Planet Atheism » HumanistDad

A Church Even I Might Attend

HumanistDad — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:53:00 +0000

My previous blog post had a comment from a 'Bishop Winslow' who attempted to defend the idea of organized prayer with actual Biblical references (that didn't really make his point), implied references from the Old Testament (no chapter or verse) and an assertion that Great Revivals were preceded by "corporate and organized prayer." I didn't think he made a good case but I did get an understanding of what open prayers mean to fundamentalist Christians - they really believe they are legitimate ways of bringing people to Christ. Prayers are an advertising message that works! (or so they think)

If religions are good at something, it's getting things wrong.

Everybody dislikes advertising messages being imposed upon them, even if they are true. I'm sure even the most ardent fundamentalist would get weary of constant prayers being played from loudspeakers 24/7 over the city. This is what Orwell was trying to remind us of in 1984 (I was privileged to read that book in 1984).

While Bishop Winslow may lament the loss of god in America he's not even aware of what the real problem is. Although some people are losing gods most people are not. If anything, people are losing religion - specific interpretations of god. What people want today is the freedom to understand god their way, not the way of a religion. God-worshipers want to be free from religion to speak to gods in their own manner. Of course, this won't keep the utilities and mortgage paid at the local church. What are churches to do?

Maybe churches need to stop the one-way flow of god-worship. Instead of the leader speaking to the followers why not take a lesson from the American Constitution? Create a church of 'We The People'. Put the members in charge. Let the members speak about what god means to them instead of letting the minister monopolize the interpretation. Make all prayer time silent. No one leads the congregation in prayer. Everyone takes that one or two minutes to pray and say whatever they want to whatever god they choose. A church is no longer an institution to dictate but a place of worship where anyone, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists can gather to hear inspiring messages (members can take turns talking about things that interest them in science, philosophy, comedy or religion). Every gathering is a meeting not of people who are like-minded in religion but are interested in current events, new ideas and want a communal place to converse with god (or not!).

That's a church that maybe, just maybe, I'd go to.

A Church Even I Might Attend

HumanistDad — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:53:00 +0000

Why Christians Should Oppose Organized Prayer

HumanistDad — Sat, 29 May 2010 14:29:00 +0000

I've found that trying to convince Christians that organized prayer in public is wrong, never works. They interpret it as, "you're trying to take away my right to pray!" In recognition of this, I've formulated a better argument against it which I hope even Christians will appreciate.

In the past, I would sometimes point out Matthew 6, verse 5-6:

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Christians tend to ignore this passage or interpret it to say that an organized prayer in a church is fine since everyone there is praying en masse so the whole church or event is a 'closet' shared by like-minded people.

However, what Christians really are neglecting is how organized prayer is really interrupting their personal relationship with Jesus and their freedom to pray whenever and however they want.

If they truly want freedom and a personal relationship with Jesus they should be demanding that they be free to say whatever prayer they want, in any way they want, inside their own minds. When a person of authority leads a prayer out loud they are infringing on how a believer can speak in a personal way to Jesus.

This now has become my argument against prayers in schools, at public events or during Town Council meetings. If time for a prayer is going to be allowed, every praying person must be free to say whatever prayer they want. It is an infringement of a person's freedom to have a directed prayer or to be coerced into saying the prayer the leader chooses.

If I step into a church and an organized prayer is going to be said, that's fine since I have opted-in to be a part of how this church conducts its rituals. However, because public places are open to everyone, no one must give up their freedom of mind or conscious so that another person or group can impose their prayer on those around them. Even Christians should be offended that someone else is telling them which prayer to say during their personal conversation with Jesus.

I don't oppose a 'moment of silence' to open a public event since I am free (and are believers) to do whatever mental ritual I want (or not) without interference. A good example is the two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. During these two minutes, I can remember the great wars (or not) in any way I want. I choose to think about my grandfather that fought in the First World War. I'd be angry if some person or group demanded I take part in their memories.

Why Christians Should Oppose Organized Prayer

HumanistDad — Sat, 29 May 2010 14:29:00 +0000

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Everybody Draw Mohammad Day!

HumanistDad — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:29:00 +0000

My contribution:

Everybody Draw Mohammad Day!

HumanistDad — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:29:00 +0000

My contribution:

The Foundation of Public Education and Why You Must Protect It

HumanistDad — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:01:00 +0000

A local public school decided to send all Grade 8 students on an outdoor educational experience at a local camp. The purpose of the trip was to enhance their learning of nature and to provide the opportunity for the students to bond with each other, their teachers and their school. It was reasonably priced and the organizing teacher had been to the facility before and was highly impressed with the staff and their dedication to the kids.

I very strongly opposed the trip, have sent a letter to the principal and have called my local Trustee to explain the gravity of my concerns. If you lived within the boundaries of my school board, I would hope you'd do the same.

You see, the camp is a Christian Camp. Here are the first two paragraphs from the Camp's Welcome page (I have omitted the camp name):

Camp 'M...' is a Christian Camp that is committed to introducing children and young people to the message of Jesus Christ from the Bible through a camping experience that incorporates practical spiritual teaching, skill development, physical activity, friendship and lots of fun.

We want each camper to feel welcome, safe and accepted for who they are. Our goal is to provide real experiences; character-building opportunities that will develop young people physically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually and allow them to stretch and flourish – to be the people God wants them to be.

The main purpose of this camp is not to provide outdoor education, it is to introduce, strengthen and indoctrinate children into the camp's specific view of Christianity. The camping experience is merely icing on a cake. I'm reminded of the story of Hansel and Gretel where they are attracted to the house by its candy covering but this is merely a ruse to get the children inside the house for an unrelated purpose.

My local trustee immediately recognized my concern. The two representatives at the school I have spoken to (a teacher and an administrator) did not. There is no requirement that they agree with me but it is disturbing that they do not even understand my objection. Instead of questioning whether the trip may violate Board policy or the Education Act they are trying to defend the trip. I understand that the trip may be a very important activity for the kids and I completely support its purpose. However, it may not happen at this camp!

Why am I so concerned? So what if a bunch of new teenagers hear a few prayers during a camping trip? Won't most of the kids simply ignore any of the religious messages? Why not just let the kids and the school have some fun?

The answers to these questions are complex but I believe it boils down to a simple, fundamental principle of public education; a grand pillar that must never be allowed to fall.

Education of children must take the form of giving them useful and substantiated skills and knowledge. The ultimate strength of the public education system is that it does not teach opinion, it teaches facts. We recognize that every human on the planet has a unique and complex combination of opinions on thousands of issues from aesthetics, politics, history to the supernatural and beyond. However because they are unique, it is impossible for there to be two or more humans holding opinions that are completely true. Either one person holds only true opinions, or no one does. If one person holds the truth, how do we find them? What tools do we use to determine that their opinions are, in fact, true?

The answer to this is the greatest strength of public education. 'Separate' or 'private' schools, by definition, tout that they are the ones with the answers. They wish to remain separate and private for the very reason that they believe they have the 'correct' opinion and they want to be able to enclose impressionable young children within a confined bubble where the only opinion they get to hear and are not allowed to question, is that of the school, its administrators and the benefactors.

The power of the public school system is not that it allows all opinions free reign in the school but that it allows only those opinions which have clear, substantiated and peer-reviewed evidence on their side. One plus one equals two is not taught because it is the opinion of some people that say it is true, it is taught because mountains of evidence demonstrate that it is. Public education teaches public knowledge that has passed the rigorous scientific method, the greatest tool that humans ever invented.

Teachers and administrators must recognize that their opinions may be flawed. They must also recognize that they are likely to not know which of their opinions are flawed. For this reason, teachers and administrators must agree to keep their opinions to themselves and never try to convince the children in their charge to adopt their specific ideas. They are bound by an understanding that it is their job to ensure that children are given only the knowledge which has been gathered by the most educated people in their field. As the saying goes, "only the facts."

But, teachers have one more important role. It's to teach kids how to think, not what to think. They need to teach children how to recognize the difference between opinion and fact. How to analyze opinions, how to distinguish between real evidence and anecdotes. Ultimately, it is not the teacher's job to make children think like they do, but to teach them how to find the flaws in the teacher's own opinions. Any teacher should feel proud when a student makes the teacher reconsider an opinion. They've done their job well.

I opposed the trip to the Christian camp because the camp will attempt to pass their opinion of their specific brand of religion onto the children under the guise of truth. They know that most children will not fall to their knees and believe during prayer before spaghetti but they are planting seeds. And, like every farmer and marketing person knows, the more seeds you plant, the greater the chance your crop will grow.

Stand up for public education! Contact your schools and convince yourself that your school is adhering to these high standards. Let's raise a generation of children that will not adopt our opinions but scrutinize and improve them.

The Foundation of Public Education and Why You Must Protect It

HumanistDad — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:01:00 +0000

Camp 'M...' is a Christian Camp that is committed to introducing children and young people to the message of Jesus Christ from the Bible through a camping experience that incorporates practical spiritual teaching, skill development, physical activity, friendship and lots of fun.

We want each camper to feel welcome, safe and accepted for who they are. Our goal is to provide real experiences; character-building opportunities that will develop young people physically, emotionally, socially, and spiritually and allow them to stretch and flourish – to be the people God wants them to be.

Science Centre Promoting Pseudo-Science?

HumanistDad — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:13:00 +0000

I recently came back from a trip to Dynamic Earth in Sudbury, Ontario with my daughter's class. Great facility and a fun tour into a inactive mine!

However, while perusing the Gift Shop I came across some magnetic jewelry. However, under the display was a bunch of cards from the manufacturer of the jewelry that was extolling the virtues of magnets and how researchers are finding health benefits from them.

Wait.

Pseudo-scientific claims at a Science facility?!?

I've sent off a letter to them and will post their response. The letter is below:

On June 11th, I was a parent volunteer with a Grade 5 class visiting Dynamic Earth. The kids thoroughly enjoyed the facility and enjoyed learning about the science of mining, rocks and minerals.

As always, the gift shop is a fun place for the children to browse and find science-related gifts and memorabilia. However, I was shocked and deeply disappointed to see a small card on display near the magnetic jewelry that was promoting the 'health benefits' of wearing magnetic bracelets. Although I misplaced the card, I remember it saying something about 'researchers have found benefits of magnets for health'.

I am a teacher, skeptic and staunch defender of science. How could a 'science' facility actually promote pseudo-science about magnetic jewelry?

I've taken the liberty to give you a website that looks at the research done on 'magnetic healing' here:

http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html

However, I'm sure you have real scientists at your facility that could look up research into 'magnetic healing' and form their own opinions.

Please, for the good of science, remove any and all claims that magnets might heal people. A scientific facility has an obligation to promote real science and never, ever, promote pseudo-science that is permeating our culture and standing in the way of valuable research. If people want to buy jewelry that is magnetic, fine, but don't promote non-scientific nonsense.

Science Centre Promoting Pseudo-Science?

HumanistDad — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:13:00 +0000

On June 11th, I was a parent volunteer with a Grade 5 class visiting Dynamic Earth. The kids thoroughly enjoyed the facility and enjoyed learning about the science of mining, rocks and minerals.

As always, the gift shop is a fun place for the children to browse and find science-related gifts and memorabilia. However, I was shocked and deeply disappointed to see a small card on display near the magnetic jewelry that was promoting the 'health benefits' of wearing magnetic bracelets. Although I misplaced the card, I remember it saying something about 'researchers have found benefits of magnets for health'.

I am a teacher, skeptic and staunch defender of science. How could a 'science' facility actually promote pseudo-science about magnetic jewelry?

I've taken the liberty to give you a website that looks at the research done on 'magnetic healing' here:

http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html

However, I'm sure you have real scientists at your facility that could look up research into 'magnetic healing' and form their own opinions.

Please, for the good of science, remove any and all claims that magnets might heal people. A scientific facility has an obligation to promote real science and never, ever, promote pseudo-science that is permeating our culture and standing in the way of valuable research. If people want to buy jewelry that is magnetic, fine, but don't promote non-scientific nonsense.

Who Should Vote?

HumanistDad — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:13:00 +0000

Democracy is a great political innovation. Being able to voice your opinion and having a say in who and how a country is run is powerful and leading to far greater social reform and happiness.

However, a significant number of people freely choose not to vote. Further, many people vote along a party or historical line and attach their vote to a specific issue. In many cases, the reason for supporting (or opposing) an issue is not very clear as the voter has not spent much time understanding their view or the other.

Is it time to change the way we allow people to vote?
In Canada, once you reach 18, you are allowed to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen. That's it. You magically become eligible to vote! Why are there no other requirements to be able to vote?

First, I don't like the 'regional representation' model of Canadian politics. Years ago, this made sense because travel and communication were limited. However, nowadays voters can easily vote on specific issues and don't necessarily need to be 'regionally' recognized. In fact, if political parties were assigned seats based on national support, minority parties would actually receive more seats since their support is usually thinly spread out and unable to gain power in any one region. Further, some voters may not vote for their preferred party recognizing that their vote will be useless if they are in a minority. Also, this would prevent 'defensive' voting (ie. voting Liberal just to make sure Conservatives don't get a lot of votes even though you support Green).

Professional Voters
I think voting on important issues requires an educated voter. The main problem with Democracy is that anyone can vote, even those who know little about the issue they are voting for! I'd like to see a system where people are required to learn about issues and then earn the right to vote on it. This class of people would become 'qualified' or even 'expert' voters.

The idea is to have a test that neutrally presents the sides of an issue. A potential voter must answer questions that show they understand the arguments being presented and then earn the privilege to vote. This does not mean that uninformed people cannot voice opinions, it simply means they don't vote.

Deciding Issues
Take the issue of Evolution in America. Should Americans 'vote' on whether it is taught in public schools? There are arguments for and against teaching evolution. However, due to the low levels of science education in America, does it make sense to have citizens, illiterate in evolution, to decide whether it's taught?

Imagine critics of evolution want to remove it from the curriculum. To gain support for their idea, they would need to educate those who agree with them not just on the anti-evolution arguments, but also the pro-evolution argument because they know the potential voter must pass a questionnaire to see if they really understand the issue. Only those who do will be allowed to vote on it!

My goal with this idea is to get public policy issues passed by those who are most qualified to decide them. This is very similar to the peer review process in science. In fact, it should ensure that future policies are decided by scientific methods and not on rhetorical arguments. Would you vote for that?

Who Should Vote?

HumanistDad — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:13:00 +0000

DPRJones is Back… but where’s FrankReturns?

HumanistDad — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:51:00 +0000

Yes! Justice is served!

DPRJones was suspended (apparently, permanently) two days ago because he received the third inappropriate video-flagging in a short period of time. Anyone who has reviewed the subject videos is aware that they did not breach any YouTube guidelines and were 'false-flagged'. Many of us suspected FrankReturns was responsible for the false-flagging campaign.

And now, in a supreme act of pwnage... DPRJones' account is back and FrankReturns has been suspended... AWESOME!

Funny, I sent FrankReturns a message yesterday that simply said, "Goodbye, FrankReturns". My prediction was true! All hail ME, the new Messiah!

Then again, leave me alone, I'm busy buying lottery tickets...

DPRJones is Back… but where’s FrankReturns?

HumanistDad — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:51:00 +0000

Jesus is Everywhere!

HumanistDad — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:23:00 +0000

Special report to the HumanistDad Blog

The Glory of Jesus Appears In Man's Toilet

Carole Rose Andersen-Polata
Religion Writer

A man has refused to flush his toilet after seeing the image of Jesus in it. Paul Orland Oderkirk, 48, from Ontario has had a steady stream of onlookers coming by his house and asking to go into his bathroom. "It's all a bit overwhelming," says Oderkirk, a long-haul truck driver, "people keep knocking on the door and offering money to see it."

According to Oderkirk, the image appeared shortly after eating dinner. "I decided to eat some KFC after gettin' back from Idaho over the weekend with my load of corn and I suddenly had a real urge to use the bathroom. I almost didn't get my pants off!" Oderkirk says he sat down just in time and barely had a chance to grab a nearby copy of Playboy when he experienced an life-changing sense of relief. "I remember thinking, 'God that feels good' but, man, the smell started to burn my eyes! That fried chicken seems to come out greasier than it goes in."

Oderkirk said he felt a great shiver after the initial onslaught and is convinced the Holy Spirit entered him right then. "I leaned back against the tank breathed out a great gust of air and found myself wiping a handfull of 2-ply over my forehead 'cause the sweat was starting to run down my face." Feeling a bit dizzy, Oderkirk had to grab onto the towel bar to get himself off. It was when he turned to unroll some toilet paper that he saw the image in the bowl before his eyes, "It was a miracle!"

There, in the bowl, was the image of a praying Jesus. "It weren't no accident either, he even had some whole corn kernels for eyes!" Oderkirk rushed to tell his neighbour, a minister at the local Presbyterian church. "Next time," Oderkirk recalled, "I'll put me pants back on first. The Minister and his wife weren't none too pleased at first."

The Minister, who still goes by his old army name, Sgt. Harry I. Treadbottom says he refused to go with Oderkirk. "There was no way I was going to let some burly half-naked man drag me off to his bathroom to look at an unflushed toilet. I don't care what he says!"

After the police arrived, pictures were taken of the Holy feces and no charges will be brought down upon Oderkirk. However, word has spread of the Holy sighting and Oderkirk is not sure what the future will bring. "All's I can say is that I'm going to need another bathroom in me house since I can't use that one no more."

Oderkirk has not ruled out selling the Holy find on Ebay but he's not sure how to ship it.

Jesus is Everywhere!

HumanistDad — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:23:00 +0000

Atheists on TV

HumanistDad — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:13:00 +0000

From the Australian TV show Compass, we have a documentary, "Atheism - An Australian Perspective".

They chose to talk with 'moderate' atheists and present a good, touchy-feely viewpoint. The atheists interviewed hint that religion is necessary for many people and we need to learn to all get along. I don't disagree with this view but I think it should have been said that people are free to have religion but they must recognize its place: keep it personal. The only truce I can see with religion is if the religious accept that they keep their religion applying only to themselves and not attempting to enforce it on others - which, of course, especially applies to the children of the religious!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Atheists on TV

HumanistDad — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:13:00 +0000

The BEST Church of God

HumanistDad — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:01:00 +0000

This is a funny 'debate' between the congregants of 'The Best Church of God' and Sunsara Taylor. I've never heard of Sunsara Taylor but if she's been on The O'Reilly Factor and he didn't like her, it's probably someone worth checking out!

Best Church of God -- Debate with Sunsara Taylor

For an amateur skit, I thought they did an excellent job. I especially liked the introduction of the first man, "he owns a hardware store, a gun and a woman!"

Thanks to The Barefoot Bum for the link!

The BEST Church of God

HumanistDad — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:01:00 +0000

Best Church of God -- Debate with Sunsara Taylor

Venomfangx Gone?

HumanistDad — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:46:00 +0000

Venomfangx has just released a short video about death threats his family has received. His website has also gone down. He's blamed atheists for threats in the past so it's odd he's blaming Muslims this time. I don't remember him ever directly attacking Muslims in his videos:

As much as I'd like to see his videos and 'ministry' disappear (and maybe he get some mental help) I certainly couldn't support crazy death threats. But, it makes me wonder, why would Muslims pick on him? Is he trying to find someone to blame for his parents yanking the website? Always something weird going on with Venomfangx...

Venomfangx Gone?

HumanistDad — Thu, 07 May 2009 01:46:00 +0000

Carl Sagan on Charlie Rose

HumanistDad — Fri, 01 May 2009 11:35:00 +0000

I haven't blogged in awhile (arguing with theists a lot on Facebook!) but here's an interview I found of Carl Sagan, on Charlie Rose TV, before he died:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Carl Sagan on Charlie Rose

HumanistDad — Fri, 01 May 2009 11:35:00 +0000

I haven't blogged in awhile (arguing with theists a lot on Facebook!) but here's an interview I found of Carl Sagan, on Charlie Rose TV, before he died:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

How to "Know"

HumanistDad — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:35:00 +0000

Frequently I run into people who say that "science doesn't know everything" or "there are many ways of knowing". This drives me crazy! Here we are living in an age of science and technology that is gathering knowledge at an exponential rate and yet, people want to turn their back on it and declare it to be wrong.

Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience TV show brought up an excellent point to remember when talking to people about this issue. Ask them:

"If you had a better way of acquiring knowledge and truth, how would you demonstrate it?"

Of course, the answer would be to use a scientific approach! In other words, we'd need to use science to prove a better method than science...

Matt also had another great example on the show. He told a caller to pick Heads or Tails. The caller said, "heads", Matt flipped the coin and it came up Heads. There is no way the caller could have known heads would come up but yet, they made a correct prediction - one could say the caller 'knew' it would be heads. However, what benefit is there to studying how the caller knew this? Did the caller 'know'? Did the caller have a currently unexplainable method of 'knowing' how the coin would land? Maybe, but in order to find out, we'd have to test his claims! In order for the caller's claims to knowledge to have any validity, the caller would have to demonstrate that they can predict the coin flip with a far higher frequency than chance on repeated trials. In other words, use the scientific method, to know.

How to "Know"

HumanistDad — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:35:00 +0000

"If you had a better way of acquiring knowledge and truth, how would you demonstrate it?"

Tidal and Wave Power

HumanistDad — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:54:00 +0000

Slightly different thoughts today. I was reading about tidal and wave power and it looks like it could be a viable technology that could provide a significant (15%?) amount of power, clean power. But then I got to thinking...

One person talked about how mother nature is providing tidal power for free and we are just wasting it by not using it. But, what did they mean by that? How is tidal power being 'wasted'? In other words, if we aren't using the energy, where is it going?

If a tidal power generation operation were to take 50% of the energy from the tide, that means that 50% of the energy the tide used to provide is not being used naturally. So, if we take tidal energy, what effect does that have on nature?

Lots of questions.

My first thought is heat. Eventually, all energy is lost as heat. Therefore, current tidal energy must be being converted into heat. Is that heat warming the water? Will the removal of the tidal energy result in lower water temperatures thereby affecting life in the water? Tides also cause mechanical erosion so a reduction in tidal energy will slow erosion - that's probably a good thing but I'm not sure if erosion provides benefits to sealife in the form of releasing minerals?

I think back to when people would have looked at an untouched forest of trees and marvel at all the wood they could cut down and then eventually cut the whole forest. Or when the nearly inexhaustible supply of cod on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland let to the virtual destruction of it. By siphoning tidal power on a large scale, what effect will we have?

Opinions and links to resources would be appreciated!

Tidal and Wave Power

HumanistDad — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:54:00 +0000

How To Follow The Commandments – Part 1

HumanistDad — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:08:00 +0000

Let's start with the most popular Commandment of all:

God: "Thou Shalt Not Kill!"

Christian: "God, the enemy is trying to kill me!"

God: "Kill them, kill their livestock, dash the little ones' heads upon the rocks but save all the women who have not known a man for yourselves."

Christian: "Umm, but I'm not supposed to kill..."

God: "kill, Kill, KILL!"

Christian: "But, the Commandment...!"

God: "KKKIIIIILLLLLLLLL!"

Christian: "But God, you are so great and powerful, why not just make them disappear?"

God:

Christian: "God?"

God:

Christian: "God? Are you there? If I kill them, I break a Commandment, why don't you just do it?"

God:

God:

God:

...

Christian (with sword through his stomach): "GODAMNIT!"

How To Follow The Commandments – Part 1

HumanistDad — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:08:00 +0000

Let's start with the most popular Commandment of all:

God: "Thou Shalt Not Kill!"

Christian: "God, the enemy is trying to kill me!"

God: "Kill them, kill their livestock, dash the little ones' heads upon the rocks but save all the women who have not known a man for yourselves."

Christian: "Umm, but I'm not supposed to kill..."

God: "kill, Kill, KILL!"

Christian: "But, the Commandment...!"

God: "KKKIIIIILLLLLLLLL!"

Christian: "But God, you are so great and powerful, why not just make them disappear?"

God:

Christian: "God?"

God:

Christian: "God? Are you there? If I kill them, I break a Commandment, why don't you just do it?"

God:

God:

God:

...

Christian (with sword through his stomach): "GODAMNIT!"

Christianity Made Simple

HumanistDad — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:10:00 +0000

AND it came to pass that God had a son, but not really, so He made Mary pregnant with His son, but had an angel do the deed instead.

AND His son came to be a man but was really a God.

BUT, there is only one God so the Son is God and God is the Son but yet the Son is a man who is on earth and God is the Father who is in Heaven but also on the earth as a Son.

IT came to pass that the Son was tortured for the sins of mankind as a sacrifice to God, who really is the Son on earth and the God in the sky. Thus God as the Son was tortured to please God, who is also the Son, to please God, the Son.

THE Son was then crucified and sacrificed to God, but God is the Son and the Son, God, so God sacrificed Himself, to Himself as penance for the sins of mankind.

THE death of the Son pleased God (who is now the dead Son) so God, who is now dead, resurrected the Son, but really resurrecting Himself even though He is really dead and couldn't have resurrected Himself if He is dead.

AND so, the Son died, but not really since the Son came back to life and now lives in Heaven with God, who is really the Son, so God and the Son now both live in Heaven even though there is only one God that is actually two Gods living in the same body as God and Son and mankind is saved.

AND if you don't believe this story you go STRAIGHT TO HELL!

Christianity Made Simple

HumanistDad — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:10:00 +0000

Venomfangx Gets Fired

HumanistDad — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:35:00 +0000

Venomfangx is probably the most outrageous, delusional, immoral, Christian on YouTube. I'm sure most of you have heard of him but this video shows the extent of his stunning ignornance. Hear about how he lost his job because he'd rather preach the gospel to a stranger than to do the job he was hired to do (apparently, it's happened more than once)!

But he's come up with a great solution. He'll stop working and preach on the street full time as long as viewers send him money so that he doesn't have to actually work or do anything that has any usefulness, whatsoever. Heck, I'd consider paying him to stay at home, disconnect his internet and computer and never, ever, be heard from again:

Venomfangx Gets Fired

HumanistDad — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:35:00 +0000

Most Inhuman Statement Ever?

HumanistDad — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:21:00 +0000

I'm active in a Facebook forum that recently added the topic of Homosexuality. I edited it down to the relevant juicy bits. Here was the opening question:

A. Do you accept that it should be legal?
B. Do you accept it as moral?
C. Should gays be able to marry?
D. Should there be special hate laws for use against people beating up gays because they are gay?
E. Should political pressure be put on nations that outlaw homosexuality?

Here's one responder and my arguement with him:

He who shall not be named
A. NO
B. NO
C. NO
D. NO (people also beat up people because they are obese, etc)
E. NO

Gosh, that was easy!!

If you dont cut the tree at its roots and only trim the leaves and branches, the tree will still grow.

Why? Because homosexuals wish to pervert people with their perversion. Simple and to the point.

Me
This is evil. First, you assume homosexuals are evil and now you want to exterminate them - actually committing an act of greater evil. You are sick.

He who shall not be named
I NEVER stated that the HOMOSEXUALS are to be destroyed.

What I DID state is that the HOMOSEXUALITY should be cut right out, NOT the PEOPLE.

The HOMOSEXUAL ACT(S) IS/ARE the problem, NOT the people.

My apologies nevertheless for not clarifying my position.

Me
It's quite clear what you said. You eliminate homosexuality and jewishness* in the same way.

(*Edit: I should have said dark skin here but I left it in for authenticity)

He who shall not be named
My tree analogy was...eliminating homosexuality, NOT the people...and one major way is to educate them and their current lifestyle.

Me
Another is to educate you and your bigotry.

He who shall not be named
I would rather be a bigot, not only in your eyes, but in the entire world's eyes, than to be a bigot in God's eyes (emphasis mine) (pls note: not to be misunderstood by assuming that God is bigoted...im just making a point)

Plus, the whole world has seen the results of homosexuality.

Me
And if your god doesn't exist where does that leave you?

You just voted yourself off the island.

Goodbye.

Humanity will still be here if you ever wish to rejoin us.

I couldn't believe that this guy would take a stand against every person in the world, not for the good of humanity, but for god! How can you possibly deal with a person like this?

Most Inhuman Statement Ever?

HumanistDad — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:21:00 +0000

I'm active in a Facebook forum that recently added the topic of Homosexuality. I edited it down to the relevant juicy bits. Here was the opening question:

A. Do you accept that it should be legal?
B. Do you accept it as moral?
C. Should gays be able to marry?
D. Should there be special hate laws for use against people beating up gays because they are gay?
E. Should political pressure be put on nations that outlaw homosexuality?

Here's one responder and my arguement with him:

He who shall not be named
A. NO
B. NO
C. NO
D. NO (people also beat up people because they are obese, etc)
E. NO

Gosh, that was easy!!

If you dont cut the tree at its roots and only trim the leaves and branches, the tree will still grow.

Why? Because homosexuals wish to pervert people with their perversion. Simple and to the point.

Me
This is evil. First, you assume homosexuals are evil and now you want to exterminate them - actually committing an act of greater evil. You are sick.

He who shall not be named
I NEVER stated that the HOMOSEXUALS are to be destroyed.

What I DID state is that the HOMOSEXUALITY should be cut right out, NOT the PEOPLE.

The HOMOSEXUAL ACT(S) IS/ARE the problem, NOT the people.

My apologies nevertheless for not clarifying my position.

Me
It's quite clear what you said. You eliminate homosexuality and jewishness* in the same way.

(*Edit: I should have said dark skin here but I left it in for authenticity)

He who shall not be named
My tree analogy was...eliminating homosexuality, NOT the people...and one major way is to educate them and their current lifestyle.

Me
Another is to educate you and your bigotry.

He who shall not be named
I would rather be a bigot, not only in your eyes, but in the entire world's eyes, than to be a bigot in God's eyes (emphasis mine) (pls note: not to be misunderstood by assuming that God is bigoted...im just making a point)

Plus, the whole world has seen the results of homosexuality.

Me
And if your god doesn't exist where does that leave you?

You just voted yourself off the island.

Goodbye.

Humanity will still be here if you ever wish to rejoin us.

I couldn't believe that this guy would take a stand against every person in the world, not for the good of humanity, but for god! How can you possibly deal with a person like this?

Excellent Video on Openmindedness

HumanistDad — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:12:00 +0000

QualiaSoup on YouTube has produced another great video:

I posted this on an Atheist vs. Theist Facebook forum for a reaction from theists. So far, we can only hear theistic crickets responding....

Excellent Video on Openmindedness

HumanistDad — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:12:00 +0000

QualiaSoup on YouTube has produced another great video:

I posted this on an Atheist vs. Theist Facebook forum for a reaction from theists. So far, we can only hear theistic crickets responding....

Genesis II

HumanistDad — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:11:00 +0000

In the beginning, we knew nothing so the answer was always, God.

Then, we began to ask questions. We prayed but God never replied. So, again we said, the answer is God.

It came to pass one day when a person had a question and, instead of asking God, they decided to conduct a test. The answer, strangely, was not God.

It came to pass that more people asked more questions and did not ask God for the answer. They created tests and experiments and found more answers that did not end with God.

Soon, God no longer made mountains or made babies. God did not cause the stars to shine or apples to fall. More questions and more experiments meant that God was no longer the only answer. It seemed that God was never the answer.

It is here where Science was born, and God, became god.

Genesis II

HumanistDad — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:11:00 +0000

Pascal’s Wager

HumanistDad — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:54:00 +0000

I remember coming up with Pascal's Wager when I was in my twenties, even though I'd never realized that Pascal thought it up first!

At the time, I couldn't think of an adequate response to it. Fortunately, I learned. Here's my favourite refutations of the Wager:

1. Bertrand Russell response - "But Sir, you didn't give us enough evidence!"

2. The "Which God?" response - Pascal was assuming Yahweh in his argument. But, if god is really, ummmm, Thor, then Pascal's bet fails no matter what you bet on. If you choose to believe in Yahweh, or not, you still lose and go to Thor's hell.

3. The "Worst God!" response - It's better to believe in the god with the worst Hell since the Hell of all other gods will be less severe. Paradoxically, this means believing in a god that is able to dream up the most Evil Hell - not a trait I would want in a 'loving' god.

4. The "Atheist Heaven" response - If I discover, after death, that god exists and it asks why I never believed, I would explain that my logic and reasoning abilities must have come from god and I must have been expected to use them. Using them to the full extent possible showed that god must be improbable. Wouldn't god make heaven available to those who used all the abilities that god gave us and decided god wasn't there? Heaven must be for atheists!

Anyone have any more? Anyone? Anyone?

Pascal’s Wager

HumanistDad — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:54:00 +0000

Objectum Sexual

HumanistDad — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:12:00 +0000

Learn about the bizarre condition of 'Objectum Sexual' - people who have sexual attractions to objects. They don't just use an object for sex, they actually are sexually attracted to the object itself.

Part 1:

What I find even more strange is that people who have clearly unusual perspectives on the world are functional. They think, they act, they participate (sort of) in society and yet, .... and yet.

It's easy to say they're crazy, but it's their otherwise normal behaviour that really puzzles me. If crazy, I'd expect them to be completely irrational, running wild, screaming gibberish but they don't.

I guess as long as they keep their odd behaviour to themselves and don't harm anyone, there's nothing to be concerned about.

(picked up from Daniel Florian )

Objectum Sexual

HumanistDad — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:12:00 +0000

Left Wing vs.Right Wing: Are They The Same?

HumanistDad — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:19:00 +0000

I'm starting to think that all arguments from the Left and the Right boil down to a simple Argument from Authority. Maybe this is too simplistic but hear me out.

Conservatives point to traditional authority, God, Country, Leaders, Parents, etc, as a source for how we should behave. Last night I read an excellent point from Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed":

The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity.

Conservatives look to the past as evidence for behaviour today. Since a certain set of rules led to a favourable outcome, a return to these old ways will solve a current problem. This was a 'light bulb' moment for me regarding dogmatic theists. They really are using evidence for support of their positions and really do believe that their assumptions are true. Asking people to 'accept god' is really asking people to accept the wisdom of the past that will fix a problem today. They don't necessarily understand why the old ways will work, but they believe it will.

Liberals, on the other hand, also argue from authority but, at first glance, it's not clear who the authority is. I believe the answer is everyone. Liberals want to solve problems by asking everyone to find their own answers. This is what leads liberals to an extreme form of tolerance where we are expected to view everyone's ideas on equal ground. Don't hurt anybody's feelings by telling them they are wrong; accept that maybe they are right and that your idea is no better than anyone else's. Let everyone be the master of their domain. Liberals are pointing to the future to fix problems by expecting each person to eventually develop a problem-solving system that will work for them.

These approaches are incompatible. Conservatives want someone to be in charge and liberals want everyone to be in charge. Ironically, Conservatives are in the better position because they have evidence from history on their side. Liberals only have 'hope' that people will find their way.

I see only one solution here. Abandon all arguments from authority. But with no one in charge, how do we make decisions? Instead of following what we think, or what other people tell us, we must use the most important tool mankind has ever devised: The Scientific Method.

We need to stop trusting what people say or what our 'gut' tells us. We need to apply the scientific method to lead us to useful answers. Conservatives need to understand that past success is not a guarantee of future success. Conditions change and a method that worked yesterday, may not apply even if the situation looks similar. Liberals need to stop assuming everyone has equal ideas. Some are just plain wrong and we need to confront those ideas head on.

Instead, let's use the scientific method to evaluate our options and find the best possible solutions, no matter who does the experiment.

Left Wing vs.Right Wing: Are They The Same?

HumanistDad — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:19:00 +0000

The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity.

A Child’s Experience With Death

HumanistDad — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:08:00 +0000

A girl drowned after falling through the ice in a lake at the beginning of the March Break. She was my son's age, in the same grade and went to the same school (but in a different class). When I told my son what happened, his response was something like, "that's the first time someone I've known has died."

We talked about it a bit but, for the most part, I left him alone to think about it. He didn't seem too upset, but he did keep thinking about it during the day. Yesterday, we drove past a different lake, still covered in ice and my son put down his Nintendo DS and sat there, looking out the window, thinking. He didn't feel like playing it anymore. We couldn't talk about it because there were 3 other kids in the car and I didn't want to embarrass or upset him, so I let him think.

Today, he was in good spirits but I needed to talk to him about it. I wasn't really sure what to say so we went for a short drive and passed by a river and I told him about a boy that I knew that drowned when I was about his age. The boy was playing on some ice, fell in, and died. So, we talked.

I wanted him to understand that when he gets back to school, he's going to hear many kids talking about how she's in heaven and she's actually OK. I told him that I didn't believe that and I felt that saying things like this actually belittles her short life. Instead of saying, "don't feel bad, she's fine!" I wanted him to know he needs to think that dying is a real tragedy. This girl will never again go to school, grow up, experience more life. The real lesson here is that life really is very, very precious and we need to learn that this life, our life now, is the only one we know we will get so we need to spend it wisely.

I didn't want him to be depressed and think that there was no purpose to life. Instead, I wanted him to treat life as being even more special and important. Don't feel bad that it will end. Don't feel comforted that maybe another life is coming. Instead, feel awe that you are here and you get the chance to live more days. So fill those days doing the things that inspire you. Learn! Enjoy! Don't feel bad about the days this girl won't have, feel wonderful about the experiences she did have! Her life was short, but at least she had one.

I'm not sure if he understood all that we talked about but he did feel better. I think he appreciates now that he needs to start thinking about the things he wants to do and work for them. Hopefully, he'll learn that now is the time to start to make some meaning and purpose to his life.

After all, isn't this the humanist perspective? Live your life to the fullest, don't interfere with another's life if you can help it. If you can, try to help others fulfill their dreams too. We're all on the same ride together. Some get off before they want to, but the rest of us can help make our turn as purposeful as we want it to be.

When it's my turn to leave the ride, don't look back. I'll have enjoyed my ride, now you go enjoy the rest of yours.

A Child’s Experience With Death

HumanistDad — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:08:00 +0000

‘God’ told man to kill bus passenger

HumanistDad — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:15:00 +0000

From today's Toronto Star, an update on the Greyhound Bus beheading from last year. The full story with video can be found here . Once again, god (and not some crazy atheist) is involved:

Accused stabbed, beheaded and mutilated victim in an effort to 'protect himself,' court hears

Mar 04, 2009 04:30 AM
Chinta Puxley
THE CANADIAN PRESS

WINNIPEG – The man who beheaded a passenger on a Greyhound bus was a victim himself, tormented by the voice of God telling him to do it, a forensic psychiatrist told a second-degree murder trial yesterday.

The voice told Vince Li to use an assumed name and get on the bus travelling from Edmonton to Thunder Bay, Ont., last July, Dr. Stanley Yaren said on the first day of Li's trial.

Li chose to sit next to Tim McLean because McLean made a "friendly gesture" to him, Yaren said.

As the bus neared Portage la Prairie, Man., around 8:30 p.m., 40-year-old Li started hearing voices.

"A voice from God told him Mr. McLean was a force of evil and was about to execute him," Yaren told the judge hearing the case.

"He had to act fast to protect himself. In response to that, in a state of panic and fearful for his life, he carried out the acts that he did."

Killing McLean wasn't enough, Yaren said.

Li, whom Yaren diagnosed as schizophrenic, believed 22-year-old McLean was still capable of coming back to life, so he continued to mutilate the body and scattered the parts around the bus, the psychiatrist testified.

Although he admitted his guilt to officers that night, Li pleaded not guilty yesterday. His lawyers are arguing he is not criminally responsible because he is mentally ill.

Yaren concurred.

Li is still psychotic and believes it's just a matter of time before God kills him, Yaren said. He continues to have hallucinations and hear voices, but is on strong antipsychotic medication.

"Mr. Li did not understand he was killing an innocent bystander. He did not understand his actions were wrong," said Yaren.

"It would be in some sense easier if Mr. Li was an anti-social psychopath with a history of malicious behaviour, but he isn't that. He is, as I've come to know him, a decent person. He is as much a victim of this horrendous illness ... as Mr. McLean was a victim."

McLean's family, many of whom came face-to-face with the killer for the first time yesterday, found the suggestion repugnant.

"At some point, my son's biggest mistake was going, `How's it going?' And for that his head was cut off and his insides were splayed all over the inside of that bus," said Carol deDelley, McLean's mother. "I'm having a very difficult time having any sort of sympathy (for Li) ... I don't think Mr. Li is a victim here."

An agreed statement of facts read out in court said Li, blood smeared on his face, had to be Tasered twice when he first escaped from the bus.

After that, Li politely apologized to police and pleaded with officers to take his life. "I'm sorry," he told police. "I'm guilty. Please kill me."

The statement said Li attacked McLean "for no apparent reason" and ignored horrified passengers as he stabbed the young man.

Police said McLean's body parts were found throughout the bus in plastic bags, although part of his heart and both eyes were never found and were presumed eaten by Li. He has denied that, but "there is no other possible location for those items," Crown prosecutor Joyce Dalmyn said.

The victim's ear, nose and tongue were found in Li's pocket.

‘God’ told man to kill bus passenger

HumanistDad — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:15:00 +0000

From today's Toronto Star, an update on the Greyhound Bus beheading from last year. The full story with video can be found here . Once again, god (and not some crazy atheist) is involved:

Accused stabbed, beheaded and mutilated victim in an effort to 'protect himself,' court hears

Mar 04, 2009 04:30 AM
Chinta Puxley
THE CANADIAN PRESS

WINNIPEG – The man who beheaded a passenger on a Greyhound bus was a victim himself, tormented by the voice of God telling him to do it, a forensic psychiatrist told a second-degree murder trial yesterday.

The voice told Vince Li to use an assumed name and get on the bus travelling from Edmonton to Thunder Bay, Ont., last July, Dr. Stanley Yaren said on the first day of Li's trial.

Li chose to sit next to Tim McLean because McLean made a "friendly gesture" to him, Yaren said.

As the bus neared Portage la Prairie, Man., around 8:30 p.m., 40-year-old Li started hearing voices.

"A voice from God told him Mr. McLean was a force of evil and was about to execute him," Yaren told the judge hearing the case.

"He had to act fast to protect himself. In response to that, in a state of panic and fearful for his life, he carried out the acts that he did."

Killing McLean wasn't enough, Yaren said.

Li, whom Yaren diagnosed as schizophrenic, believed 22-year-old McLean was still capable of coming back to life, so he continued to mutilate the body and scattered the parts around the bus, the psychiatrist testified.

Although he admitted his guilt to officers that night, Li pleaded not guilty yesterday. His lawyers are arguing he is not criminally responsible because he is mentally ill.

Yaren concurred.

Li is still psychotic and believes it's just a matter of time before God kills him, Yaren said. He continues to have hallucinations and hear voices, but is on strong antipsychotic medication.

"Mr. Li did not understand he was killing an innocent bystander. He did not understand his actions were wrong," said Yaren.

"It would be in some sense easier if Mr. Li was an anti-social psychopath with a history of malicious behaviour, but he isn't that. He is, as I've come to know him, a decent person. He is as much a victim of this horrendous illness ... as Mr. McLean was a victim."

McLean's family, many of whom came face-to-face with the killer for the first time yesterday, found the suggestion repugnant.

"At some point, my son's biggest mistake was going, `How's it going?' And for that his head was cut off and his insides were splayed all over the inside of that bus," said Carol deDelley, McLean's mother. "I'm having a very difficult time having any sort of sympathy (for Li) ... I don't think Mr. Li is a victim here."

An agreed statement of facts read out in court said Li, blood smeared on his face, had to be Tasered twice when he first escaped from the bus.

After that, Li politely apologized to police and pleaded with officers to take his life. "I'm sorry," he told police. "I'm guilty. Please kill me."

The statement said Li attacked McLean "for no apparent reason" and ignored horrified passengers as he stabbed the young man.

Police said McLean's body parts were found throughout the bus in plastic bags, although part of his heart and both eyes were never found and were presumed eaten by Li. He has denied that, but "there is no other possible location for those items," Crown prosecutor Joyce Dalmyn said.

The victim's ear, nose and tongue were found in Li's pocket.