Monthly Archive for August, 2007

Are You Lonely?

This is an advertisement in my local paper today.  I am tempted just to post this and nothing else, but I will comment.

I know it’s just an ad, and six months ago I would never have even looked at it.  But I read it, and the first thing that popped into my mind was loneliness is not a disease.  After a little deeper thought, I started to wonder, who is this church’s target and why?  This is one of the largest churches in town, yet they have to proscelytize this way? 

” …showing up in teenagers, singles, widows, just about anyone whose lives it can slowly destroy”

This just seems to target, for a lack of better words, the weak.  A person who may be more susceptable to believing in a mythical being.  If a person is indoctrinated early like my wife, it becomes very difficult for them not to believe, so the churches already have them.   Who else to target?  I know!  A widow or a single person feeling alone!  Yeah, write an ad, get on it! 

I guess I have just turned into a cynic.

And I know HeIsSailing posted another of this same churches ads on one of his articles on de-conversion that basically used an attractive woman to get new members but in my brief search over there I couldn’t find it.  If anyone knows the post please link it back.


Perpetual Fear and the Promise of Salvation

This is a powerful documentary by the BBC. I encourage you to watch both parts. In summary, it's an in-depth summary of the religious & political motivations that lead to Sept 11th & the current occupation of Iraq. The parallels between Radical Islam and Neo-Conservatives in the U.S., how each side uses religion as justification for their atrocities, and uses the religious beliefs of the masses to control them politically, are made obvious.

The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside

The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory


Religious people are being used, many by virtue of their unwillingness to look outside their field of view for answers. The Bible/Koran has the answers for them, and by extension, those who teach the Bible/Koran have answers for them. A powerful few who think they know what's best for the masses use the religious as their warriors & voters. While the politicians promise us earthly salvation, the religious promise us eternal salvation. By using the religious beliefs of the masses to further their political means, and then blaming those that don't think like them for the downfall of society, those in power are attempting to turn their ideology into laws for the masses.

It's hard to avoid mixing thoughts on religion & politics, especially when they're so obviously mixed these days. And it's hard to see the good people do in the name of their religious beliefs when we're blinded with the truth of who really benefits from the group-think of the christian masses.

Perpetual Fear and the Promise of Salvation

This is a powerful documentary by the BBC. I encourage you to watch both parts. In summary, it's an in-depth summary of the religious & political motivations that lead to Sept 11th & the current occupation of Iraq. The parallels between Radical Islam and Neo-Conservatives in the U.S., how each side uses religion as justification for their atrocities, and uses the religious beliefs of the masses to control them politically, are made obvious.

The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it's Cold Outside

The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory


Religious people are being used, many by virtue of their unwillingness to look outside their field of view for answers. The Bible/Koran has the answers for them, and by extension, those who teach the Bible/Koran have answers for them. A powerful few who think they know what's best for the masses use the religious as their warriors & voters. While the politicians promise us earthly salvation, the religious promise us eternal salvation. By using the religious beliefs of the masses to further their political means, and then blaming those that don't think like them for the downfall of society, those in power are attempting to turn their ideology into laws for the masses.

It's hard to avoid mixing thoughts on religion & politics, especially when they're so obviously mixed these days. And it's hard to see the good people do in the name of their religious beliefs when we're blinded with the truth of who really benefits from the group-think of the christian masses.

Objective Morality

So I noticed this post about Dr Craig's argument for god by Goosing the Antithesis today and it got me thinking so i wanted to jot down some things that popped in my head..
first here is the statement he lays out..
  1. If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
  2. There are objective moral values and duties.
  3. Therefore God exists.

My first thought was the term god could easily be replaced with societies.
  1. If Societies do not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
  2. There are objective moral values and duties.
  3. Therefore Societies exist.
but then I got to thinking some more.. and with this new statement I think it is much easier to see how/where our moral values come from.

I think we could take it a step further and say:

  1. If diversity within society does not exist then there are no objective moral values and duties
  2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
  3. Therefore diversity within society exists.

It is my opinion that morality is based on society, in addition Objectivity increases as Diversity increases. I'm glad I watched that video it seemed to open my mind as to where our morals come from.

If we look through history we know that when societies began moral values were very different than they are today. But as cultures began to intermingle, and society became more diversified, our "Objectivity" to moral values has also increased due to the increase in diversity.

What a fun little exercise :)

Objective Morality

So I noticed this post about Dr Craig's argument for god by Goosing the Antithesis today and it got me thinking so i wanted to jot down some things that popped in my head..
first here is the statement he lays out..
  1. If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
  2. There are objective moral values and duties.
  3. Therefore God exists.

My first thought was the term god could easily be replaced with societies.
  1. If Societies do not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
  2. There are objective moral values and duties.
  3. Therefore Societies exist.
but then I got to thinking some more.. and with this new statement I think it is much easier to see how/where our moral values come from.

I think we could take it a step further and say:

  1. If diversity within society does not exist then there are no objective moral values and duties
  2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
  3. Therefore diversity within society exists.

It is my opinion that morality is based on society, in addition Objectivity increases as Diversity increases. I'm glad I watched that video it seemed to open my mind as to where our morals come from.

If we look through history we know that when societies began moral values were very different than they are today. But as cultures began to intermingle, and society became more diversified, our "Objectivity" to moral values has also increased due to the increase in diversity.

What a fun little exercise :)

Shermer Speaks Up

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine, and author of several books on reason and rationality. He has written a letter that appeared in the September 2007 issue of Scientific American. It addresses what many are calling the "new Atheists" who have been writing some books on atheism that many have described as quite aggressive and confrontational. Examples ranging from accusing religious moderates of aiding in the causes of terrorism and extremism, to calling religious parents child abusers, to an outright rejection of religious tolerance where theists are concerned, and more.

Shermer's position is a brief but concise summary of many of the arguments against this approach, which support my stance and the fourth of five basic concepts on which the notion of the Humanist Contemplative is based.


If you would like to read the article, you can order back issues from Scientific American, or read it on their website by clicking the link below. To subscribe to Scientific American you can click here:


It is best if you can read the article from the original source. However, if the link above has expired or been lost, I have archived on my philosophy site, LINK HERE.

Many thanks to
Mary Beaty, who first alerted me to this letter.

Shermer Speaks Up

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine, and author of several books on reason and rationality. He has written a letter that appeared in the September 2007 issue of Scientific American. It addresses what many are calling the "new Atheists" who have been writing some books on atheism that many have described as quite aggressive and confrontational. Examples ranging from accusing religious moderates of aiding in the causes of terrorism and extremism, to calling religious parents child abusers, to an outright rejection of religious tolerance where theists are concerned, and more.

Shermer's position is a brief but concise summary of many of the arguments against this approach, which support my stance and the fourth of five basic concepts on which the notion of the Humanist Contemplative is based.


If you would like to read the article, you can order back issues from Scientific American, or read it on their website by clicking the link below. To subscribe to Scientific American you can click here:


It is best if you can read the article from the original source. However, if the link above has expired or been lost, I have archived on my philosophy site, LINK HERE.

Many thanks to
Mary Beaty, who first alerted me to this letter.

Health Care & Religion

Earlier this week I had an interesting discussion with Dr. Cayla Teal from the Baylor College of Medicine. She is studying issues of how health care quality is effected by racial and ethnic issues. In the process, she discovered that issues of religion also played a role. Now she is putting together some survey questions designed to measure people's preferences and attitudes about their health care service as it pertains to all of these issues.

She had contacted me, as president of the local Humanist organization here in Houston, in order to get perspectives and input from Humanist and nontheist points of view. This was specifically in regards to the sections of the survey dealing with religion.

I wasn't being asked the questions themselves (I'm not part of the survey). Rather, I was being asked for input on how the questions could be formulated so as to be of most relevance to the widest religious variety of people, and how they might better gather the specific information being sought without misunderstanding.

We talked about how different groups use terms like 'religious', 'spiritual', 'God' and so on. We also talked about instances where one could answer a question in a way that was technically correct, but gives an opposite impression from the reality of the subject's position - because of unfounded assumptions inherent in the wording of the question. This often took the form of bias in the questions that assumed the subject was some form of theist; a common bias that atheists probably notice more than theists.

Another interesting issue was how differences in people's conception of 'faith healing' could result in meaningless answers to the questions. For example, some people might say that faith helps one get better because they think something supernatural is going on, while others may say the same thing, but because they believe it is a placebo or other biological process effected by a hopeful and positive psychological attitude. These differences can make a huge difference in what a person actually believes, even though they might answer questions in the same manner, if they are not carefully worded.

Similar issues arose because different subjects have different ideas about how God works, how the 'idea' of God works, and what role (if any) such a deity plays in our lives. Do we pray for the strength to accept whatever is God's will for our heath, or do we pray for God to actively change our health? These sorts of questions went beyond what would be relevant to a naturalist such as myself, but they are important things to consider when phrasing questions about faith and health.

I can't tell you what the questions are, as I promised Dr. Teal I would not. But they were generally about discovering what patient's desires were for their health care provider, given their religious views (or lack thereof). However, Dr. Teal has told me she will inform me once the study has been completed and published, which I look forward to seeing - and will post some information on here.

Health Care & Religion

Earlier this week I had an interesting discussion with Dr. Cayla Teal from the Baylor College of Medicine. She is studying issues of how health care quality is effected by racial and ethnic issues. In the process, she discovered that issues of religion also played a role. Now she is putting together some survey questions designed to measure people's preferences and attitudes about their health care service as it pertains to all of these issues.

She had contacted me, as president of the local Humanist organization here in Houston, in order to get perspectives and input from Humanist and nontheist points of view. This was specifically in regards to the sections of the survey dealing with religion.

I wasn't being asked the questions themselves (I'm not part of the survey). Rather, I was being asked for input on how the questions could be formulated so as to be of most relevance to the widest religious variety of people, and how they might better gather the specific information being sought without misunderstanding.

We talked about how different groups use terms like 'religious', 'spiritual', 'God' and so on. We also talked about instances where one could answer a question in a way that was technically correct, but gives an opposite impression from the reality of the subject's position - because of unfounded assumptions inherent in the wording of the question. This often took the form of bias in the questions that assumed the subject was some form of theist; a common bias that atheists probably notice more than theists.

Another interesting issue was how differences in people's conception of 'faith healing' could result in meaningless answers to the questions. For example, some people might say that faith helps one get better because they think something supernatural is going on, while others may say the same thing, but because they believe it is a placebo or other biological process effected by a hopeful and positive psychological attitude. These differences can make a huge difference in what a person actually believes, even though they might answer questions in the same manner, if they are not carefully worded.

Similar issues arose because different subjects have different ideas about how God works, how the 'idea' of God works, and what role (if any) such a deity plays in our lives. Do we pray for the strength to accept whatever is God's will for our heath, or do we pray for God to actively change our health? These sorts of questions went beyond what would be relevant to a naturalist such as myself, but they are important things to consider when phrasing questions about faith and health.

I can't tell you what the questions are, as I promised Dr. Teal I would not. But they were generally about discovering what patient's desires were for their health care provider, given their religious views (or lack thereof). However, Dr. Teal has told me she will inform me once the study has been completed and published, which I look forward to seeing - and will post some information on here.

In the face of disaster

Most atheists know, and loathe, the term "there are no atheists in foxholes." The theistic analysis is that when one is truly in the face of danger, the hate/mistrust/disdain that one has for religion such that they call themselves atheists loses its prevalence and the person becomes desparate enough to start praying/believing again. The atheistic analysis of the people making this theistic analysis is twofold: 1) they obviously don't understand true atheism, and 2) they have just accidentally explained that their own beliefs are due to a general feeling of desparation and lonliness. Fortunately many theists understand us better than that, but as with any demographic, there are those that are blinded by their own truthiness.

Recently, known atheist Richard Stallman was in Peru during a tragic earthquake. Stallman, known in some circles as simply rms, is a software developer and activist in the Free Software movement (pretty much the same as Open Source software, such that they are commonly combined in the acronym FOSS -- Free and Open Source Software). In fact, rms is considered the father of the movement, and remains one of its most influential characters. Simply put, he's a pretty big name among computer geeks like me. When it was discovered he survived the earthquake, he was asked to write about his experience.

The last paragraph is what caught my eye (enough that I paused my ongoing insane work schedule to write this!).
I read that a church collapsed on worshipers during mass; later I heard that the
priest had been rescued. Believers surely attributed the rescue to the good will
of a benevolent deity. They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill
will of an evil deity, but it would be equally logical. In the 18th century, an
earthquake destroyed a cathedral in Lisbon, killing thousands of believers. Many
in Europe began to doubt religion as a result.

What a well-aimed shot at religion! These tragedies are typically accompanied by even doses of "Thank God we survived!" and "How mysterious are the ways of God!" that it's good to see a rational point.

But even more importatly, it was from a survivor of the event itself. One that did not suffer the foxhole-conversion predicted by so many theists.

Thank reason for that!

If you hate God, you will be destroyed

Deuteronomy 7:10 But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

PERSONAL COMMENTARY

Aren’t we suppose to love those who hate us?


Crazy busy…

I've been quite busy for the past few months with some other priorities... And i must say it is quite difficult to just keep up with all post. (Planet Atheism jumping from 39 to 103 blogs! wow) However, things have somewhat slowed down. After I play catchup for the next few days attempting to read some posts, I'll be posting some new stuff. Also, you might have to bear with me but I'm planning on migrating another blog to this one. It's just too much trying to maintain 2 blogs :)

Crazy busy…

I've been quite busy for the past few months with some other priorities... And i must say it is quite difficult to just keep up with all post. (Planet Atheism jumping from 39 to 103 blogs! wow) However, things have somewhat slowed down. After I play catchup for the next few days attempting to read some posts, I'll be posting some new stuff. Also, you might have to bear with me but I'm planning on migrating another blog to this one. It's just too much trying to maintain 2 blogs :)

Religion is Propaganda

I was reading this article on "How Propaganda Works," which I somewhat assume is directed at how governments use propaganda to manipulate the masses, but this seems to apply just as much to organized religions.

The article states the key to good propaganda is to appeal to 3 key human characteristics; emotionalism, tribalism, and narcissism.

Religion appeals to people's emotional needs through the imaginary solution of prayer; just talk to god and he'll tell you what to do. People don't have enough faith in themselves so they turn to a leader to make decisions for them. That leader may be their imaginary god, their holy book, or their local shaman/priest/rabbi/sheik. This often eliminates one's need to think for one's self.

People are best unified by their dislike for a common enemy, whether that enemy is real or imagined doesn't so much matter. The enemy of religion is not really the devil, or evil in itself. The enemy of religion is people of a different religion whom the leaders classify as the devil or evil-incarnate. A tribe might fight amongst itself, but it finds a cohesive force in it's want to fight outsiders.

And the last appeal of religion to a person's narcissistic side is to tell them that god loves them, god thinks they are special, god has a plan for them. Heaven is waiting for you, because you are part of this group. And while you are part of the group, you are an individual & special in the eyes of god!

Heaven provides an emotional coution for the devastation that is death that we must all eventually face. Muslim tribes may be fighting eachother in the middle east, but they'll often get together to fight the Jews or Christians. Christianity fights evolution not just because of the fairy tales in the bible, but on the grounds that they believe humans are better than and different from all of the the other animals on this planet.

I would never venture to deny any person their individual spirituality, but organized religion is pure propaganda and I only wish more people could see it as such.

Religion is Propaganda

I was reading this article on "How Propaganda Works," which I somewhat assume is directed at how governments use propaganda to manipulate the masses, but this seems to apply just as much to organized religions.

The article states the key to good propaganda is to appeal to 3 key human characteristics; emotionalism, tribalism, and narcissism.

Religion appeals to people's emotional needs through the imaginary solution of prayer; just talk to god and he'll tell you what to do. People don't have enough faith in themselves so they turn to a leader to make decisions for them. That leader may be their imaginary god, their holy book, or their local shaman/priest/rabbi/sheik. This often eliminates one's need to think for one's self.

People are best unified by their dislike for a common enemy, whether that enemy is real or imagined doesn't so much matter. The enemy of religion is not really the devil, or evil in itself. The enemy of religion is people of a different religion whom the leaders classify as the devil or evil-incarnate. A tribe might fight amongst itself, but it finds a cohesive force in it's want to fight outsiders.

And the last appeal of religion to a person's narcissistic side is to tell them that god loves them, god thinks they are special, god has a plan for them. Heaven is waiting for you, because you are part of this group. And while you are part of the group, you are an individual & special in the eyes of god!

Heaven provides an emotional coution for the devastation that is death that we must all eventually face. Muslim tribes may be fighting eachother in the middle east, but they'll often get together to fight the Jews or Christians. Christianity fights evolution not just because of the fairy tales in the bible, but on the grounds that they believe humans are better than and different from all of the the other animals on this planet.

I would never venture to deny any person their individual spirituality, but organized religion is pure propaganda and I only wish more people could see it as such.

Cassiopeia

We have a new kitten. I was out walking one morning under a covered area during heavy rains. I saw, in the middle of the wet pavement, what appeared to be a small wet rat and started to walk around it. As it turned out, it was a baby kitten, soaking wet and abandoned. It was so young it couldn't even raise its head. Her paws were pink and not even covered with fur yet. She was barely moving so leaving her would probably mean her death, either by starvation, the elements, or animals. I took her home and warmed her up and dried her. We took her to the vet when they opened and they checked her out. She was healthy, and the vet set us up with a lady named Betty, who specialized in raising baby kittens up to an age where she could eat solid food and we could leave her at home when we're gone. So, that's what she's doing now for us.

We've decided to name her Cassiopeia (or 'Cassie' for short). In Greek mythology, the original Cassiopeia was the beautiful wife of King Cepheus, who boasted that she was more beautiful than all the Nereids, the nymph-daughters of Nereus the sea god. Poseidon then brought his wrath upon her kingdom. It seemed a fitting name given the puddle in which she was found.