I posted this on an Atheist vs. Theist Facebook forum for a reaction from theists. So far, we can only hear theistic crickets responding....
Author Archive for HumanistDadPage 2 of 2
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....
I posted this on an Atheist vs. Theist Facebook forum for a reaction from theists. So far, we can only hear theistic crickets responding....
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.
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.
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?
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?
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 )
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 )
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":
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I found it interesting to learn that the Ten Commandments are not really ten at all. According to Wikipedia, there are 14 or 15 commandments (which would explain this clip).
It would seem that different denominations have decided to create their own version of the Ten Commandments which doesn't hold well to the idea that these Commandments are absolutes, as Christians try so hard to portray.
My favourite is the 'Thou Shall Not Kill" or "Thou Shall Not Murder". It turns out that Catholics prefer 'Kill' and Lutherans, 'Murder'. So, which is it?
Killing and murder are not the same thing. It's a matter of intention. Let's say I'm driving my car and I swerve to avoid a deer. As a result, I go into the opposing lane, crash into an oncoming car, and kill the driver. I have now killed and go to Catholic Hell, or do I go to Lutheran Heaven? It's all so confusing.
It would seem that different denominations have decided to create their own version of the Ten Commandments which doesn't hold well to the idea that these Commandments are absolutes, as Christians try so hard to portray.
My favourite is the 'Thou Shall Not Kill" or "Thou Shall Not Murder". It turns out that Catholics prefer 'Kill' and Lutherans, 'Murder'. So, which is it?
Killing and murder are not the same thing. It's a matter of intention. Let's say I'm driving my car and I swerve to avoid a deer. As a result, I go into the opposing lane, crash into an oncoming car, and kill the driver. I have now killed and go to Catholic Hell, or do I go to Lutheran Heaven? It's all so confusing.
Wonderful talk on TED by Barry Schwartz:
Not everything atheist/humanist need be serious:
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
