Vampire Weekend- Horchata (It’s the name of the song, and a tasty drink as well.)
What do you think? Any musical suggestions (openly atheist, loud, classical, whatever) from my readers in the comments section is greatly appreciated.
Monthly Archive for October, 2009Page 2 of 6
I am an atheist. I am also a blogger. By themselves, none of these describe me as a whole; they identify me as what I am in one area of my life. Another term I use to describe myself is music listener (hey, you probably do as well.)
Vampire Weekend- Horchata (It’s the name of the song, and a tasty drink as well.)
Vampire Weekend- Horchata (It’s the name of the song, and a tasty drink as well.)
I am an atheist. I am also a blogger. By themselves, none of these describe me as a whole; they identify me as what I am in one area of my life. Another term I use to describe myself is music listener (hey, you probably do as well.)
Vampire Weekend- Horchata (It’s the name of the song, and a tasty drink as well.)
Vampire Weekend- Horchata (It’s the name of the song, and a tasty drink as well.)
What do you think? Any musical suggestions (openly atheist, loud, classical, whatever) from my readers in the comments section is greatly appreciated.
It seems to have become a trend for me to start out my blogposts with something along the lines of, "It's been a long time..." So, I'm going to try to refrain from saying that anymore and just hope everyone realizes that I just get to this blog when I can.
I recently had a conversation with a conservative Christian about Referendum 71 on facebook. For those of you who do not live in Washington, Referendum 71 extends the rights of people who are in domestic partnerships. People in domestic partnerships are not necessarily gay, but the conservatives have decided that this is a gay marriage issue are strongly opposed to it. I don't know why the ignorance and hatred that emanates from peoples' comments surprises me, but it still does. My facebook friend (FBF) has made it clear that he is not interested in having a rational conversation because he refuses to speak about the points I've made. Instead, he makes false accusations and ignorant remarks repeating the same statements over and over even after I've pointed out how wrong these statements are.
I have decided to post our facebook conversation here in hopes that people who are not as close minded as FBF can possibly see how irrational religious arguments are against gay rights. Warning: I did not correct spelling errors....everything is copied exactly as it was written. I only replaced names to protect privacy.
Here's the post I put on my wall:
I encourage all my Washington friends to Approve Ref 71.....there is absolutely no rational reason not to. If you think you have one, try me. Watch this video and explain to me why it is right for a person to bring their stepson to the hospital an...d be denied treatment until the biological mom can get there. It is wrong and I think everyone knows it. Nobody has the right to deny other people their rights.
FBF: I don't know the details of Referendum 71 but I do not vote for anything gay. Sorry just my personal beliefs.
Me: So, you're admitting you are prejudiced against gay people? How about replacing gay with black and see how that sounds. It is absolutely irrational to deny people rights because you don't like the way they are. And sorry, you don't get off the hook by saying that's just what I believe. People used to believe slavery was right, but that doesn't make it right. You do not have the right to infringe on other peoples' rights. If you don't like the lifestyle, don't live it.
FBF: You can get angry and call me a racist if you want and if believing that homosexuality is morally wrong and a psychological disorder is wrong than God will judge me. That is my opinion and I am not racist. As a matter of fact when YOU think of racism why do you automatically think "black". Take the plank out of your own eye before you try to remove a spec from mine. We are all entitled to our opinions and MY right to disapprove of homosexuallity is just that, myt right. God bless you *Humanist Mama* for your kind heart.
Me: I did not call you a racist...I was trying to point out your prejudice against gay people by showing you how terrible it would sound if you said, "I do not vote for anything black." All I did was replace one word. I am not claiming that you would say that. And by the way, I chose black because black people are a minority like gay people. I could easily have said Jew, Asian, Muslim, etc to make the same point. So, not that does not make me racist to point out your prejudice.
By the way, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder....there is plenty of evidence that it is natural. You saying it does not make it so, and if you choose to believe irrational things without evidence that is your issue. But, I also have the right to point out to you that you are being prejudiced and archaic with your beliefs.
FBF: Sorry *Humanist Mama*, I beg to differ about homosexuality not being a psychological disorder. Fact of the matter is that there is no concrete proof either way in this matter. I am a psychology student and have actually done research into the matter so when I say my opinion is that homosexuality is a psychological disorder there is no prejudice there. That is my personal opinion and as far as that goes being of a certain race or creed cannot be helped. "I" believe that homosexuality can. I do not believe that one is born as a homosexual. I believe that it is learned behavior.This is not prejudice this is just refusing to buy into what someone says just because they say it is so. They call that critical thinking. I do not treat anyone cruelly. I do not "bash" homosexuals just for being what they are. I actually have compasion for them because I believe that they are lost. I believe in Jesus Christ and I also believe that every word in the Bible is true and fact. Because of that belief I have to take my stand that homosexuality is nothing more than an immoral person. God demolished the city of sodom (sodomy) for being evil and imoral people. As you know I personally am NO angel but I have seen the error in my ways, have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, have asked for forgivness, and now live my life as best I can to follow God's will for me. I do apreciate your tender heart in this matter and I actually do have empathy for those people; however, I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people. It is the same thing as saying there is nothing wrong with a child molestor.
After all this we may have to agree to disagree. My intentions were not to make you angry, I was just sharing my opinion and perspective.
Me: *FBF*, I guess you differ with the consensus of professionals in the world who know that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Link to American Psychological Association
And critical thinking involves looking at all evidence and not being biased when doing research. I am quite surprised that a professor would take your research seriously because all of my professors had strict requirements for my sources when I was studying for my Bachelor's degree in Psychology 10 years ago and my recent degree in Nursing. Sources had to be current (no sources greater than 5 years), they had to be from peer reviewed articles, and they had to be unbiased. When one cherry picks invalid and outdated studies one can come up with the same conclusion you have to justify your "personal opinion". You may not have done this intentionally. Some people want to believe something so bad that they refuse to look at the evidence that contradicts their beliefs or they twist it to mean something it does not.
You may not think you are cruel to homosexuals but many of the comments you have made on this thread today have been extremely cruel and hateful. And I think it is justifiable and proper for me to be anger about your outright prejudice and denial of it. In the real world hate does not equal love and by saying that you do not think homosexuals should have rights you are being very hateful. So, no matter how much you want to believe you are showing them the "love" of Jesus Christ you are actually showing them quite the opposite. There are many Christians who realize that homosexuality is not a choice.
You summed up your paragraph by saying that homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation. I will tell you the difference *FBF*.....homosexuality is not harmful to anyone while child molestation is. Nobody has the right to infringe on another person's rights. It's as simple as that.
I also take great issue with one of your last statements, "I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people." I'm assuming that by "sick" you're referring to this imaginary psychological disorder since that was the purpose of your more recent paragraph. If so, I have to assume you believe all people with psychological disorders should not be given rights. Our world has been there and done that too and we've come out of the dark ages to realize the error of our ways. Do you also believe that all people with psychological disorders have chosen to have these disorders?
I think as you continue your education you will find that this is not the case and I can guarantee you that you will never be taught in a reputable psychology class that homosexuality is a "disorder".
As far as you saying immoral people should not be given rights....what makes homosexuals immoral in your eyes.....your religion? The word immoral is generally reserved for people who actually hurt other people. They have done nothing to hurt other people yet you call them immoral simply for being who they are? In many countries you are "immoral" because you are a Christian.....should you have rights? A few years ago it was "immoral" for people of different races to marry each other, and god forbid if they had children! And, the Bible was often used to justify this prejudice too. Hmmmmmm....kind of makes you wonder.... are people who eat shrimp immoral too?
FBF: I never said anything about hating homosexuals. Congratulations on your Bachelors degree, however that does not make you right. Reputable psychology classes. Yap, yap, yap. All you have done is state opinion and none of it is truth or fact. All I'm saying is that I believe that homosexuality is wrong. As an American I have that right. I don't hate anyone. So as for saying that I am not showing the love of Jesus is plain ignorant on your part. If you want to think that I am prejudice let me help you and I will tell you you are damn right I am. Homosexuals are sick people and I don't think they should have the right to polute society with their illness. At the same time I absolutely am against mistreating anyone. I think they need help. Someone much wiser than myself called homosexuals an abomination...oh yeah that was GOD. I am agreeing with Him so if you still want to say I am wrong go ahead that is your right and I definately don't want to take that away. But through your anger you are showing your bias in this situation. Once again before you start attacking me consider yourself. Your degrees do not automatically make you right.I know some homosexual people and I do not treat them any different than anyone else. Bottom line is that you do not know me and accusing me of hate is unfounded. I have more compasion than you could ever know. Let me say again that there is no evidence either way that homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder and I side on the is side. That is my opinion and only that. My vote will be against Ref 71 as a simple power of attorney will allow DP the same rights they are whining about not having.
FBF 3rd grade teacher: Well said *FBF*!
Me: It's clear that you don't want to respond to any of the actual points I made so I guess our conversation is at an end. I'll close with a quote from the American Psychological Association:
"Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."
If you do not care to respond with actual information as I have, then don't bother. Maybe someone without a closed mind will learn from this exchange.
It is so sad that some religious people can't see past the noses on their face or have reasonable conversations. On a related note, as my kids and I were driving to my mom's house last night, we saw some people standing on the corner with signs reading "Reject 71." Alongside their parents were two small girls holding signs. So sad. Of course I support the free speech rights of the adults who wish Referendum 71 to be rejected. I am disgusted that they would use their children in this way.
It brought up a conversation in the car because my kids wanted me to "Honk for support". I explained that the people were wanting us to support something that was wrong and I will not honk. I explained what Referendum 71 is and that it is wrong to take away people's rights simply because they are different than us. It's just like people telling black people they couldn't drink from the same drinking fountain. It is wrong and I will always stand up and point out people's prejudices until they are few and far between. My son and daughter both responded with the same question: "Well how would those people feel if somebody told them they couldn't love the person they love? I bet they'd be really sad and then they would understand."
I recently had a conversation with a conservative Christian about Referendum 71 on facebook. For those of you who do not live in Washington, Referendum 71 extends the rights of people who are in domestic partnerships. People in domestic partnerships are not necessarily gay, but the conservatives have decided that this is a gay marriage issue are strongly opposed to it. I don't know why the ignorance and hatred that emanates from peoples' comments surprises me, but it still does. My facebook friend (FBF) has made it clear that he is not interested in having a rational conversation because he refuses to speak about the points I've made. Instead, he makes false accusations and ignorant remarks repeating the same statements over and over even after I've pointed out how wrong these statements are.
I have decided to post our facebook conversation here in hopes that people who are not as close minded as FBF can possibly see how irrational religious arguments are against gay rights. Warning: I did not correct spelling errors....everything is copied exactly as it was written. I only replaced names to protect privacy.
Here's the post I put on my wall:
I encourage all my Washington friends to Approve Ref 71.....there is absolutely no rational reason not to. If you think you have one, try me. Watch this video and explain to me why it is right for a person to bring their stepson to the hospital an...d be denied treatment until the biological mom can get there. It is wrong and I think everyone knows it. Nobody has the right to deny other people their rights.
FBF: I don't know the details of Referendum 71 but I do not vote for anything gay. Sorry just my personal beliefs.
Me: So, you're admitting you are prejudiced against gay people? How about replacing gay with black and see how that sounds. It is absolutely irrational to deny people rights because you don't like the way they are. And sorry, you don't get off the hook by saying that's just what I believe. People used to believe slavery was right, but that doesn't make it right. You do not have the right to infringe on other peoples' rights. If you don't like the lifestyle, don't live it.
FBF: You can get angry and call me a racist if you want and if believing that homosexuality is morally wrong and a psychological disorder is wrong than God will judge me. That is my opinion and I am not racist. As a matter of fact when YOU think of racism why do you automatically think "black". Take the plank out of your own eye before you try to remove a spec from mine. We are all entitled to our opinions and MY right to disapprove of homosexuallity is just that, myt right. God bless you *Humanist Mama* for your kind heart.
Me: I did not call you a racist...I was trying to point out your prejudice against gay people by showing you how terrible it would sound if you said, "I do not vote for anything black." All I did was replace one word. I am not claiming that you would say that. And by the way, I chose black because black people are a minority like gay people. I could easily have said Jew, Asian, Muslim, etc to make the same point. So, not that does not make me racist to point out your prejudice.
By the way, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder....there is plenty of evidence that it is natural. You saying it does not make it so, and if you choose to believe irrational things without evidence that is your issue. But, I also have the right to point out to you that you are being prejudiced and archaic with your beliefs.
FBF: Sorry *Humanist Mama*, I beg to differ about homosexuality not being a psychological disorder. Fact of the matter is that there is no concrete proof either way in this matter. I am a psychology student and have actually done research into the matter so when I say my opinion is that homosexuality is a psychological disorder there is no prejudice there. That is my personal opinion and as far as that goes being of a certain race or creed cannot be helped. "I" believe that homosexuality can. I do not believe that one is born as a homosexual. I believe that it is learned behavior.This is not prejudice this is just refusing to buy into what someone says just because they say it is so. They call that critical thinking. I do not treat anyone cruelly. I do not "bash" homosexuals just for being what they are. I actually have compasion for them because I believe that they are lost. I believe in Jesus Christ and I also believe that every word in the Bible is true and fact. Because of that belief I have to take my stand that homosexuality is nothing more than an immoral person. God demolished the city of sodom (sodomy) for being evil and imoral people. As you know I personally am NO angel but I have seen the error in my ways, have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, have asked for forgivness, and now live my life as best I can to follow God's will for me. I do apreciate your tender heart in this matter and I actually do have empathy for those people; however, I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people. It is the same thing as saying there is nothing wrong with a child molestor.
After all this we may have to agree to disagree. My intentions were not to make you angry, I was just sharing my opinion and perspective.
Me: *FBF*, I guess you differ with the consensus of professionals in the world who know that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Link to American Psychological Association
And critical thinking involves looking at all evidence and not being biased when doing research. I am quite surprised that a professor would take your research seriously because all of my professors had strict requirements for my sources when I was studying for my Bachelor's degree in Psychology 10 years ago and my recent degree in Nursing. Sources had to be current (no sources greater than 5 years), they had to be from peer reviewed articles, and they had to be unbiased. When one cherry picks invalid and outdated studies one can come up with the same conclusion you have to justify your "personal opinion". You may not have done this intentionally. Some people want to believe something so bad that they refuse to look at the evidence that contradicts their beliefs or they twist it to mean something it does not.
You may not think you are cruel to homosexuals but many of the comments you have made on this thread today have been extremely cruel and hateful. And I think it is justifiable and proper for me to be anger about your outright prejudice and denial of it. In the real world hate does not equal love and by saying that you do not think homosexuals should have rights you are being very hateful. So, no matter how much you want to believe you are showing them the "love" of Jesus Christ you are actually showing them quite the opposite. There are many Christians who realize that homosexuality is not a choice.
You summed up your paragraph by saying that homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation. I will tell you the difference *FBF*.....homosexuality is not harmful to anyone while child molestation is. Nobody has the right to infringe on another person's rights. It's as simple as that.
I also take great issue with one of your last statements, "I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people." I'm assuming that by "sick" you're referring to this imaginary psychological disorder since that was the purpose of your more recent paragraph. If so, I have to assume you believe all people with psychological disorders should not be given rights. Our world has been there and done that too and we've come out of the dark ages to realize the error of our ways. Do you also believe that all people with psychological disorders have chosen to have these disorders?
I think as you continue your education you will find that this is not the case and I can guarantee you that you will never be taught in a reputable psychology class that homosexuality is a "disorder".
As far as you saying immoral people should not be given rights....what makes homosexuals immoral in your eyes.....your religion? The word immoral is generally reserved for people who actually hurt other people. They have done nothing to hurt other people yet you call them immoral simply for being who they are? In many countries you are "immoral" because you are a Christian.....should you have rights? A few years ago it was "immoral" for people of different races to marry each other, and god forbid if they had children! And, the Bible was often used to justify this prejudice too. Hmmmmmm....kind of makes you wonder.... are people who eat shrimp immoral too?
FBF: I never said anything about hating homosexuals. Congratulations on your Bachelors degree, however that does not make you right. Reputable psychology classes. Yap, yap, yap. All you have done is state opinion and none of it is truth or fact. All I'm saying is that I believe that homosexuality is wrong. As an American I have that right. I don't hate anyone. So as for saying that I am not showing the love of Jesus is plain ignorant on your part. If you want to think that I am prejudice let me help you and I will tell you you are damn right I am. Homosexuals are sick people and I don't think they should have the right to polute society with their illness. At the same time I absolutely am against mistreating anyone. I think they need help. Someone much wiser than myself called homosexuals an abomination...oh yeah that was GOD. I am agreeing with Him so if you still want to say I am wrong go ahead that is your right and I definately don't want to take that away. But through your anger you are showing your bias in this situation. Once again before you start attacking me consider yourself. Your degrees do not automatically make you right.I know some homosexual people and I do not treat them any different than anyone else. Bottom line is that you do not know me and accusing me of hate is unfounded. I have more compasion than you could ever know. Let me say again that there is no evidence either way that homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder and I side on the is side. That is my opinion and only that. My vote will be against Ref 71 as a simple power of attorney will allow DP the same rights they are whining about not having.
FBF 3rd grade teacher: Well said *FBF*!
Me: It's clear that you don't want to respond to any of the actual points I made so I guess our conversation is at an end. I'll close with a quote from the American Psychological Association:
"Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."
If you do not care to respond with actual information as I have, then don't bother. Maybe someone without a closed mind will learn from this exchange.
It is so sad that some religious people can't see past the noses on their face or have reasonable conversations. On a related note, as my kids and I were driving to my mom's house last night, we saw some people standing on the corner with signs reading "Reject 71." Alongside their parents were two small girls holding signs. So sad. Of course I support the free speech rights of the adults who wish Referendum 71 to be rejected. I am disgusted that they would use their children in this way.
It brought up a conversation in the car because my kids wanted me to "Honk for support". I explained that the people were wanting us to support something that was wrong and I will not honk. I explained what Referendum 71 is and that it is wrong to take away people's rights simply because they are different than us. It's just like people telling black people they couldn't drink from the same drinking fountain. It is wrong and I will always stand up and point out people's prejudices until they are few and far between. My son and daughter both responded with the same question: "Well how would those people feel if somebody told them they couldn't love the person they love? I bet they'd be really sad and then they would understand."
It seems to have become a trend for me to start out my blogposts with something along the lines of, "It's been a long time..." So, I'm going to try to refrain from saying that anymore and just hope everyone realizes that I just get to this blog when I can.
I recently had a conversation with a conservative Christian about Referendum 71 on facebook. For those of you who do not live in Washington, Referendum 71 extends the rights of people who are in domestic partnerships. People in domestic partnerships are not necessarily gay, but the conservatives have decided that this is a gay marriage issue are strongly opposed to it. I don't know why the ignorance and hatred that emanates from peoples' comments surprises me, but it still does. My facebook friend (FBF) has made it clear that he is not interested in having a rational conversation because he refuses to speak about the points I've made. Instead, he makes false accusations and ignorant remarks repeating the same statements over and over even after I've pointed out how wrong these statements are.
I have decided to post our facebook conversation here in hopes that people who are not as close minded as FBF can possibly see how irrational religious arguments are against gay rights. Warning: I did not correct spelling errors....everything is copied exactly as it was written. I only replaced names to protect privacy.
Here's the post I put on my wall:
I encourage all my Washington friends to Approve Ref 71.....there is absolutely no rational reason not to. If you think you have one, try me. Watch this video and explain to me why it is right for a person to bring their stepson to the hospital an...d be denied treatment until the biological mom can get there. It is wrong and I think everyone knows it. Nobody has the right to deny other people their rights.
FBF: I don't know the details of Referendum 71 but I do not vote for anything gay. Sorry just my personal beliefs.
Me: So, you're admitting you are prejudiced against gay people? How about replacing gay with black and see how that sounds. It is absolutely irrational to deny people rights because you don't like the way they are. And sorry, you don't get off the hook by saying that's just what I believe. People used to believe slavery was right, but that doesn't make it right. You do not have the right to infringe on other peoples' rights. If you don't like the lifestyle, don't live it.
FBF: You can get angry and call me a racist if you want and if believing that homosexuality is morally wrong and a psychological disorder is wrong than God will judge me. That is my opinion and I am not racist. As a matter of fact when YOU think of racism why do you automatically think "black". Take the plank out of your own eye before you try to remove a spec from mine. We are all entitled to our opinions and MY right to disapprove of homosexuallity is just that, myt right. God bless you *Humanist Mama* for your kind heart.
Me: I did not call you a racist...I was trying to point out your prejudice against gay people by showing you how terrible it would sound if you said, "I do not vote for anything black." All I did was replace one word. I am not claiming that you would say that. And by the way, I chose black because black people are a minority like gay people. I could easily have said Jew, Asian, Muslim, etc to make the same point. So, not that does not make me racist to point out your prejudice.
By the way, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder....there is plenty of evidence that it is natural. You saying it does not make it so, and if you choose to believe irrational things without evidence that is your issue. But, I also have the right to point out to you that you are being prejudiced and archaic with your beliefs.
FBF: Sorry *Humanist Mama*, I beg to differ about homosexuality not being a psychological disorder. Fact of the matter is that there is no concrete proof either way in this matter. I am a psychology student and have actually done research into the matter so when I say my opinion is that homosexuality is a psychological disorder there is no prejudice there. That is my personal opinion and as far as that goes being of a certain race or creed cannot be helped. "I" believe that homosexuality can. I do not believe that one is born as a homosexual. I believe that it is learned behavior.This is not prejudice this is just refusing to buy into what someone says just because they say it is so. They call that critical thinking. I do not treat anyone cruelly. I do not "bash" homosexuals just for being what they are. I actually have compasion for them because I believe that they are lost. I believe in Jesus Christ and I also believe that every word in the Bible is true and fact. Because of that belief I have to take my stand that homosexuality is nothing more than an immoral person. God demolished the city of sodom (sodomy) for being evil and imoral people. As you know I personally am NO angel but I have seen the error in my ways, have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, have asked for forgivness, and now live my life as best I can to follow God's will for me. I do apreciate your tender heart in this matter and I actually do have empathy for those people; however, I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people. It is the same thing as saying there is nothing wrong with a child molestor.
After all this we may have to agree to disagree. My intentions were not to make you angry, I was just sharing my opinion and perspective.
Me: *FBF*, I guess you differ with the consensus of professionals in the world who know that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Link to American Psychological Association
And critical thinking involves looking at all evidence and not being biased when doing research. I am quite surprised that a professor would take your research seriously because all of my professors had strict requirements for my sources when I was studying for my Bachelor's degree in Psychology 10 years ago and my recent degree in Nursing. Sources had to be current (no sources greater than 5 years), they had to be from peer reviewed articles, and they had to be unbiased. When one cherry picks invalid and outdated studies one can come up with the same conclusion you have to justify your "personal opinion". You may not have done this intentionally. Some people want to believe something so bad that they refuse to look at the evidence that contradicts their beliefs or they twist it to mean something it does not.
You may not think you are cruel to homosexuals but many of the comments you have made on this thread today have been extremely cruel and hateful. And I think it is justifiable and proper for me to be anger about your outright prejudice and denial of it. In the real world hate does not equal love and by saying that you do not think homosexuals should have rights you are being very hateful. So, no matter how much you want to believe you are showing them the "love" of Jesus Christ you are actually showing them quite the opposite. There are many Christians who realize that homosexuality is not a choice.
You summed up your paragraph by saying that homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation. I will tell you the difference *FBF*.....homosexuality is not harmful to anyone while child molestation is. Nobody has the right to infringe on another person's rights. It's as simple as that.
I also take great issue with one of your last statements, "I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people." I'm assuming that by "sick" you're referring to this imaginary psychological disorder since that was the purpose of your more recent paragraph. If so, I have to assume you believe all people with psychological disorders should not be given rights. Our world has been there and done that too and we've come out of the dark ages to realize the error of our ways. Do you also believe that all people with psychological disorders have chosen to have these disorders?
I think as you continue your education you will find that this is not the case and I can guarantee you that you will never be taught in a reputable psychology class that homosexuality is a "disorder".
As far as you saying immoral people should not be given rights....what makes homosexuals immoral in your eyes.....your religion? The word immoral is generally reserved for people who actually hurt other people. They have done nothing to hurt other people yet you call them immoral simply for being who they are? In many countries you are "immoral" because you are a Christian.....should you have rights? A few years ago it was "immoral" for people of different races to marry each other, and god forbid if they had children! And, the Bible was often used to justify this prejudice too. Hmmmmmm....kind of makes you wonder.... are people who eat shrimp immoral too?
FBF: I never said anything about hating homosexuals. Congratulations on your Bachelors degree, however that does not make you right. Reputable psychology classes. Yap, yap, yap. All you have done is state opinion and none of it is truth or fact. All I'm saying is that I believe that homosexuality is wrong. As an American I have that right. I don't hate anyone. So as for saying that I am not showing the love of Jesus is plain ignorant on your part. If you want to think that I am prejudice let me help you and I will tell you you are damn right I am. Homosexuals are sick people and I don't think they should have the right to polute society with their illness. At the same time I absolutely am against mistreating anyone. I think they need help. Someone much wiser than myself called homosexuals an abomination...oh yeah that was GOD. I am agreeing with Him so if you still want to say I am wrong go ahead that is your right and I definately don't want to take that away. But through your anger you are showing your bias in this situation. Once again before you start attacking me consider yourself. Your degrees do not automatically make you right.I know some homosexual people and I do not treat them any different than anyone else. Bottom line is that you do not know me and accusing me of hate is unfounded. I have more compasion than you could ever know. Let me say again that there is no evidence either way that homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder and I side on the is side. That is my opinion and only that. My vote will be against Ref 71 as a simple power of attorney will allow DP the same rights they are whining about not having.
FBF 3rd grade teacher: Well said *FBF*!
Me: It's clear that you don't want to respond to any of the actual points I made so I guess our conversation is at an end. I'll close with a quote from the American Psychological Association:
"Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."
If you do not care to respond with actual information as I have, then don't bother. Maybe someone without a closed mind will learn from this exchange.
It is so sad that some religious people can't see past the noses on their face or have reasonable conversations. On a related note, as my kids and I were driving to my mom's house last night, we saw some people standing on the corner with signs reading "Reject 71." Alongside their parents were two small girls holding signs. So sad. Of course I support the free speech rights of the adults who wish Referendum 71 to be rejected. I am disgusted that they would use their children in this way.
It brought up a conversation in the car because my kids wanted me to "Honk for support". I explained that the people were wanting us to support something that was wrong and I will not honk. I explained what Referendum 71 is and that it is wrong to take away people's rights simply because they are different than us. It's just like people telling black people they couldn't drink from the same drinking fountain. It is wrong and I will always stand up and point out people's prejudices until they are few and far between. My son and daughter both responded with the same question: "Well how would those people feel if somebody told them they couldn't love the person they love? I bet they'd be really sad and then they would understand."
I recently had a conversation with a conservative Christian about Referendum 71 on facebook. For those of you who do not live in Washington, Referendum 71 extends the rights of people who are in domestic partnerships. People in domestic partnerships are not necessarily gay, but the conservatives have decided that this is a gay marriage issue are strongly opposed to it. I don't know why the ignorance and hatred that emanates from peoples' comments surprises me, but it still does. My facebook friend (FBF) has made it clear that he is not interested in having a rational conversation because he refuses to speak about the points I've made. Instead, he makes false accusations and ignorant remarks repeating the same statements over and over even after I've pointed out how wrong these statements are.
I have decided to post our facebook conversation here in hopes that people who are not as close minded as FBF can possibly see how irrational religious arguments are against gay rights. Warning: I did not correct spelling errors....everything is copied exactly as it was written. I only replaced names to protect privacy.
Here's the post I put on my wall:
I encourage all my Washington friends to Approve Ref 71.....there is absolutely no rational reason not to. If you think you have one, try me. Watch this video and explain to me why it is right for a person to bring their stepson to the hospital an...d be denied treatment until the biological mom can get there. It is wrong and I think everyone knows it. Nobody has the right to deny other people their rights.
FBF: I don't know the details of Referendum 71 but I do not vote for anything gay. Sorry just my personal beliefs.
Me: So, you're admitting you are prejudiced against gay people? How about replacing gay with black and see how that sounds. It is absolutely irrational to deny people rights because you don't like the way they are. And sorry, you don't get off the hook by saying that's just what I believe. People used to believe slavery was right, but that doesn't make it right. You do not have the right to infringe on other peoples' rights. If you don't like the lifestyle, don't live it.
FBF: You can get angry and call me a racist if you want and if believing that homosexuality is morally wrong and a psychological disorder is wrong than God will judge me. That is my opinion and I am not racist. As a matter of fact when YOU think of racism why do you automatically think "black". Take the plank out of your own eye before you try to remove a spec from mine. We are all entitled to our opinions and MY right to disapprove of homosexuallity is just that, myt right. God bless you *Humanist Mama* for your kind heart.
Me: I did not call you a racist...I was trying to point out your prejudice against gay people by showing you how terrible it would sound if you said, "I do not vote for anything black." All I did was replace one word. I am not claiming that you would say that. And by the way, I chose black because black people are a minority like gay people. I could easily have said Jew, Asian, Muslim, etc to make the same point. So, not that does not make me racist to point out your prejudice.
By the way, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder....there is plenty of evidence that it is natural. You saying it does not make it so, and if you choose to believe irrational things without evidence that is your issue. But, I also have the right to point out to you that you are being prejudiced and archaic with your beliefs.
FBF: Sorry *Humanist Mama*, I beg to differ about homosexuality not being a psychological disorder. Fact of the matter is that there is no concrete proof either way in this matter. I am a psychology student and have actually done research into the matter so when I say my opinion is that homosexuality is a psychological disorder there is no prejudice there. That is my personal opinion and as far as that goes being of a certain race or creed cannot be helped. "I" believe that homosexuality can. I do not believe that one is born as a homosexual. I believe that it is learned behavior.This is not prejudice this is just refusing to buy into what someone says just because they say it is so. They call that critical thinking. I do not treat anyone cruelly. I do not "bash" homosexuals just for being what they are. I actually have compasion for them because I believe that they are lost. I believe in Jesus Christ and I also believe that every word in the Bible is true and fact. Because of that belief I have to take my stand that homosexuality is nothing more than an immoral person. God demolished the city of sodom (sodomy) for being evil and imoral people. As you know I personally am NO angel but I have seen the error in my ways, have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, have asked for forgivness, and now live my life as best I can to follow God's will for me. I do apreciate your tender heart in this matter and I actually do have empathy for those people; however, I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people. It is the same thing as saying there is nothing wrong with a child molestor.
After all this we may have to agree to disagree. My intentions were not to make you angry, I was just sharing my opinion and perspective.
Me: *FBF*, I guess you differ with the consensus of professionals in the world who know that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. Link to American Psychological Association
And critical thinking involves looking at all evidence and not being biased when doing research. I am quite surprised that a professor would take your research seriously because all of my professors had strict requirements for my sources when I was studying for my Bachelor's degree in Psychology 10 years ago and my recent degree in Nursing. Sources had to be current (no sources greater than 5 years), they had to be from peer reviewed articles, and they had to be unbiased. When one cherry picks invalid and outdated studies one can come up with the same conclusion you have to justify your "personal opinion". You may not have done this intentionally. Some people want to believe something so bad that they refuse to look at the evidence that contradicts their beliefs or they twist it to mean something it does not.
You may not think you are cruel to homosexuals but many of the comments you have made on this thread today have been extremely cruel and hateful. And I think it is justifiable and proper for me to be anger about your outright prejudice and denial of it. In the real world hate does not equal love and by saying that you do not think homosexuals should have rights you are being very hateful. So, no matter how much you want to believe you are showing them the "love" of Jesus Christ you are actually showing them quite the opposite. There are many Christians who realize that homosexuality is not a choice.
You summed up your paragraph by saying that homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation. I will tell you the difference *FBF*.....homosexuality is not harmful to anyone while child molestation is. Nobody has the right to infringe on another person's rights. It's as simple as that.
I also take great issue with one of your last statements, "I will not vote for anything giving rights to sick and immoral people." I'm assuming that by "sick" you're referring to this imaginary psychological disorder since that was the purpose of your more recent paragraph. If so, I have to assume you believe all people with psychological disorders should not be given rights. Our world has been there and done that too and we've come out of the dark ages to realize the error of our ways. Do you also believe that all people with psychological disorders have chosen to have these disorders?
I think as you continue your education you will find that this is not the case and I can guarantee you that you will never be taught in a reputable psychology class that homosexuality is a "disorder".
As far as you saying immoral people should not be given rights....what makes homosexuals immoral in your eyes.....your religion? The word immoral is generally reserved for people who actually hurt other people. They have done nothing to hurt other people yet you call them immoral simply for being who they are? In many countries you are "immoral" because you are a Christian.....should you have rights? A few years ago it was "immoral" for people of different races to marry each other, and god forbid if they had children! And, the Bible was often used to justify this prejudice too. Hmmmmmm....kind of makes you wonder.... are people who eat shrimp immoral too?
FBF: I never said anything about hating homosexuals. Congratulations on your Bachelors degree, however that does not make you right. Reputable psychology classes. Yap, yap, yap. All you have done is state opinion and none of it is truth or fact. All I'm saying is that I believe that homosexuality is wrong. As an American I have that right. I don't hate anyone. So as for saying that I am not showing the love of Jesus is plain ignorant on your part. If you want to think that I am prejudice let me help you and I will tell you you are damn right I am. Homosexuals are sick people and I don't think they should have the right to polute society with their illness. At the same time I absolutely am against mistreating anyone. I think they need help. Someone much wiser than myself called homosexuals an abomination...oh yeah that was GOD. I am agreeing with Him so if you still want to say I am wrong go ahead that is your right and I definately don't want to take that away. But through your anger you are showing your bias in this situation. Once again before you start attacking me consider yourself. Your degrees do not automatically make you right.I know some homosexual people and I do not treat them any different than anyone else. Bottom line is that you do not know me and accusing me of hate is unfounded. I have more compasion than you could ever know. Let me say again that there is no evidence either way that homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder and I side on the is side. That is my opinion and only that. My vote will be against Ref 71 as a simple power of attorney will allow DP the same rights they are whining about not having.
FBF 3rd grade teacher: Well said *FBF*!
Me: It's clear that you don't want to respond to any of the actual points I made so I guess our conversation is at an end. I'll close with a quote from the American Psychological Association:
"Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."
If you do not care to respond with actual information as I have, then don't bother. Maybe someone without a closed mind will learn from this exchange.
It is so sad that some religious people can't see past the noses on their face or have reasonable conversations. On a related note, as my kids and I were driving to my mom's house last night, we saw some people standing on the corner with signs reading "Reject 71." Alongside their parents were two small girls holding signs. So sad. Of course I support the free speech rights of the adults who wish Referendum 71 to be rejected. I am disgusted that they would use their children in this way.
It brought up a conversation in the car because my kids wanted me to "Honk for support". I explained that the people were wanting us to support something that was wrong and I will not honk. I explained what Referendum 71 is and that it is wrong to take away people's rights simply because they are different than us. It's just like people telling black people they couldn't drink from the same drinking fountain. It is wrong and I will always stand up and point out people's prejudices until they are few and far between. My son and daughter both responded with the same question: "Well how would those people feel if somebody told them they couldn't love the person they love? I bet they'd be really sad and then they would understand."
My parents received the following flier on their door last week. The text had been reproduced in full (with the exception of the name and place of the church).
"Calling all responsible Christians. Please meet at xxxxxxxxx Church, located at **** ************ Road, on Friday, October 30, 6:00pm for a symposium on the true meaning of Halloween and Proposition 8..."
I love how they're throwing a "symposium" on gay marriage and Halloween, as if the two are in any way related, on the Eve of Halloween. If the kids and I didn't have plans, I'd go just to be a fly on the wall. Think I could pass for a "responsible Christian"?
"Calling all responsible Christians. Please meet at xxxxxxxxx Church, located at **** ************ Road, on Friday, October 30, 6:00pm for a symposium on the true meaning of Halloween and Proposition 8..."
I love how they're throwing a "symposium" on gay marriage and Halloween, as if the two are in any way related, on the Eve of Halloween. If the kids and I didn't have plans, I'd go just to be a fly on the wall. Think I could pass for a "responsible Christian"?
My parents received the following flier on their door last week. The text had been reproduced in full (with the exception of the name and place of the church).
"Calling all responsible Christians. Please meet at xxxxxxxxx Church, located at **** ************ Road, on Friday, October 30, 6:00pm for a symposium on the true meaning of Halloween and Proposition 8..."
I love how they're throwing a "symposium" on gay marriage and Halloween, as if the two are in any way related, on the Eve of Halloween. If the kids and I didn't have plans, I'd go just to be a fly on the wall. Think I could pass for a "responsible Christian"?
"Calling all responsible Christians. Please meet at xxxxxxxxx Church, located at **** ************ Road, on Friday, October 30, 6:00pm for a symposium on the true meaning of Halloween and Proposition 8..."
I love how they're throwing a "symposium" on gay marriage and Halloween, as if the two are in any way related, on the Eve of Halloween. If the kids and I didn't have plans, I'd go just to be a fly on the wall. Think I could pass for a "responsible Christian"?
Yes, I have finally joined the Atheist Blogroll after months of writing.
B is for Barnstorming has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Yes, I have finally joined the Atheist Blogroll after months of writing.
B is for Barnstorming has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
From where does the primitive, delusional silliness of religion come? Why did men invent gods in whose service they all too frequently waste their sole earthly lives? It seems the answer is threefold: First, in times of ancient ignorance, men invented gods to explain phenomena that were beyond their understanding. People could not adequately explain natural disasters or thunder and lightning, so they bound up such events with angry or wrathful deities. Medical understanding of disease was pathetically lacking, so people associated sickness—especially mental illness—with invasive demons or curses. Second, it seems to be a universal part of human nature that, when things are going badly, people like to feel there is somebody in their corner on whom they can count. Because people are limited in their ability to palliate each other’s pain and depression, it is comforting to invent a god to whom one can turn in one’s blackest hours. Third, conjuring a god in whose presence you can spend an afterlife is a neat way of lessening one’s natural fear of dying. The human mind is an amazing thing, and its blessings are numerous, but it also curses us with sure knowledge of our own mortality; god belief, however unjustified and silly, contributes to distracting us from our inevitable expiration.
This third reason why men invent gods and confect religions is my principal interest at present. I am not qualified to say whether individuals of any other species are aware of their own ultimate mortality, but we can be certain none possesses awareness near as acute as that of humans. And yet…death’s slow but sure approach does not preoccupy most of us. We watch our CSI-type shows and see a corpse on an examining table being looked over by the medical examiner, but it rarely occurs to us that, in some period of years—perhaps many but perhaps few—we shall be on just such a cold metal table. A mortician might not be our favorite person to see, but, when we do, it is seldom we consciously ponder that, eventually, powder and makeup shall be applied to our own ashen faces, drained entirely of their pinkness and vitality. I do not think our ability to forget about our own impending death has, in the main, to do with religious superstition; I think we are easily distracted by our prosaic day-to-day lives. But, surely, on the anthropological level, looking across cultures, the idea that one can survive one’s own death has appealed to our kind for millennia.
Although I am without gods, have no use for infantile spiritual pursuits and recognize an afterlife as nothing more than wishful thinking, I have no fear of death. (This is not to say I have no fear of possible pain associated with death, but only that dying, to me, is not frightening.) The balance of this post shall explain why. Religious individuals (principally Christians) have often warned me that, as a blasphemous atheist, I shall spend eternity in hell, being tortured and roasted and experiencing all manner of other such unpleasantness. To be sure, I recognize that, on Christianity’s truth, I shall be consigned to the fire pit; the conclusion is hardly debatable. However, these warnings give me no pause. One reason is that hell, in itself, seems so transparently invented as a means of controlling people’s behavior and making them fall into line. I also find laughable the very notion of a place where billions of wispy, incorporeal essences are tortured infinitely for finite sins committed during earthly life. (How might one torture a wispy, incorporeal essence, anyway? How might there be pain without a physical body? Beats me.) Why does the doctrine of hell entail unending, limitless torment? I submit that, to be an effective deterrent, hell’s awfulness must at least be commensurate with its ludicrousness. Because hell is an infinitely silly concept, to deter anyone at all, it must threaten infinite punishment.
There is no good reason to believe god’s celestial dictatorship exists in the real world but, for a moment, let us suppose it does. Indeed, let us suppose that hell exists, too, and billions have been consigned there. If a god exists who damns people to hell, this god is cruel beyond description and, to my standards, the very picture of evil. On Christianity, god is omniscient, in addition to being the author of every human soul (that being, the immaterial essence that animates our flesh). Omniscience entails that, when fashioning a soul, god already knows every action the person-to-be shall take; there can be no mystery for an omniscient creator. Inasmuch as god is creating people, the deity is creating each individual to be as he is. The deity made John Wayne Gacy to be John Wayne Gacy; he could have created him differently but he did not. In fashioning Gacy’s soul, the deity, with full foreknowledge, fashioned a serial killer who would not repent and who would be sent to hell. Gacy was created to fail, insofar as god chose to make him as he was and all his actions were a foregone conclusion even before he emerged from the womb. The deity, then, established a torture chamber, from which escape is impossible, to punish those people who he, given his omniscience, deliberately created to be unredeemed sinners (that is, sinners who he knows shall not get redemption). Indeed, god is the toymaker who, after purposefully making faulty toys, inflicts wrath upon them.
I do not recognize objective morality, but I see no way I could worship such a deity, who, in my judgment, exhibits the height of cruelty. No matter, though. The unfairness of a god who creates hell is rather a moot point, given that hell is a patently ridiculous concept. Rather than wasting breath arguing against it, it is more properly the subject of derision. Much like Jesus’ apparent parthenogenic birth,
If there is no hell, as surely there is not, what does happen to us when we die? Of course, no living individual can know for certain, but the evidence is rather clear: Upon death, we cease to be. Much as we all might wish that, after dying, we might find ourselves in a theme park in the clouds where our old friends and relatives eagerly await us, we really need to leave such childishness behind if we wish to have an accurate apprehension of reality. What, exactly, is supposed to make it into the afterlife? Victor Stenger writes, “We have seen that neurological and medical evidence strongly indicates that our memories, emotions, thoughts, and indeed our very personalities reside in the physical particles of the brain or, more precisely, in the ways those particles interact. So this would seem to say that when our brains die, we die.” And Stenger is correct, of course. A blow to the head can rob one of one’s memories. Neurodegenerative disease, in some cases, can result in what might be described as the loss of the self. Is one honestly supposed to believe that when the brain is dead—perhaps even rotting away—phenomena strictly dependent upon brain activity, such as memories, thoughts and personality, shall persist? If one wishes to pursue that silliness, one might also revert to the idea that emotions such as love emanate from the heart.
For something that at one time lives, death is merely not to exist. Indeed, in a true sense, each of us may say we were dead during all the years prior to our birth. I was dead throughout the entirety of the
Atheism, then, is freeing and joyous in its way. True, it does not entice us with promises of an afterlife that does not exist. It cannot distract us from our mortality or life’s briefness. But, it allows us to focus our full attention on the single life we do have—this one—and wringing as much enjoyment from it as we can. We do not waste our time prostrating ourselves before a god who, by my standards, would be unworthy of mere acknowledgement, let alone servile obedience. We refuse to gorge ourselves on the false comforts of childish delusion, instead accepting the world for what (and how) it is and, indeed, finding joy, inspiration and wonderment in studying and better understanding the natural order. There is no need for Bronze-Age superstitions cooked up by semi-stupefied peasants when there is biology, cosmology, anthropology and physics, just as no one bothers with alchemy when chemistry is available to us.
Life might be short, and nothing but individual non-existence follows thereafter, but evolution has bequeathed us a gift that no other species has been given: We are capable of understanding our own evolutionary origins and where we, for a brief moment, find ourselves. If this is insufficient to occupy the mind, it is difficult to imagine any cobbled-together book of folklore or magic Jesus wafer would ever be.
Below are some excerpts from an essay by Pastor Douglas Wilson, as part of the promotional material for a new film that he made together with Christopher Hitchens, called Collision. It looks like a very interesting idea for a film, by the way, as it chronicles a series of debates between christian Wilson and atheist Hitchens. Unfortunately, based on the poor quality of Wilson’s arguments as sampled in the essay, it looks as though the theist side might be rather poorly represented. I also saw an online clip from the film that features him talking to a group of rather inarticulate college students that apparently were members of a campus atheism club. I hope more of the film features legitimate interlocutors for him.
In addition to the quoted excerpts from his article, I’ve added some of my thoughts. Wilson makes a number of facile arguments that have will provide a certain emotion compulsion to some people, and they warrant being corrected.
From the perspective of a Christian, the refusal of an atheist to be a Christian is dismaying, but it is at least intelligible. But what is really disconcerting is the failure of atheists to be atheists. That is the thing that cries out for further exploration.
What does it mean to be an atheist? It is a definition of negation. It says little about what you do believe. It merely means that there is one kind of thing that you do not believe in, namely, an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, All-Powerful Being Outside of Time that Somehow Created Everything. That is all. To say that most atheists somehow fail to be atheists is a bit odd, because it can only mean that the ostensible atheist really does believe in “God.” Is this what Wilson is trying to say? It turns out, no. He is rather setting up a strawman to represent all atheists, which he’ll then try to knock down.
The atheistic worldview is nothing if not inherently reductionistic, whether this is admitted or not.
First of all, there is not a single cut-and-dried “atheistic worldview” any more than a lack of belief in goblins constitutes some kind of worldview. One could, by definition, be an atheist and believe that we exist in some kind of computer simulation devised up by alien minds, for example. Some atheists as Buddhists, and others (myself included) are pantheists.
Second, the only reductionism that Wilson might be able to speak of, in trying to globally assign all atheists to a particular philosophy, is the reductionism that lies at the heart of the scientific method. As a matter of investigative routine, we usually start with more complex phenomena, and, to understand and explain them, break them down into simpler bits. For example, to understand how some mental or nervous process occurs, physically, we need to understand how the nervous system is formed, which means understanding neurons and their electrochemistry, which requires cellular biology, which leads us to organic chemistry, which leads us to molecules, and atoms, and electrons and quarks. To approach it any other way would be impractical. But, having used this method to unravel how the parts fit together, it hardly follows that “that is all there is” - because the universe doesn’t necessarily function in a top-down, the-whole-is-the-sum-of-its-parts way, but more probably in a bottom-up mode, where emergent complex behavior can and does arise. It is a Fallacy of Composition to assert that because the subatomic components of brains follow certain rules (or exhibit certain random behaviors) that complex structures built from them are merely agglomerations of them with no additional properties or meaning.
Everything that happens is a chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble in the great concourse of atoms that we call time. Time and chance acting on matter have brought about, in equally aimless fashion, the 1927 New York Yankees, yesterday’s foam on a New Jersey beach, Princess Di, [etc...]
What does he mean by “chance-driven rattle-jattle jumble”, do you suppose? I’m a physicist by education, and an atheist by choice, and I certainly do not regard “everything that happens” in the facile terms that Wilson patronizingly uses here. The tacit implication is the simpleminded one, that if the Universe was not planned by the kind of god he has in mind, then everything is happenstance randomness. This is a false either-or dichotomy.
What I do know is that we have luckily become smart enough to develop a pretty effective method to study the world around us, and to understand that nature consists of a number of different kinds of particles that behave in consistent ways, with a certain degree of randomness sprinkled in. The result is a tremendous amount of both order and diversity, seeming chaos amidst rigorous structure. And given enough time and space, it isn’t surprising, really, that from such a bedground could arise self-replicating molecules and self-replicating cells acting under external pressures that force them to continually improve and diversify, with the end result of the highly goal-directed, emergent activity of life.
The problem is that this atheistic assumption does the very same thing to the atheist’s case for atheism. The atheist gives us an account of all things which makes it impossible for us to believe that any account of all things could possibly be true.
But atheism, of course, is not an attempt to “give an account of all things.” Moreover, the lack of positive belief in an untestable conjecture in no way invalidates our ability to make meaningful observations and draw conclusions about the world that have predictive and explanatory merit.
Educated persons generally understand that there are fundamental limits to our knowledge, at least at this time, and probably forever. We know from both physics and mathematics that the world is far more complex than would allow us to account for everything. There are forbidden questions in quantum mechanics. We understand that there are no mathematical systems that are both complete and consistent. There are metaphysical question that lie outside the purview of our tools, that certainly seem valid enough, but which answers likely do not exist for (e.g., “why is there a Universe at all, instead of just nothing?”)
I do not know any atheists that actually think that any worldview delivers “an account of all things.” Most of us are well aware of the difficulties of finite minds that make mistakes grappling with a complex world, and would not be so brash as to think we have it all figured out, or ever will. But the one idea that all atheists share is that facile, wishful-thinking-based explanations that appeal to our vanities, fears, and emotions, and which do not have any kind of empirical support but are rather correlated with whichever ancient myth our particular ancestors might have invented, don’t deserve serious consideration as being factually true.
Nor does atheism allow us to have any fixed ethical standard, or the possibility of beauty.
These are the kinds of comments from certain kinds of theists that truly are offensive. They’d deny a sense of morality and aesthetics to all manner of good people that lived rich lives without theism. (And it is the atheist they they turn around and label “arrogant”!)
What most atheists (but not all – go talk to any Ayn Rand fan or Objectivist and you’ll see) would probably agree with is the idea that there is no universal standard of ethics or beauty that is somehow established as empirical law, in the way that gravitation, for example, is. This isn’t a terribly difficult idea to grasp, given the centuries of human history that would tend to confirm it. But with the either-or fallacious thinking of Wilson and his ilk, we are presented with an implicit choice of “either you have fixed, eternal standards of ethics/aesthetics, or you have absolutely nothing.” There is no entertaining the notion that these concepts could indeed come from human minds, yet be no less valuable or profound for it. In fact, they might even be moreso.
And not content to let sleeping dogs lie, reason also brings us the inexorable consequences of atheism, which includes the unpalatable but necessary conclusion that random neuron firings do not amount to any “truth” that corresponds to anything outside our heads.
There is nothing in the rejection of an unsupported conjecture about a Superbeing that in turn entails that the human mind cannot ascertain knowledge of what is going on outside it, through a meticulous, self-correcting process of observation, test, corroboration, and repetition. Wilson’s suggestion is absolutely absurd. And yes, our statements of truth in science come with error bars, because the relentless complexity of the world necessitates that we quantify and account for the ways in which our work can go wrong. Not only are the patterns of neuron firings not random, the results of clear and structured thinking do indeed correspond to the world about us. Sometimes what it ends up telling us isn’t exactly what we’d like to hear, in our vanity – for science has removed us from the center of the universe and has, in some sense, made us another twig on a vast phylogenic tree of life. I’d guess that the accompanying humility does not sit well with the likes of the Pastor Wilson, who divides the possibilities into two cases: “God’s special creature” or “meaningless automata” with no other possibilities.
Now obviously, [Christianity] is a message that can be believed or disbelieved. But the reason for mentioning it here includes the important point that such a set of convictions makes it possible for us to believe that reason can be trusted, that goodness does not change with the evolutionary times, and that beauty is grounded in the very heart of God. Someone who believes these things doesn’t believe that we are just fizzing.
Translation: Since it is all too difficult and demeaning to think that we (and our emotions) have a natural origin, let’s have a “God” to explain why and how we are just so damn special. So we can feel better about ourselves. If our imaginations are not up to the task of seeing how a naturalistic cosmos might produce self-aware beings with cognition that can in turn act upon the canvas that they slowly sprang up from, then we’ll just call the process “divine” and be done with it. It is the Argument From Personal Incredulity again, and here it is no more persuasive than when it is more commonly used by biology-ignoramuses when they think they have made an argument by stating “but I can’t see how we could have evolved!”
You can deny that this God exists, of course, and you can throw the whole cosmos into that pan of reduction sauce. And you can keep the heat on by publishing one atheist missive after another. But what you should not be allowed to do is cook the whole thing bone dry and call the crust on the bottom an example of the numinous or transcendent. Calling it that provides us with no reason to believe it — and numerous reasons not to.
The “numinous and transcendent” can describe emotional responses to the world around one. That anyone can react positively and with genuine feeling to the ineffable sublimity of nature without thinking there is some Magical Being Behind It All, is apparently offensive to Wilson. Well, his views are even more offensive to those of us about the globe, stretching far back in time, that have lived and loved and wondered every bit as much as this pompous pastor may have, but without the Sky-Father explanation to fall back on.
You may think that nobody around you could possibly be taken in by the cult of Scientology, but let me tell you – they sneak into your life one way or another. Someone I know, who will remain anonymous for the sake of not embarrassing them, has recently surprised me by having posters and books on Dianetics and other Scientology goofiness. He claims that he has no interest in the ‘religion’ side of it, but that he likes the way that they teach you to understand and interact with people. I don’t claim to know much about that, other than to know that the whole thing is a ridiculous farce that only is taken seriously because it’s so harmful to people that get sucked in too deep. But now I see how they claw their way into your brain.
In the last couple of days, this person has begun talking about a new weight-loss regimen he’s beginning, with inspiration from… wait for it… Scientology! Let me describe this simple procedure for you: you take a couple of pills (no, I have no idea what’s in them, could be dangerous, could be a placebo, who knows), you go jog for 30 minutes, then you go sit in a sauna. Sounds fine right? Millions of people take diet pills, jog and enjoy a sauna. Oh, wait, I forgot to mention how long you’re in the sauna: 4 hours. What?! When asked if any medical professional was overseeing this or had signed off on it, we find out that it’s just someone at the “church” watching over his well-being. This goes well beyond a simple appreciation of their social interaction teachings, and frankly it’s already dangerous. Just because he hasn’t signed his life over to them legally, he’s on the path. It starts small, and grows little by little. Pretty sneaky, guys! Remember kids: Friends don’t let friends be Scientologists!
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
So I took a little time off of writing, and it was nice. I actually expected to come back with lots of things to talk about, but it was less crazy than I expected. I had a little vacation to visit some family, and between the very liberal and very conservative members present, I expected more of a clash. Way to go everyone for keeping it friendly.
Still, there were a couple of interesting topics brought up that got me thinking. They have to do with the idea of a soul, and how to reconcile that with various situations. Personally, I have trouble with the word “soul” because it’s so inimately tied to religious connotations. On top of that, people generally describe a soul as “non-physical”, which leads me to ask what that actually means, usually to unsatisfying answers. Anyway, the topics that really made this conversation interesting to me were these: What would be the implications of being able to transfer consciousness between people/bodies? What are the implications of a soul in evolutionary terms?
First scenario – If you believe in a soul, do you think that it might be possible (in theory) to move consciousness from one body to another. To put it another way, if we had the ability to exactly reproduce the electrical workings of your brain in another body (or even some mechanical replica), would that still be you? Is there something beyond this that makes you, you? It’s an interesting possibility. For people who think that there is a non-physical soul that is really “you”, how would this get transferred, or would it? If it did not, what happened to it? If it did, are there some rules involved in how much of your brain activity needs to be transferred before the soul makes the jump too? What about if we just copied your consciousness over, and now there are two places your soul needs to be associated with? For those that think that you couldn’t transfer a soul this way, I want to know why. What is it about this body that ties it to my soul? If I lose some part of my physical body, I assume that I retain my soul. Then what’s the tie to my physical body? And if we can reproduce my consciousness, did we implicitly reproduce my soul somehow? If we copy my consciousness into a mechanical replica, do you have the same moral obligations to it that you do to me? What a metaphysical can of worms this is.
Second scenario – Does evolution lead to rejecting the idea of a soul? Most soul-advocates would agree that animals do not have one (except sometimes the family dog, which we’d like to see again in the afterlife). Many of them also want to be science-savvy and open-minded about evolution, but I have to ask, are the two compatible? To accept evolution is to accept that we share a common ancestor with creatures that have no soul. So then, somewhere along the way some creature must have had no soul, but given birth to one that did have a soul. Is this what we’re really saying? Where did that soul come from? At which point in the evolutionary line did we become just-human-enough to deserve a soul? Did that child have the same moral responsibility to its mother that we grant to fully human parents and children, or was its mother just an animal?
I don’t have good answers for most of this stuff, but it sure is mind-bending to think about and discuss. If you have good answers for what I see as logical problems with a soul here, let me know. I’m very interested.
Today, I tackle a topic with a highly rhetorical nature. Media outlets everywhere always self destruct their inquisitive roots to ask the question of their highly unintelligent guests, where does this evil come from. You've seen it on t.v., and on radio. It's the moments after a crisis when emotions are high, guilt is assigned and the commentators and journalists forget their job of investigation and resort to the most pathetic attempts at philosophical discourse.
To speak human for a moment, evil is a popular catch word that in itself brings justice and condemnation. To call something or someone evil is to appear to the bias and foundations of a society that dares not to question absolutes. But of course we do question absolutes and have for a long time, it's just that the media takes so long to catch up to the best and brightest, and is reluctant at an upper level to not give into low balling to the most primitive and backwards concepts our society offers.
Evil is not a mystery or anything remotely spiritual. Evil is relative and subjective. For a secular humanist, killing a woman because she was raped is evil. For a Sharia observant Muslim, Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is evil. Of course for the secular humanist Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is just broadcast flirtation, and we all know sex sells because sex is awesome, and so we don't mind. For a Christian, saying god damn is evil. For a linguist, saying god damn is a expletive, a universal linguistic tool used to express something with passion and aggression.
Evil doesn't exist outside of language, it is subjective. Rape isn't evil, it's a lack of self control and a failing of parents, family, and friends to teach the humanity of women. Pedophilia isn't evil, but taught, or learned as an outlet. Pedophilia cannot be helped, except by killing the pedophile, to prevent the genetic disposition from being spread, and any more children from being harmed. Being in the KKK isn't evil, it's just a pathetic attempt at feeling part of something, and the indoctrination of otherness as deserving persecution and hate.
Evil, is cultural and biological. Where people hurt other people in ignorance, it's often taught and accepted by their peers. This is the case in the worst genocides we know off. Evil can very much be biological as well. Once someone is wired to rape children, there is no cure, except to destroy the raper....and that is what we should take seriously. When evil threatens us, we must ask realistic and practical questions. Did we as a people create it, and what will we do with the evil doers....But as long as the pedophile can claim forgiveness in jesus' name and avoid the chair, society will never be able to be honest with itself, or the people it needs to destroy, so that others can be free.
To speak human for a moment, evil is a popular catch word that in itself brings justice and condemnation. To call something or someone evil is to appear to the bias and foundations of a society that dares not to question absolutes. But of course we do question absolutes and have for a long time, it's just that the media takes so long to catch up to the best and brightest, and is reluctant at an upper level to not give into low balling to the most primitive and backwards concepts our society offers.
Evil is not a mystery or anything remotely spiritual. Evil is relative and subjective. For a secular humanist, killing a woman because she was raped is evil. For a Sharia observant Muslim, Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is evil. Of course for the secular humanist Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is just broadcast flirtation, and we all know sex sells because sex is awesome, and so we don't mind. For a Christian, saying god damn is evil. For a linguist, saying god damn is a expletive, a universal linguistic tool used to express something with passion and aggression.
Evil doesn't exist outside of language, it is subjective. Rape isn't evil, it's a lack of self control and a failing of parents, family, and friends to teach the humanity of women. Pedophilia isn't evil, but taught, or learned as an outlet. Pedophilia cannot be helped, except by killing the pedophile, to prevent the genetic disposition from being spread, and any more children from being harmed. Being in the KKK isn't evil, it's just a pathetic attempt at feeling part of something, and the indoctrination of otherness as deserving persecution and hate.
Evil, is cultural and biological. Where people hurt other people in ignorance, it's often taught and accepted by their peers. This is the case in the worst genocides we know off. Evil can very much be biological as well. Once someone is wired to rape children, there is no cure, except to destroy the raper....and that is what we should take seriously. When evil threatens us, we must ask realistic and practical questions. Did we as a people create it, and what will we do with the evil doers....But as long as the pedophile can claim forgiveness in jesus' name and avoid the chair, society will never be able to be honest with itself, or the people it needs to destroy, so that others can be free.
Today, I tackle a topic with a highly rhetorical nature. Media outlets everywhere always self destruct their inquisitive roots to ask the question of their highly unintelligent guests, where does this evil come from. You've seen it on t.v., and on radio. It's the moments after a crisis when emotions are high, guilt is assigned and the commentators and journalists forget their job of investigation and resort to the most pathetic attempts at philosophical discourse.
To speak human for a moment, evil is a popular catch word that in itself brings justice and condemnation. To call something or someone evil is to appear to the bias and foundations of a society that dares not to question absolutes. But of course we do question absolutes and have for a long time, it's just that the media takes so long to catch up to the best and brightest, and is reluctant at an upper level to not give into low balling to the most primitive and backwards concepts our society offers.
Evil is not a mystery or anything remotely spiritual. Evil is relative and subjective. For a secular humanist, killing a woman because she was raped is evil. For a Sharia observant Muslim, Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is evil. Of course for the secular humanist Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is just broadcast flirtation, and we all know sex sells because sex is awesome, and so we don't mind. For a Christian, saying god damn is evil. For a linguist, saying god damn is a expletive, a universal linguistic tool used to express something with passion and aggression.
Evil doesn't exist outside of language, it is subjective. Rape isn't evil, it's a lack of self control and a failing of parents, family, and friends to teach the humanity of women. Pedophilia isn't evil, but taught, or learned as an outlet. Pedophilia cannot be helped, except by killing the pedophile, to prevent the genetic disposition from being spread, and any more children from being harmed. Being in the KKK isn't evil, it's just a pathetic attempt at feeling part of something, and the indoctrination of otherness as deserving persecution and hate.
Evil, is cultural and biological. Where people hurt other people in ignorance, it's often taught and accepted by their peers. This is the case in the worst genocides we know off. Evil can very much be biological as well. Once someone is wired to rape children, there is no cure, except to destroy the raper....and that is what we should take seriously. When evil threatens us, we must ask realistic and practical questions. Did we as a people create it, and what will we do with the evil doers....But as long as the pedophile can claim forgiveness in jesus' name and avoid the chair, society will never be able to be honest with itself, or the people it needs to destroy, so that others can be free.
To speak human for a moment, evil is a popular catch word that in itself brings justice and condemnation. To call something or someone evil is to appear to the bias and foundations of a society that dares not to question absolutes. But of course we do question absolutes and have for a long time, it's just that the media takes so long to catch up to the best and brightest, and is reluctant at an upper level to not give into low balling to the most primitive and backwards concepts our society offers.
Evil is not a mystery or anything remotely spiritual. Evil is relative and subjective. For a secular humanist, killing a woman because she was raped is evil. For a Sharia observant Muslim, Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is evil. Of course for the secular humanist Beyonce shaking her booty on stage is just broadcast flirtation, and we all know sex sells because sex is awesome, and so we don't mind. For a Christian, saying god damn is evil. For a linguist, saying god damn is a expletive, a universal linguistic tool used to express something with passion and aggression.
Evil doesn't exist outside of language, it is subjective. Rape isn't evil, it's a lack of self control and a failing of parents, family, and friends to teach the humanity of women. Pedophilia isn't evil, but taught, or learned as an outlet. Pedophilia cannot be helped, except by killing the pedophile, to prevent the genetic disposition from being spread, and any more children from being harmed. Being in the KKK isn't evil, it's just a pathetic attempt at feeling part of something, and the indoctrination of otherness as deserving persecution and hate.
Evil, is cultural and biological. Where people hurt other people in ignorance, it's often taught and accepted by their peers. This is the case in the worst genocides we know off. Evil can very much be biological as well. Once someone is wired to rape children, there is no cure, except to destroy the raper....and that is what we should take seriously. When evil threatens us, we must ask realistic and practical questions. Did we as a people create it, and what will we do with the evil doers....But as long as the pedophile can claim forgiveness in jesus' name and avoid the chair, society will never be able to be honest with itself, or the people it needs to destroy, so that others can be free.
Something has been going on with women and their hair for a long time. When it began we're not quite sure but with the dawn of civilization it's apparent that woman have special relationships with their hair. With the premier of Chris Rock's 'Good Hair' another level of interest has been sparked, especially in black women's hair.
I am a man, and a white man. However my wife has African roots and she has black hair. I've struggled to identify with her on this issue but it is very clear, don't mess with the hair. After moving half way across the country we are searching for a stylist who has the skills and the sensitivity to handle her hair. I can offer very little on this issue, only the experiences of a husband to black hair.
It's quite clear that a woman's hair is in direct correlation to her beauty. It is a sign to males of her health and potential fertility. A woman's hair carries deep symbolism within so many cultures. The R&B superstar Lauryn Hill shaved off her dreadlocks after discovering her husband's (Rowan Marley) infidelity. Hair can communicate health and beauty, and can also become a tool to express deep anger and pain. Of course I couldn't talk about this without throwing in the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
After going to war and presumably winning you should be left with a bunch of captive women. Well according to the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
"you shall bring her into your house, and she shall shave her head, do her nails, and discard her captive's garb. She shall spend a month in your house, lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. If, however, you should no longer want her, you must release her outright. You may not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you may not enslave her."
Now there could be two reasons to cut her hair, for cleanliness, or for humiliation. I tend to think that this passage is probably talking about the later. And of course mission accomplished because what woman wouldn't feel humiliated under these circumstances. What a loving god this is (note sarcasm here).
Feel free to comment on this topic, I'd love to get a productive discussion going around this issue of women, especially black women, and their hair.
I am a man, and a white man. However my wife has African roots and she has black hair. I've struggled to identify with her on this issue but it is very clear, don't mess with the hair. After moving half way across the country we are searching for a stylist who has the skills and the sensitivity to handle her hair. I can offer very little on this issue, only the experiences of a husband to black hair.
It's quite clear that a woman's hair is in direct correlation to her beauty. It is a sign to males of her health and potential fertility. A woman's hair carries deep symbolism within so many cultures. The R&B superstar Lauryn Hill shaved off her dreadlocks after discovering her husband's (Rowan Marley) infidelity. Hair can communicate health and beauty, and can also become a tool to express deep anger and pain. Of course I couldn't talk about this without throwing in the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
After going to war and presumably winning you should be left with a bunch of captive women. Well according to the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
"you shall bring her into your house, and she shall shave her head, do her nails, and discard her captive's garb. She shall spend a month in your house, lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. If, however, you should no longer want her, you must release her outright. You may not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you may not enslave her."
Now there could be two reasons to cut her hair, for cleanliness, or for humiliation. I tend to think that this passage is probably talking about the later. And of course mission accomplished because what woman wouldn't feel humiliated under these circumstances. What a loving god this is (note sarcasm here).
Feel free to comment on this topic, I'd love to get a productive discussion going around this issue of women, especially black women, and their hair.
Something has been going on with women and their hair for a long time. When it began we're not quite sure but with the dawn of civilization it's apparent that woman have special relationships with their hair. With the premier of Chris Rock's 'Good Hair' another level of interest has been sparked, especially in black women's hair.
I am a man, and a white man. However my wife has African roots and she has black hair. I've struggled to identify with her on this issue but it is very clear, don't mess with the hair. After moving half way across the country we are searching for a stylist who has the skills and the sensitivity to handle her hair. I can offer very little on this issue, only the experiences of a husband to black hair.
It's quite clear that a woman's hair is in direct correlation to her beauty. It is a sign to males of her health and potential fertility. A woman's hair carries deep symbolism within so many cultures. The R&B superstar Lauryn Hill shaved off her dreadlocks after discovering her husband's (Rowan Marley) infidelity. Hair can communicate health and beauty, and can also become a tool to express deep anger and pain. Of course I couldn't talk about this without throwing in the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
After going to war and presumably winning you should be left with a bunch of captive women. Well according to the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
"you shall bring her into your house, and she shall shave her head, do her nails, and discard her captive's garb. She shall spend a month in your house, lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. If, however, you should no longer want her, you must release her outright. You may not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you may not enslave her."
Now there could be two reasons to cut her hair, for cleanliness, or for humiliation. I tend to think that this passage is probably talking about the later. And of course mission accomplished because what woman wouldn't feel humiliated under these circumstances. What a loving god this is (note sarcasm here).
Feel free to comment on this topic, I'd love to get a productive discussion going around this issue of women, especially black women, and their hair.
I am a man, and a white man. However my wife has African roots and she has black hair. I've struggled to identify with her on this issue but it is very clear, don't mess with the hair. After moving half way across the country we are searching for a stylist who has the skills and the sensitivity to handle her hair. I can offer very little on this issue, only the experiences of a husband to black hair.
It's quite clear that a woman's hair is in direct correlation to her beauty. It is a sign to males of her health and potential fertility. A woman's hair carries deep symbolism within so many cultures. The R&B superstar Lauryn Hill shaved off her dreadlocks after discovering her husband's (Rowan Marley) infidelity. Hair can communicate health and beauty, and can also become a tool to express deep anger and pain. Of course I couldn't talk about this without throwing in the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
After going to war and presumably winning you should be left with a bunch of captive women. Well according to the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
"you shall bring her into your house, and she shall shave her head, do her nails, and discard her captive's garb. She shall spend a month in your house, lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and possess her, and she shall be your wife. If, however, you should no longer want her, you must release her outright. You may not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you may not enslave her."
Now there could be two reasons to cut her hair, for cleanliness, or for humiliation. I tend to think that this passage is probably talking about the later. And of course mission accomplished because what woman wouldn't feel humiliated under these circumstances. What a loving god this is (note sarcasm here).
Feel free to comment on this topic, I'd love to get a productive discussion going around this issue of women, especially black women, and their hair.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
