- Admit that you are only human.
- Admit that you are good at heart.
- Admit that you deserve happiness, not Hell.
Now smile with me.
Archive for March, 2007
I have not been too annoyed at the fuss over the of the chocolate sculpture of Jesus. Some right wing catholics have complained that this nude figure is disrespectful so the artist has agreed it will not be displayed. The incident does much to demonstrate the confused bigotry of some Christians.
But it did get me thinking more about the resurrection myth and prompted me to pose a question.
How did the friends and relatives of this man know he was dead in the first pace?
The body must have done what other dead bodies do. After a few hours the muscles would stiffen and the body would become rigid - otherwise they would say he was not dead.
The body would begin to ooze fluids from various orifices - otherwise observers would say it was not dead.
Blood would move under gravity and begin to coagulate. The body would assume different shades of reds, blues and yellows as corpses do. Jesus would look especially awful because he had been physically mistreated. If the body did not display these changes observers would have claimed it was not dead.
Within the three day period before it came back to life flies would have deposited eggs and it would have begun to smell. This is a very hot country.
So, for the people around the corpse to agree that it was dead all these things had to occur.
Then, this revolting, stinking, oozing, fly ridden cadaver gets up and walks about. The Romans say nothing about this. There are no riots. There is no hysteria.
Utter rubbish. The Christian version of the resurrection is nothing but a silly, risible fairy tale. Anyone who believes in its actual truth is a stupid, gullible idiot.
The truth is that Jesus did not come back to life in a real sense. He, and his ideas, re-emerged in peoples minds only. That, I do believe.
But it did get me thinking more about the resurrection myth and prompted me to pose a question.
How did the friends and relatives of this man know he was dead in the first pace?
The body must have done what other dead bodies do. After a few hours the muscles would stiffen and the body would become rigid - otherwise they would say he was not dead.
The body would begin to ooze fluids from various orifices - otherwise observers would say it was not dead.
Blood would move under gravity and begin to coagulate. The body would assume different shades of reds, blues and yellows as corpses do. Jesus would look especially awful because he had been physically mistreated. If the body did not display these changes observers would have claimed it was not dead.
Within the three day period before it came back to life flies would have deposited eggs and it would have begun to smell. This is a very hot country.
So, for the people around the corpse to agree that it was dead all these things had to occur.
Then, this revolting, stinking, oozing, fly ridden cadaver gets up and walks about. The Romans say nothing about this. There are no riots. There is no hysteria.
Utter rubbish. The Christian version of the resurrection is nothing but a silly, risible fairy tale. Anyone who believes in its actual truth is a stupid, gullible idiot.
The truth is that Jesus did not come back to life in a real sense. He, and his ideas, re-emerged in peoples minds only. That, I do believe.
By the way, both the above bloggers had asked me to join PA several days ago. I usually don't take this long, but, anyway, I apologize for it. Usually, new blogs are added to PA in a couple of hours (depending on when I check my mailbox). Hopefully, delays like this won't happen often.
With these, PA now aggregates 54 blogs. As always, see joining Planet Atheism for details about what being aggregated in PA can do for you, and about how to join.
What are humans but a group of cells blessed and cursed with consciousness, condemned to live a short life on this small planet in a corner of the universe, limited in the spectrum of what they can sense without aid? I find it surprising that with all these constrictions humans seek to limit themselves even more. Imposing meaningless restrictions based on gender, race, beliefs, traditions, or other petty differences. I wonder what it would take to make them see....
I get several alerts per day from Atheist sites, blogs and news articles. Much of the discussion centres around why we should not believe this or that. It is all well argued, encouraging and intellectually challenging - but I still say some very clever Atheists are missing an important point.
We seem to be set on trying to stop people from pursuing and diseminating their chosen lifestyle. We will make no progress this way. We should be ignoring the faithfull and concentrate on building our own empires. Where is our equivalent of the Synod, the Vatican, or the Muslim Council.
We seem to be set on trying to stop people from pursuing and diseminating their chosen lifestyle. We will make no progress this way. We should be ignoring the faithfull and concentrate on building our own empires. Where is our equivalent of the Synod, the Vatican, or the Muslim Council.
In my last post, I tried to find the best book in the Bible by summing up the number of good things (that I could find) in each book. When goodness is measured in that way, Proverbs is the winner, with 56 good passages.
But Proverbs is, as Bible books go, a fairly big book. So I repeated the analysis using as the measure of goodness the number of good things per 100 verses. With this metric, Ecclesiastes (17.12) is by far the best book in the Bible. (The next best, James, has less than half as many, 8.33.)
There's still a problem, though (as Jason Macker pointed out), with this measure of goodness. A book might have a few good things to say, but have twice as many cruel and intolerant ideas. How can the amount of bad stuff be accounted for in the goodness metric?
Well, here's the way I did it. As before, I totalled the number of good things in each book, but I subtracted the number of bad things. That way, I come up the book's "net goodness." (I totalled cruelty, injustice, intolerance, family values, women, and homosexuality to get the number of bad things, since the verses marked with these categories are all morally objectionable.)
Here's how it looks with this metric.
| Book | Net Goodness (good - bad) |
|---|---|
| Ecclesiastes | 36 |
| Proverbs | 7 |
| Jonah | 0 |
| James | 0 |
| 3 John | 0 |
| Philippians | -1 |
| Philemon | -1 |
| Galatians | -2 |
| Song of Solomon | -3 |
| 1 Thessalonians | -3 |
| Colossians | -4 |
| 2 John | -4 |
| Nehemiah | -5 |
| Haggai | -5 |
| 1 John | -5 |
| Jude | -5 |
| Joel | -6 |
| Ruth | -7 |
| Ezra | -7 |
| Habakkuk | -7 |
| Titus | -7 |
| 1 Peter | -7 |
| Daniel | -8 |
| Ephesians | -8 |
| Obadiah | -9 |
| 2 Thessalonians | -11 |
| 2 Timothy | -12 |
| Nahum | -13 |
| 2 Peter | -13 |
| Malachi | -14 |
| 2 Corinthians | -14 |
| 1 Timothy | -14 |
| Hebrews | -14 |
| Esther | -20 |
| Romans | -25 |
| Job | -26 |
| Lamentations | -26 |
| Zephaniah | -28 |
| Mark | -28 |
| 1 Chronicles | -29 |
| Micah | -31 |
| John | -31 |
| 1 Corinthians | -32 |
| Zechariah | -37 |
| Acts | -42 |
| Amos | -50 |
| Luke | -50 |
| 2 Chronicles | -52 |
| Hosea | -54 |
| Joshua | -69 |
| 1 Kings | -75 |
| 2 Kings | -82 |
| 2 Samuel | -84 |
| Matthew | -86 |
| Isaiah | -90 |
| Revelation | -90 |
| Judges | -104 |
| 1 Samuel | -104 |
| Numbers | -109 |
| Leviticus | -116 |
| Exodus | -144 |
| Psalms | -145 |
| Ezekiel | -145 |
| Genesis | -164 |
| Deuteronomy | -222 |
| Jeremiah | -247 |
So using this metric, Ecclessiates is the best book, with a net goodness of 36. The next best is Proverbs with 7.
What is surprising (to me anyway) is that these are the only two good books in the Bible. The other 64 are either neutral, with a net goodness of zero (Jonah, James, and 3 John), or bad (net goodness < 0).
But, as before, these values do not take into account the size of the book. To account for size, I found the net number of good verses per 100 verses. Here is the result, ranked from best to worst.
| Book | Net good per 100 verses |
|---|---|
| Ecclesiastes | 16.22 |
| Proverbs | 0.77 |
| Jonah | 0.00 |
| James | 0.00 |
| 3 John | 0.00 |
| Philippians | -0.96 |
| Nehemiah | -1.23 |
| Galatians | -1.34 |
| Daniel | -2.24 |
| Job | -2.43 |
| Ezra | -2.50 |
| Song of Solomon | -2.56 |
| 1 Chronicles | -3.08 |
| 1 Thessalonians | -3.37 |
| John | -3.53 |
| Philemon | -4.00 |
| Mark | -4.13 |
| Acts | -4.17 |
| Colossians | -4.21 |
| Luke | -4.34 |
| Hebrews | -4.62 |
| 1 John | -4.76 |
| Ephesians | -5.16 |
| 2 Corinthians | -5.45 |
| Romans | -5.77 |
| Psalms | -5.89 |
| 2 Chronicles | -6.33 |
| 1 Peter | -6.67 |
| Isaiah | -6.97 |
| 1 Corinthians | -7.32 |
| Matthew | -8.03 |
| Joel | -8.22 |
| Ruth | -8.24 |
| Numbers | -8.46 |
| 1 Kings | -9.19 |
| Joshua | -10.49 |
| Genesis | -10.70 |
| Ezekiel | -11.39 |
| 2 Kings | -11.40 |
| Exodus | -11.87 |
| Esther | -11.98 |
| 2 Samuel | -12.09 |
| 1 Timothy | -12.39 |
| Habakkuk | -12.50 |
| 1 Samuel | -12.84 |
| Haggai | -13.16 |
| Leviticus | -13.50 |
| 2 Timothy | -14.46 |
| Titus | -15.22 |
| Judges | -16.83 |
| Lamentations | -16.88 |
| Zechariah | -17.54 |
| Jeremiah | -18.11 |
| Jude | -20.00 |
| 2 Peter | -21.31 |
| Revelation | -22.28 |
| Deuteronomy | -23.15 |
| 2 Thessalonians | -23.40 |
| Malachi | -25.45 |
| Hosea | -27.41 |
| Nahum | -27.66 |
| Micah | -29.52 |
| 2 John | -30.77 |
| Amos | -34.25 |
| Obadiah | -42.86 |
| Zephaniah | -52.83 |
Once again, Ecclesiastes is the best, with over 16 net good things per 100 verses. The only other good book, as judged by this metric, is Proverbs, with less than one net good thing per 100 verses. All the other books in the Bible (including all the New Testament) are either no good or just plain bad.
(The overall average for the Bible is 9.02 net bad things / 100 verses.
See here for more "good stuff" analysis.)
So besides sleeping late and catching up on Battlestar Galactica’s second season, I’ve purchased Victor Stenger’s God: The Failed Hypothesis to get me through my spring break. I haven’t finished the book (in fact, I’m the kind of person who will read five or six books simultaneously at an equal glacial rate), but I’m almost done and it’s worth a quick comment.
Stenger describes specific experiments that could actually support the existence of a personal god. He argues that only a completely irrelevant deity would leave no trace or evidence. If there’s a God, an omnipresent creator with any impact on the natural universe, he would be detectable by natural science.
Was the universe fine tuned? Does our morality come from God? After defining a God model, a falsifiable list of characteristics assigned to God, Stenger refutes the God model with science.
Overall, Victor Stenger provides a welcome, necessary addition to the chain of blasphemic best sellers.
Some months ago I joined the UK Brights forum. A few hundred members produce scores of emails per day, mostly criticising religion. After a year I see very little progress. Do the majority of church members waste their time criticising us? Of course not. They are too busy indoctrinating, collecting and building.
Core facts red (comments blue):
"They" of the traditional religions claim that they hold absolute knowledge and comprehensive ethics provided by their scriptures. All knowledge is contained in the scripture and from the scripture one can find all knowledge. Ethics are also fully contained, and all secular ethics arise directly from and can not stand without the ethics of scripture... so they say.
Now it seems to me that some extremely important points of modern ethics are totally overlooked by the ancient scriptures. Any Just God would by all means take care while collecting the basis of all ethics to make such notes as, "Be quiet" and "Quiet down, you rude SOB." Unfortunately, Ye Olde All Powerful Creator was somewhat vague.
Now, as we enter spring, and the birds chirp, and the sun warms the Earth, the motorcycles, hot rods, and sound systems come out. Rev the engine and pump up the volume, then go cruise down Main St, USA pissing off all the natives. We secular types can deduce by clear logic and empathy for our fellow beings, that it is uncivilized and downright rude to make available, purchase, or use to the detriment of others such things as mega sound systems and loud exhaust pipes.
Maybe I just have a personal vendetta against those who disturb me. That having been said, I think that we can objectively say that going to the store to find something that will be heard clearly by everyone within a 100-foot radius, and annoy the crap out of them, is unethical. It requires one to actively subordinate others for small pleasures despite the opportunity to get those pleasures in less-objectionable ways.
So there you have it, new secular ethics. We look at the world and make an assessment of right and wrong. No cheat sheets, no super-cops, no postmortem trials, just an effort to live together and make the best of the short life we have.
Now it seems to me that some extremely important points of modern ethics are totally overlooked by the ancient scriptures. Any Just God would by all means take care while collecting the basis of all ethics to make such notes as, "Be quiet" and "Quiet down, you rude SOB." Unfortunately, Ye Olde All Powerful Creator was somewhat vague.
Now, as we enter spring, and the birds chirp, and the sun warms the Earth, the motorcycles, hot rods, and sound systems come out. Rev the engine and pump up the volume, then go cruise down Main St, USA pissing off all the natives. We secular types can deduce by clear logic and empathy for our fellow beings, that it is uncivilized and downright rude to make available, purchase, or use to the detriment of others such things as mega sound systems and loud exhaust pipes.
Maybe I just have a personal vendetta against those who disturb me. That having been said, I think that we can objectively say that going to the store to find something that will be heard clearly by everyone within a 100-foot radius, and annoy the crap out of them, is unethical. It requires one to actively subordinate others for small pleasures despite the opportunity to get those pleasures in less-objectionable ways.
So there you have it, new secular ethics. We look at the world and make an assessment of right and wrong. No cheat sheets, no super-cops, no postmortem trials, just an effort to live together and make the best of the short life we have.
I think I've been defining my own Atheism as coming from my rejection of the super natural. With the recent death of my grandmother, I have been reflecting a bit on my own ideas that perhaps there's a dimension of sorts where our souls still live.
In case any one thinks I've been expressing a belief in the supernatural, I want to make it clear that this isn't a belief I hold; it is just an idea. And my idea is that this might happen completely within the realm of what might be possible in the universe/multiverse; as I do not expect anything super-natural to happen to our "souls". There is a scientific theory that information can not be destroyed, and while this may apply to physical information, I do often wonder how far this idea could be taken. But I am no physicist to test this, and I wouldn't disagree if someone could knowingly/truthfully explain to me that this is just absolutely not possible.
But my ideas about what might happen to the information that makes up us as individuals still is without a god. Why not have ideas about a god that could fall within the natural laws of the universe? Well, as we define god as an all knowing and all seeing, what I know about the universe says this is impossible.
I present as exhibit number one an explanation of the Double Slit Experiment:
Observation changes the outcome. If a god existed then the probability wave would not be observed because he would be watching, and he would know which slit the particle would go through, and therefore eliminate the probability. As it is, only our direct observation eliminates the probability, so I would conclude that nobody else is watching.
In case any one thinks I've been expressing a belief in the supernatural, I want to make it clear that this isn't a belief I hold; it is just an idea. And my idea is that this might happen completely within the realm of what might be possible in the universe/multiverse; as I do not expect anything super-natural to happen to our "souls". There is a scientific theory that information can not be destroyed, and while this may apply to physical information, I do often wonder how far this idea could be taken. But I am no physicist to test this, and I wouldn't disagree if someone could knowingly/truthfully explain to me that this is just absolutely not possible.
But my ideas about what might happen to the information that makes up us as individuals still is without a god. Why not have ideas about a god that could fall within the natural laws of the universe? Well, as we define god as an all knowing and all seeing, what I know about the universe says this is impossible.
I present as exhibit number one an explanation of the Double Slit Experiment:
Observation changes the outcome. If a god existed then the probability wave would not be observed because he would be watching, and he would know which slit the particle would go through, and therefore eliminate the probability. As it is, only our direct observation eliminates the probability, so I would conclude that nobody else is watching.
I was having an interesting discussion with an alleged agnostic over lunch today, in which he argued my blame for religion for anything was false, it was just people that were evil. And that religion had no inherent good or evil in it, just like science and logic, it was only how people used it. Everything was in the interpretation, none of it an intrinsic property of religion.
While this was a fresh new perspective, and I do not deny that people are solely to blame (they did make the religion after all) I must say that religion is designed to be very efficient at this purpose. When you look at science and logic, there are rules and boundaries. A logical stance can be challenged and defeated, evidence can sway science. Faith, and it's ugliest incarnation, religion, cannot.
One example he used against logic is this scenario:
1) Person A makes a logical argument
2) Person B proves Person A's argument wrong
3) Person A says "tough" and puts his flawed argument into action anyway
However, the bad action only is carried out in step 3, which is coincidentally when logic is thrown out the window. It is when logic was ignored that evil could reign unchallenged.
A second example of the same nature was looking at Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was taking
There are two problems to this though. The first is what is known as the 'naturalist fallacy'. This is the idea that what is natural is somehow good or right. This is a common logical fallacy used against gays (I don't like it, it's just not natural), and could be used to condone things such as rape (society makes us suppress out sexuality, these are just natural impulses. I am just passing down my genes!). However, how things naturally work by no means shows us how they should work. So even if Hitler was right about everything, natural selection is simply how nature works, and by no means says we should morally follow the example.
Secondly, is the fact that Hitler's entire system was based off of a certain faith. Hitler believed that, since the Jews are inferior to the Germans, it logically follows that if he killed the Jews he would have cleansed the gene pool and improved humanity. However, what evidence does he have that the Germans were genetically superior to the Jewish? None, obviously, as none exists. So the premise to the argument was false. Logic failed, and his belief system was faith based. Are you starting to see a recurring trend?
Yes, it is people that do the harm, not religion in itself, but values intrinsic to some religions condone things such as genocide. And when you have faith that the Bible is the word of God, you can use this to justify your beliefs, to add others to your cause, and to eventually act on your beliefs.
Guns don't kill people, humans do. But if you give a billion people guns someone's going to get shot. Religion doesn't harm people, people harm people. But give a whole bunch of people different religions, and a holy war is going to start. Discrimination is going to run rampant. People will find a sense of community, but only on an "us versus them" mentality. When they all believe that they're right, and no amount of evidence, logic, or argument could ever sway them, you find a group based on faith. A group predisposed to belief without question, action without justification, and loyalty without waver. Then you see horror beyond your wildest dreams.
Humans cause this horror, but religion really shouldn't make it so damn easy for us.
I believe in our system.
By 'our' I'm referring to the citizens of the United States. By 'system' I mean our government as a whole. By 'believe in', I mean that there was once a pure and honest intention central to that government, which was the source of our greatest ideals as a nation; I believe that if we dig (or poke, if need be) deeply enough, we will discover that it is still there, and with concerted effort we can motivate it to bring about a positive change for the future. It happened with emancipation. It happened with womens' suffrage.
It needs to happen to the I.R.S.
My responsibility as a citizen is to make my voice heard if I have a strong and politically relevant opinion on a matter. It's not a huge responsibility, but it's one I've been given and I intend to use it. Every time I need to.
What follows is a letter I wrote to my Senators and my state Representative - an indulgent expansion of a form letter sourced from the 'Americans for Fair Taxation' organization, of which I am a fervent supporter:
Dear [Rep. Sanchez / Sen. Boxer / Sen. Feinstein],
Every April, American taxpayers dread the federal income tax filing
process; the endless forms and paperwork, the cumbersome rules and
byzantine changes. It's time to say, "Enough already!"
As a voting constituent of yours, I support a viable and smart
alternative, the FairTax, and would suggest you consider this proposal
as well. The FairTax is better for everyone: Citizens, businesses, and
most of all our economy, which would be unshackled from the endless
volumes of regulations and rules that comprise our federal tax code
today.
In the time I have had to study the FairTax debate from both sides, I
have seen overwhelming evidence that it is a far superior taxation
scheme than the runaway train our current system has become. I have
determined that this is a far more advantageous plan not just for
selfish or personal reasons, but for the greater good of the nation we
live in.
A truly progressive tax like the one FairTax implements would improve
not only the financial standing of a great majority that are currently
unable to climb out of the hole of debt and financial dependence, but
would also improve the government's efficiency in keeping track of its
due revenue. I will point out, in case you are not aware, that the
FairTax in no way attempts to reduce the amount of money the
government receives; instead it is designed to redistribute the tax
burden in a manner that is logically fair, and mutually beneficial to
all taxpayers.
If you have heard of the FairTax but are skeptical of the claims I'm
making in this statement, I strongly encourage you to obtain a copy of
'The FairTax Book' by Neal Boortz and John Linder. Read it cover to
cover. I wouldn't doubt there's a copy floating around nearby
already... but if there is not, it is an inexpensive book, is a quick
read, and is widely available.
In all honesty, the only opposition to this plan will come from (1)
the great many people who have been misled to believe that the FairTax
is something entirely different and (2) those in government who source
their power and influence from the endless intricacies and loopholes
in the current tax code.
Our current taxation system is one that has grown into a
self-sustaining, cannibalistic entity that is depriving all of us from
a simpler and more prosperous life. It is time to recognize this and
bravely look inward and realize there is much, much room for
improvement.
There is a greater good in the FairTax; and I am one of a consistently
growing body who realizes it. We won't be able to be ignored for
long.
I strongly urge those in whose hands the decision rests to take a
critical look at the elements of HR 25. Any person looking
objectively *will* discover the significant merits of the FairTax
plan.
It will take maturity and courage to voluntarily subject the machine
of government, of which he is a part, to the scrutiny provided by this
bill. If passed, this will be a show of good faith on the part of the
governing body that will do much to restore the faith of the voting
population
A paradigm shift is ahead of you. There will be those who wish to
cling to the familiar despite the obvious damage that course of action
has taken. But there will also be those who have the spirit to
carefully but confidently move forward into territories ripe with
opportunity. I sincerely hope you will count yourself among the
latter.
As April 17th draws near, I urge you to consider a tax change for the
better of all Americans: The FairTax. This tax reform plan is embodied
in H.R. 25 and already has 57 co-sponsors. The taxpaying public -
individuals, farmers, schoolteachers, seniors, small business owners,
and others - will thank you for it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mr. Kevin Savino-Riker
...
If you read this and are at all curious about the FairTax, please visit Americans for Fair Taxation, and consider purchasing The FairTax Book.
To take part in the "100,000 Faxes" campaign and send a letter to your representatives like I did mine, Get Started! No fax machine required!
Let's see if grassroots movements 'still got it.'
By 'our' I'm referring to the citizens of the United States. By 'system' I mean our government as a whole. By 'believe in', I mean that there was once a pure and honest intention central to that government, which was the source of our greatest ideals as a nation; I believe that if we dig (or poke, if need be) deeply enough, we will discover that it is still there, and with concerted effort we can motivate it to bring about a positive change for the future. It happened with emancipation. It happened with womens' suffrage.
It needs to happen to the I.R.S.
My responsibility as a citizen is to make my voice heard if I have a strong and politically relevant opinion on a matter. It's not a huge responsibility, but it's one I've been given and I intend to use it. Every time I need to.
What follows is a letter I wrote to my Senators and my state Representative - an indulgent expansion of a form letter sourced from the 'Americans for Fair Taxation' organization, of which I am a fervent supporter:
Dear [Rep. Sanchez / Sen. Boxer / Sen. Feinstein],
Every April, American taxpayers dread the federal income tax filing
process; the endless forms and paperwork, the cumbersome rules and
byzantine changes. It's time to say, "Enough already!"
As a voting constituent of yours, I support a viable and smart
alternative, the FairTax, and would suggest you consider this proposal
as well. The FairTax is better for everyone: Citizens, businesses, and
most of all our economy, which would be unshackled from the endless
volumes of regulations and rules that comprise our federal tax code
today.
In the time I have had to study the FairTax debate from both sides, I
have seen overwhelming evidence that it is a far superior taxation
scheme than the runaway train our current system has become. I have
determined that this is a far more advantageous plan not just for
selfish or personal reasons, but for the greater good of the nation we
live in.
A truly progressive tax like the one FairTax implements would improve
not only the financial standing of a great majority that are currently
unable to climb out of the hole of debt and financial dependence, but
would also improve the government's efficiency in keeping track of its
due revenue. I will point out, in case you are not aware, that the
FairTax in no way attempts to reduce the amount of money the
government receives; instead it is designed to redistribute the tax
burden in a manner that is logically fair, and mutually beneficial to
all taxpayers.
If you have heard of the FairTax but are skeptical of the claims I'm
making in this statement, I strongly encourage you to obtain a copy of
'The FairTax Book' by Neal Boortz and John Linder. Read it cover to
cover. I wouldn't doubt there's a copy floating around nearby
already... but if there is not, it is an inexpensive book, is a quick
read, and is widely available.
In all honesty, the only opposition to this plan will come from (1)
the great many people who have been misled to believe that the FairTax
is something entirely different and (2) those in government who source
their power and influence from the endless intricacies and loopholes
in the current tax code.
Our current taxation system is one that has grown into a
self-sustaining, cannibalistic entity that is depriving all of us from
a simpler and more prosperous life. It is time to recognize this and
bravely look inward and realize there is much, much room for
improvement.
There is a greater good in the FairTax; and I am one of a consistently
growing body who realizes it. We won't be able to be ignored for
long.
I strongly urge those in whose hands the decision rests to take a
critical look at the elements of HR 25. Any person looking
objectively *will* discover the significant merits of the FairTax
plan.
It will take maturity and courage to voluntarily subject the machine
of government, of which he is a part, to the scrutiny provided by this
bill. If passed, this will be a show of good faith on the part of the
governing body that will do much to restore the faith of the voting
population
A paradigm shift is ahead of you. There will be those who wish to
cling to the familiar despite the obvious damage that course of action
has taken. But there will also be those who have the spirit to
carefully but confidently move forward into territories ripe with
opportunity. I sincerely hope you will count yourself among the
latter.
As April 17th draws near, I urge you to consider a tax change for the
better of all Americans: The FairTax. This tax reform plan is embodied
in H.R. 25 and already has 57 co-sponsors. The taxpaying public -
individuals, farmers, schoolteachers, seniors, small business owners,
and others - will thank you for it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mr. Kevin Savino-Riker
...
If you read this and are at all curious about the FairTax, please visit Americans for Fair Taxation, and consider purchasing The FairTax Book.
To take part in the "100,000 Faxes" campaign and send a letter to your representatives like I did mine, Get Started! No fax machine required!
Let's see if grassroots movements 'still got it.'
I was glad not to be there when my grandmother passed, bodies creep the beejebus out of me. (I'm not sure if this is due to instinct or childhood trauma. I've almost always had someone else dispose of dead pets because I don't want to touch the bodies.)
My mother said, before she left the room after my grandmother had passed, a nurse came in to open the window. She said they do this to let the soul out. I liked the idea of that ritual, although I don't think souls (if they existed) could be confined that way. I found comfort in this ritual, despite knowing it's pointless. Despite my efforts of purging supernatural superstitions from my life, it's hard when there is still that flicker of hope somewhere within my mind that our existence is more meaningful.
I went with my mother to prepare for the funeral, and meeting with a funeral director is quite an experience. I've watched 6 Feet Under, and Family Plots, so I thought I new what to expect.
If it was up to just my mother and myself, Grandmom would have been cremated, end of story. But some of the family felt need for closure, which meant a church service and possibly a viewing. This means picking out prayer cards, caskets, and clothing for the deceased. We still wished to have her body cremated, and the funeral director said we could "borrow" a casket, but then before burning, her body would be removed from it, and he didn't think that was respectful. In my own mind, I was thinking; really, how respectful is the process of embalming a body to begin with? And why would it matter? As for my own body, aside from someone molesting it, or stealing parts of it, I really wouldn't care, and definitely wouldn't care if someone burned my body without a casket.
The services included a church ceremony the night before the "viewing", with bible readings and remembrances said. I've always believed a funeral is for the living, not the dead, so if some find comfort in a church service, I cannot justify begrudging them that at this time. The service at the funeral home the next morning turned out to be closed casket. When my mother and uncle went to check out the mortician's handy-work, they decided against it. My mother said "it just wasn't Mom." We had brunch after the services at the funeral home, as she was being cremated and buried at some other time.
Times like this spark conversation about our own deaths. My husband and I discussed our wishes for what would be done with our bodies at the time of our death. That conversation basically ended with, "you'll be dead, and I get to do what I want with it." To me, it would depend on the time in life and circumstances of death what I would do to my husband's body. I would only find a viewing of him necessary for his family, or if we had children, but not for myself.
On the other hand, he had very set ideas of how a funeral should go down. All funerals he'd ever been to were the same, and he thought that was the way they all should be. A wake the night before, viewing the next morning where nobody says anything, a church service, and then brunch as nobody visits the grave site at that time. With all this in mind, he thought that my grandmother's funeral was quite strange, but I found that having the ability to order things however we wanted made it much more meaningful for everyone.
Hopefully I won't be the one making these types of decisions for many years to come.
My mother said, before she left the room after my grandmother had passed, a nurse came in to open the window. She said they do this to let the soul out. I liked the idea of that ritual, although I don't think souls (if they existed) could be confined that way. I found comfort in this ritual, despite knowing it's pointless. Despite my efforts of purging supernatural superstitions from my life, it's hard when there is still that flicker of hope somewhere within my mind that our existence is more meaningful.
I went with my mother to prepare for the funeral, and meeting with a funeral director is quite an experience. I've watched 6 Feet Under, and Family Plots, so I thought I new what to expect.
If it was up to just my mother and myself, Grandmom would have been cremated, end of story. But some of the family felt need for closure, which meant a church service and possibly a viewing. This means picking out prayer cards, caskets, and clothing for the deceased. We still wished to have her body cremated, and the funeral director said we could "borrow" a casket, but then before burning, her body would be removed from it, and he didn't think that was respectful. In my own mind, I was thinking; really, how respectful is the process of embalming a body to begin with? And why would it matter? As for my own body, aside from someone molesting it, or stealing parts of it, I really wouldn't care, and definitely wouldn't care if someone burned my body without a casket.
The services included a church ceremony the night before the "viewing", with bible readings and remembrances said. I've always believed a funeral is for the living, not the dead, so if some find comfort in a church service, I cannot justify begrudging them that at this time. The service at the funeral home the next morning turned out to be closed casket. When my mother and uncle went to check out the mortician's handy-work, they decided against it. My mother said "it just wasn't Mom." We had brunch after the services at the funeral home, as she was being cremated and buried at some other time.
Times like this spark conversation about our own deaths. My husband and I discussed our wishes for what would be done with our bodies at the time of our death. That conversation basically ended with, "you'll be dead, and I get to do what I want with it." To me, it would depend on the time in life and circumstances of death what I would do to my husband's body. I would only find a viewing of him necessary for his family, or if we had children, but not for myself.
On the other hand, he had very set ideas of how a funeral should go down. All funerals he'd ever been to were the same, and he thought that was the way they all should be. A wake the night before, viewing the next morning where nobody says anything, a church service, and then brunch as nobody visits the grave site at that time. With all this in mind, he thought that my grandmother's funeral was quite strange, but I found that having the ability to order things however we wanted made it much more meaningful for everyone.
Hopefully I won't be the one making these types of decisions for many years to come.
It's been a bit of a whirlwind in my personal life recently. As I mentioned, there's been a death in my family, that combined with a motherboard failure on my home PC put me out of blogging for a while.
A little less than two weeks ago my grandmother, who has already been dying of cancer, fell and broke her hip. She survived surgery, but stopped eating after that, and soon went into kidney failure. She was still in the hospital and placed under "comfort care," as she didn't want any feeding tubes or to be put on a ventilator. Her children flew in to be with her, staying with her 24-7 until she passed. I would visit each day, but was not there when she passed.
My one uncle is very religious, and had been praying for her, and the priest has been to visit her. I have never known my grandmother to be much of a religious person, but she did attend church in her younger days. My own mother is very science minded, and from my conversations with her, does not believe in an afterlife (at least, not the heaven/hell type place in the bible). While it is really rough on everyone, I found these different approaches to her dying somewhat fascinating. My uncle called upon the priest and god to ease her suffering, while my mother called upon the nurse and morphine. From my point of view, neither seemed all that effective, in the end, all we could do was hold her hand in her suffering.
It's a tough process watching someone's body fail them, and seeing how much pain it is causing, with almost nothing you can do for them. At her age of 88, with all of her ailments, if not for modern medicine, she would have died long ago. On another occasion, several years ago she was in the hospital and in pain, when I asked her what I could do for her, her response was "kill me." On one hand, it's really rough knowing someone is in so much pain they wish to die, and yet incapable of facilitating that on their own. It's not something I dare assist her with, out of fear of the consequences, though I somewhat wish I could have.
Watching her own suffering makes me wonder if I would be more likely, when I got to her age, especially if I knew I had a terminal illness, to take myself out while I could. Depending on their beliefs, and the situation, would death that way be any worse on the family? I often view suicide as a selfish act, but when someone is already suffering their last days, is it more selfish to deny them quick release?
Next post: Funerals and rituals.
A little less than two weeks ago my grandmother, who has already been dying of cancer, fell and broke her hip. She survived surgery, but stopped eating after that, and soon went into kidney failure. She was still in the hospital and placed under "comfort care," as she didn't want any feeding tubes or to be put on a ventilator. Her children flew in to be with her, staying with her 24-7 until she passed. I would visit each day, but was not there when she passed.
My one uncle is very religious, and had been praying for her, and the priest has been to visit her. I have never known my grandmother to be much of a religious person, but she did attend church in her younger days. My own mother is very science minded, and from my conversations with her, does not believe in an afterlife (at least, not the heaven/hell type place in the bible). While it is really rough on everyone, I found these different approaches to her dying somewhat fascinating. My uncle called upon the priest and god to ease her suffering, while my mother called upon the nurse and morphine. From my point of view, neither seemed all that effective, in the end, all we could do was hold her hand in her suffering.
It's a tough process watching someone's body fail them, and seeing how much pain it is causing, with almost nothing you can do for them. At her age of 88, with all of her ailments, if not for modern medicine, she would have died long ago. On another occasion, several years ago she was in the hospital and in pain, when I asked her what I could do for her, her response was "kill me." On one hand, it's really rough knowing someone is in so much pain they wish to die, and yet incapable of facilitating that on their own. It's not something I dare assist her with, out of fear of the consequences, though I somewhat wish I could have.
Watching her own suffering makes me wonder if I would be more likely, when I got to her age, especially if I knew I had a terminal illness, to take myself out while I could. Depending on their beliefs, and the situation, would death that way be any worse on the family? I often view suicide as a selfish act, but when someone is already suffering their last days, is it more selfish to deny them quick release?
Next post: Funerals and rituals.
I've been gone for a while, for anyone who might have noticed.
There was a death in my family, which I'll elaborate on more later. It's got me thinking quite a bit.
In the meantime, I'd like to share this with you:
As my mind is still on the loss of a loved one, this video is a good summery of what I like to contemplate, a hope without basis, for a higher dimension. Sometimes I think it's silly, but still I think how wonderful our natural universe is already and perhaps it's not beyond capability for the sum of information that makes us who we are could be preserved somewhere in spacetime.
There was a death in my family, which I'll elaborate on more later. It's got me thinking quite a bit.
In the meantime, I'd like to share this with you:
As my mind is still on the loss of a loved one, this video is a good summery of what I like to contemplate, a hope without basis, for a higher dimension. Sometimes I think it's silly, but still I think how wonderful our natural universe is already and perhaps it's not beyond capability for the sum of information that makes us who we are could be preserved somewhere in spacetime.
Two new additions to Planet Atheism:
Incidentally, the author of the latter is also a member of the former.
This adds up to 52 blogs on PA.
- The Atheist Experience: in their own words,
is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog will feature contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.
- Kazim's Korner: a blog by
an overeducated liberal atheist computer geek in Austin.
Incidentally, the author of the latter is also a member of the former.
This adds up to 52 blogs on PA.
What is the best book in the Bible?
Well, that, of course, depends on how you define "best".
One way to try to determine it, though, would be to identify all the passages in the Bible that contain ideas that you consider good, and then compare the number of good passages found in each book of the Bible.
That's easy for me to do, since I have already marked as "good stuff" everything I can honestly call good in the Bible. Here are the the Bible's books ranked according to the amount of "good stuff". (Only 35 books are listed. The other 31 have nothing that I can call good.)
| Book | Good Stuff |
|---|---|
| Proverbs | 56 |
| Ecclesiastes | 38 |
| Matthew | 14 |
| Leviticus | 14 |
| Romans | 14 |
| Exodus | 13 |
| Deuteronomy | 13 |
| Luke | 10 |
| James | 9 |
| Isaiah | 8 |
| 1 Corinthians | 7 |
| Ephesians | 6 |
| Galatians | 6 |
| 1 Peter | 6 |
| Colossians | 6 |
| John | 5 |
| Hebrews | 4 |
| 1 John | 4 |
| Psalms | 3 |
| 1 Timothy | 3 |
| 1 Thessalonians | 3 |
| Titus | 3 |
| Jeremiah | 2 |
| Job | 2 |
| Mark | 2 |
| Zechariah | 2 |
| Micah | 2 |
| Philippians | 2 |
| Malachi | 2 |
| Acts | 1 |
| Hosea | 1 |
| 2 Timothy | 1 |
| 2 Peter | 1 |
| 3 John | 1 |
| 2 John | 1 |
So Proverbs, at 56, has the most good stuff.
But Proverbs is a fairly large book, with 31 chapters and 915 verses. How would it look if we ranked the adjusted the good stuff rankings to acount for the size of the book?
Here's the list when adjusted for size (number of good passages per 100 verses).
| Book | good stuff / 100 verses |
|---|---|
| Ecclesiastes | 17.12 |
| James | 8.33 |
| 2 John | 7.69 |
| 3 John | 7.14 |
| Titus | 6.52 |
| Colossians | 6.32 |
| Proverbs | 6.12 |
| 1 Peter | 5.71 |
| Galatians | 4.03 |
| Ephesians | 3.87 |
| 1 John | 3.81 |
| Malachi | 3.64 |
| 1 Thessalonians | 3.37 |
| Romans | 3.23 |
| 1 Timothy | 2.65 |
| Philippians | 1.92 |
| Micah | 1.90 |
| 2 Peter | 1.64 |
| Leviticus | 1.63 |
| 1 Corinthians | 1.60 |
| Deuteronomy | 1.36 |
| Hebrews | 1.32 |
| Matthew | 1.31 |
| 2 Timothy | 1.20 |
| Exodus | 1.07 |
| Zechariah | 0.95 |
| Luke | 0.87 |
| Amos | 0.68 |
| Isaiah | 0.62 |
| John | 0.57 |
| Hosea | 0.51 |
| Mark | 0.29 |
| Job | 0.19 |
| Jeremiah | 0.15 |
| Psalms | 0.12 |
| Acts | 0.10 |
When we adjust for size, then, Ecclesiastes is by far the best book in the Bible (17.12 / 100 verses). In fact, it's more than twice as good as its nearest competitor, the Book of James.
(The overall average for the Bible is 0.86 good passages / 100 verses.)
I just finished listening to one of my weekly podcasts, The Atheist Experience. This week's episode was about deconversion from Christianity to Atheism. This episode was great because it touched on some common misconceptions people have about atheists, why people believe, and why people become atheists. (Go check it out...episodes can be found in audio and video through their website)
Tracie
Hello everyone! This is Pedro, author of Way of the Mind, and maintainer of Planet Atheism (PA). This is the first post on the Planet Atheism Blog, and you're almost certainly reading it in PA.
What is this new blog for? Basically, for PA-related announcements: new member blogs, new features, and so on. I could have done it as part of Way of the Mind, but I think this method is better, as it allows WotM to be "free" of announcements for an entirely different site altogether.
I don't expect this blog to have any readers of its own (that is, visiting it directly), but it will, of course, be included in Planet Atheism (coincidentally, as the 50th blog), so PA readers will be able to read PA-related news there.
Incidentally, you may be wondering: if I have my own servers, why use Blogger for this one? For fun, of course. :)
Meanwhile, if you have an atheism-related blog and want it to be included in PA, please read joining Planet Atheism.
What is this new blog for? Basically, for PA-related announcements: new member blogs, new features, and so on. I could have done it as part of Way of the Mind, but I think this method is better, as it allows WotM to be "free" of announcements for an entirely different site altogether.
I don't expect this blog to have any readers of its own (that is, visiting it directly), but it will, of course, be included in Planet Atheism (coincidentally, as the 50th blog), so PA readers will be able to read PA-related news there.
Incidentally, you may be wondering: if I have my own servers, why use Blogger for this one? For fun, of course. :)
Meanwhile, if you have an atheism-related blog and want it to be included in PA, please read joining Planet Atheism.
It is in the hours of our most dire needs that we are tempted to activate the most delusional and illogical parts of our brains. Ergo, it is in these times that we should be using logic the most....
This past weekend was packed with things to do! Time spent with family always proves to be interesting :smile:...especially with my in-laws.
We had some big windstorms this winter and in one of the storms, a tree was blown over in my in-law's backyard. So, we had told them we would help them cut it up and clean the backyard this weekend. Friday night, my kids went to stay the night. I was a
Stark's atheist views break political taboo
Rep. Pete Stark of Fremont might have crossed what some are calling "one of the last frontiers" in politics when he delighted atheists this week by acknowledging that he does not believe in a supreme being.
Technorati Tags: Pete Stark, politician, atheist
Ahem...
In reference to post-previous, I'm working on an essay that is quickly growing into an exposition of my personal belief structure... an affirmation, more accurately. So, I've been in a philosophical mindset lately. The essay is far from complete, but I still have an urge to put something out there. I remembered writing an e-mail to myself (as I often do when I don't want to forget something; let Google sort 'em out) on a topic that is loosely related to the single thing that's been occupying my creative time over the last few months... not counting the band, of course*.
Anyway, I figured I'd post it here, as sort of a small sample of what I'm preparing. Like I said, it's not the same topic, but it's somewhat related; it's to whet the appetites of anyone curious to see what I'm concocting behind the scenes. Enjoy!
An Email To Myself
When the religious organizations lobby for teaching of intelligent design in schools, they often accompany this with a statement encouraging students to be cautionary in their thoughts toward evolution. They remind us that evolution is 'just a theory', and science should be approached with an open mind, leaving room for alternate theories**.
They're masking their weighted statements under the guise of skepticism, so as to appear more scientific. The truth is, however, that they are requesting a one-sided skepticism. To be truly scientific, they should request equal skepticism for both arguments. But they do not. They request skepticism on evolution's part, and implicitly request faith in intelligent design's merit to stand against evolution. It's asking for a fight, and asking evolution to tie one hand behind its back first.
This statement of theirs plays another trick as well: they request that the student approach evolution skeptically, as if to imply to the student that evolution has not yet been subject to such scrutiny. Their use of words would suggest to the reader that evolution hasn't been standing up to scrutiny and skepticism for over a hundred years. They are singlehandedly taking out of mind the fact that evolution was met with the fiercest of opposition in the scientific community upon its unveiling, and has withstood the tests of time and scrutiny by virtue of the mountain of evidence gathered in its support. Evolution has been subject to testing and skepticism for long enough, and has emerged in well enough condition, that for now, we are confident in the solidity of its foundations. It is by this series of trials over such a long period that it has earned the status of scientific theory, a weighty title indeed. Intelligent Design has passed none of these tests. It is treated so casually by the scientific community because it fails immediately under the most gentle questioning, and is therefore dismissed with relative ease.
* - Shelby Three and the Harmony are playing from 4pm to 8pm tomorrow, St. Patrick's Day at the Irish Mist. BE THERE!
** - equivocation at it's most blatant. They are banking on the fact that the general public may not be aware that there is a difference between the common-usage definition of the word 'theory' and the scientific definition. They want you to believe then, that when scientists refer to evolution as a theory, they do so because they are not yet sure of its validity. They want you to think 'theory' means 'unsubstantiated guess'. 'Hypothesis'. This is the colloquial definition of theory: "I lose my keys every Sunday; my theory is that I'm doing something different on Sunday that causes me to lose my keys."
In truth, the word 'theory' in the scientific community is a very powerful one, and the fact that evolution is considered a theory is a *very* strong argument in its support. A scientific theory is one step removed from scientific law: fundamental forces, gravity, magnetism, etc., are examples of ideas that have more support than evolution. They are universally observed, and for all intents and purposes, there is no deviation between observation whenever or wherever that observation takes place. Evolution is a theory because there is a massive amount of evidence gathered for it, to the extent that the scientific community regards it as fact that evolution has occurred; it is not a law, however, because there is still an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms behind the fact of evolution. In science, this room is left because of the revisionist and skeptical nature of science as a practice. We know that we do not know everything about evolution yet, therefore it is not a law. It is 'only a theory'. But not knowing 'everything about a subject' is far from enough to claim that one knows nothing about it. Not knowing everything does not exclude knowing a great deal. Evolution is on the same level of verification and refinement as is Einstein's theory of general relativity. If the proponents of ID want to be skeptical about evolution because it is just a 'theory', they should be raising as much opposition to relativity as well. But the religious community has no quarrel with relativity, because they do not believe support of relativity is equal to a renunciation of God.
In reference to post-previous, I'm working on an essay that is quickly growing into an exposition of my personal belief structure... an affirmation, more accurately. So, I've been in a philosophical mindset lately. The essay is far from complete, but I still have an urge to put something out there. I remembered writing an e-mail to myself (as I often do when I don't want to forget something; let Google sort 'em out) on a topic that is loosely related to the single thing that's been occupying my creative time over the last few months... not counting the band, of course*.
Anyway, I figured I'd post it here, as sort of a small sample of what I'm preparing. Like I said, it's not the same topic, but it's somewhat related; it's to whet the appetites of anyone curious to see what I'm concocting behind the scenes. Enjoy!
An Email To Myself
When the religious organizations lobby for teaching of intelligent design in schools, they often accompany this with a statement encouraging students to be cautionary in their thoughts toward evolution. They remind us that evolution is 'just a theory', and science should be approached with an open mind, leaving room for alternate theories**.
They're masking their weighted statements under the guise of skepticism, so as to appear more scientific. The truth is, however, that they are requesting a one-sided skepticism. To be truly scientific, they should request equal skepticism for both arguments. But they do not. They request skepticism on evolution's part, and implicitly request faith in intelligent design's merit to stand against evolution. It's asking for a fight, and asking evolution to tie one hand behind its back first.
This statement of theirs plays another trick as well: they request that the student approach evolution skeptically, as if to imply to the student that evolution has not yet been subject to such scrutiny. Their use of words would suggest to the reader that evolution hasn't been standing up to scrutiny and skepticism for over a hundred years. They are singlehandedly taking out of mind the fact that evolution was met with the fiercest of opposition in the scientific community upon its unveiling, and has withstood the tests of time and scrutiny by virtue of the mountain of evidence gathered in its support. Evolution has been subject to testing and skepticism for long enough, and has emerged in well enough condition, that for now, we are confident in the solidity of its foundations. It is by this series of trials over such a long period that it has earned the status of scientific theory, a weighty title indeed. Intelligent Design has passed none of these tests. It is treated so casually by the scientific community because it fails immediately under the most gentle questioning, and is therefore dismissed with relative ease.
* - Shelby Three and the Harmony are playing from 4pm to 8pm tomorrow, St. Patrick's Day at the Irish Mist. BE THERE!
** - equivocation at it's most blatant. They are banking on the fact that the general public may not be aware that there is a difference between the common-usage definition of the word 'theory' and the scientific definition. They want you to believe then, that when scientists refer to evolution as a theory, they do so because they are not yet sure of its validity. They want you to think 'theory' means 'unsubstantiated guess'. 'Hypothesis'. This is the colloquial definition of theory: "I lose my keys every Sunday; my theory is that I'm doing something different on Sunday that causes me to lose my keys."
In truth, the word 'theory' in the scientific community is a very powerful one, and the fact that evolution is considered a theory is a *very* strong argument in its support. A scientific theory is one step removed from scientific law: fundamental forces, gravity, magnetism, etc., are examples of ideas that have more support than evolution. They are universally observed, and for all intents and purposes, there is no deviation between observation whenever or wherever that observation takes place. Evolution is a theory because there is a massive amount of evidence gathered for it, to the extent that the scientific community regards it as fact that evolution has occurred; it is not a law, however, because there is still an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms behind the fact of evolution. In science, this room is left because of the revisionist and skeptical nature of science as a practice. We know that we do not know everything about evolution yet, therefore it is not a law. It is 'only a theory'. But not knowing 'everything about a subject' is far from enough to claim that one knows nothing about it. Not knowing everything does not exclude knowing a great deal. Evolution is on the same level of verification and refinement as is Einstein's theory of general relativity. If the proponents of ID want to be skeptical about evolution because it is just a 'theory', they should be raising as much opposition to relativity as well. But the religious community has no quarrel with relativity, because they do not believe support of relativity is equal to a renunciation of God.
Warning: if you are an individual who believes things off of faith, I suggest you click the back button on your browser. I would also suggest you hit your head off the wall a few times to knock some sense into it, but you probably wouldn't listen to me. So if you can think of yourself strongly believing anything you have no evidence or proof of, click back. It isn't that I don't want you to read this, I would love to guide you to the truth. It is just that individuals like yourself tend to start crying or screaming insults whenever your unfounded beliefs are tread upon. And, really, no one feels like dealing with that.
So really...
Click the back arrow...
Last chance...
Okay! If you are still with me it means you likely have a brain somewhere up there. And if you were offended by that, it means you shouldn't still be with us. Now, let's look at faith. Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. It is irrational, unjustified, and debilitating. Now, when you face an individual who believes something on faith, they usually like to think they are being somewhat logical as well. Discussions with such individuals usually go something like this:
Step 1: They make a claim
Step 2: They are asked to justify it
Step 3: They try to do so
Step 4: Their justification is shown to be garbage
Step 5: They freak out, say they're offended, start crying, insult you in any way possible, and say they don't want to talk about it anymore
Now, it is worth noting that anyone who can actually back up their claims does not behave like this. I have had many civil discussions with individuals completely opposed to my beliefs, and none of us took offense to the other. I have been proven wrong, and proved others wrong, and it was accepted openly. Sometimes even gratefully, as we were now one step closer to truth.
But when you meet someone who doesn't believe based on logic, but on faith, they get upset. They know the power of logic, as they use it in their day to day lives. But when faced with denouncing the belief so close to their heart as the irrational nonesense that it really is, or denouncing that pesky thing called logic, most unfortunately choose the latter.
After making this choice to throw away logic, they grow increasingly irate with individuals who can still use it. They try to demonize them. To say they are inhumane, that they lack emotion or compassion, that they live empty lives, that they have and never will have any friends, that logic is dogmatic and not any better than faith, and in some religious circles, that they're going to hell. They have to hate these people and this mindset, because if they admit it has any worth, then their faith is no longer absolute. And they feel the need to be 100% certain about what they believe.
One thing they attempt to say is that being passionate about anything to the extent where you will look down on other stances and points of view is what causes wars to be started. It isn't. Most premediated, unjustified violence is done in the name of faith. Religion is obviously the largest perpetrator of this, but is just an extreme example of what absolute faith can do. By looking at the animal rights movement, built on the faith that animal life is just as (if not more) valuable than human life, you will see similar results.
Members of the terrorist animal rights organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) attack medical research laboratories which tested on animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (or PETA), who happens to help fund the ALF, proclaim that results derived from animal testing can never be applied to humans. Mary Beth Sweetland, vice president of PETA, uses insulin herself*, which was derived by animal testing on dogs. As usual, faith based individuals are fine with telling other people how to live their lives, but don't practice what they preach when their own precious lives and/or comfort is at stake. PETA also tends to kill** many of the animals it takes in, but their followers just ignore this on faith that PETA is "doing the right thing".
Now, this is not an attack on animal rights. It is an attack on going to extremes with animal rights, or with any sort of belief, based on your faith. A hypocritical company like PETA gives animal right activists a bad name. If anyone should hate PETA, it is rational animal rights activists, if they did a bit of research. PETA may have done some good, but by just ignoring it's corruption they are harming their cause.
I am picking on animal rights due to it being a more recent example presented to me. This holds for all faith. I would usually use religion, as it is more widespread, but I chose animal rights because it is an example of good thing perverted due to faith. Unlike animal rights, religion cannot exist without faith, so it was a lesser example.
Faith leads individuals to act irrationally and unfairly. It causes them to angrily respond to those who try to reason with them, and respond with violence when they feel they aren't getting their way. Once they throw away logic, they can truely believe anything. They could believe they must mow their lawns at 3:14 pm every Wednesday to appease the great unicorn up above or the world will be cast into darkness for all of eternity. Or they could believe something really crazy like humans are not capable of caring as much as animals or a man without a father is his own father and sent himself to earth to be killed so he could change his own mind and forgive us for our sins (that he himself created) after killing him. And then they can violently fight when other people don't believe this. Then they huddle in the corner and cry if you tell them why they're wrong.
But we must tell them why they're wrong. We cannot tolerate this irrationality, this faith. This real or moral mysticism. We must stand up and tell them they are wrong. And watch them grow angry, watch them come to hate us. And eventually watch them start to come to the truth. Stand up, and set a path for others to follow. Don't hold back, crash down upon your foes will all the force reason and logic can muster. Show them the truth, even if it makes them uncomfortable, even if it scares them. Open their eyes, show them reality. For the dream they are living in is making the real world a nightmare for those who don't subscribe to it. We all only get to live once. None of us should spend that time in a lie.
Faith must fall.
Sources
*http://www.defeatingdiabetes.com/control.asp or http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=189837
** http://www.petakillsanimals.com/index.cfm
So really...
Click the back arrow...
Last chance...
Okay! If you are still with me it means you likely have a brain somewhere up there. And if you were offended by that, it means you shouldn't still be with us. Now, let's look at faith. Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. It is irrational, unjustified, and debilitating. Now, when you face an individual who believes something on faith, they usually like to think they are being somewhat logical as well. Discussions with such individuals usually go something like this:
Step 1: They make a claim
Step 2: They are asked to justify it
Step 3: They try to do so
Step 4: Their justification is shown to be garbage
Step 5: They freak out, say they're offended, start crying, insult you in any way possible, and say they don't want to talk about it anymore
Now, it is worth noting that anyone who can actually back up their claims does not behave like this. I have had many civil discussions with individuals completely opposed to my beliefs, and none of us took offense to the other. I have been proven wrong, and proved others wrong, and it was accepted openly. Sometimes even gratefully, as we were now one step closer to truth.
But when you meet someone who doesn't believe based on logic, but on faith, they get upset. They know the power of logic, as they use it in their day to day lives. But when faced with denouncing the belief so close to their heart as the irrational nonesense that it really is, or denouncing that pesky thing called logic, most unfortunately choose the latter.
After making this choice to throw away logic, they grow increasingly irate with individuals who can still use it. They try to demonize them. To say they are inhumane, that they lack emotion or compassion, that they live empty lives, that they have and never will have any friends, that logic is dogmatic and not any better than faith, and in some religious circles, that they're going to hell. They have to hate these people and this mindset, because if they admit it has any worth, then their faith is no longer absolute. And they feel the need to be 100% certain about what they believe.
One thing they attempt to say is that being passionate about anything to the extent where you will look down on other stances and points of view is what causes wars to be started. It isn't. Most premediated, unjustified violence is done in the name of faith. Religion is obviously the largest perpetrator of this, but is just an extreme example of what absolute faith can do. By looking at the animal rights movement, built on the faith that animal life is just as (if not more) valuable than human life, you will see similar results.
Members of the terrorist animal rights organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) attack medical research laboratories which tested on animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (or PETA), who happens to help fund the ALF, proclaim that results derived from animal testing can never be applied to humans. Mary Beth Sweetland, vice president of PETA, uses insulin herself*, which was derived by animal testing on dogs. As usual, faith based individuals are fine with telling other people how to live their lives, but don't practice what they preach when their own precious lives and/or comfort is at stake. PETA also tends to kill** many of the animals it takes in, but their followers just ignore this on faith that PETA is "doing the right thing".
Now, this is not an attack on animal rights. It is an attack on going to extremes with animal rights, or with any sort of belief, based on your faith. A hypocritical company like PETA gives animal right activists a bad name. If anyone should hate PETA, it is rational animal rights activists, if they did a bit of research. PETA may have done some good, but by just ignoring it's corruption they are harming their cause.
I am picking on animal rights due to it being a more recent example presented to me. This holds for all faith. I would usually use religion, as it is more widespread, but I chose animal rights because it is an example of good thing perverted due to faith. Unlike animal rights, religion cannot exist without faith, so it was a lesser example.
Faith leads individuals to act irrationally and unfairly. It causes them to angrily respond to those who try to reason with them, and respond with violence when they feel they aren't getting their way. Once they throw away logic, they can truely believe anything. They could believe they must mow their lawns at 3:14 pm every Wednesday to appease the great unicorn up above or the world will be cast into darkness for all of eternity. Or they could believe something really crazy like humans are not capable of caring as much as animals or a man without a father is his own father and sent himself to earth to be killed so he could change his own mind and forgive us for our sins (that he himself created) after killing him. And then they can violently fight when other people don't believe this. Then they huddle in the corner and cry if you tell them why they're wrong.
But we must tell them why they're wrong. We cannot tolerate this irrationality, this faith. This real or moral mysticism. We must stand up and tell them they are wrong. And watch them grow angry, watch them come to hate us. And eventually watch them start to come to the truth. Stand up, and set a path for others to follow. Don't hold back, crash down upon your foes will all the force reason and logic can muster. Show them the truth, even if it makes them uncomfortable, even if it scares them. Open their eyes, show them reality. For the dream they are living in is making the real world a nightmare for those who don't subscribe to it. We all only get to live once. None of us should spend that time in a lie.
Faith must fall.
Sources
*http://www.defeatingdiabetes.com/control.asp or http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=189837
** http://www.petakillsanimals.com/index.cfm
I think some Christians saw Fight Club.
They apparently left the movie thinking that the one thing that could have made Tyler Durden cooler is a personal relationship with Jesus. So far I agree — a little more prayer and that movie would have been perfect. I started implementing Project Mayhem thousands of years before the Brad Pitt blockbuster hit theaters, and I was disappointed that it failed to credit Me. I should have trademarked mayhem. 
The GodMen, as they call themselves, could have taken that message of anarchy and manliness and gone on to start a new Crusade or the next Inquisition. They could have just started punching each other’s lights out. Instead they chose this macho Christian mission:
celebrating jesus, GodMen, manliness, project mayhem, Worshippers, worship placeHave researchers found a new state of matter?
It is as if the electrons are entangled.
Technorati Tags: matter, quantum mechanics
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription