick to anger, some people know this about me and they use it against me, which isn't fair. However, in the end the impetus is on me to be able to control that frustration and respond in a fair, polite and even manner. I also tend to get defensive, which is fine when it's applied properly, it's not fine when I do the same thing I'm criticizing other people for and take a comment that isn't meant to be personal, personally. Some of you who engage me more often than others may have noticed a shift in tactics, I have begun to demand that the conversation stay on topic and if at all possible deals in facts. Preferably facts derived empirically and from sources that are as objective as possible and not prone to hyperbole or promoting propaganda. This ensures that an exchange is fair and valuable and allows two (or more) people to flesh out the facts and come to an actual conclusion. At that point, it's the responsibility of the "loser" for the lack of a better term to admit defeat, graciously. <br /><br />Now having said all that, I'd like to point out that all gods are imaginary, Jesus is the result of a compilation of pagan gods/myths (and did not exist) and the Bible is unreliable and demonstrably false. Discuss. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-90432313343652789362012-09-03T16:14:00.000-07:002012-09-03T23:00:34.285-07:00Rev. Creech says: "God fixation can fix our nation", I call BS! My response to his nonsense.Here's a link to Creech's article: <a href="http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/creech/120903">http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/creech/120903</a> - My response is below.<br />
<br />
Another example of programmed Jesus-bots regurgitating ridiculous, fundamentalist, evangelical, revisionist, (American Christian) propaganda. Adults with imaginary friends are dangerous, and this vacuous attempt to marginalize MILLIONS of Americans (by some accounts over half have no belief in any god) who don’t subscribe to their ignorant, bronze age, misogynistic, racist, fear mongering BS. God fixation has never, ever, in the history of any nation, culture, society or tribe led to anything but oppression, violence and a laundry list of other crimes against humanity and nature.<br />
<br />
Idiots like Creech, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (just to name a few) can (and will) continue to babble on about how this nation was founded on Christian principles and that our forefathers subscribed to the same ridiculous ideas about god as they do. Anyone with even a limited knowledge of American history and our Founding Fathers knows that their claims about our nations past is an utter fabrication. Lies, lies and more lies! They ignore the Constitution, they ignore the 1st Amendment, the Treaty of Tripoli, the writings of Founders like Madison, Jefferson and Adams, and hope that no one will check the facts. These idiots are literally re-writing history to fit their needs, to help fuel their propaganda and further their lies. The assertion that this nation was founded on Christian principles is absolutely, 100% false. The claim that the constitution doesn’t guarantee a separation of church and state, also 100% false. The sad and predictable references to communism, also absolutely ridiculous. The fact that Christian apologists like Creech can’t go 3 paragraphs without invoking the words socialism/communism or Hitler betrays not only their ignorance and lack of understanding but also their inability to defend their positions without resorting to fear mongering. They think/hope that because it worked in the 1950s during the Cold War that it will work again. It’s my sincere hope that people have gotten smarter and will no longer fall for such pathetic, transparent attempts at breeding solicitude. <br />
<br />
The fact is, the most prosperous nations on this planet, with the highest education, highest employment rates, highest life expectancy, best health care, best economies and lowest crime rates and prison populations are also the most secular/non-religious nations on earth. The assertion that “god fixation” will fix anything has been tried and found wanting repeatedly throughout human history. The last time the Christian church succeeded in infusing itself into government and all aspects of culture was called the dark ages, for good reason. The more superstitious, religious nonsense your cram into government & politics the more problems you can expect. <br />
<br />
This bottom line is, Creech’s claims are nonsense, they’re propaganda and are categorically false. Religion is poison, it divides, destroys, inspires, excuses and justifies violence, inhibits medical and scientific progress and breeds ignorance. As long as you keep lying, we’ll keep calling you on it. If you want to believe in magical, Jewish-Zombie sky wizards, that’s fine, but keep it to yourself. Your superstitious, bronze age nonsense has no place in our government, or anywhere else for that matter.<br />
<br />
PS - There are many other serious problems with this vacuous piece of propaganda, including the David Hume quote, which was taken out of context, and further defamed by Creech’s lies. It’s time to marginalize these idiots and hope this kind of nonsense dies with their generation.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-46003270773811836212012-06-05T17:28:00.000-07:002012-06-09T00:18:10.317-07:00Evidence & Faith: Not subjective terms.There seems to be some misunderstanding among theists as to what constitutes evidence and what the word faith actually means. When we (non-believers) say we have evidence, we mean that we can produce data based on empirically tested/testable, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable methods. Which means anyone who disagrees with the findings or currently accepted scientific knowledge/facts are welcome to design and carry out their own experimentation to attempt to refute anything anything they like. However we never have and never will see any religious group attempt this, because their attempts would fail, and most of them know this. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The claims of religion are wholly antithetical to the scientific method, and frankly there really isn't any comparison between the two. Religion is not a falsifiable theory that produces useful predictions (or predictions of any sort) it is a belief system. Religion looks at areas in nature where we do not yet have answers and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes things. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge. The religious have their answers already, all they're trying to do is make inferences now that seem to verify their predetermined conclusions. They pick and choose whatever fits their needs and discard and/or ignore the rest and there is nothing even remotely resembling objectivity when it comes to anything theists call "evidence" or proof. Usually what they call evidence is nothing more than hyperbole, conjecture, propaganda, half truths & sometimes (or maybe often, depending on which brand of superstition you're talking about) outright lies.<br />
<br />
Lately I have found myself drawn into some rather idiotic arguments with several Christians on Twitter. Why I do this? I don't know. I guess I have a hero complex and I want to save everyone I can from the mental slavery that is religious indoctrination. Whatever the case, I found myself frequently frustrated by the repeated claims that I was "ignoring the evidence" that god exists. Yet when I insisted they provide me with some examples of the evidence that their particular version of god exists, all they could do was repeat, "you're ignoring the evidence". In one case, a particularly thick headed dolt sent me a link to this website <a href="http://www.conversionpoints.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=57">conversionpoints.org/evidence</a> and claimed these childish, tired, pathetic and transparent "proofs" were "undefeated arguments that proved (his) god exists". I'm not going to go into those now, or this post would spiral out of control, but anyone who's done their homework in regards to the arguments for/against belief in god(s) has heard these before, and can probably quickly pick out the numerous holes in them from memory. The bottom line is they don't have any evidence or proof that their god exists, furthermore they don't understand what qualifies as evidence and/or proof, which is a real problem. No wonder they believe these bronze fairy age tales.<br />
<br />
This brings me to my second point. The other "argument" (I use that term loosely) I heard quite often, in various forms, and usually only after I had explained that what they called evidence doesn't qualify as evidence and proves nothing, was, "that's why faith is important." I think we freethinkers can see the conflict here, from the outside looking in, but the bible bandits I was in conversation with were usually sucked back down the vortex at this point. Somehow only moments after acquiescing that they didn't actually have any empirical evidence they began to claim their faith.... was based on empirical evidence. I have a feeling that the different definitions one would get for "faith" would directly correlate to the number of believers one asked; "how do you define, faith?" Here again we have a real problem with the definition and meaning of a word that is crucial in understanding exactly what the basis for religious belief is. Religious faith IS a persistent belief in something in spite of the fact there is no EVIDENCE to support that belief. Read that line over and over until it sinks in if you think that your religious beliefs are based on anything other than this, because they're not. Everything you believe is based on nothing but hearsay, myth, lies and subjective interpretations by the people that came before you in your particular brand of faith. I challenge any of you believers that think otherwise to spend a few days studying the *factual* (objective) history of the church and the historical origins of the Christian faith. Especially Protestantism, which was literally nothing more than one man's disagreement with the Catholic church and of which the tenets, beliefs and values are 100% subjective and based on how that one guy (Martin Luther) felt, and later the ideas of John Calvin. If you've been under the impression that Christianity even remotely resembled what it is today when Jesus supposedly walked the earth, you're sorely mistaken. It has changed shape and form with nearly every generation since it was invented. The church has had to do this so that it could remain palatable as society changed and people became more educated and enlightened. It wasn't always love and happy fuzzy feelings, again just pick up a history book, Christianity has a lot of blood on it's hands. Speaking of blood and violence, while you're at it take a look at how the bible was put together, who wrote it (that we know of), how it was assembled, edited, changed and canonized. Once the veil is lifted and you see the foundations of your beliefs for what they truly are (man made and devoid of anything supernatural) you will shudder and run, just like I did.<br />
<br />
We freethinkers on the "other side" anxiously await your de-conversion and I personally hope you'll all be able to break free. Life is far, far, FAR more beautiful when you can see it for what it really is.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-41078603415366378262012-05-03T19:21:00.002-07:002012-05-03T20:53:17.627-07:00Common Sense: Not a Christian Value.<br />
The bottom line is the Christian religion is incoherent and the bible is patently absurd. 5 years ago I would have laughed at anyone who said this to me, and responded with something stupid like "not-uh, my pastor says god is love and Jesus was god and so he's perfect and..... blah, blah, blah." The problem was, I didn't know any better, for obvious reasons Christians focus on certain parts of the bible and ignore others. The fact is, however, the majority of the bible is filled with absolutely ridiculous bullshit, this realization was a major catalyst in my departure from Christianity. I'm not going to go into a lot of philosophical or logical discussions here, I am simply going to appeal to good old fashioned common sense. If you don't find the following examples offensive to your common sense, then you either don't have any, or you're so indoctrinated that obvious facts/truth escape you. Remember, the bible was written by superstitious, ignorant, bronze age men who thought the earth was flat, that alone should cause some red flags.<br />
<br />
Before I give you the list of ridiculousness, consider that the bible is said to be (by Christians) the most perfect book ever written, the pure word of god containing his will for mankind. However it is unclear, has contradictions, problematic verses and leaves people split on what it actually says. Man has produced works of mathematics and science that hold up to hundreds of years of scrutiny with no or little room for improvement and only by the greatest minds doing extensive research, however the bible could be immediately improved by even the simplest minds by just correcting conflicting statements or removing the bits about being killed for mixing two types of material in your clothing. Why does the bible not contain any of the knowledge that an omniscient being would have had, or really any useful knowledge at all? Wouldn't revealing something like germ theory have helped to substantiate the legitimacy of the bible as the word of god, while also saving lives and reducing suffering from disease? It is obviously man made.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now let's begin with a list of examples of the lunacy! (Not a complete list, just a smattering of good examples)<br />
<br />
A. Animals were only given green herb to eat (Gen 1:30) and there was presumably no death before the fall. When then, did god design carnivores? Did he design them with venom, claws, and canine teeth because his creation was ultimately designed to fall into corruption?<br />
B. Why would god create a world in which living things must kill and devour other living things in order to survive?<br />
C. It takes an omnipotent god seven days to create the universe and then he needed to rest.<br />
D. God names his garden Eden, a Sumerian word meaning "fertile plain?" Is Sumerian the Adamic language?<br />
E. God doesn't remove the garden immediately, instead he waits choosing to guard it with a cherubim and a flaming sword Gen 3:24<br />
F. God expects Adam and Eve to resist temptation when they didn't know the difference between good and evil until after they had eaten the fruit<br />
G. Cain was afraid of being cast out because people who saw him would kill him. There were only three people documented on the face of the earth at the time. Everyone alive would have had to have been a close relative/ Gen 4:14-15<br />
H. Where did Cain's wife come from? Gen 4:17<br />
I. There were giants on the earth at one time. Gen 6:4 (Note: No evidence exists to supports this assertion.)<br />
J. God destroys unborn children and all of the animal life in the flood for man's sin. Gen 5:5-7, 11<br />
K. Noah and the animals survive in the ark with only one window for ventilation Gen 6:16<br />
L. How did Noah feed the carnivorous animals?<br />
M. How did Koala's get to Australia after the ark washed up on the mountain? (There is a very good evolutionary explanation with undeniable evidence including marsupial fossils found throughout the strata of North America, migrating through Antarctica and ending up in Australia, where they evolved into the multiple forms of marsupials as demonstrated in the fossil record and present day life of Australia.)<br />
N. There were enough people to form nations in only three generations after the flood (144 years,) giving Noah's great grandson the manpower to build the Tower of Babel.<br />
O. Exactly what was the result of God's confounding of the human languages? Why would some people move and others stay, did he think we wouldn't be able to learn foreign language or that we could actually build a tower to the heavens? Why doesn't he do the same to us now since we have achieved space flight?<br />
P. There is no mention in the entire OT after Gen 11 of any event in Gen 1-11... The creation, the fall, the serpent, the flood, Babel etc.<br />
Q. Jacob alters the genetic characteristics of cattle by letting them view a striped rod. (Note: His purpose in doing so was to fleece Laban of his cattle.) Gen 30:37-43<br />
R. Twins are being delivered. One puts out his hand and the midwife binds it with a scarlet ribbon to identify him as the firstborn. But he draws back his hand, and his brother is born first (thereby obtaining the rights of the firstborn son). Gen 38:27-29<br />
S. Why didn't Isaac simply revoke his blessing of Jacob instead of blessing him again? Why would god honor the blessing obtained by deceiving a dying blind man?<br />
T. God advises Moses through a pagan priest Ex 13:1-27<br />
U. The Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead. (This means that there was not a house in Egypt that did not include at least one first-born---a most unusual situation.) Ex 12:30<br />
V. The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000. Ex 12:37, Nu 1:45-46<br />
W. God kills 50,000 men at Bethshemesh. This is several times as many as the entire population of Jerusalem at the time 1 Sam 6:19.<br />
X. A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders. Dt 25:5-9<br />
Y. Solomon's temple was only about ninety feet long by thirty feet wide, yet 153,300 persons were employed to build it. It took seven years to build. ~7,500,000 lbs. of gold and ~75,000,000 lbs. of silver were used. 24,000 supervisors and 6,000 officials and judges were employed to manage it. (Note: Inasmuch as there seems to be uncertainty as to the exact weight of the biblical talent, some estimates place the weight of gold at more than 13,000,000 lbs. and the weight of silver at more than 116,000,000 lbs.) 1KI 5:15-16 1KI 6:2, 2CH 3:3 1KI 6:38 1CH 23:4 1CH 22:14<br />
Z. Solomon sacrificed 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in one week. This is 845+ animals per hour, 14+ animals per minute, for seven days straight. 2CH 7:5, 8-9<br />
<br />
A1. 500,000 Israelites are slain in a single battle. (Note: This is more than were lost in any single battle of World War II, and even exceeds the number of deaths that resulted from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.) 2CH 13:17<br />
<br />
B1. Other Holy books quoted and sourced by the bible:<br />
1. Book of Jasher Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18<br />
2. Book of Wars of Jehovah Num 21:14<br />
3. Laws of Samuel 1 Sam 10:25<br />
4. Acts of Solomon 1 Kings 11:41<br />
5. Chronicles of Kings of Judah 1 Kings 15:7, 23<br />
6. Chronicles of Kings of Israel 2 Kings 14:15, 28<br />
7. Annals of King David 1 Chr 27:24<br />
8. Histories of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, Gad the Seer 1 Chr 29:29<br />
9. Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo the Seer 2 Chr 9:29<br />
10. History of Shemaiah the Prophet 2 Chr 12:15, 13:22<br />
11. Book of Jehu 2 Chr 20:34<br />
12. Sayings of the Seers 2 Chr 33:19<br />
13. Book of Enoch Jude 14<br />
<br />
C1. A prophet of God to be consulted to find lost livestock 1 Sam 9:1-10:2<br />
<br />
D1. God destroyed the people of palestine to make way for israel and justified their destruction because they were wicked. He never attempts to teach them his ways, seeing as Israel was not righteous or monotheistic either.<br />
<br />
E1. The virgin birth is ignored by Mark and John. Jesus, Mary, nor Paul ever discuss it.<br />
<br />
F1. Jesus stated that believers would be able to handle snakes and drink poison without experiencing any harm. Mk 16:17-18<br />
<br />
G1. Jesus states that some of his listeners would not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom 2,000 years ago Mt 16:28, Mk 9:1, Lk 9:27<br />
<br />
H1. Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. MK 11:12-14, 20-21<br />
<br />
J1. Why does god want to torment some of his creatures for eternity because they displeased him out of ignorance or poor judgment? Why not just annihilate them? Wouldn't that be what a merciful creator would do?<br />
<br />
K1. God allows Job to be a helpless victim, a wager in a bet with Satan<br />
<br />
L1. Why did God choose to appear to Israel only? If he can do anything and be everywhere at once, why couldn't he be bothered to appear to the other people of the world as well? Isn't he supposed to have no respect of persons?<br />
<br />
M1. The city of New Jerusalem (where the residents of heaven reside) is only about 1500 miles square. RE 21:16<br />
<br />
N1. Do not mix clothes of wool and linen together, and make tassels on your cloaks Deut 22:11-12<br />
<br />
O1. Eating shellfish is an abomination Lev 11:10<br />
<br />
P1. One cannot approach the altar of god if they have a defect in sight Lev 21:20<br />
<br />
Q1. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean (football) Lev 11:6-8<br />
<br />
R1. It is wrong to plant two types of crops in the same field Lev 19:19<br />
<br />
S1. Abortion is condoned in the bible, contradicting the position of the majority of evangelical Christians.<br />
1. If a man hurts a woman who is pregnant and the baby dies but she doesn't, he isn't to be killed and the punishment is to be left up to the husband. This means that an unborn child does not have the same value as a living person as murder of a living person elsewhere in the bible requires execution. Ex 21:22-23<br />
2. Num 5:11-21 describes a bizarre ritual that is performed on a wife that is merely suspected of adultery to induce an abortion.<br />
3. Hosea prays for god to cause all the ephraimite women to miscarry and god obliges. Hos 9:11-16<br />
4. Moses orders the killing of all male children and women that are pregnant or that might even be pregnant to end the genetic line of an enemy. Num 31:17<br />
5. God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the "women with child shall be ripped up." Hos 13:16<br />
<br />
Why would the most perfect and most important book directly from the lips of god not be able to be clearly correct? If man can produce mathematics and science that are nearly impossible to improve upon, why can god not give us a book that anyone could easily improve upon, especially considering he demands we believe it at risk of hell-fire? Lastly, consider the errors that have occurred in translation of the bible, isn't every word of god pure and preserved to never pass away? Is god not able to keep humans from screwing up his master piece, or does he just not care?<br />
<br />
It's simple common sense, anyone with half a brain can see the there are serious problems, so why are millions of people compelled to believe the Christian god is the one true god and the bible is his word? Well, because so many people don't know any better, they accept what they're told and by their pastors, evangelists and apologists and frankly many of them are just stupid. Consider the fact the ONLY way anyone can maintain the bible is true/the word of god is either by lying about it, or making excuses for it.<br />
<br />
Seriously people? The word of god? Come on now...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-38583384182847061232012-04-17T21:53:00.002-07:002012-04-17T21:56:55.509-07:00The problem(s) with deism.I am going to split this up into 3 or 4 parts, this topic could turn out to be lengthy, and one of the best writers I know reminded me to keep it short or risk losing people's attention, or boring them to death, and I don't want to do either of those things. Anyway, last nigh we discussed confirmation bias, tonight we launch into the facts about why there isn't actually any proof, at all, that any gods exist. Yes, this includes your god too, if you're unfortunate enough to still believe in magic. <br />
<br />
The only way to establish the existence of anything, supernatural or not, is through evidence of some sort. Very few religious people actually acknowledge they don't require evidence for their beliefs, those that do are called presuppositionalists, and/or Calvinists and they're a special brand of arrogant. Anyway, the majority of Christians, if asked would provide reasons, or evidence for why they believe what they believe. This fact provides a common ground for us to work from actually, we both believe that evidence is required to support an assertion. The problem lies in how we define evidence, but I think with just a little open mindedness we can get past this.<br />
<br />
Why is evidence important? Why I'm glad you asked! For the sake of this discussion I am going to compare and contrast religion and science so if you don't understand the differences, you soon will. Science puts forth falsifiable theories that can be tested and proven to be wrong and this is done by making predictions. A scientific theory (such as atomic theory, or evolutionary theory, the theory of gravity, etc) puts forth predictions that, if the the theory is correct, we should expect to find certain conditions to also be true. Predictions about how chemicals will interact with each other, for example, are based off of atomic theory and electron behavior. While we have never seen an electron, our falsifiable theory makes consistent and reliable predictions about how electrons will behave in chemical bonding and we have used this theory to produce everything from medicine to household cleaners. These predictions are useful in helping us to understand the nature of the universe and behavior of elements of nature, and make advances with this knowledge. Religion on the other hand is not a falsifiable theory that produces useful predictions, it is a belief system. Religions look at areas where we do not have answers (or complete answers, or where we didn't used to have answers and now we do, but they don't accept them) and believes things about those subjects. It does not know things, it believes thing. When science doesn’t know, religion believes. The delusion caused by religion is when believers mistake their belief for knowledge. And we know, as I said earlier, we can't actually know anything without evidence, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Is there any positive evidence for the existence of god, any god? The answer is a resounding, unequivocal, no, there is no positive evidence that any of the thousands of gods humanity has put their faith in over the millennia exist, or ever did. The thing most commonly cited as "evidence" by believers is what is referred to as the "god of the gaps" argument, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. For example, life exists, we can't account exactly for how life began, therefore god did it. This is not evidence, this isn't even logically sound. To assign responsibility for the existence of life on this planet to god(s) take a HUGE and skips over a nearly endless list of other possibilities. Using that logic it is equally likely that aliens put us here, or that we're fecal matter from our friends the extinct pink unicorns... The bottom line is, it isn't evidence, no matter how bad you want it to be.<br />
<br />
All of the arguments for the existence of god rely on negative evidence, usually stemming from gaps in scientific understanding, again this is belief, a fairly silly belief at that, it's not knowledge. This makes belief in god non-falsifiable, and as we now know a non-falsifiable hypothesis is not testable, and falls flat as evidence or "proof". Some people resort to another, and even more ridiculous tactic they call evidence, which is saying "you can't prove he doesn't exist" this is known as onus probandi. You can't disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns, a computer simulated universe, Russell’s teapot, or any of the thousands of gods and mythological creatures in existence either, again this is not positive evidence. I also can't prove you’re not joking about your belief in god, and you can't prove I'm not god, or that I can't fly, or that I don't have omniscience or that I can’t predict the immediate future with 100% accuracy. Without positive evidence for these things, there is no reason to believe in them. There is no reason to believe god is responsible for the things we do not understand any more than there is a reason to believe the flying spaghetti monster might be, or that everything is just a dream. No one can disprove these positions because they are non-falsifiable, but there is no reason to believe in them either, without evidence.<br />
<br />
This logic is why religion is flawed compared to the scientific method, faith asks you to ignore evidence based on foregone conclusions and it is almost always non-falsifiable - that is to say there are no parameters that could be met or conditions that would exist to show that the argument is wrong, making it non-testable. Faith also offers no reliable predictions and is therefore functionally useless. Good science, on the other hand, draws conclusions after the evidence has been examined, is falsifiable and testable, continues to examine it’s validity when new evidence is presented, and is useful in that it makes accurate predictions. Much to the dismay of the faithful around our planet, as our understanding of the universe increases, the gaps in which god can exist become smaller. This leads to things like limiting education, access to books, television and the internet and other deplorable tactics religious leaders use to keep people hooked. We're seeing some of this today in our country, look at the ridiculous assertions made by people like Bachmann, Santorum and this new "war on women" phenomena.<br />
<br />
Again I've probably written too much, so in conclusion I believe it's important to remember that the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If I were to claim that there is an invisible dragon breathing heatless fire in my garage, the skeptic should consider three conditions. Has the area where evidence would appear has been exhaustively examined? Does no evidence exists, or is all of the evidence is inadequate? The thing being proven to not exist, is the type of thing that if it existed evidence would show. If these three conditions are met, then the thing either does not exist, or it is functionally useless to believe in it's existence. Until positive evidence for the existence of a god is brought to light, it is not only functionally useless to believe in one, it's dangerous, it's downright harmful to spend your life investing your time and energy into something that doesn't exist. I heard someone say this once and I think it rings true now, "why be born again, when you can just grow up?"<br />
<br />
<br />
Goodnight.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-64717839460855623742012-04-16T14:58:00.001-07:002012-04-16T15:15:04.661-07:00Confirmation Bias.Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs (such as religion). For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations, for example: the existence of humans 'therefore god' argument).<br />
<br />
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. This explains why hell/eternal torture and the fear that those threats instill is such a powerful motivator.<br />
<br />
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts. This is one of the main reasons people cling to their religious beliefs, even though they have been comprehensively proven to be false, and not only proven false but shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be downright ridiculous. For example, the erroneous belief that the earth is about 6,000 years old, or that the universe was created in 6 days, this is absolutely false, there is no doubt about this fact. Any argument to the contrary is done out of ignorance or because some other psychological force is in control, such as fear.<br />
<br />
The implications here are pretty plain, in matters of religious faith/superstition, if you believe something is true, the tendency is to work from the conclusion instead of working towards a conclusion. This is counter-intuitive, in most areas of your life you probably use evidence to establish facts about the world around you, but in regards to religion and faith, there is no evidence, that is the nature of faith. Faith is believing something is true in spite of the fact there is literally 0 evidence to support the belief. So you see why this is problematic, I hope. Consider why you believe what you believe, if you are religious that is. In every case you're working away from a presupposition, you've already decided the answer so by nature the ONLY way for you to support your conclusion is to make inferences that you think would lead to the conclusion. For example, the universe exists, therefore, god did it. Or I feel happy when I sing songs on Sunday morning, therefore, Jesus did it. It is a HUGE step to say the only answer to why you feel joyful when you sing or why we exist is because a magical, invisible man in the sky did it. If you have one reasonable bone in your body, you must acknowledge that using this logic absolutely anything is permissible as the reason "why". I could say the reason I feel happy when I hear music is because it was invented by a race of now extinct pink unicorns and they knew how to make a person smile. There is exactly the same amount of evidence to support my pink unicorn theory as there is for your theory about god, none. Confirmation bias is one of the major reasons you draw the conclusion that god did it instead of extinct pink unicorns. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
I am going to lay out the problems with prepositional logic and confirmation bias as simply as I possibly can and attempt to show why and how you must approach your beliefs if you want to do so rationally.<br />
<br />
<div>
If you are a theist - you are claiming that the nature of god is knowable, and, indeed, you know it. However there are thousands of other god’s you easily disregard, and have never even considered seriously. For example the pagan gods such as Abellio the Celtic tree god, or Malakbel the the Arabian vegetation god or the gods of other contemporary religions, such as Islam (Allah) or Hinduism (too many to list). Also, you must consider the fact that there are millions of people who easily disregard your god/mirror your feelings towards their god who are outsiders to your faith or members of other faiths (aka they believe the same way you do, using the same "proofs" yet you regard their beliefs as unreasonable, impossible or likely even ridiculous). You must also consider that your choice of god is very likely determined by culture and birth location and a result of simple childhood indoctrination. This is evidenced by localized religions, such as salt lake city's Mormons, the bible belt's protestant Christians, India's Hindu's, Ireland's Catholics etc. Furthermore, children are not religious, they are only the children of religious people. They do not have the mental faculty, life experience, or knowledge to contrast with what they are being told is true of the world. Look, for example, at the children of the Westboro Baptist Church who stand with signs at protests saying that “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” I doubt any of those children would have been doing that if they had not been born into such a sick, sick family.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another method one can use to test the validity of their beliefs, or religious faith in general is called, The Outsider Test for Faith (OFC) as defined by John Loftus: What if you had been born in Saudi Arabia as a Muslim baby and were able to examine the Christian faith with a healthy amount of skepticism as a Muslim? If yours is truly the religion designed by god, shouldn’t it hold up to skeptical scrutiny? “Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating." (Loftus) If you acknowledge you probably would have remained a Muslim in these circumstances - there is a high probability your belief is simply an accident of birth and culture, or at the very least not the result of careful, objective reasoning. If you believe the "evidence" would have convinced you to convert to Christianity, that means one of two things: (1) You believe you have solid, objective and falsifiable evidence that can be examined through the eyes of a Muslim and still be self-evident. Why then don't more Muslim's convert or consider the Christian religion as a serious alternative to Islam? Where is this evidence and why doesn't it seem to convince people who aren't born into Christianity by accident of birth? (2) You are delusional in regards to your faith, which is not so much a virtue as willingness to believe something that there is no evidence for whatsoever. In fact, this is not a virtue at all, this is willful ignorance and frankly I find it despicable.</div>
<div>
<br />
Another way to approach this is to assume that I have never heard of god, Jesus, or the bible. I ask you to explain to me what make your particular brand of magic somehow superior to all of the others? Remember, I have never even heard of god so you will have to start from scratch and explain this in a way that will seem reasonable to someone who is not familiar with the basic premises of your religion. I am curious how it all began, so you’ll need to start by telling me about how god spoke the universe into existence in six days, created Adam from dust, created Eve from Adam's rib and placed them in the Garden of Eden before they ate the fruit from a forbidden tree of knowledge, causing god to cast them out of the garden so that he could guard the tree of eternal life with a flaming sword and a cherubim, because if they ate of it they would live forever. Be sure to explain how we can know this is actually factual but the Samoan creation story is just mythology.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyone who is willing to consider their faith (Christianity/Islam/Mormonism/Jehovah's Witness/Judaism, etc) critically can only come to one possible conclusion, that is that there is no evidence to support their beliefs, and therefore the only justification is blind faith. Regardless of what some people say, blind faith is never, ever a good thing. September 11th is evidence of that fact, as are the crusades, the inquisition, the wholesale murder of women accused of witchcraft, hatred towards homosexuals and the current assault on women and their rights from the religious right. These are only a few of the reasons why blind faith is dangerous. So if you believe that a magical sky man invented by primitive Shepard's and desert nomads created the universe 6,000 years ago. And a talking snake tricked a woman made from a rib into eating a magical apple that doomed billions of good people to an eternity of torture in hell, or anything equally as ridiculous, I beg you to take a critical look at WHY you believe what you believe. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-32446052901534789672012-03-28T11:33:00.000-07:002012-03-28T11:33:51.025-07:00Murder, rape & dead babies!<br />
This one is handy if you meet a girl who doesn't like you, but you want to marry her. All you have to do if forcibly rape her, pay her dad equivalent of $50 and she's all yours!<br />
<br />
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.<br />
<br />
But THEN if you decide you don't like her after all, just point out on the wedding night that she ISN'T a virgin (which the husband would know since he raped her) and then just drop her off at dad's house so she can be stoned to death!<br />
<br />
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB - But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.<br />
<br />
Another good one... You know what pisses me off? People that make fun of bald people! I am bald, so f*** that! Next time some punk kid calls ME "baldhead" I'm gonna curse them in the name of the LORD and have some bears tear them to shreds! Seems just, right? I mean, what else could a loving God do but tear little kids to pieces with some she bears for talking shit?<br />
<br />
2 Kings 2:23-24 - From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.<br />
<br />
This last verse really moves me, right in my heart where Jesus lives!<br />
<br />
Isaiah 13:15-18 - Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.<br />
<br />
See, God isn't some wussy democrat, whining about stuff like indefinite detention! He doesn't take prisoners, especially not kids or babies! I mean, babies cry all the damn time, they cost a crap load of money for diapers and formula and clothes cause they keep growing out of 'em! This the how we should treat prisoners of war! Slice those kids to pieces and shoot the back-talking know it all teens with arrows! Oh, and don't forget to rape the women, as usual!<br />
<br />
That bible is just FULL of love and happy stuffs! Go GOD!<br />
<br />
I am DEEPLY offended by people who continually claim the bible is the ultimate source of morality, or is even remotely true. The bible is a violent book, riddled with ignorance and depravity and malice! The bible teaches hatred, murder, rape, slavery, infanticide/genocide, human sacrifice, etc, etc, etc are all ok, even commendable! Western Christians/Catholics ignore this fact, they cherry pick out some nice, happy-feely verses and skip along through the meadow telling little kids their going to burn in an eternal fire if they do ANYTHING god doesn't like! And what doesn't god like? Well, pretty much anything we humans do enjoy, he hates. This is horribly, horribly immoral and unethical. I for one am so fed up and disgusted by it that I refuse to stand by idly any longer while Christians with no knowledge of history, who have forgotten the tens of millions of dead bodies that have been cut down and absorbed back into the earth in the name of the biblical god! The Christian god is the invention of ignorant, illiterate sheep herders who couldn't explain why it rained, or what lightning was, or why sometimes seemingly healthy people died of horrible afflictions. They attributed these things to gods because they had no knowledge of the way the world works. We know infinitely more about the nature of life, our planet and the universe now than those bumbling fools did 2,000+++ years ago. There is nothing described in the entire bible that cannot be explained by natural phenomena. There are also no supernatural claims which cannot be easily debunked by science or historians just as easily. God was invoked over the millennia as an explanation for the things we humans could not explain. God has run out of places to hide, we've searched every nook and cranny and he just isn't there. The evidence against the existence of ANY god, especially the ridiculous Christian version is overwhelming!<br />
<br />
That's where "I am with god", I am where everyone should be, rejecting superstition and doing my duty to expose ignorance in the bible and trying my hardest to stop anymore lives from being destroyed by fairy tales.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-1429006066737445072012-03-28T00:16:00.000-07:002012-05-04T11:05:27.064-07:00Burden of proving a negative? Huh?Many believers will say, "It is impossible for you to prove that God (Allah, Ra, Vishnu, whatever) does not exist. There is no way to prove that something does not exist." This is a silly argument for the following reason. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in the gerflagenflopple. You cannot prove that the gerflagenflopple does not exist, therefore it exists." You can see that this is ridiculous. Just because I have invented something out of thin air does not mean that its non-existence is suddenly unprovable. There has to be some evidence that the gerflagenflopple exists in order to assert its existence. Since there is not, it is quite easy to say that the gerflagenflopple is imaginary.<br />
<br />
Now let's imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in Leprechauns. You cannot prove that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they exist." You actually have heard of Leprechauns. There are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist. There is no physical evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. Not a single bit. Therefore, it is obvious to any normal person that Leprechauns are imaginary.<br />
<br />
If you think about it, you will realize that there is no difference between God and Leprechauns. Lots of people talk about God as though he exists, but there is no actual evidence for God's existence. For example:<br />
God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. All historical gods were imaginary and we know it. None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone. The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers. Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God. And so on…There is absolutely no evidence indicating that God exists. There is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that God does not exist. Therefore we can conclusively say that God is imaginary. That is the only thing that a rational person can say.<br />
<br />
Another way of looking at it.<br />
<br />
With every other object and phenomenon in our experience, we use the scientific method to determine whether it exists or not. For example, X rays are invisible, but we know that they exist. We can devise scientific experiments to prove that they exist. Then, once proven to exist, X-rays can be used predictably in all sorts of beneficial ways. If you would like to hypothesize that God exists, then you should say to yourself, "Let's devise a repeatable scientific experiment to provide evidence that God exists." Every experiment we devise demonstrates, yet again, that God is imaginary.<br />
<br />
Isn't it odd that God, unlike everything else in our universe, has been put into a special category? When we talk about God, we are supposed to do so "philosophically." Why? Why not treat God just like all other objects and devise experiments to detect his presence or absence? The classic religious response is, "God must remain hidden. If he proved his existence, that would take away faith." This is clever -- here we have an object named God that proves its existence by completely hiding its existence. Of course, in the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.<br />
<br />
Even more interesting, this object called God, which is supposedly hiding its existence completely, is in the meantime supposedly writing books, answering prayers and incarnating itself. How can that be? This obvious contradiction shows how imaginary God is. When we look at prayer scientifically, we find that "answered prayers" are actually nothing but coincidences. When we look at the Bible scientifically, ethically or rationally, we find that the Bible is wrong. When we look at all of Jesus' miracles scientifically, we find that none of them left behind any scientific or historical evidence. Nor, for that matter, did Jesus, nor did Jesus' resurrection. Strangely, not a single historical source independent of the Bible ever mentions the resurrection.<br />
<br />
The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-85202713480164399132012-01-23T12:51:00.001-08:002012-01-23T12:51:45.224-08:00Top 10 RIDICULOUS contradictions of Christianity.<div>
Back in the day when I was still a brainwashed, mindless zombie of a Christian none of these things would have alarmed me, and I cannot explain why. Now, on the outside looking in they seem patently ridiculous, mostly because they are. How do you break through the wall of superstition the religious have built around their minds and restore their ability to think and reason? Is it a change an outsider can effect? Or does the change have to be organic? I wish I knew.</div>
<br />10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.<br /><br />9- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt<br /><br />8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god<br /><br />7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!<br /><br />6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.<br /><br />5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.<br /><br />4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".<br /><br />3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.<br /><br />2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.<br /><br />1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a ChristianUnknownnoreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-59264304295416168912012-01-07T19:30:00.000-08:002012-01-07T19:56:32.068-08:00Traditional/Family Values - a misnomer.As I've been watching the Republican debates, and reading articles and blogs about the candidates I have noticed a couple of terms that are being used a lot, "traditional values" and "family values". What do these terms mean when we examine them in historical and cultural contexts? Having been a raging, right wing, Tea Party Patriot Republican at one point in time (don't hold it against me now, please) I am familiar with what these terms mean to the candidates, specifically Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann (who has dropped out of the race, thank goodness). To them "traditional/family values" are labels that mean a "Christian" household, with a married man and woman and 2.4 children. To them this represents a healthy, moral standard for a "family" and they believe (assuming I'm not totally mistaken, and I'm nearly positive I'm not) that this is the only acceptable possibility. They base this on the teaching of their respective religions, Santorum being Catholic has a definition which differs slightly from Romney's. Since Santorum was the motivation for this particular Blog, let's stick with his for now. Romney is a Mormon and the foundation of his cults ridiculous beliefs should be so obviously ludicrous I shouldn't have to say much about them for most thinking people to know that anyone who can believe that crap is frankly, stupid. The followers of the cult of Mormonism must be somehow so psychologically damaged that they cannot discern obvious fact from fiction. I'm already off topic, as frequently happens, please allow me to return to the definition portion of this discussion. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wikipedia defines Family Values as: "Promotion of 'traditional marriage' and opposition to sex outside of conventional marriage, including pre-marital sex adultery, polygamy, bestiality, and incest. Support for a roll back of aspects of feminism and support for a traditional role for women in the family. Opposition to same-sex marriage, support for traditional education and parental involvement in that education, including such things as vouchers for private, non-secular education. Support for complementarianism opposition to legalization of abortion and support for policies that instead encourage abstinence and adoption support for abstinence education exclusively regarding risks associated with early sexual activity such as teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases while not teaching such topics of sex education as human sexual behavior, safe sex and birth control support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation." Furthermore, Santorum has said on more than one occasion that he believes that all birth control/contraception should be illegal! This is a specifically Catholic position, in fact the Pope has told Catholics in countries in Africa that have epidemic levels of AIDS/HIV that if they use condoms, they will go to hell. - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values#Definition">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values#Definition</a> - See full article here. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In a separate, related Wikipedia article titled "Traditional Values" the first paragraph (and most pertinent paragraph to this discussion) states: "In its own right "traditional values" simply means the values coming from tradition rather than any specific philosopher, moralist, or writer. This means the "traditional values" of non-Western societies may be wildly at variance from any Christian Right notion of Family values. Societies based on traditional values often embrace animism and ancestor worship rather than any Abrahamic religion. Confucianism also tends to place high value on the maintenance of traditional culture and values. It is related to the concept of traditional authority and folk culture." - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_values#Definition_of_.22traditional_values.22">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_values#Definition_of_.22traditional_values.22</a> - See full article here. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The definition provided by Wikipedia for "family values" does an excellent job of comprehensively outlining exactly what I would have used a a definition myself at one time. However, to call these values "traditional" is problematic at best. Santorum and others who subscribe to the idea that these values are traditional have no grasp of history whatsoever and are most likely unable to define anthropology as anything other than a retail store. This definition of "family values" is based on what is commonly referred to as a "biblical worldview", even though most of these ideas are not found in the bible, or have been taken out of context and skewed to fit the needs of the chauvinists responsible for developing them. The only society/societies where these ideals would be considered traditional is in western culture(s), specifically western cultures that are/were at one time dominated by one brand or another of the Christian religion. Some of these ideals are fine, I wouldn't argue for the merits of things like bestiality and incest or argue against parental involvement in education, however the vast majority of these beliefs are antiquated and patently ridiculous. The anti-feminist positions of these people are offensive and the idea that sex education is "wrong" or "immoral" is backwards and asinine, especially considering that rates of teen pregnancy is significantly higher in the church than in secular society. The issue of abortion is a touchy subject, but the idea that the government should have any say in what a woman does with her body is contemptible. As for the issue of same sex marriage, it's high time we (as a society) stop telling people how they can and cannot live their lives and excluding people who genuinely love each other from reaping the same benefits as same sex couples. Again, especially considering the divorce rate within the church is higher than 60% now, and again higher than average compared to the secular community. It is obvious that the Christian/Catholic version of "family values" is not only antiquated and preposterous, but an utter failure in regards to protecting their ideal way of life. The only thing their version of "family values" accomplishes is the further oppression of women, alienating and harming perfectly healthy, loving, gay families, suppressing social progress, suppressing academic/scientific progress through religious education and stigmatizing sex, which is a perfectly natural act which should be enjoyed when engaged in responsibly by consenting individuals, not abhorred and treated as some kind of immoral act. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The portion of the definition I quoted from the second Wiki article basically drives home one of the points I am trying to make, "traditional/family values" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as the term is totally relative, they should be called "religious ideals" (because that is exactly what they are) and they should be mocked and marginalized with extreme prejudice. I say it often, religion is the cause of the vast majority of suffering in the world and has been for centuries. We know now that Christianity is built on a foundation of lies, the bible has been proven to be false historically, and the supernatural claims made therein which were used to explain phenomena we didn't yet understand such as the origins of life are obviously implausible. Furthermore, using the bible as a guide for moral living is detestable! The 10 commandments are laughable as far as the claim that they originated from an all knowing, all powerful being. Their origins are blatantly human and they are nothing more than common sense. Other than the narcissistic, repetitive commands not to worship any other god(s) the 10 commandments could have been written by a kindergartner. By comparison the bible contains far more immoral acts than moral/ethical instructions. It's pages are rife with things like murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, slavery and a vast array of other blatantly immoral and abhorrent acts. Anyone who claims that it is the ultimate source of morality either hasn't read it, doesn't understand it, or is a psychopath. Furthermore, according to several centuries of work done by a fairly large group of scholars we also know that Jesus Christ aka Jesus of Nazareth is also a fictional character. Given the overwhelming evidence, which is chronicled in numerous books, essays and other similar sources, it is hard to believe that anyone capable of rational thought would still subscribe to any of the nonsensical versions of religion remaining. It's high time that people stand up for what is ACTUALLY right and did everything in their power to expose the evil, harmful, antiquated tenets of religion, specifically Christianity in all it's forms as it is the greatest threat to the welfare of our country today. Some people may immediately bristle and say I'm wrong and that Islam is the greatest threat to our nation, and while I agree that Islam is a threat, and is responsible for more damage worldwide in this day and age than Christianity is, the fact remains that Christians can and will tear this country apart from the inside out if we fail to act and allow them to grab the reigns in Washington DC. As for claims that our country was founded on Christian principles, by Christian men, this claim is also demonstrably false, and I have addressed it at length in a previous blog, so check it out.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is time religion is put in it's place, the history books!!!</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-60423568319941937192012-01-04T12:01:00.000-08:002012-01-04T12:02:28.459-08:00From Xmas, to beyond!It seems that the truth does not matter to fundamentalist evangelical Christians. There is something that seems to block the ability of this group of people to be able to accommodate simple facts that are contrary to their beliefs. I have repeatedly presented what most rational people would consider obvious proof that many of the fundamental assumptions made by Christians are false, however they continue to refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that they might be wrong. <br />
<br />
Throughout the Xmas season I went on a special offensive, and offered up a variety of simple scientific, historical and archaeological facts via videos, articles and various online sources. One of my favorite videos was done by a gentlemen by the name of Seth, he goes by the handle "The Thinking Atheist" on the interwebs. (http://youtu.be/7T8Y1-VLjGQ - a link to his video titled, "To Xmas and Beyond"). He consistently does a good job of presenting the facts in a fun, snarky manner, which I always appreciate. Anyway, the point is that he plainly presented the facts about the pagan origins of Xmas as a response to the fundamentalist claim that there is a "war on Christmas". The fact is that Xmas has literally nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ as most Christians claim. It is a mish-mash of Pagan traditions/holidays that was modified by the Romans to fit their new worldview after it became the state religion. In fact, upon examination of the evidence the Christian account of Jesus birth appears to be a total fabrication. Nazareth didn't exist at the time Jesus was supposedly born, there was no census, even if there had been the head of the household (men) would have been the only ones counted, and Mary almost certainly would not have traveled from Bethlehem to Nazareth on a donkey 9 months pregnant and King Herod has been dead for years. These are just a few of the most glaring inconsistencies in the Christian version of the "Christmas" story. There are disagreements even between the gospels of the events surrounding the birth of Christ. If I were a Christian (and I was for many years) these facts (had I been made aware of them) would have presented a real problem for me. The birth, life, death and Resurrection of Christ are at the core of the Christian gospel message, and if the historical facts surrounding the event(s) are almost certainly not factual, that makes the rest of the story even more unbelievable than it already is. I am of course referring to the claim of the virgin birth, and the claim that Jesus was the human manifestation of the almighty god of the universe. <br />
<br />
There are literally zero independent, objective accounts of Jesus birth, life, miracles, ministry, death or resurrection. That means that literally the only source one has to draw their conclusions about Jesus is the bible. Anyone who knows the facts surrounding the origins of the bible, the manner in which the current version we have now was written and then assembled, or "canonized" they know that it is unreliable at best. This is a whole other blog topic, to really describe the events that have led up to the bible as we know it would be quite an undertaking, thankfully several very intelligent scholars have done that work for us. Bart Ehrman in one of my personal favorites, another former evangelical wrote a book called "Forged" which comprehensively explains the who, what, when, where, why and how the bible came into being. I suggest anyone who wishes to gain a comprehensive understanding of the origins of the bible should read this book.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So after a few weeks of informing my Christian family and friends, albeit somewhat antagonistically of the facts about the origins of Xmas I find myself dumbfounded by their utter inability to accept the truth. What is it that keeps this branch of fundamentalist Christians from being able to accept the truth about their faith? Why don't obvious contradictions about what they believe instill a desire to at least investigate the claims made by their religion? How can I, or anyone else reach them? Is it possible to break through the walls they've created to shed light on the fact that everything they believe is "Truth" with a capitol T, is absolute hogwash? There has to be a key, a golden arrow, something that will speak to their dormant ability to reason that will wake them from their ignorance induced mental slumber. I have made it my goal to find that chink in their armor, the loss of Christopher Hitchens has redoubled my resolve, I genuinely believe that humanity needs more men and women like Mr. Hitchens that are willing to stand up to the religious and challenge the erroneous, despicable tenets of their faith that are so obviously poisonous to everyone and everything they touch. The quest begins anew in 2012, the quest to systematically dismantle the ignorant tenets of the religious! Not just Christians, but all religions, beginning with the most toxic and working the way down the list until people can learn to live in reality. I firmly believe that the biggest threat to humanity is religion, and for some unexplained reason in this age of scientific enlightenment and discovery the hold of superstition seems to be gaining strength. We must not allow this to continue, the implications are dire. </div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-31301987804153850762011-07-02T20:54:00.006-07:002011-07-02T20:59:33.635-07:00Do you know why they called it "the Dark Ages?"Take a gander at this article, (<a href="http://fb.me/IPDCnpJ1">http://fb.me/IPDCnpJ1</a>) then consider the fact that it is the year 2011. Pilots are refusing to fly these simple banners stating things like "Atheism is Patriotic" on the 4th of July because of threats of violence and the possibility of losing their jobs! I lived in Kuwait City for some time, and was in Iraq in '04 and '05 and this smacks of the same kind of religious bullshit that occurs in these ass-backwards hell holes. Apparently people have forgotten that this country was founded on the basis of religious FREEDOM and not Christian principles! Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.<br />
<br />
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a <i>secular</i> document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.<br />
<br />
Seeing as Monday is the 4th of July let's address the Declaration of Independence. Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.) However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came <i>before</i> the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government. Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by <i>people</i> and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all have the natural ability of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "<b>Governments are instituted among men</b>." Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistic beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.<br />
<br />
Finally the fact the US was not founded on any Christian (or otherwise religious) principles is spelled out in plain terms, in black and white in the Treaty of Tripoli. "As <b>the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion</b>.." How could it possibly be anymore clear?<br />
<br />
So any claims that being an Atheist, Agnostic or otherwise in opposition to Christian beliefs are unpatriotic is absolutely false! The fact that so many pilots refused to fly these banners for such idiotic reasons makes me furious. This is a free speech issue and I hope someone with the means will take legal action against these people for denying us as Atheists our constitutional right to publicly share our beliefs, or lack there-of.<br />
<br />
I cannot believe this is happening in the US in 2011, what IS this world coming to? Are we in fact getting dumber??? You be the judge.<br />
<br />
Have a happy and safe 4th everyone!<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span lang=""></span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259014543058170753.post-79391739152277876362011-06-28T05:48:00.007-07:002011-06-28T08:05:42.016-07:00What now?"To hear a religious parent say "You're an embarrassment to the family" is hurtful and is made no less painful by the confidence that your rejection of superstition was the necessary, healthy and right choice. I heard these words this morning, and while they cut deep, they serve as an example of how religion attempts to quell legitimate counter-arguments by attempting to shame those who present them. Even family."<span style="font-family: arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
This is a quote from "The Thinking Atheist" who is a guy named Seth that hosts a website, a podcast and of course Facebook and Twitter pages/accounts. I read this quote this morning, like 12 hours ago and I haven't been able to get it out of my head all day. After officially and publicly separating myself from Christianity I got a lot of comments like this, probably since I was even more (publicly) outspoken then, than I am now. Since then I've gone through some stages, sort of similar to the stages of grief actually, as odd as that might sound. Not having come out the other end of that I am stuck in a familiar pattern of frustration and anger and I cannot decide what to do about it. Literally removing all my Christian friends from my life would solve some of my problems, however the problems it would create are probably even worse. I could publicly ask people to leave me the fuck alone and keep their idiotic dithering to themselves, but that isn't practical either considering how much I use social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. And it doesn't help me decide what to do about the members of my family who have been laying guilt trips on me so thick I feel like I'm being crushed. It's breaking my heart, and it's taking up way far too much of the space in my head. I had a friend who always told me I chose what thoughts I "rent" space out to in my head. But I can't kick this one, and I am confronted by this issue on nearly a daily basis. <span style="font-family: arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
I know I have nothing to feel guilty about, and I know that the fact they keep bringing up my shortcomings or mistakes I made in the past (some 2 decades ago) just shines a spotlight on their immaturity. But I can't help but feel like I'm a bad person! I spent YEARS of my life judging people for not blindly accepting the Christian faith, I mean, it was so "obvious" that it was the "truth". The truth was, I had never actually given it any real consideration, it was all I knew, it was how I was brought up and all these smart people around me that I respected so much seemed to genuinely believe these things. Now as I stand on the outside looking in I wonder HOW on earth ANYONE could possibly buy into such blatant bullshit. But, I digress, back to the point. I have nothing to feel guilty for, as much as I hate the sound of this term, I am the *shudder* victim here. Maybe I'm frustrated because now I am presenting these people with cold hard facts that are obviously in direct opposition to what they believe and their ears and eyes are closed. Why should I care? It's their problem not mine. Or is it? It seems it's constantly becoming my problem lately. I was hoping this would help me reach some conclusion, yet it has not. <span style="font-family: arial;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
So, I move forward hoping for some clarity and wondering how to obtain it. I miss North Idaho more than ever at times like this. There is a rock, high above a lake where I used to take these questions....<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span lang=""></span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0