Planet Atheism » Me

Moral Structure, Part 3 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:51:01 +0000

Summary

Applying these rules to the 78 logically coherent actions produces 10 moral rankings. These rankings are outlined below, in order of decreasing morality.

Moral Actions (12 actions, Ranked 1 – 4)
Nonmoral Actions (26 actions, Ranked 5-8)
Immoral Actions (40 actions, Ranked 9 & 10)

Moral Ranking:

The Ideal (Moral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies) These actions represent the moral ideal. Their intentions are moral, forethought has been taken to eliminate misjudgment, neglect, and chance and hence have moral outcomes.
Coincidentally Ideal (Moral intentions; No forethought taken; Moral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). These actions are similar to the ideal, in that they have moral intentions whose outcomes were not altered by misjudgment, neglect, or chance. These actions, however, have had no forethought included, which introduces an element of doubt. The existence and influence of misjudgment, neglect, and chance can never be completely eliminated. In the case of The Ideal, forethought was taken to determine the existence of these factors and eliminate them. In this case, however, no such forethought was taken, which increases our doubt. The difference in moral value is slight.
The Bittersweet (Moral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral, nonmoral, or immoral outcome; Outcome affected by chance; Rule 3 applies). These are those actions with moral intentions whose outcome has been influenced by chance, despite reasonable forethought. Since actors should not be held responsible for this level of chance, these actions are judged to be moral, according to their intentions, even if the outcome is nonmoral or immoral. The reasoning is that since the element of chance could not have been reasonably predicted or eliminated, we would still encourage this action to be taken in the future with the same intentions and forethought.
The Fortunate (Moral intentions; No forethought taken; Moral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance, but not in a morally significant way; Rule 4 applies). These are actions where misjudgment, neglect, or chance played a rule due to lack of forethought, but did not affect the overall moral value of the outcome. Thus, in the case of actions with moral intentions, they still had moral outcomes, but only luckily so. Such actions are to be repeated, but with the addition of forethought to reduce the influence of the above factors, which could easily decrease the moral value of such actions.
The Cautious (Nonmoral intentions; Forethought taken; Nonmoral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). These are actions whose intentions have no moral value as perceived by the actor, and the actor takes efforts to ensure that such remains the case.
The Simple (Nonmoral intentions; No forethought taken; Nonmoral outcome; No outside influences; Rule 2 applies). As with Cautious actions, though no forethought was taken. The lack of forethought is most likely due to the trivial nature of such actions, hence the title of “The Simple.”
The Unforeseen (Nonmoral intentions; Forethought taken; Moral, nonmoral, or immoral outcome; Outcome affected by chance; Rule 3 applies). As with Bittersweet actions, though the intention was of nonmoral value. The actor is not held responsible, but due to the nonmoral value of the intentions, the act is neither encouraged nor discouraged.
The Careless (Moral or nonmoral intentions: No forethought taken; Immoral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance; Rule 4 applies). Here actions with moral or nonmoral intentions have nonmoral outcomes due to the influence of preventable circumstances. Given the nonmoral outcome, there is no punishment or reward, and forethought is highly encouraged for future attempts at this action again, lest they become Criminally Negligent.
The Criminally Negligent (Moral or nonmoral intentions, No forethought taken; Immoral outcome; Outcome affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance; Rule 4 applies). As with The Fortunate, and the Careless, preventable circumstances have resulted in an immoral outcome. Since these influences could have been reduced by reasonable forethought, the actor is held responsible. Such actions should not taken again without forethought.
The Fiendish (Immoral intentions; Rule 1 applies). All actions with immoral intentions fall into this lowest moral category.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to construct a set of rules to analyze complex moral actions, taking into account intentions, means, consequences, and outside influences in the determination of an overall moral value. 78 logically coherent actions, based on the possible combinations of the atomic elements of a compound action, were analyzed through these rules and ranked according to moral value. The result was not entirely Intentionalist (where only intentions matter) or Consequentialist (where only consequences matter), but a combination, where other factors and responsibilities were a factor.

This paper leaves open many questions including: “What constitutes a simple moral act?” “What level of forethought should be considered reasonable?” “To what degree should we factor related consequences in judging the outcome of an action?” These questions were beyond the scope of this paper. The rules designed here are such that answers to the above questions would not invalidate them, but rather allow these rules to be incorporated into a larger moral framework.

Lastly, there is the issue of the validity of the nonmoral value. Arguments can be made such that all actions, however trivial, are either moral or immoral. While ultimate resolution of this question is out of the scope of this paper, the rules can be modified to account for no nonmoral actions. Actions can still have nonmoral intentions, as intentions are based upon perception and the actor can fail to perceive any moral value to their intended goal. The outcome, however, will be either moral or immoral, since this is an objective assessment. Elimination of all rules with nonmoral outcomes and applying the rules results in the same ranking enumerated above, but with the nonmoral classed actions (5-8) removed. Alternatively, “nonmoral” can be replaced with “moral value unknown” to acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge in moral assessments.

Don’t Link To PZ’s Posts

Me — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 02:50:42 +0000

Seriously. PZ really, really doesn't want you to link the following posts.

We've Angered Another Crackpot

Grandpa Simpson Gets A Writing Gig

The Dead Are Dead

Dr. Robert Lanza and Biocentrism

Pharyngula says:

"Scientist, Theoretician, Genius, Renegade Thinker. He wants us to take down a few posts by Orac and myself. I guess he doesn't like being compared to Grandpa Simpson, or seeing disagreement with his ideas about the afterlife, or being exposed as a quantum woo-meister.

Gosh, what will I do?

Seed has a very clearcut policy on our posts, and there is going to be no attempt to censor any of them. Gee. So I'm not going to edit them.

I'd hate to think that anyone might link to this post, or to these presumably objectional posts #1, #2, or #3.

That might increase the likelihood that Google will return those links in searches for Robert Lanza.

Whatever you do, don't link to any of these posts about Robert Lanza on Scienceblogs!"

Moral Structure Part 2 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 22:59:16 +0000

Defining the Rules

The 144 actions have been constructed by the blind and mindless process of considering all possible combinations of the available components. It is necessary to exclude some of these due to incoherence.

Two rules of logic are established to do this:

Rules of Logic

Rule of Logic 1: If misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, the moral value of the outcome will be the same as of the intent.

Whenever the moral value of an outcome differs from the moral value of the intent, there must be some cause. We have grouped all causes into the three categories of: misjudgment, neglect, chance. If these aren’t factors affecting the outcome of an action, then the moral value of that action cannot have been changed from the moral value of the intentions.

There are 12 violations of this rule.

Rule of Logic 2: Only chance can influence the outcome of an action with forethought.

As previously stated, forethought is defined as a process by which any resulting influence due to misjudgment and neglect are instead classified as influence due to chance. Alternatively, this can be restated that misjudgment and neglect are necessarily due to lack of sufficient forethought. In either case, the existence of forethought precludes the influence of misjudgment and neglect.

There are 54 violations of this rule.

The Rules of Judgment

Factoring out the logically incoherent actions leaves 78.

For those the following rules of Judgment are devised:

Rule 1: Actions with immoral intentions are judged as immoral.

Given the intended purpose of establishing a guideline for behavior, immoral actions will result in immoral outcomes except when affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance. None of those factors are reliable in preventing immoral intentions from being realized. As such, all actions with immoral intentions should be judged as immoral, regardless of outcome.

There are 26 applications of this rule.

Rule 2: Actions where misjudgment, neglect, and chance do not factor are judged according to their intent and outcome, both being of the same moral value.

In accordance with Rule of Logic 1, when misjudgment, neglect, and chance are not factors, then the outcome will invariable have the same moral value as the intentions. Such actions are to be judged in accordance with that moral value.

There are 4 applications of this rule.

Rule 3: Actions with forethought affected by chance are judged according to their intent.

As defined, forethought eliminates the effect of misjudgment and neglect. While elements of chance can be reduced, in quantity and magnitude, to a degree, they cannot be reliably eliminated. Since elements of chance are unpredictable and uncontrollable (predicted and controlled elements of chance would have been eliminated through adequate forethought), the actors should not be reasonable held responsible for them. Such actions are judged according to their intentions, regardless of outcome.

There are 6 applications of this rule.

Rule 4: Actions without forethought affected by misjudgment, neglect, or chance are judged according to their intent or outcome, whichever is of least moral value.

When misjudgment and neglect are factors, they are necessarily a result of lack of forethought on the part of the actor, thus making him or her accountable. When chance is a factor in such situations, it is impossible to determine if such chance was unavoidable, since no forethought was taken to make that determination. In either case, the morality of such actions is determined by their outcome or intentions, whichever is least. This ensures that actors are not rewarded for actions which are accidentally made more moral, but held responsible for actions which are accidentally made less moral since the actor neglected to take reasonable precautions against such an occurrence.

There are 42 applications of this rule.

Continues ...

Introduction, Part 1.

To Be Continued With ....

Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.

Moral Structure. Part 1 by Drafterman of AvC

Me — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:34:32 +0000

This is very long but in my opinion an excellent read, so I'll be publishing it in several parts.

Introduction

Definition of Morality
For the purposes of this paper, morality will be defined as a normative “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.”[1] This definition establishes a goal of a pragmatic universal ethic. It is pragmatic in that this code can be used, in practice, as a guideline for determining what should and should not due. It is universal in that it applies to all people.

Meta-ethics
In attainment of the above goal, this paper will deal with meta-ethics. Associations between specific simple actions (killing, stealing, lying, etc) and their moral values are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper will discuss the morality of how people go about realizing their moral goals. The existence of a moral dictionary, where specific actions are assigned moral values, will be assumed. The actions discussed will reference the assumed moral value of their components, without reference to specific acts. The purpose in doing so is to provide a way of answering such questions as: “Do the ends justify the means?” and “Are intentions all that matter?” Given the intention, the means, and the consequences of an action, this paper will present a method for judging their overall morality.

Moral Values
The moral values used in this paper will be: Moral, nonmoral, and immoral. In the context of universal pragmatism, these values are defined as such:

Moral – Actions people are encouraged to take and praised or rewarded for taking.

Immoral – Actions people are dissuaded from taking and punished or scolded for taking.

Nonmoral – Actions that are neither encouraged nor dissuaded and neither rewarded or punished.

Composition of an Action
It is necessary to define what constitutes an action in the context paper. Actions will consist of the following components: Intention, Forethought, Outcome/Consequences and Outside Influences. For each action a Judgment will be rendered as to its overall morality.

Intention
Intention, will, or desire, is the cause of all morally relevant actions. For all such actions that people engage in, there is an intended goal. The morality of the intention is the perceived morality of the goal. If the actor has failed to consider the morality of their action, or is unable to determine the moral value of their intended goal, then their intentions are considered nonmoral, though the outcome and subsequent judgment may be different.

Forethought
Forethought involves reasoning that goes into the decision to engage upon an action beyond the trivial desire to do it. This includes validating, through rational means, the judgment of the morality of the goal; the consideration of what actions are required to bring about that goal, what other consequences those actions may have, as well as the direct consequences of achieving this goal; and what factors beyond our ability to directly control could affect the goal and how those factors can be mitigated.

Outcome/Consequences
The outcome, or consequences, of the act pertains to the overall, net morality of the action with regards to its consequences, direct or indirect; intended or unintended.

Influence of Misjudgment, Neglect, and Chance
Of the factors ideally considered in adequate forethought, which affected the outcome of the action? Did the actor misjudge the morality of his goal? Did the actor neglect to consider certain side-effects? Did chance or other factors outside the actor’s control interfere?

Judgment of Actions
Finally, the purpose is to take, as input, all of the above components of an action and to judge the action as a whole as moral, nonmoral, or immoral. In the following sections a method will be devised to this.

Summary
Based on the above components, we can construct all possible actions. Intentions have three possibilities: moral, nonmoral, or immoral; Forethought can be performed or not; The outcome can be moral, nonmoral, or immoral; and misjudgment, neglect, and chance can each have an impact or not. This results in 144 possible combinations of actions, though not all are logically coherent.[2]

Caveats
In regarding forethought and the consideration of consequences we are limited by practical measures such as time and knowledge. For the purposes of this paper we will define forethought taken to be of a reasonable degree, such that if misjudgment and neglect are a factor, they should instead be considered elements of chance, outside the control of the actor. Consequences are a similar manner. Consequences don’t exist in a vacuum; for any given action the number of consequences can be considered infinite, depending on the degrees of indirectness that are factored. Again, we will use an undefined standard of reason and assume that the outcome has been defined as moral, nonmoral, or immoral in accordance with this standard.

To Be Continued With ...

Defining The Rules, Part 2.
Summary, Part 3.
Conclusion, Part 4.

Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day by Thunderfoot

Me — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:01:43 +0000

Thunderfoot: "Free Speech is non-negotiable."

Thunderfoot's Why We Won Draw Mohammed Day video

Thunderfoot's South Park vs Islam video

Happy Atheist Solidarity Day!

Me — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:15:20 +0000

Freedom of Religion and Civil Rights

Me — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:23:37 +0000

I was recently having a discussion with a Christian on the issue of Canada's Anti-Spanking law which was inspired by a Christian Biblical Literalist family who believed that whipping and caning their six children daily was required by their religion.

My position is essentially that the Anti-Spanking law recognizes the Rights of the Child which was established by:

1. The Universal Declaration of Rights, 1948.

Article 25. "2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

2. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 1959 and to which most Western countries are signatories.

Principle 9. "The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation."

3. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child (a binding treaty to all signatories), 1989 and to which 129 (mostly) Western countries are signatories.

Article 14. Item 3. "3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Article 19. Item 1. "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."

The Christian's position is nicely summarized in the following paragraph which is a direct quote.

"Need I remind you? - I'm not the one advocating that my personal morality should be forced upon others. Your friends are. But of course, it's okay now - because it's *your* views being forced - as opposed to the fundamentalists on the either side of the spectrum."

My response to the above statement:

"I've been giving this some thought and while I still don't think continuing the discussion would be productive, here are my thoughts anyway.

While (name removed) isn't right, he isn't completely wrong either.

The concept of the "Rights of Man" (Thomas Paine) is a view which is being imposed by Secular society.

However, it's being imposed through International and Civil Law.

Unlike, religious dogma, the Secular State doesn't impose through violence or authoritarianism. It does so through the Rule of Law while recognizing the rights of all in the context of what is being imposed, including religious rights.

So, this is one critical difference which (name removed) doesn't appear to recognize.

Another critical difference is in the content of the views and the value judgment that we place on those views as a culture.

The view that we are imposing through Law is one that recognizes the rights of all and establishes the position that each and every human being has Natural Rights (Thomas Paine) that those rights are inviolable by any belief, social system, culture, etc.

This view is diametrically opposed to any dogmatic belief system like religion, communism, fascism, etc. because it raises the Rights of the Individual above the Rights of the Belief, Organization, State, et al.

So, while Freedom of Religion is recognized under this concept, that freedom cannot and will not be allowed to trump the Natural Rights held by individual human beings including children.

This is the second critical difference that (name removed) doesn't appear to recognize.

That is, this concept enshrines the rights of all individuals whereas if religion were to impose its values on the non-religious, it's concepts only recognize it's religious rights and not the rights of all individuals, particularly where the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions are concerned.

This is the core of the fight going on right now between the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic extremists and the Secular Western State.

It's most obvious right now with the Islamists and their demand to restrict Freedom of Speech on the grounds that everyone should be required to follow their belief system by not "offending" them.

Yes. This is the real crux of their argument.

It's offensive to them, that non-Muslims don't follow their beliefs and therefore we should be required to follow their beliefs by not depicting Muhammed in an image.

The Christians have recently hopped on to this bandwagon, with their campaign to prevent the release of the new series on Comedy Central, called J.C, which will be poking some light-hearted fun at the Messiah and Dear Ole Dad.

Of course, the grounds are the same as the one's the Islamists give and the demand for accommodation is the same despite the rather hypocritical Christian objections when the Islamists do it.

No-one, according to these self-righteous souls, should be able to watch the show because it offends Christians.

The entire point of Freedom of Speech is to protect offensive speech. That is, the right of all of us to give expression to controversial positions on any topic.

This argument that the free speech of all should be curtailed on the grounds that it's offensive to the religious is absurd at best and insidious at worst.

It's nothing more than an underhanded attempt to impose religious values on the non-religious, or those of other religions, through the back door.

If the Islamist extremists aren't allowed to see personifications of Muhammed they don't have to read those newspapers that depict such personifications and if Christians are offended by a show like J.C, they don't have to watch it.

To demand that others can't is imposing their religious values on all of us.

The reasons why religious dogma would consider this an imposition and object to it are rather obvious.

To tie this in to the other topic we were discussing, this is also precisely why Interculturalism is a much better concept and why Multiculturalism is racist and divisive. The concepts are the same.

Interculturalism is founded on the concept of Inclusion and places civil law over and above all cultural and social beliefs, thereby removing cultural relativism as an option.

However, it does this within the context of recognizing the right of all to follow their culture as long as those cultural beliefs do not contravene existing law and/or violate anyone else's civil rights..

Multiculturalism is founded on the concept of Diversity and imposes cultural relativism.

The exception to this occurs in situations where certain (not all) criminal laws are violated. Other laws can be violated on the grounds of accommodationism.

However, this is inconsistently applied since by definition, not accommodating these beliefs (religious or cultural) is in contradiction to the fundamental concept of Multiculturalism.

These critical differences are based on the fundamental concepts advocated by each belief system.

Secularism and Interculturalism is Inclusive and speaks to the rights of all, religious and non-religious.

Multiculturalism and Religious accommodation are, by definition, culturally and religiously relativistic.

Ode to the Spirit of William Lloyd Garrison

Me — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:46:46 +0000

by Danny Boy of AvC

So why play I in adverse air?

What else could such a climate bear---

When all societies find root,

In dualistic institute?

Might I have erred?---it may well be,

But that is not the point, you see:

When social matters polarize,

We all may gain, and all may rise.

When insipid faith deride,

'Tis in defense of rights denied.

In claiming that *I* persecute,

The sheep cry, "Wolf!" in false repute.

For ever they when foul is feigned,

Blind and deaf, by dogma chained,

Overlook *their* bigotry,

Convinced of their hegemony.

Throughout this score of centuries,

Their church our rights and freedoms seized.

Thus when objectively astute,

One finds 'tis *they* who persecute.

Most sit on fences 'tween world views,

The unknown feared and loath to choose;

Just *speaking* of that which divides,

Is of more consequence than sides.

Our ignorance can live quite long,

In silent shadows far prolonged,

Through generations of our young,

Whose new ideas remain unsung.

But with our prejudices fled,

Now dragged into the light instead,

Our ignorance can live no more,

Its fallacies brought to the fore.

And so I'll play my adverse part,

That I my manner may impart.

Though passionate and coarse I be,

'Tis rooted in sincerity.

Celebrate Atheist Solidarity Day June 21, 2010

Me — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:56:16 +0000

Atheist Solidarity Site

Atheist Solidarity Facebook Page

From their Facebook Page.
Description:
This is a simple campaign with one main objective: to have atheists everywhere on Facebook put a tiny atheist solidarity ribbon (one side black other side scarlet red) on their profile image to identify themselves as an atheist. It doesn't have to be big or distracting. It could be just a tiny little ribbon in the corner.

This campaign WILL:

-*ELIMINATE STEREOTYPES* about atheists as others see and recognize atheists all throughout Facebook
-Show others that *ATHEISTS ARE EVERYWHERE* and come with many different personalities and from all around the world
-Provide a means to other atheists who feel it necessary to hide their atheism to *FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE COMING OUT* as others around him/her come out
-Help *UNITE ATHEISTS*, as it will be easier to find others who are also atheists

This group's photo section will be used as a collection of user contributed renditions of the ribbon only. This collection could then be used as a place where atheists can pick a style of ribbon that best fits onto their profile picture.

To get atheist ribbon pictures with transparent backgrounds so you can easily add it on top of profile pictures see: http://bit.ly/aQ8goS

INVITE OTHERS TO THE GROUP TO ENSURE THE CAMPAIGN SUCCEEDS"

I think this is a great idea! Go Mike!

CNN’s Belief Blog. What about the atheists?

Me — Thu, 27 May 2010 13:49:32 +0000

I received the following interesting tidbit from a reader and thought others might be interested. I'll be interested in seeing how this progresses.

Thanks for the heads up, Simon!

From Simon:

I recently got a chance to interview Dan Gilgoff, who's heading up CNN's new Belief blog. I asked him about whether the blog plans on giving voice to atheist views and criticism of religion. I'd say his response was a mixed bag:

http://bloggasm.com/new-cnn-belief-blogger-says-hell-give-voice-to-atheist-and-nonbeliever-issues

Anyway, I thought this was something you and your readers would find interesting.

take care,

Simon

http://bloggasm.com

Draw Mohammed Day!

Me — Wed, 19 May 2010 16:06:10 +0000

My contribution to Draw Mohammed Day follows.

Okay ... I know I'm not an artist and it's just a cut and paste compilation but we all have to start somewhere :-).

The Pansies are the traditional symbol of FreeThought which is why I added them to the bottom of the picture.

The image of Mohammed is a cut and paste of another image located in one my previous posts.

In case, it's difficult to read, the caption says: Religious freedom? or FreeThought? Free Speech protects us all.

Yes it's tame compared to the usual stuff I post but apparently it's still "evil". I decided to go for a tame image in order to make precisely that point.

Where Is The Justice?

Me — Tue, 04 May 2010 14:38:56 +0000

I find it quite despicable that the Churches not only actively cover up and enable pedophilia and child abuse but maliciously persecute/punish those priests who do object and do speak out against the Churches cover ups and enabling of these criminal acts against children.

Father Tom Doyle of the Catholic Church and Reverend Kevin Annett of the United Church of Canada are but two examples.

In the case of the Aboriginal children in the Indian Residential Schools what occurred far exceeded child abuse and crossed the line into child torture and genocide which continued into the 1970s.

It also appears to have been a deliberate and conscious policy at the highest levels of both church and state.

The following statement was issued by the Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared, Canada

I wish them much success in this endeavor and encourage others to support them and participate in this historic and very important event.

Statement ------------------------

Help Us Remove the Gag from Survivors of Genocide in Canada:

Participate in our Peoples' Inquiry into Residential Schools on June 15 in Winnipeg - Put and End to the Government and Church Coverup known as the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission"

Issued by the Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared, Canada

May 1, 2010

Dear friends,

For nearly two decades, in the face of enormous repression and concealment by church and state, our network has documented the stories of torture, genocide and murder by survivors of Indian residential schools across Canada, and has forced this issue onto the national political agenda.

In response, the groups responsible for the death of nearly half the children in these institutions - the government of Canada and the Catholic, Anglican and United Church - have exonerated themselves from their crimes and established their own "truth and reconciliation commission" (TRC) to whitewash their responsibility for clearly intentional crimes against humanity.

This "TRC" is in essence an enormous miscarriage of justice.

The TRC has no power to lay criminal charges or issue subpoenas, will not allow the naming of names or presenting of evidence of wrongdoing in residential schools, will not grant protective immunity to those testifying, and will prevent its findings to be used in courts of law.

With such restrictions and censorship, the TRC will be incapable of conducting any serious inquiry into crimes in Indian residential schools, or of issuing any kind of detailed or accurate report about this tragic history that claimed the lives of at least 50,000 children over a century.

Not only will this "official" self-examination by the parties guilty of a crime provide no satisfaction to the thousands of survivors who are seeking an open forum in which they can be freely heard, and seek justice, but the mandate of the "TRC" violates international human rights protocols requiring an impartial and open inquiry into apparent crimes against humanity, and the proper consultation of victims of such criminal acts.

In response, our network and other survivors of church abuse will be holding a counter hearing process across Canada to provide a real and open inquiry into the Indian residential schools of Canada.

This counter hearing will be known as The Peoples' Inquiry into Crimes in Indian Residential Schools, and will commence on the day that the "TRC" opens its first forum, on Tuesday, June 15 at The Forks in downtown Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Our hearing will be held near to the site of the TRC event and will invite survivors to present their full stories and evidence of what they suffered in these schools, and what they still endure, in an uncensored venue.

We anticipate and have requested the presence of international human rights observers at our event on June 15, in order to monitor the evidence submitted to our forum, and any possible irregularities or restrictions occurring at the government's "TRC" event.

Our campaign has the support of survivors' groups, human rights networks and the news media in Europe and other regions, and its events and findings will be reported around the world.

Our aim is to produce and issue an eventual Counter Report to the government's TRC report that can be used to bring charges against Canada and its churches.

We invite you to officially endorse and take part in our June 15 counter hearing and open forum, and help us record for the world the complete evidence of crimes in Canadian Indian residential schools.

We see our campaign as part of a growing international movement to bring to justice those responsible for the organized criminal abuse and trafficking in children, including church, government and police agencies.

Please contact us at this email or at 250-753-3345 in Canada. More information will be sent to you soon, as part of international press advisories concerning our actions.

Sincerely,

Rev. Kevin Annett, Secretary

Chief Louis Daniels - Whispers Wind, Elder, Anishinabe Nation

for The Friends and Relatives of the Disappeared - Canada

Hidden From History web site

Canada, The Church And Aboriginal Genocide

Me — Sat, 01 May 2010 19:56:23 +0000

The following is a powerful 2 hour film depicting ex-Reverend of the United Church of Canada, Kevin Annett's struggle to get justice for the thousands of Canadian Aboriginal children murdered by both the United and Catholic Churches in Canada as well as the hundreds of thousands who were kidnapped from their families and subjected to brutal psychological, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the priests and the nuns.

Kevin Annett continues to be harassed and persecuted for his exposure of both the church and government but despite this continues his fight for justice on behalf of the Aboriginal people of Canada.

While he remains a Christian (follower of Christ) he has harsh criticism for religion and the Church and it's hypocrisy.

Unrepentant

Mass Graves at former Indian Residential Schools and Hospitals across Canada

A. British Columbia

1.   Port Alberni: Presbyterian-United Church school (1895-1973), now occupied by the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council (NTC) office, Kitskuksis Road . Grave site is a series of sinkhole rows in hills 100 metres due west of the NTC building, in thick foliage, past an unused water pipeline. Children also interred at Tseshaht reserve cemetery, and in wooded gully east of Catholic cemetery on River Road .

2.   Alert Bay : St. Michael’s Anglican school (1878-1975), situated on Cormorant Island offshore from Port McNeill. Presently building is used by Namgis First Nation. Site is an overgrown field adjacent to the building, and also under the foundations of the present new building, constructed during the 1960’s. Skeletons seen “between the walls”.

3.   Kuper Island: Catholic school (1890-1975), offshore from Chemainus. Land occupied by Penelakut Band. Former building is destroyed except for a staircase. Two grave sites: one immediately south of the former building, in a field containing a conventional cemetery; another at the west shoreline in a lagoon near the main dock.

4.   Nanaimo Indian Hospital: Indian Affairs and United Church experimental facility (1942-1970) on Department of National Defense land. Buildings now destroyed. Grave sites are immediately east of former buildings on Fifth avenue , adjacent to and south of Malaspina College .

5.   Mission: St. Mary’s Catholic school (1861-1984), adjacent to and north of Lougheed Highway and Fraser River Heritage Park . Original school buildings are destroyed, but many foundations are visible on the grounds of the Park.

In this area there are two grave sites: a) immediately adjacent to former girls’ dormitory and present cemetery for priests, and a larger mass grave in an artificial earthen mound, north of the cemetery among overgrown foliage and blackberry bushes, and b) east of the old school grounds, on the hilly slopes next to the field leading to the newer school building which is presently used by the Sto:lo First Nation. Hill site is 150 metres west of building.

6.   North Vancouver: Squamish (1898-1959) and Sechelt (1912-1975) Catholic schools, buildings destroyed. Graves of children who died in these schools interred in the Squamish Band Cemetery , North Vancouver .

7.   Sardis: Coqualeetza Methodist-United Church school (1889-1940), then experimental hospital run by federal government (1940-1969). Native burial site next to Sto:lo reserve and Little Mountain school, also possibly adjacent to former school-hospital building.

8. Cranbrook: St. Eugene Catholic school (1898-1970), recently converted into a tourist “resort” with federal funding, resulting in the covering-over of a mass burial site by a golf course in front of the building. Numerous grave sites are around and under this golf course.

9. Williams Lake : Catholic school (1890-1981), buildings destroyed but foundations intact, five miles south of city. Grave sites reported north of school grounds and under foundations of tunnel-like structure.

10. Meares Island (Tofino): Kakawis-Christie Catholic school (1898-1974). Buildings incorporated into Kakawis Healing Centre. Body storage room reported in basement, adjacent to burial grounds south of school.

11. Kamloops : Catholic school (1890-1978). Buildings intact. Mass grave south of school, adjacent to and amidst orchard. Numerous burials witnessed there.

12. Lytton: St. George’s Anglican school (1901-1979). Graves of students flogged to death, and others, reported under floorboards and next to playground.

13. Fraser Lake : Lejac Catholic school (1910-1976), buildings destroyed. Graves reported under old foundations and between the walls.

Alberta:

1. Edmonton : United Church school (1919-1960), presently site of the Poundmaker Lodge in St. Albert . Graves of children reported south of former school site, under thick hedge that runs north-south, adjacent to memorial marker.

2. Edmonton : Charles Camsell Hospital (1945-1967), building intact, experimental hospital run by Indian Affairs and United Church . Mass graves of children from hospital reported south of building, near staff garden.

3. Saddle Lake : Bluequills Catholic school (1898-1970), building intact, skeletons and skulls observed in basement furnace. Mass grave reported adjacent to school.

4. Hobbema: Ermineskin Catholic school (1916-1973), five intact skeletons observed in school furnace. Graves under former building foundations.

Manitoba:

1. Brandon : Methodist-United Church school (1895-1972). Building intact. Burials reported west of school building.

2. Portage La Prairie: Presbyterian-United Church school (1895-1950). Children buried at nearby Hillside Cemetery .

3. Norway House: Methodist-United Church school (1900-1974). “Very old” grave site next to former school building, demolished by United Church in 2004.

Ontario:

1. Thunder Bay : Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital , still in operation. Experimental centre. Women and children reported buried adjacent to hospital grounds.

2. Sioux Lookout: Pelican Lake Catholic school (1911-1973). Burials of children in mound near to school.

3. Kenora: Cecilia Jeffrey school, Presbyterian-United Church (1900-1966). Large burial mound east of former school.

4. Fort Albany : St. Anne’s Catholic school (1936-1964). Children killed in electric chair buried next to school.

5. Spanish: Catholic school (1883-1965). Numerous graves.

6. Brantford : Mohawk Institute, Anglican church (1850-1969), building intact. Series of graves in orchard behind school building, under rows of trees.

7. Sault Ste. Marie: Shingwauk Anglican school (1873-1969), some intact buildings. Several graves of children reported on grounds of old school.

Quebec:

1. Montreal : Allan Memorial Institute, McGill University , still in operation since opening in 1940. MKULTRA experimental centre. Mass grave of children killed there north of building, on southern slopes of Mount Royal behind stone wall.

Sources:

- Eyewitness accounts from survivors of these institutions, catalogued in Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust (2nd ed., 2005) by Kevin Annett. Other accounts are from local residents.

Source: Hidden From History dot Org - Breaking News

Hidden From History dot Org - Main site

Tim Minchin On The Pope, Mo Boobs and Jesus and Mo ….

Me — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:48:26 +0000

While the video and the cartoons are quite hilarious, all have the potential of being extremely offensive to some.

If you are:
1. easily offended
2. object to swearing
3. are religious (particularly Catholic or Muslim)
4. are a religious accommodationist

And/Or are humor challenged...

Do Not Watch This Video Or View The Rest Of This Post.

Now, you can't say you haven't been warned ....

Note that the entire point of Free Speech rights is the right to be critical, no matter how offensive others may perceive that criticism.

Since this is a right that I take seriously, and choose to exercise freely, anyone who has objections to that should not read this post or this blog.

Since I don't want to single out the Catholics ....

In honor of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (May 20) the following cartoon posted originally on and belonging to Blazing Cat Fur, and in honor of BoobQuake follows.

And then there's the famous (and one of my favorite) cartoon series:

Jesus and Mo

The Freethinking Woman : A Historical Perspective. Pt. 1 of 3

Me — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:49:31 +0000

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute." --Rebecca West

Trying to define the term Feminism is challenging because it means many different things to many different people.

My definition is quite simple.

Feminism is the movement for equal rights for women whatever that might entail during any given period in history.

Given my definition I don't accept the concept of "protofeminism" nor do I believe that there were only three "waves" of feminism.

That said, for now and in the interests of clarity, I will make my comments within the context of accepted historical standards.

Historically speaking there have been three "waves" of feminism defined.

The first wave began in the 18th century along with the development of the FreeThought movement and Rationalism and was supported by many FreeThinkers from it's inception.

It's neither an accident nor a coincidence that the suffragette leaders were FreeThinkers for the most part.

The reason for this is that it was the FreeThinkers who were questioning the standards and the existing beliefs, holding them up to the light of reason, discarding that which didn't meet rational standards and upholding that which did.

That's not to say that Christian women didn't play a role in fighting for the right to vote. They did. It was, in fact, the one unifying issue between Christian feminists and FreeThinking feminists.

However, there was a divergence of interest on other issues where the Christian feminists focused on Temperance (prohibition of alcohol) whereas the FreeThinking feminists focused on Abolition (banning slavery) amongst other issues.

While the stated focus of this First Wave was womens suffrage, the right to vote, it's real focus was much more than that.

It was about the right of women to recognized as persons under the law.

After all, that's precisely why women didn't have suffrage. We were legally considered chattel, the property of the men who were in charge of us whether they were our fathers, husbands, uncles, brothers, caretakers, etc.

Note that according to Amendment XIV of the US Constitution, citizens were persons and on those grounds granted the privileges defined by the Constitution including the right to vote. Since women were not given the right to vote they were not considered persons under the law or citizens as defined by the XIVth Amendment.

Amendment XIV

(The proposed amendment was sent to the states June 16, 1866, by the Thirty-ninth Congress. It was ratified July 9, 1868.)
Section 1

[Citizenship defined; privileges of citizens.]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

While the women of the day who posed arguments to support their right to equality did so within the context of the times and in relation to the existing social theories which kept them enslaved, the real issue was glaringly obvious and while unstated, was reflected clearly in Marion Kirkland Reid's, A Plea For Women (1843), where she elucidated three issues which stood in the way of women's rights. These three issues formed the foundation for both the First and Second Wave Feminist movements.

They were:
1. Lack of civil rights
2. Unjust laws against women
3. Inability to obtain an education

If women were considered human beings, people under the law, the above would have resulted in violations of the existing Constitutions in various western countries.

In addition, it was implicit in the existing social theories of the day which Reid also addressed:

1. women and domesticity
2. women and Christianity.

Reid spoke to these in the context of "women's appropriate role in society".

Source: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2003/reid.html

So Reid's major contribution was to objectify through these issues the real problem which was that women were not considered to be persons under the law, by the society of the day.

Reid's document, combined with the shunning of women from around the world, who attended the first World Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840 led to the Seneca Falls Convention in the US, on women's rights. The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments was authored here by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and became the foundation for American feminism.

Excerpt:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

***

"Closing Remarks
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sentiments

Once suffrage, the right to vote, was won, a major hurdle was overcome. This right, through the XIXth Amendment of the US Constitution legally established that women were persons under the law.

Amendment XIX

(The proposed amendment was sent to the states June 4, 1919, by the Sixty-sixth Congress. It was ratified Aug. 18, 1920.)

[The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied because of sex.]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

[Congress given power to enforce this article.]

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html

This allowed women to move things to the next level, to establish legal and social equality in other areas.

Women now began the process of establishing an identity through media and culture, legal rights, employment inclusion and equity, reproductive rights, exploration of gender issues and female sexuality, fighting for social reform on many fronts including Family and Property Law.

None of these issues was won easily and at times resulted in the imprisonment of advocates.

In addition, many rights were removed after WWII since women were no longer needed in the work force.

This environment led to the Second Wave of Feminism.

Simone de Beauvoir, mother of modern feminism, existentialist philosopher, feminist, polyamorist, bisexual, lover of and inspiration to Jean Paul Sartre wrote the ground-breaking book, The Second Sex in 1949 which laid the foundation for this Second Wave of Feminism.

Beauvoir's critique of First Wave Feminism corrected errors in and advanced the philosophical approaches originally adopted by First Wave Feminism.

She established the concept that women's goal wasn't to be like men but to be equal to men, that equality was established by the freedom to choose, and was responsible for coining the term, Women's Liberation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism

In Honor Of BoobQuake -Updated

Me — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:29:13 +0000

My Boobies - Censored ;-D

Event initiated by Blag Hag

BoobQuake Cartoon - Hilarious

Facebook

eSarcasms' news and views on BoobQuake - Hilarious

Mo' Boobs for BoobQuake - Do not click if you are easily offended!

I'll be updating all day with links to blogs, sites and news....

BoobQuake Promises a Shake-Up on April 26!

Me — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:12:21 +0000

The BoobQuake event which started as a joke by skeptic atheist feminist blogger, Blah Hag, has taken hold with nearly 130,000 Facebook participants and thousands of tweets on Twitter, as of this moment. (Yes Skeptic Feminists *do* have a sense of humor!).

"In the name of science, I offer my boobs" says she :-) who is also a Biology/Evolution major.

Blag Hag has proposed that women around the world dress immodestly (show cleavage, etc.) on Monday April 26, 2010 to determine if Iranian cleric Sedighi's claims that feminine immodesty causes earthquakes (yes he actually said that!).

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Sedighi is Tehran's acting Friday prayer leader."

One tweet on Twitter commented that this was a win-win event for women because if there wasn't an earthquake we have dispelled a very silly superstition and if there was an earthquake we will have established boobs as Lethal Weapons of the WMD (weapons of mass distraction) variety :-).

It works for me either way.

The media has become quite entranced with the event being reported everywhere from the US, Canada, Australia, India, et al.

Vancouver has decided to have a rally on April 26 called BoobQuake in front of the Art Gallery. Immodestly (but legally) dressed women will parade their immodesty from 4PM to 8PM.

The organizer of the Vancouver rally will have a computer with a geiger counter to test for any shaking in the area.

Blag Hag was quoted by CNN as saying:

“It’s not supposed to be serious activism that is going to revolutionize women’s rights, but just a bit of fun juvenile humor,” she wrote. “I’m a firm believer that when someone says something so stupid and hateful, serious discourse isn't going to accomplish anything - sometimes light-hearted mockery is worthwhile.”

And I couldn't agree more.

Participate and Enjoy!

Indian Freethought On The Move

Me — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:02:56 +0000

The Indian Freethought Community is getting busy organizing and building the Freethought movement in India.

At the forefront of this movement is a group called Nirmukta, many of whom are members on various atheist sites like Atheist Nexus, alt.atheism, Atheism versus Christianity (theism), etc.

One member has actively organized campaigns to go into the countryside and teach the villagers science in order to educate them on superstitious beliefs and the damage they do.

They've started a website and Forum which some of you might be interested in reading or joining.

I don't think there's any requirement that you be Indian to join the Forums.

They are located here:

Forum
http://nirmukta.net/index.php

Website
http://nirmukta.com/

One of the Nirmukta articles was picked up and Tweeted by Richard Dawkins recently.
http://twitter.com/RIchardDawkins

And posted on Dawkins.net
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5414

India is a land entrenched in superstitious belief but it is also a land which gave rise to the earliest known atheistic, materialist, naturalist and secular belief system known to humanity, Carvaka.

Best wishes to the Indian Atheists and may they enjoy the same successes that have occurred with other atheistic groups around the world in recent years.

Trance Gemini of Atheist Nexus, Atheism vs Christianity, alt.atheism, Nirmukta, et al :-)

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015

Christopher Maloney Is A Quack

Me — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:58:18 +0000

From Pharyngula:

"Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine, where quacks like him get to call themselves "doctors". These so-called "doctors" get to make recommendations like this, in which he disparages standard flu vaccines and suggests these useless prescriptions:

Parents waiting for vaccinations can provide their children with black elderberry, which blocks the H1N1 virus. A single garlic capsule daily cuts in half the incidence and the severity of a flu episode for children.

There's another way you can tell he's a quack. When a student, Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that "Naturopathic medicine is pure bull" and stating that naturopaths are underqualified and do not deserve the title of "doctor," Maloney took action to silence him. After all, we can't have people questioning quacks — that just makes them look even more ridiculous, which could lead to a loss of business.

So Maloney complained to Wordpress, where Hawkins blog was located, and got them to shut it down. This does not speak well of craven Wordpress; if you're using Wordpress hosting, you might want to reconsider it and move elsewhere. You know, to someplace that respects reality.

Now not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack. Shutting down blogs that criticize him? That never, ever works. In fact, it tends to backfire rather severely — because now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack. I'm also going to ask all of you out there who reads this to echo the message: Christopher Maloney is a quack. Won't that be fun? Poke the net, and the net pushes back.

Share the message. Let the whole world know that Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack.

He's also tasteless. This is possibly the ugliest youtube video ever."

The Biblical God Concept : A Logical Disproof

Me — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:48:52 +0000

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.

The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness. Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do. Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality. Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.

The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist. In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves reductio ad absurdum. That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition. This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete. As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it. By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect. In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

This is the absurdity. Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed. Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived. Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect. That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate. In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing. It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good. As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that our ability to know an external reality (if there is one) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this, meaningful development as the entities we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards. That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive. Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

John Jubinsky, MA–Mathematics, CPA, Atheism vs Christianity

Happy New Years 2010, or, Happy Monkey ;-)

Me — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:20:26 +0000

Best wishes and a Happy New Year / Happy Monkey to all of my atheist friends :-).

My wish for this year is that all of our atheist communities around the world continue their steady consolidation and growth.

This is a huge achievement for a community which holds no beliefs in common and is simply getting together on the grounds that we lack a belief in gods.

We're not sheep and so our biggest challenge will be to learn to not only accept and tolerate our differences but embrace them and respect each other for them, where we can and for the most part.

Dogmatism is our biggest enemy whether it be the dogmatism of authoritarianism, religiosity or political correctness. Extremism and terrorism are partners in crime with dogmatism.

An awareness and understanding of dogmatism and how it works will hopefully enlighten us so that we can overcome the challenges we face in uniting disparity and can work together to shine the light of reason on the world.

Wishing everyone a wonderful and successful new year!

Trance Gemini

God and Amateurs Interpreting Science

Me — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:06:35 +0000

What always amuses me is that a great many theists (even those that seem rational) are taken with the notion that current models of physics and cosmology justify their beliefs. Mostly these are founded upon misinterpretations of these models, actually.

This is the "layman's" interpretation of the current state of cosmology: - There was an event (the big bang) that caused the universe.

The theists in question here then make the (completely unfounded) statement that god is the first cause (by no means demonstrated, and certainly doesn't favor a personal god over a nonpersonal god).

The actual situation is a terribly difficult one, and this layman's interpretation is a vast oversimplification.

1. Let's take the word "caused" to begin with. "Cause" implies that there is a sequential nature to events. That is, they are time-ordered. However, if there is no time, then there can be no causality (this is self-evident if you think about it). Asking what came "before" the big bang, or what "caused" the big bang, is like asking "what is north of the north pole"? (Thanks to Hawking for this wonderful analogy). As soon as you start going "more north" than the north pole, you start moving south again because you're constrained to the surface of the sphere. So the question is a nonsensical one from the get-go.

2. A proper theory of gravity (incorporating quantum mechanics) will necessarily be acausal below some time scale, unless general relativity is wrong altogether (which I don't see evidence of). Despite the protestations of certain people, this is the current consensus (and this is also a self-evident conclusion if one takes the merger of general relativity and quantum mechanics seriously).

3. The current models of "the big bang" actually only say that the observable universe, at some point around 13.7 billion years ago, was a very hot, dense entity which rapidly expanded and then cooled. It actually says absolutely nothing about what happened "before" this event (if such a concept is valid to begin with). There is absolutely nothing in the observable universe that currently states that the universe had a beginning. The current state of the art is that this question is, at present, unknown. An eternal universe that had a portion rapidly expand is completely adequate to explain everything we see in nature. There are a plethora of models that do not rely upon a "beginning" to the universe at all, ranging from cyclic universes in string theory involving brane collisions in higher dimensions, to a multiverse hypothesis. At present none are particularly preferred, but there are actually experiments that can be created to test these hypotheses (for instance, the LISA experiment will look for standing gravity waves to probe the structure of the early universe).

Because of 1 + 2 above, philosophizing about the nature of the origins of our universe is pretty difficult. Philosophy already assumes a causal relation of events. As I've argued, when dealing with the early universe, this may not be (and probably IS not) a good assumption.

Because of 3 above, in any case, even assuming a causal nature of events in *some* sense, the beginnings of the universe are still very much an open question with no resolution (CERTAINLY none that support the Christian ideas of a creator deity that takes a personal interest in day-to-day life and morality).

Subsequently, it always amuses me when theists oversimplify the situation and select the portions of it that support their presupposed "conclusion" (this should start ringing bells in any scientific mind).

I hope this sets the record straight and I've convinced the amateurs that they're really barking up the wrong tree. I have a feeling it won't, because human beings are necessarily terrible at intuitively grasping things outside of macroscopic physics, since they have no direct experience with the consequences of any other type of reality. Suffice to say that reality is a great deal more complicated than that, and one must abandon intuition to make any headway at all. But at least I gave it a shot.

by Rappoccio of AvC

SkepChick At Skepticon

Me — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:43:16 +0000

Aggressive Atheism by Pat Condell

Me — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:33:15 +0000

Vivisectus, a personal transition

Me — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:02:11 +0000

Hi guys. Long time no see!

These days, when people ask me about my religious beliefs, I describe myself as a stark raving Atheist, and that I believe that religion is bad for you. Originally I didn’t want to have this point of view, but I started a discussion on this site months ago (a year ago? Has it really been that long?) and after a while I ran out of objections to the idea that religion is bad. When I look at it good and hard, I simply cannot escape the conclusion that religion is, at its best, slowing our progress as enlightened, rational human beings. At its worst, it is actually killing us. In return we get a little bit of solace, some social clubs and a bit of charity, although the charities tend to have some missionary strings attached.

One of the objections Theists have to this point of view is that they feel we cannot be moral without a God. However, we do not actually base our morality on holy books – we simply pick and choose from them the bits that seem moral to us. There are few Christians who feel it would be moral to offer their daughters to be raped in stead of a guest, for instance. In stead they focus on the bits that sound nicer, and claim that the ones they don’t like are allegorical. But if it is people doing the choosing, then that means that the morality is in the people, not in the book. If you took bible-morality at face value, you would (1) have to develop multiple personality disorder, because it regularly contradicts itself and (2) be considered a dangerous maniac, and certainly unfit to raise children. The only other option is for a human being to choose how to interpret it, and which bits to take seriously and literally, and which bits to treat as allegorical fairytales. This means the moral choice is made by people, in spite of what the bible says.

Another objection is that everyone has a right to believe what they want. This is true, but within limits. Unfortunately, almost every religion teaches intolerance that is not compatible with modern morals. The religious take on homosexuality is a great example of this. Few people these days believe that you should be treated differently for being gay, yet almost all religions teach that it is in fact a sin, and most even go on to say that homosexuals should be put to death, or that they will suffer terrible punishments for their sexuality in the afterlife. The attitude towards women in the Torah, Quran and Bible is another such example – even the most current is still from the dark ages, and has a dark ages attitude that it still supports today.

Does someone have the right to express the belief that, lets say, gay people expressing their love in a physical way is inherently evil? If so, how far are they allowed to go? Even if they have the right to freedom of expression, should we tolerate intolerance on the grounds that intolerance is wrong? If so, why is religious intolerance more tolerable than ordinary household racism, or bigotry, or anti-Semitism? And what about the fact that because so many people keep the world safe for religion and/or support religion actively, they are keeping a set of divisive, intolerant and regularly homicidal systems in place? Could open criticism or even active resistance to religion not be seen as an act of self-defense by someone like me, who does not want to see his children blown to bits by people who believe in an invisible man in the sky? Anyone who says that this is an exaggeration should remember I live in Ireland – over here, being blown up over what brand of Christianity is dominant in your neighborhood is
not unthinkable at all – it is recent history and living memory. It is real, and deadly.

To state that in order to believe something, you need a reason to believe it to be true is decried as Scientism, as just another fundamentalist stance. But this is simply not the case – it is a mere common-sense approach. If you show an atheist proof that God exists, that atheist will immediately say he or she was wrong, because atheism it is not an absolute position. It merely states that there is no reason to believe otherwise, and that since we have far more elegant and useful models to explain things than “God did it” we see no reason to think a god exists. If proof would be forthcoming, we would change our minds immediately. The fact that god remains undetectable by any means at our disposal is the real reason that we seem so staunchly entrenched in our point if view. Show me proof of god, and I will believe. But I have never seen any, and frankly I think if there was any we would have found it by now. Plenty of people have searched for it. In the end, who knows? But I doubt it severely. In the meantime I cannot help but notice that religion without proof tends to lead to very little good and a whole lot of bad.

Another thing I notice is that Theists love to point at a small gap in any theory, and then cram God into it without any justification as to why THEIR god should go there, or any god at all, and not, say, the invisible unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster. This is a double standard – first they require that the naturalist view explains everything to incredibly exacting standards, and then they inject a supernatural entity with no more justification that “this is what we have always thought” or “because the bible says so”.

All these objections – scientism, counter-fundamentalism, God is in the Gaps – are not really objections at all. Religion gives no other answer than “It Is Done By Magic”, which is the same as no answer at all. Religion does not have the answers it claims it has. It does not teach us how to live. It does not explain how our world works. It merely says “It’s Magic” or "Because God Said So" and leaves it at that. In return, we are expected to revere it, fund it, allow it to corrupt scientific education, exempt it from taxation and generally refrain from openly criticizing it.

The need for an impenetrable mystery that is somehow accessible though irrational actions, where you can gain status and importance through competitive self-denial and exaggerated obsession with guilt and ritual cleanliness seems to run deep in my culture. Being human simply doesn’t seem to be enough. People feel a need to be a part of something bigger than humanity, or even reality. Perhaps the need to control the uncontrollable, to see subjective shapes in an objective universe is simply too strong to be kept at bay by rationality. Religion gives you power over people, it makes you feel like you are part of the select few that are really in the know, it divides the world into the righteous and the depraved, and handily puts you in the bracket you want to be in. That is a tough act to compete with, if all you have to offer in return is sober rationalism. So to a degree it is understandable that religion is still clouding the judgment of so many people.

And yet it is strange if you consider how magical the world is, how full of wonderful mysteries for us to ponder, how brave and inventive we are – and all this without the need of the supernatural. We all have a lifetime of wonder and curiosity to look forward to. Religion has nothing to offer that comes even close to it. Why is it so hard for us to stop pretending that it does?

by Vivisectus of AvC

Test

Me — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:50:56 +0000

KBT3N7J9MSVT

St. Onan’s Prayer : Minute Of Prayer In Response To The Christian DDOS Attack On Australian Atheist Web Sites

Me — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:50:17 +0000

Saint Onan's Prayer for Brock

Your Holy Ineffableness,

I know it's been an age since we chatted, and I wouldn't want you to be under the impression I was seeking to renew our relationship on any kind of permanent basis.

The fact is, things have been just peachy since I ditched you, and there's no way you're getting those Sundays back. They're mine now.

But God, the reason I'm calling is that some of your camp followers down here on Earth have been spreading the rumour that you're back in the imprecatory prayer market. If so, this is just too good an opportunity to pass up.

Lord, please SMITE the caterpillar known as Brock Organ for me. Smite him with intelligence, so that he will know what a retard he has been.

Smite him with a sense of honesty, so that his heart will recoil in horror from its own darkness. Smite him with an open mind, so that he shall weep for the prior confinement of his soul.

And when Thou has completed this most holy and horrific smiting, Lord, please finish the job by smiting the Borgan with a rectal probe the size of a telegraph pole.

Do all that and I'll consider going to church again. Once a year at Christmas.

Amen.

My Prayer : Minute Of Prayer In Response To The Christian DDOS Attack On Australian Atheist Web Sites

Me — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:46:19 +0000

Trance Gemini's Prayer

Dear God, otherwise known as Roger,
Dear Holy Trinity:
Your Greatnesses,
The Omniscient Google,
Her Horniness and Great Pinkness, the Omnipresent Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Holy Hooves Never Be Shod) (PBUH),
The Great and Omnipotent, All-Loving Flying Spaghetti Monster

(Just covering my bases here folks)

I wish to thank, with all my heart, those Christian dDOSers who participated in the DDOS attack on Australian Atheist web sites and who through the Divine intervention of the Greatnesses above, gave The Rise Of Atheism Convention all that free publicity.

I forgive those who had Black Hearts and Evil Intentions and wanted to make atheists suffer by disrupting their web sites.

I also forgive all those Catholic Trolls and all those other Trolls and their friends who hate me so much, wish to condemn me to the Burning Fires of Hell as a "witch" and/or "demon" (apparently this the top of a rather hot and heavy debate).

Bless Them and Forgive Them Their Evil And Their Pathological Lies, Warm Their Little Black Hearts, Oh Greatnesses.

Forgive XNun aka too many sock puppets to count for her online smear campaign against me because she appears to hate atheists so much, particularly ones that are female Moderators (and female Moderators of Groups who ban her).

Forgive Liam aka too many sock puppets to count for getting my friend, the atheist Woodbridge fired from his job, threatening to get other atheists fired from their jobs because they kicked his ass in debating theology and for his online smear campaign against me for banning him because of this.

Forgive Joe aka too many sock puppets to count for starting thread after thread amounting to hundreds of posts, lasting for weeks, abusing me because I object to Catholic Priests raping little children and refused to retract my statements.

Forgive the Religious Trolls, Fagsy, J, and the Dookster for ... well ... existing (no need to forgive the Dooksters obsession with fantasizing about me in a brown leather teddy and self-flagellation though. He'll really, really like it if you punish him for that.)

Forgive all the Trolls and their Friends who like to stalk me everywhere, pretend to be normal human beings and spread malicious lies about me simply because I stand up to them and their trolling, kick their asses in debate, catch them at all their tricks ;-)

Oh Greatnesses, Bless All Their Black Little Hearts.

Luckily for us, All Good comes out of All Evil and not only did those atheist web sites recover quickly, but many, many more people are aware of The Rise Of Atheism Convention being held in Australia next March.

I am grateful for the Divine Intervention of the Greatnesses above which turned Evil into Good and shone the light of Love on the Rise Of Atheism Convention and on atheists around the world.

Thanks Be To You,

God, otherwise known as Roger,
Holy Trinity:
Your Greatnesses,
The Omniscient Google,
Her Horniness and Great Pinkness, the Omnipresent Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Holy Hooves Never Be Shod) (PBUH),
The Great and Omnipotent, All-Loving Flying Spaghetti Monster

Peace My Christian Brothers and Sisters ;-)

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

--
Sista Trance.
High Priestess of the Holy Order of the Virtual Temple of the
Invisible Pink Unicorn
Protector of the Holy Sock of Bob
Keeper of the Words of the Grand High Llama
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BAAWA Knight Applicant
EAC Knightette
EAC Disciplinary Committee
Leather Teddy/CatONineTails Disciplinary Squad Leader
Agent 000777136669854321. Mange Inciter. Special Services.
EAC Department of Linquistic Subversion.
Evil Anagrams Division.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Minute Of Prayer In Response To The Christian DDOS Attack On Australian Atheist Web Sites

Just a little background.

Atheists on Facebook have decided that our "retaliation" to the Christian
DDOS attack on Australian Atheist web sites is to have a Minute of Prayer at
any point over the next two days.

Atheists around the world have taken this message to heart
______________________________________________________

Dan Kerr sent a message to the members of Minute of prayer in response to
the Rise Of Atheism Convention DDOS attack.

--------------------
Subject: The time has come

To all my fellow satirists, we have finally arrived at our momentous event.
A full minutes prayer, using various clever methods (see the comments for
some ideas) to the Christian God, sometimes known as Roger.

With any luck our combined efforts will shut this particularly malevolent
and cruel of non-existent gods down for at least as long as the conventions
site was down, which was two days or so. When you have finished the prayer
we would like you to consider, or should i say, Imagine, a world without a
need for gods, spirits, demons, angels, ghosts and hobgoblins.

Many of our brother and sister Christians are quite certain we will be
receiving our special message back, and as good critical thinkers we will be
open to such an event and will certainly keep it in mind should we receive a
substantial and verifiable happening.

Be sure to return and tell us what happened, did you get a reply, did the
earth shake, did you see a flying bowl of spaghetti. However if we hear
nothing for the following two days we can consider our prayer a smashing
success. Feel free to do as us atheists do, pillage, burn, have lots of
kinky sex with condoms, not wipe your mouth after your meals, basically
anything goes as morality is controlled by God who will be out of order.

Good luck and cod speed.

Facebook: Minute Of Prayer In Response To The Christian DDOS Attack On Australian Atheist Web Sites

Rapp’s Deconversion on AvC

Me — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:52:20 +0000

Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl, Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).

But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):

I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically inconsistent. There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their theology. They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute a saltation event. This is contradictory to their acceptance of Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at the conclusion).

For awhile I was a deist that attended Catholic services, but some interesting things are fun to examine wrt this. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being would have no reason to be anything *other* than a deist-type deity. The laws of nature could be arranged such that no further intervention would be required. Hence, intercessionary prayer is demonstrably useless. Properly set up scientific experiments confirm this... there is no observable benefit to prayer. At that point one could simply say "I'm sorry for screwing up", or "Thanks for X,Y,Z", but even that's a little stupid. The deity in question knows you're sorry or not, whether or not you mutter under your breath for Ten Hail Mary's and Five Our Fathers, or Five Hail Mary's and Ten Our Fathers, or reciting Odin's Song, or while watching "The Daily Show". So I realized that prayer was a completely useless exercise and stopped doing it.

Then a weird thing happened: Nothing at all. In fact, if anything, my life got *better* after I stopped praying. Cute little anecdote... my wife and I tried for a long time to conceive a child "naturally". I prayed constantly to make it happen. Eventually (but unrelated to this, we decided to put the whole family thing on hold for a bit) I stopped praying, as I mentioned. Without prayer to turn to when we decided to give the family thing another go, we turned to science instead, and we went to an IVF clinic where we were given gonadotropins and we eventually successfully conceived a son (and then a daughter the "old fashioned" way, but that's another story). Our kids are beautiful, loving little atheists who are tickled pink by "They Might Be Giants... Here Comes Science!" My 18-month-old daughter can sing "Science is REAAAAALLL!!!" and my three-year-old son and I walk around the grocery store saying "Fossils! Dinosaur bones! Evolution! Mass extinction! Stratigraphy!" and we laugh hysterically every time.

Now, in my Catholic days I would say that IVF clinics are murder-houses where tiny little souls are stored in petri dishes and then "murdered" when not needed anymore. But then I started to think about identical twins. And genetic chimeras. And other blastuoles. And selecting a single stem cell from a group of, what, a few hundred, to make a "Catholic friendly" stem cell. And I realized this whole "soul" concept was all a bunch of hogwash. A cell is a cell is a cell. Magic properties imbued to cells do not define what a human being is. A cell is not a person. A person is a group of cells that is capable of thinking. That's what biology says we are. That's what evidence says we are. All evidence points to the fact that if our brain is damaged, we're no longer the person that we were before (in a very real sense). Hence, my concept of what a "person" is took a turn for the scientific (i.e. the better). So I stopped worrying about things like "souls" and started worrying about things like "what exactly defines
a person interms of neural function".

Long story short: SCIENCE gave me my children. Prayer did nothing. Demonstrably. In fact, science gave me pretty much everything I have in this life. Clean water, antibiotics, abundant food, vaccines, stable temperature control, disease control, sterilization, eyeglasses, antiseptics, fluoride toothpaste, refrigeration... all science. All from looking at the world around us, and making informed decisions about what IS, not about invisible things from another dimension. Then I realized that we, as a species, can only count on ourselves as a guarantee. We only have what we can personally eke out on this rock, "orbiting at 90 miles a second (so it's reckoned), a sun that is the source of all our power." Whether or not a God exists, we sure as all hell can't count on this thing to solve our problems for us. That, we must do for ourselves. So why bother with worrying about it?

Then I was introduced to the term of "apatheist" which is a characterization of what I am. I do indeed think that it is completely irrelevant whether or not a God exists or not. We only have ourselves to count on in this world, so don't bother worrying about offending some mythical deity who can't bother giving clear instructions to us. You're just as likely to screw up and try to appease the wrong God, angering the true God enough to punish you anyway. So I just do what I think is rationally moral and ethical, and if that's not enough for God, then I don't really want anything to do with such a thing anyway.

However, I am also an atheist in the strict sense of the word. People call it "agnostic" but this is a battle not bothering to be fought. I'm a weak atheist toward deism and other unfalsifiable notions of "God", a strong atheist toward the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God, a strong atheist toward Norse mythology, a strong atheist toward Roman mythology, etc.

So here I am! The deconvert. Very happy, in fact never happier in my life. I don't murder, rape, pillage, plunder, destroy, steal, deface, piss on churches and old ladies, or beat my wife or kids. I pay my taxes and my bills (usually on time ;) ), I help old ladies cross the street and offer advice to people that want it. I regularly attend Unitarian Universalist services with my wife and kids, and we love the atmosphere there. More questions than answers, what I like to see. In fact most of the UU's I've met are also atheists who just like the whole "community" aspect (don't knock it till you've tried it) but don't want to leave their brains at home when they go to hang out, listen to nice poetry, talk about moral and ethical issues that confront us today, volunteer, have sing-alongs, etc, etc, etc.

I highly recommend forming such an evidence-based philosophy as I have. It's all we really have to go with. Our own faculties of reason have drawn us up from scratching a living on subsistence farms (or hunter/gatherer communities), and now we're free to exchange deep thoughts across cyberspace from half a world away from each other. Tomorrow I leave for work at CERN, one of the world's best research labs, where we continue the evidence-based quest for new information, truth, and understanding of the smallest length scales of nature. I LOVE being a scientist. It's very gratifying, helpful, fun, rewarding (not monetarily, though ;) ), and all-in-all, a MEANINGFUL existence. I'm very fortunate to have been born in such a time that such things are possible. For this, we have only ourselves to thank. In particular, we have SCIENCE to thank. It's given us more than we can possibly imagine. The last 500 years (especially the last 100) have paved the way for a truly better society, where we can finally rise above
tribalism and actually ACCOMPLISH things that are beneficial to all of us as humans.

It's time to stop relying on notions of whose Invisible Benefactor is the "Right Invisible Benefactor", people. Stop worrying about whose "Invisible Friend" is the best "Invisible Friend". It really doesn't make a damned bit of difference. Listen to what your own reason and faculties can provide for you. Work it out for yourself. It's progressed our species more than can even be summarized.

What a lovely thought!

But I forgot to thank Joe. I was amiss in my deconversion story, actually! Joe, Liam, and many other Catholics were the ones that first opened my eyes to the dangers such a dogmatic world-view entails. I was appalled by the lack of honesty that such a world-view engendered, so it planted the seeds of discontent in my mind when I read Joe's posts, and those of Liam and many other Catholics. So I really should thank them for helping me deconvert, I apologize for missing it earlier.

50 Voices Of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists

Me — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:10:07 +0000

The following is a brief commentary by atheist author, Russell Blackford about his newly released book:

50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists

The official publication date in the US for 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists is now 26 October. In practice, the paperback has been available via Amazon for a week or so now, and it also seems to be in (at least some) Barnes & Noble stores.

Still, 26 October is a key official date in the book's life. For those who don't know, we have many high-calibre contributors, including Margaret Downey, Michael Shermer, Susan Blackmore, Peter Singer, Greg Egan, Prabir Ghosh, AC Grayling, James Randi, Ophelia Benson, and on and on.

Best wishes to all, and thanks for your interest,

Russell Blackford

This book sounds great! Please publicize it on your blogs, podcasts, etc.

To meet and talk to other published atheist authors, including Russell Blackford, atheists are welcome to join Atheist Nexus / Atheist Writers group.

(Please note that Atheist Nexus is a non theist only group and theists will be banned)

Good, Evil And God

Me — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:00:53 +0000

This post is related to the (somewhat) on-going debates about the Problem of Evil as well as the more recent post by christian about God, Good and Evil.

The problem comes about what good and evil are, in relation to God.

If we define good and evil based upon God, then the discussion ends. If it is take a priori that everything God does is good, then that certainly would eliminate the Problem of Evil, but not the way Christians intend.

The intention (as far as I can infer) is that God = Good leads to the solution that, yes there is evil, but it is being handled, by God in the best possible way. That this is the most good of all possible worlds.

But in reality, God = Good undermines the Problem of Evil by invalidating the very premise that evil exists.

This is because that the terms "good" and "evil" that are in use by people on an everyday level cannot be "good" and "evil" as based upon the notion that God = Good. If we are going to make an argument based upon these terms, then we have to be consistent.

If we judge God as good based upon God = Good then we also have to judge evil based upon that premise as well. We cannot judge God as good based upon God = Good and then judge evil based upon it's everyday use. It is this type of equivocation that is being used when Christians respond to the Problem of Evil with the God = Good solution.

The problem with God = Good is that it completely eliminates our ability to judge "good" and "evil" in an everyday context. When God = Good then the only actions that are good are those that God himself would do. But we don't know that without God explicitly confirming it. As Christians are always quick to remind us: God is privvy to an innumerable amount of details that we are not. Lacking these details means we can never know if any given act is good or evil unless God personally gives you the thumbs up.

Since good and evil are related, this also applies to evil. Without God directly telling us what is good and evil, we can't judge that evil even exists.

But humans can and do judge the goodness and evilocity of everyday acts. So, in pratice, we use a conception of good and evil that is not based upon God = Good. Not only does this bring the Problem of Evil back into place, but it also gives us the freedom to judge God as Not Good.

by Drafterman of AvC

Brother Richard, Atheist Nexus

Me — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:05:40 +0000

Brother Richard of Atheist Nexus speaks at the Atheist Alliance International Conference 2009.

View Parts 2 to 4 by selecting the videos at the bottom of the display when the Part you are viewing is complete.

Video by Paul Filago of the Secular Examiner.

Atheists : The Real Ghostbusters

Me — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:19:43 +0000

True Forgiveness

Me — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:48:55 +0000

Forgiveness is an important concept in Christianity. Primarily God's forgiveness toward humanity.

Forgiveness is good, grand and all-around a-okay. The problem comes in the notion that we can reject forgiveness, be it the forgiveness of another person or of a fictional sky pixie.

Forgiveness is "a process (or the result of a process) that involves a change in emotion and attitude regarding an offender. Most scholars view this an intentional and voluntary process, driven by a deliberate decision to forgive. This process results in decreased motivation to retaliate or maintain estrangement from an offender despite their actions, and requires letting go of negative emotions toward the offender. Theorists differ in the extent to which they believe forgiveness also implies replacing the negative emotions with positive attitudes including compassion and benevolence."

http://www.apa.org/international/forgiveness.pdf

Now, no where in that definition is the act or result of forgiveness contingent upon the offender's acceptance of said forgiveness. The only required activity is that performed by the victim.

Upon realization of this, it makes the concept of condemnation to hell (based on "rejection" of forgiveness) all the more insane.

Hell, be it a physical place or a state of mind, is certainly "estrangement" from God. Yet forgiveness requires a decreased motivation to maintain this estrangement. If God's forgiveness is infinite (or otherwise maximal) then this should result in an infinite (or maximal) decrease in motivation to maintain any estrangement; no one should go to hell, if we truly have God's forgiveness.

The two concepts are logically contradictory.

Now, people do not always practice, or grant, forgiveness in the purest sense. Admittedly it's hard to do, especially when the offender is unrepentent. It is easy to hold a grudge, to maintain estrangement, and to make your "forgiveness" contingent on damages, reparations, revenge, or an apology. Unfortunately, in doing so, you really are not being forgiving.

Then why does it seem that God, whose forgiveness should be infinite and most pure, is acting in this manner? His forgiveness should mean an end to any possible estrangement, yet the removal of that estrangement seems contingent upon additional actions or beliefs on our behalf. We need to repent, we need to believe in God, we need to adhere to some code or dogma. True forgiveness does not require these things.

God is not forgiving.

by Drafterman of AvC

Helping People Help Themselves – Atheists Give

Me — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:50:33 +0000

"Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime" --Lao Tzu.

Lao Tzu, was a Taoist, and while I'm not religious, occasionally the ancient religious philosophers came up with something that made sense. As this saying of Lao Tzu does.

Kiva.org has turned this concept into a reality. Their novel approach to charitable donations has proven successful not only in helping many poverty-stricken families and individuals around the world but it allows them to maintain their dignity and pull themselves out of their poverty for the long term.

Instead of donors handing out dollars never to be seen again and not knowing what has happened to those dollars, donors are able to loan dollars to people requiring assistance in various projects or personally. Projects include starting small businesses, expanding existing businesses, or purchasing/renovating their homes, etc. (you select the person or project that you will donate to) in $25.00 chunks.

The person receiving the funds pays the money back, after which the donor can either donate those dollars to Kiva, donate them to another person requiring a loan, or keep their funds.

Kiva also has a feature which allows donors to contribute as a member of a Team irrespective of who they donate to. That is, the donor chooses their project or person and simply adds that project to the Team.

One of the largest Teams currently running on Kiva and with the highest number of donations is:

Kiva Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious

Their goal is to donate $1 million dollars by the end of the year.

Second in the running is Kiva Christians :-)

This is a great project started by "Atheist-Monkey" and I hope many more atheists, et al will join this Team and contribute their hearts out to help meet the goal.

Kiva also happens to have been my older brothers favorite charity.

He passed away last year and I will be making my contributions in his name and of course with the Kiva Atheists Team :-)

Hope you will too!

Atheist Nexus

Me — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:33:30 +0000

An online friend of mine introduced me to this interesting social networking site which is restricted to nontheists only.

I've just recently joined and haven't had the opportunity to explore the entire site yet but it seems to have a lot of nice features like blogs, groups, friend links, etc. and allows members to post pictures and videos.

I love the Groups section. There appears to a group for everyone and I've joined several :-).

AFAIK this is the only social networking site online that is restricted to nontheists.

I'll do a full review later when I've had some time to explore it more thoroughly

In the meantime ... check it out, join, support it and help it to thrive.

I know there are many theists who stop by and read this blog.

To those theists, please be aware that theists are not allowed to join Atheist Nexus and you will be banned if you try to sneak in and are discovered.

To the Nontheists, you can find it here: Atheist Nexus

Update on UN Blasphemy Resolution

Me — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:55:41 +0000

(from Blair Scott submitted to Atheists.org)

SOURCE: Atheists.org Blog

American Atheists has received a lot of emails about the UN Blasphemy Resolution. Yesterday, American Atheists sent out a press release announcing that the resolution had been defeated. At the same time, the AP was running a story that the resolution had passed.

The confusion lies in the type of resolution that each is talking about.

The AP is reporting on the Human Rights Council passing a non-binding resolution, which is nothing more than a statement. Countries on the current 2009 membership of the UNHRC are: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Germany, Jordan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Switzerland, and Uruguay.

The Main Assembly of the UN rejected the blasphemy “legislation” and upheld freedom of speech.

While the Council’s resolution is non-binding and nothing more than a way to appease Islamic countries because of the dismal failure of the idea in the UN General Assembly, that is not stopping groups like the UN Watch, World Jewish Congress, and others to slam the resolution.

We hope that clears up any confusion!

And yes, we too are still trying to figure out how countries like Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, China, Nigeria, and Cuba get on the Human Rights Council.

SPEAK OUT AGAINST UN BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION, OTHER “SPECIAL RIGHTS” FOR RELIGION!

Me — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:40:57 +0000

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
http://www.atheists.org

PLEASE SHARE THIS UPDATE WITH OTHERS!

SPEAK OUT AGAINST UN BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION, OTHER

"SPECIAL RIGHTS" FOR RELIGION!

Join us Saturday, March 28, 2009 at United Nations for Free Speech demo...

ATHEISTS, SECULARISTS and anyone else concerned with freedom of speech is invited to a peaceful protest/picket next Saturday, March 28, 2009 at Dag Hammarsjold Plaza adjacent to the United Nations building in New York City.

The demo -- sponsored jointly by American Atheists and New York City Atheists -- protests a recent non-binding resolution passed by the UN General Assembly to combat "blasphemy" and any other verbal or printed comments unflattering to religious superstition and movements. The resolution was enacted at the behest of Pakistan, and enjoys widespread support from Islamist regimes in the Middle East. Many Christian, Jewish and other religious establishments, though, support the intent of the resolution, and want governments to insulate them from
"insulting" or "hateful" remarks.

Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, told reporters recently that religion must not be given "special rights" from criticism. "We're for free speech," said Buckner. "Religious groups and beliefs must not be 'protected' at the expense of our First Amendment rights."

Secularists throughout the world are speaking out against this dangerous resolution!

JOIN AMERICAN ATHEISTS and the NEW YORK CITY ATHEISTS for a peaceful
protest outside the United Nations Building on Saturday, March 28, 2009 from 11:00 - 3:00 PM at Dag Hammarsjold Plaza, 46/47th St. and First Avenue.

* GETTING THERE ...

From Penn Station on 34th St. take M34 bus east to 1st. Avenue, then take M15 north to 43rd. St.

From Port Authority Bus Station on 42nd. St., take M42 bus east to First Avenue, then walk north three blocks.

From Grand Central Terminal on 42nd. St., M42 bus east to First Avenue, then walk north three blocks.

* WHAT TO WEAR...

Check weather forecast, dress appropriately.

* WHAT TO BRING...

Picket signs will be provided, or bring your own. If choosing the latter, please make them appropriate to the free-speech theme of this peaceful demonstration. NYC rules ban having signs or banners on poles.

* AFTER THE DEMO...

There will be an informal social get together (on your own) after the demo.

* UPDATES AND FURTHER INFORMATION ...

Watch for updates. We are still in the approval process for this demonstration, so there may be changes! Visit http://www.nyc-atheists.org or http://www.atheists.org for current Action Alerts; or contact Ken Bronstein at NYCA through 212-535-7425.

SPEAKERS INCLUDE...

* ED BUCKNER, President of American Atheists
* KEN BRONSTEIN, President of New York City Atheists
* DAVE SILVERMAN, Communications Director, AA

WHO & WHAT: All Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and anyone else concerned about free speech and the current UN resolution on "blasphemy."

WHERE: Outside the United Nations Building, at Dag Hammarsjold Plaza, 46/47th St. and First Avenue.

WHEN: Saturday, March 28, 2009 from 11:00 - 3:00 PM

MORE INFO: Visit http://www.nyc-atheists.org o http://www.atheists.org for current Action Alerts; or contact Ken Bronstein at NYCA through 212-535-7425.

PLEASE SHARE THIS UPDATE WITH OTHERS!

(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)

--
--
Larry Mundinger (aa#451) American Atheists Internet Representative
< http://www.atheists.org/>
< http://www.americanatheist.org/>

< http://www.atheistviewpoint.tv/>

Rejecting Pareidolia

Me — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:44:14 +0000

My mind is inclin'd to give meaning,
and think a rock a cake, for survival's sake

Much of reality confuses, and threatens to blow fuses,
in my brain, and give pain, so it strives simply to remain unslain.

The noble lie of shutting my eye,
is good for those, who don't bother to suppose,

But for me, curiosity is glee,
and deceiving myself: not an option

Elf and faerie may actually be,
flying the Earth around, in a teapot unfound

So I must be picky and choose (win or lose),
what I accept, in regards to concept

Is evidence such a big fence,
against that which is proposed?

Does asking for proof, make me aloof?

You may say that faith is the way, and my mind holds me at bay,
but even if you can say it, can you show it?

by Drafterman of AvC

Sam Harris : The Reason Project

Me — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:34:28 +0000

Friends and Readers -

We are happy to say that the advisory board of The Reason Project now includes some of the most talented and committed secularists to be found anywhere--and more are on their way.

While it will probably be two months before we launch The Reason Project website, we are now faced with the task of building a large archive of online resources. To facilitate this process, we are hoping to create a network of volunteer editors. If any of you would like to become part of this network--by submitting links to good articles, websites, or videos--your help would be greatly appreciated at this stage.

For those who want to make a submission, please review the content and style guidelines at the following link:

http://www.reasonproject.org/submissions

For the moment, we are only looking for volunteers to collect archive materials, but there will undoubtedly be many other opportunities to contribute to the Reason Project in the future. Our website will provide more information about such opportunities as they arise as well as ways for you to network with like-minded people in your own community.

Best,

Sam and Annaka Harris

http://www.reasonproject.org

The Reason Project Advisory Board

Clifford S. Asness is the Managing and Founding Principal of AQR Capital Management which manages assets for some of the largest institutional investors from the United States, Europe and Asia. Prior to starting his own firm, Mr. Asness was Managing Director and Director of the Quantitative Research Group at Goldman Sachs. He has received numerous awards for his economic research and serves on the editorial boards of several economic journals. Mr. Asness is also an Overseer for the International Rescue Committee and on the Robin Hood Foundation’s Leadership Council.

Peter Atkins is Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford, Fellow of Lincoln College. He is the author of nearly sixty books, including Galileo’s Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science; Four Laws that Drive the Universe; and the world-renowned textbook Physical Chemistry. He has been a visiting professor in France, Israel, New Zealand, China, and Japan, and continues to lecture widely throughout the world.

Jerry Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, where he works on diverse areas of evolutionary genetics. The main focus of his laboratory is on the original problem raised by Darwin — the origin of species — and on understanding this process through the genetic patterns it produces. He has authored over one hundred scientific papers and regularly writes essays and opinion pieces for the popular press, including The Guardian, The New Republic, The New York Times Book Review, and The Time Literary Supplement. He is the author (with H. Allen Orr) of Speciation. Mr. Coyne was elected to the American Academy of Sciences in 2007.

Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He was voted Britain’s leading public intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine and was named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” for 2007. Among his books are The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, The Ancestor’s Tale, and the New York Times best seller The God Delusion.

Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. He is the author of Breaking the Spell, Freedom Evolves, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Consciousness Explained, and many other books. He has received two Guggenheim Fellowships, a Fulbright Fellowship, and a Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Science. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1987.

Brent Forrester is an Emmy Award-winning television writer. He has written for The Ben Stiller Show, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Late Night with Conan O’Brien, and is currently a writer and producer for The Office.

Rebecca Goldstein is a philosopher and novelist. She is the author of eight books, including, The Mind-Body Problem, Properties of Light, Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, and Betraying Spinoza. In 1996 Goldstein received a MacArthur Fellowship (popularly known as the “Genius Award”). In 2005 she was elected to The American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2006 she received a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Radcliffe Fellowship. Goldstein holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was named one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” and Reader’s Digest’s European of the Year for 2005. She is the author of The Caged Virgin and the New York Times best selling memoir Infidel. Ms. Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia where she escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992. She later served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. In 2004, together with director Theo van Gogh, she made Submission, a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. Ms. Hirsi Ali continues to speak and write about the importance of freedom of speech, the need to reform Islam, and the rights of women.

Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist, and literary critic. He regularly writes for Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, The Nation, Slate, The New York Times Book Review, Free Inquiry, and a variety of other journals. He is the author of the #1 New York Times best seller God is Not Great (a finalist for the 2007 National Book Award). He has also written Why Orwell Matters, Letter to a Young Contrarian, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, and many other books. In 2005 Mr. Hitchens was named one of the world’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines.

Harold Kroto is Chairman of the Board of the Vega Science Trust, a UK educational charity that produces science programs for television. He is a fellow of the Royal Society and in 1996 shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley for the discovery of a new form of carbon, the C60 Buckminsterfullerene. He has received the Royal Society’s prestigious Michael Faraday Award, given annually to a scientist who has done the most to further public communication of science, engineering or technology in the United Kingdom.

Bill Maher is one of the most politically astute comedians in America today, entertaining millions though his television series “Politically Incorrect” (Comedy Central and ABC), “Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO), sold-out comedy tours, and hour-long specials on HBO. Maher is also the author of several bestselling books including, New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer. He has received numerous Emmy, Tony, and Grammy nominations for his work. Currently, Mr. Maher is in production on a documentary that will take a deep look at the presence of religion in some of the major news stories in recent years and religion’s effect on society as a whole.

Ian McEwan is a writer of worldwide critical acclaim. He won the Somerset Maugham Award in 1976 for his first collection of short stories First Love, Last Rites; the Whitbread Novel Award (1987) and the Prix Fémina Etranger (1993) for The Child in Time; and Germany’s Shakespeare Prize in 1999. He has been shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize for Fiction numerous times, winning the award for Amsterdam in 1998. His novel Atonement received the WH Smith Literary Award (2002), National Book Critics’ Circle Fiction Award (2003), Los Angeles Times Prize for Fiction (2003), and the Santiago Prize for the European Novel (2004). He was awarded a CBE in 2000. In 2006, he won the James Tait Black Memorial Prize for his novel Saturday.

Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Until 2003, he taught in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time, and Slate, and is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, and The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Mr. Pinker was named one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” in 2004.

Salman Rushdie won the Booker Prize for Fiction for his second novel, Midnight’s Children. In 1993 the book was judged to have been the ‘Booker of Bookers’, the best novel to have won the Booker Prize for Fiction in the award’s 25-year history. Rushdie’s third novel, Shame (1983) won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger and was shortlisted for the Booker Prize as well. The publication in 1988 of his fourth novel, The Satanic Verses, lead to accusations of blasphemy against Islam and demonstrations by Islamist groups in India and Pakistan. The orthodox Iranian leadership issued a fatwa against Rushdie on 14 February 1989, and he was forced into hiding under the protection of the British government and police. The Satanic Verses won the Whitbread Novel Award in 1988. Mr. Rushdie is the author of many novels and works of criticism. He is Honorary Professor in the Humanities at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He has received numerous awards and eight honorary doctorates. He was elected to the Board of American PEN in 2002.

Lee M. Silver is Professor at Princeton University in the Department of Molecular Biology and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He received a doctorate in biophysics from Harvard University and trained at New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He is the author of Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality; Remaking Eden; and Mouse Genetics. He has published 180 articles in the fields genetics, evolution, reproduction, embryology, computer modeling, and behavioral science, and other scholarly papers on topics at the interface between biotechnology, law, ethics, and religion.

Ibn Warraq is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry specializing in Koranic criticism. In 1996 he published the groundbreaking work, Why I am not a Muslim. He went on to edit a serious of anthologies: What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary; The Quest for the Historical Muhammed; The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book; Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out; and Which Koran? Variants, Manuscripts, and the Influence of Pre-Islamic Poetry. His latest book is Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said’s Orientalism.

Steven Weinberg holds the Josey Regental Chair in Science at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is a member of the Physics and Astronomy Departments. His research on elementary particles and cosmology has been honored with numerous prizes and awards, including in 1979 the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1991 the National Medal of Science. In 2004 he received the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society, with a citation that said he is “considered by many to be the preeminent theoretical physicist alive in the world today.” He has been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences and Britain’s Royal Society, as well as to the American Philosophical Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the author of over 300 articles on elementary particle physics. His books include The First Three Minutes (1977); The Discovery of Subatomic Particles (1983, 2003); Elementary Particles and The Laws of Physics (with R.P. Feynman) (1987); Dreams of a Final Theory—The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature (1993); a trilogy, The Quantum Theory of Fields (1995, 1996, 2000); Facing Up --- Science and its Cultural Adversaries (2002); and most recently Glory and Terror—The Growing Nuclear Danger (2004). Articles of his on various subjects appear from time to time in The New York Review of Books. He has served as consultant at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the JASON group of defense consultants, and many other boards and committees.

Guidelines for Editors of The Reason Project Archive

1. Please avoid material that is too topical or trivial. There will be a daily newsfeed on the website covering recent intrusions of religion into politics, etc. For the archive, we are looking for material that will stand the test of time: the best examples of critical thinking, rational ethics, etc. (think Darwin, Twain, Russell, Orwell, Sagan, Dawkins, etc.) For videos, we want quality documentary footage, or great (and relevant) comedy. We are hoping to dig very deep here and quickly gather a lifetime's worth of fine reading and viewing.

2. Please submit all articles in the following form: Author (Date). Title. Periodical. Followed by URL. For example:

Pinker, S. (2008, January 13). The Moral Instinct. The New York Times Magazine.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... ker&st=nyt

3. Please submit all videos with an appropriate title and the link to YouTube, Google Video, etc. For example:

Ricky Gervais - The Bible

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I

4. Please submit all websites with the name of the organization and the link. For example:

The Middle East Media Research Institute

http://www.memri.org/

5. Please include at least one (perhaps several) key words with each submission. For instance: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Eastern Religion, Religion and Politics, Science, Ethics, Comedy, Cults and New Religions, Hall of Shame*. And, once again, please keep your standards of quality and relevance high.

*The Hall of Shame category should contain egregious examples of unreason on the part of otherwise reasonable people. Nicholas Kristof seems to offer frequent examples:

Kristof, N.D. (2008, February 3). Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opini ... 0&emc=eta1

Please send all submissions to: archive@reasonproject.org

PostChristian Wonder

Me — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:21:09 +0000

Perhaps one of my fondest memories is spending time with a friend who was living in France. We were both recent de-converts, and were ignited by our curiosity in a way that neither of us had ever experienced before. During the day, we explored our physical surroundings to the best of our ability, but during the night, we set our imaginations loose on the internet and chased down every rabbit trail we could find. The Universe, The World, and Technology were places we went wild, and it was from these sits the inspiration for this one was born.

Looking back, I now realize that I was experiencing wonder for the first time. You see, I had always been very curious about my religion. I was known well for my abilities in theology, and biblical interpretation. I found God fascinating, and was endlessly wondering about its nature, character, desire, and the like. But there was always something missing. I could never quite put my finger on it, but I always felt somewhat cheated when considering God. Even other big questions like the universe, human nature, origin of our species etc, fascinated me too. Yet, still, there was always something missing.

You see, Christianity makes fundamental assumptions about almost everything in our world. Ranging from God to The Universe to even Human Sexuality, it replaces peoples personal abilities to reason and wonder with its own fundamental moral code. All thats left is for the individual to ponder not the actual subject, but what Christianity has to say about the actual subject. For a Christian to ponder God isn’t to actually question its existence, essence, reasons, or abilities, but rather “why did he do what he did then and now?”

Much like faith, this destroys what wonder is. Wonder isn’t something that should be contained within boundaries, or come with pre-introduced notions. Rather, wonder is something that by its very nature needs to be as objective and as free as possible. At the loss of my faith, my wonder was reborn. It was ignited with an intensity that I have never before seen. Everything was considered, and as my Postchristian confidence blossomed, so too did my audacity.

What I now know is that wonder isn’t limited to purely abstract or ascetic ideals, but is also something that is heavily sensory. Thus, no only did I wonder about the new possibilities for God, but also about the perceptual world around me. Instead of off-the-cuff thinking sexuality was intrinsically evil (as most Christians do), I was able to understand it with a much more sophisticated sense of insight and maturity. Further still, I was able to explore the universe around me as something purely wondrous and magnificent, rather than the benign boring understanding the Christians have.

This sense of wonder, combined with the audacity that grows from postchristian confidence, is one of the most spectacular experiences I’ve ever had. The whole world is new again and completely free to explore and ponder. Wonder ignites your soul, impassions your mind, and opens the world to you. It is not a tool, but a way of life. Experiencing anything less isn’t wonder, its just placid ambivalent apathetic amusement. Humanity deserves the real thing, and Christianity succeeds in only robbing us from it.

- The Busymind of AvC and PostChristianity.com

More To Come from www.postchristianity.com

Formation of Theistic / Atheistic Thought

Me — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:04:16 +0000

I. Evolution
a. Stimulus/Response
1. Homeostasis
One of the elements that define living organisms it that of homeostasis. Homeostasis is the property of a system whereas its internal environment is regulated to remain stable. Since the environment outside an organism is not necessarily in an equilibrium compatible with that of the organism (or in equilibrium at all) it is necessary for the organism to be able to respond to changes in its external environment in order to maintain its internal environment. This is called stimulus-response, another qualification for life.

Most often people think of stimulus-response in animalisitc terms: An event occurs in the environment that acts as a stimulus, this stimulus is percieved by the animal, the brain processes the event and formulates a response, and then organism acts out the response. While this indeed is stimulus-response it need not be this complicated. Any change in an organism in response to changes in the environment is classified as stimulus-response. While one can certainly imagine response to be random, only organisms that respond in a manner conducive to their survival would indeed survive. Stimulus-response can be as simple as the mere laws of physics, such as osmosis, which would allow a single cell to maintain its internal pressure and consistency of the chemical composition of its interior. It can be more complex even without a nervous system, as in plants where sunlight causes stems to grow asymetrically, resulting in the stem turning toward the sunlight.

Eventually, and for the purposes here, we come to animals, with nervous systems that specialize in recognizing stimuli and responding to them. Animals do utilize the more basic stimulus-response mechanisms (such as for breathing where oxygen is absorbed by the blood) but have the novel system of nerves and the brain to aid in this matter (at least most animals do). Another novelty (most) animals possess is the response of motion. To this end animals have developed special cells designed to respond to specific stimuli.

2. Receptors
In addition to other features that separate them from other organisms, most animals have nervous systems. Nervous systems are generally divided into two parts: 1) The Peripherial nervous system which collects information about the environment and sends signals to 2) the Central nervous system, which processes these signals and sends responses to muscles and glands affecting a response in the organism that either alters its internal functioning (through hormones) or causes the animal to move (through muscles).

The structures by which an animal receives input about its environment are known as sensory receptors. Sensory receptors are very specialized and different ones are needed to react to different types of stimulus. Some examples of these are:

Electroreceptors (electric fields), baroreceptors (pressure), chemoreceptors (chemicals), mechanoreceptors (mechanical stress), nociceptors (cellular damage), osmoreceptors (osmolarity), photoreceptors (light), proprioceptors (position), thermoreceptors (hot and cold).

How these receptors detect the appropriate stimuli varies from receptor to receptor but all produce eletrochemical impulses that travel to the central nervous system for processing. While many (if not most) of the functions performed are done so invountarily and independent of outside influences (such as circulation or digestion) any voluntary responses an animal is to make must be done in response to detected stimuli. Since the detection of these stimuli requires the aforementioned receptors, an animal without these receptors (or an animal with nonfunctioning receptors) would not survive long. Almost all animals must actively seek food and evade predators and this requires motion, a voluntary act. Thus an animal's survival is directly related to its ability to collect information about its environment.

  3. Stimulation
   The stimulus-response process can be referred to as stimulation. The amount of stimulation an animal receives is almost as important as the type of stimulation. The factors affecting the amount of stimuluation are the number of receptors for a given stimulus and their sensitivity in detecting that stimulus.

Stimulation management is an important factor in the survival of a species. If an animal perceives too little (under stimulation) it will respond less to its environment. This means it will obtain less food and avoid fewer dangers. In short, it will stagnate and die. However, if it is too sensitive (over stimulation) the animal will be under constant stress and will be responding in situations it doesn't need to and its responses will likely be stronger than they have to. In short, the animal will work itself to death.

With under and over stimulated animals dying out, this leaves animals configured to receive an amount of stimulation conducive (or at least not deterimental) to their survival. This calibration is varies among different animals. Sponges, lacking a nervous system and the ability to move, embody stagnation. But this is fine given how they obtain food (filtering moving water) and defend against predators (passive defenses). However, other organisms with more complex nervous systems, such as humans, require more stimulation. It's a balancing act. The more receptors an animal has, the more information (stimulation) it can collect about its environment. However it must have the faciliaties to cope with the amount and type of stimulation or it will get little use from it.

b. Abstract thought and memory
1. Memory
Once an animal exists in a manner where it receives adequate stimulation, it must have mechanisms by which it can respond to such stimulation. For many animals, this involves the central nervous system, or brain. The various receptors collect information from the environment and send it through nerves using electrochemical impulses to the brain. The brain processes this information, formulates a response, and sends impulses down to various parts of the body to enact an appropriate response.

The response for each set of stimuli is dictated by the programming of the brain. By far the simplest way to enact a response is reflexively and involuntarily. This can be represented by mere "IF THEN" statements. IF a certain set of stimuli are detected THEN a specific response is carried out. For example, if a fly detects a large object moving toward it (as detected by light changes in its compound eyes, and changes in air pressure on its hairs) its brain calculates the appropriate escape vector and sends signals to its legs and wings to push off and fly away.

Such reflexes and instincts represent hard coded programming in the organism's central nervous system. While efficient and reliable, these relationships cannot be altered. As such they are only useful for a finite set of stimuli. In order for an animal to survive, it must be able to respond to as many different combinations of stimuli as possible. This means it must have a large set of hard coded responses or be able to alter its programming in response to new stimuli. Hard coding is efficient in action, but becomes bulky and unwieldy when one attempts to hard code responses for all possible situations. As such, some animals evolved the ability to alter their own programming, or learn things and use that learning to formulate new responses for new situations.

To this end, animals capable of learning must possess a function where information stored so that it can be used as input for future responses. This storing of information is known as memory. There are three general types of memory animals possess: Sensory Memory, Short Term Memory, and Long Term Memory. Sensory Memory lasts for a few milliseconds after something is perceived. It is short in duration and has limits on the capacity of information "remembered". Short Term memory lasts from a view seconds up to a minute and has a higher capacity. Finally we have Long Term memory which has potentially unlimited duration and has a large capacity.

When an animal records an event in memory and that event is recalled (as in response to some familiar stimulus) it can then use the memory of that event in the formulation of a response to a given stimulus. This allows it to use experience to refine its responses to be more appropriate and to factor in the context of a stimulus as well as its content.

Memory and learning allow animals to discover threats that may not appear to be threats via other means or opportunities that may not appear to be opportunities through other means. Thus an animal with memory has the ability to exploit more opportunties and avoid more threats than organisms that do not possess memory. Memory comes at a price, however, and requires a more complex nervous system, including a brain and a cerebrum for more advance memory storage and processing.

2. Abstract Thought
In addition to memory, animals with complex brains possess the ability to peform abstraction. Abstraction is where a concept is

simplified, generalized, and removed from an actual tangible object. The general concept of a ball, for example, is an abstraction of actual spherical objects we encounter in real life. We can think about a ball without being required to think of a specific type of ball and without being required to be looking at an actual ball at the moment we are thinking about it.

Abstract thought is the basis for higher reasoning. Combining abstraction with memories allows an animal to perform thought experiments and imagine likely conclusions for a given set of possibilities. Abstraction is also required for communication. With abstraction, ideas can be conveyed independently of the objects they represent.

Abstraction helps in recognizing new things. Through experience we acquire a store of memories about our environment, including the things in it. Through this method we form abstractions about the objects we encounter. For example, if I live in a forest, I will acquire a collection of memories about specific trees. Through this I will form an abstraction about the concept of a tree. This abstraction will contain elements that are common to all the specific trees I have encountered in the past. Because of this, if I come across a new tree that I've never encountered before, I can still recognize it as a tree if it matches with my abstraction of what a tree is. This is known as pattern recognition.

c. Pattern recognition
Pattern recognition is the process by which the content and context of a set of objects currently being experienced is compared to the content and context of the sets of objects in our memory. If a match is made, then it is said that we "recognize" the pattern. Alternatively recognition could be made through comparisons against patterns that are hardcoded, rather than learned.

1. Template matching
One type of pattern recognition is template matching. Template matching is basically a 1:1 matching with little abstraction involved. The pattern to recognize is searched against the exact templates that exist in memory until one or more matches are found.

2. Prototype matching
By adding a little abstraction we can perform prototype matching. This is where a concept is generalized and defined by its

attributes. This type of recognition allows us to classify quickly objects we see based upon appearance. An object with four legs and a back that people sit on is a chair. This recognition can be made independently of other specific features (such as the material it is made out of, the existence of arms, whether it reclines, swivels, etc).

While there are more types of pattern recognition, they are more or less variations on the previous themes: The object as a whole is broken down into a series of features. The content and relative context of the features forms a general abstraction which is compared to our memory. How abstract and general an association is made depends on how specifically we can recognize and classify the object. Often times we can make multiple classifications. I can recognize something as an object (most general), as a piece of furniture (less general), as a chair (specific), and as a metal folding chair (more specific).

The ability to classify things at various levels of generality is useful for truly novel objects for which we are unable to find a more specific match. For example, the ability to recognize something as a tree, but not knowing what kind of tree it is. Once we classify something, even generaly, it gives us the ability to formulate a response based upon that classification. If I classify something as a tree, and I know that trees offer protection from some predators, I can then attempt to climb the tree for safety. If I do not recognize it as, at the very least, a tree, then I will be unable to make that association.

3. Pattern recognition Errors
While useful, the nature of pattern recognition allows room for errors, especially when confronted with new patterns. For example, if we form the abstraction that "things with wings are birds" Then we will commit an error when we are presented with a bat. Once we become aware of, and familiar with, bats, and form a more specific template to represent bats, we will no longer make this error.

Errors can be avoided, however. By restricting the ability to make more general recognitions (such as "things with wings are birds"), then the errors that come with making them are eliminated. Under this more strict way of thinking we cannot have a general rule as "things with wings are birds" and must have something more specific, like "things with feathers, beaks, talons, wings and that lay eggs are birds". If we are forbidden from making an association more general than this, we will not commit an error when confronted with a bat. So what happens when we are confronted with a bat? Such a scenario is hard to imagine given that we are wired to attempt automatically to recognize and classify anything we can sense. We can deduce what happens, though, when we realize that in order to respond to something we must recognize it (either in memory or in hard coding). If we do not recognize it, we cannot respond to it. This highlights the price that would come with such strict pattern recognition rules.

So which is better? Over recognition, or under recognition? Since the environments in which we find ourselves are dynamic, we can expect to be constantly confronted with new patterns of stimuli. Since these patterns can represent threats or opportunities, failure to recognize them would be failure to avoid a threat or failure to exploit an opportunity. In both cases our ability to survive is less than if we have the capability to recognize (even erroneously) new patterns. If we fail to respond to a threat, our very lives are put on stake. If we fail to respond to an opportunity, we are at disadvantage against those that do recognize it.

An additional benefit to this type of error is in "filling the blanks". When we are presented with a pattern and we get a partial match our brain, using fuzzy logic, can fill in the blanks with what is most likely based upon the memories and experience of that specific organism. In this manner we can make decisions and formulate responses when presented with incomplete data (which we often are).

This error is not without its own price as it can result in attempting to exploit opportunities that aren't really there or avoiding threats that aren't really there. However, when we compare the price of errors of over recognition (wasted energy) and under recognition (death), the choice is clear. While over recognition certainly *can* lead to death, it is not as likely a result as with under recognition. This means that, typically, the animal will survive and learn. Now knowing more about the pattern that made it falsely think there was an opportunity or threat it will be less likely to make that mistake in the future, if it is capable of this level of reasoning as humans are.

There is another price associated with over recognition, and that is the creation of superstitions. Superstition, technically is any irrational belief. In common usage, however, beliefs identified as superstitions are generally beliefs that certain actions can influence or portend the future without any obvious causal link. It is not known exactly how superstitions form (at least to the degree that we could predict what would cause a specific superstition to form) but this type of behavior is evident even in non-human animals, such as pidgeons. For whatever reason, a causal association is formed in the animal's mind between two events. Despite no other reason to accept this relationship. Once such a causal link is suspected the animal is already in a frame of mind sensitive to evidence to support that causal link. Evidence against the causal link is likely to be ignored or dismissed. Through this erroneous pattern of reasoning, all new information either reinforces the superstition or is ignored.

Humans have taken all of this to new and bizarre levels. Something as simple and vital as pattern recognition has resulted in believing things like: breaking a reflective surface will result in bad things happeneing for the next seven orbits around the sun. Hanging a u-shaped piece of metal worn by a horse over the entrway to a house will bring make good things happen. By clasping your hands and kneeling and thinking thoughts in your head, you are establishing a communication with an immensely powerful being who will do your bidding. By all criteria that matter, belief in miracles or the power of prayer are superstitions. Only "evidence" in support of these beliefs are ever reported on, and evidence against are ignored, dismissed or arbitrarily attributed to other causes.

c. Conclusion

In conclusion of this part we see that superstition is the result of an error inherent in the pattern recognition abilities of animals that allow us to survive. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable. As humans we can use rationality to explain them away, but we cannot prevent their creation. The next part will show how humans, with their innate pattern recognition abilities and high levels of abstraction form superstitions that lay the foundation for religion.

by Drafterman of AvC

Sword Of Truth

Me — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:28:32 +0000

I've been reading Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series recently. Good fun, for the most part. A lot of interesting philosophy hidden in there, but that's not really what I want to focus on here.

Instead, I want to focus on the existence of "supernatural" versus "natural" phenomena. Those are loaded words, so let's instead talk about things that exist inside of one reality (the super-reality), but impact another (the sub-reality). That is, the rules of the sub-reality do not define those of the super-reality, but are in some sense, a subset.

Examples:

- Ghosts (or disembodied minds) are a part of the super-reality.

- Embodied minds are a part of the sub-reality.

- God would be part of the super-reality.

- Humans would be part of the sub-reality.

The "Sword of Truth" series is about magic, and wizards, and spirits, and ancestors living on in an afterlife similarly to Greek mythology. There is a "Creator" who is supposedly manifestly creative, or good (kind of a mix between the Titans in Greek mythology, and Yahweh... but not Jesus), and a "Keeper of the underworld" who is supposedly manifestly destructive, or evil (kind of like Hades). Even the labels "good" and "bad" are not very good labels, since Goodkind makes the point that death is not manifestly evil, since it is a necessary part of life, but just "is". But I digress.

What does this have to do with the super- and sub-realities?

The point is, in Goodkind's universe, the "super-reality" continually manifests itself in various ways in the "sub-reality". They are constantly making observable consequences (including the Keeper itself attempting to enter the sub-reality). Magic is part of the super-reality that impacts the sub-reality. "Life forces" within people (think "The Force" in George Lucas's mythology of Star Wards, which Goodkind calls "Han") routinely can affect the laws of nature. One can start a fire by rubbing sticks together, or one can start a fire by thinking about "fire" and having the "Han" light it for you.

There are basically no people in Goodkind's world that do not believe in this "super-reality". There are no "naturalists". There are no "atheists", for the most part. Why is that? It's because there are manifestations of the "super-reality" that regularly impinge upon the "sub-reality", over and over again, with marked clarity and an abundance of evidence. There is no need for "faith" or "belief" that there is a super-reality... in fact, in Goodkind's world, you'd have to be insane NOT to believe in the super-reality.

But what does this tell us about OUR reality?

It tells us that there is nowhere near as much evidence for any "super-reality" that exists outside of our own "sub-reality". In our "sub-reality", all convincing evidence points to the fact that the "sub-reality" is just "reality", and there is no "super-reality". I can say with certainty that should I have been born into Goodkind's reality, I would be a firm believer in "Han" and the "super-reality", and would hope to study it myself as a wizard or something. However, I'm not part of that reality. I'm part of this reality. Instead of pretending that there IS evidence for "super-reality", I've opened my eyes and given myself the opportunity to honestly look back at the things that used to convince me that there WAS a "super-reality", and examine them in an unbiased way.

As soon as I did this, I realized that, without a single exception, there was no real true evidence for any "super-reality" whatsoever. No feelings that could not be explained by ordinary brain chemistry. No happenstances that could not be explained by coincidence, or luck (good or bad). No indications that I could communicate with "The Creator" or "The Keeper" via any means. No indications that prayer is effective. No indications that there is a benevolent "plan" for my life, or the lives of those around me.

All I see evidence for is the universe existing, without any super-reality impacting it.

Now, I have told you that should there BE some true evidence for a "super-reality" as per the case of Goodkind's universe, I'd be the first to admit that such a "super-reality" exists and we should take great care in finding out about it. As it is, in our reality, the only reality that is apparent to me, I have no reason to pretend that there IS a super-reality, nor that even if there WAS some hypothetical super-reality, that it impacts us or guides us in any way.

Therefore, I am an atheist in this reality. Specifically, since it doesn't seem to make a difference one way or another, I am an apatheist in this reality. People can talk all they want about "evidence for creation being everywhere", but the bottom line is, it isn't. It's not that it CAN'T be everywhere. Even a mere mortal human being (Terry Goodkind) can describe a universe in which it would be everywhere.

It's just that it ISN'T everywhere, in this reality. There is no evidence for a super-reality. There's only this reality. Deal with it, and move on.

by Rapp of AvC

Biggles vs Allah

Me — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:00:53 +0000

In one of the Biggles books, Biggles pulls a Muslim out of a pit.

Hearing the Muslim thank Allah, Biggles said "Allah pushed you in; I pulled you out."

The Muslim didn't get the point; it still didn't occur to him to thank Biggles.

by ranjit of AvC

What evidence would it take for an atheist to believe in a god?

Me — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:01:43 +0000

What evidence would it take for an atheist to believe in a god?

This question comes up often enough to be worth a lengthy response, and, in short, my reply is that such evidence is impossible. I claim that any event that should ever occur to be observed by man that could suggest the existence of a deity will always, in every case, and indefinitely never amount to sufficient evidence for such an existence through no obstinance or arrogance of the atheist, but through mere logic and reason. My argument is as follows.

First, I'd like to draw attention, yet again, to the heroic (arguable) David Hume. Concerning miracles, Hume stipulated that in order for a miracle to be accepted as having occurred, the falsehood of the testimony would have to be more miraculous than the miracle itself. After all, the lesser 'miracle' would be more likely to have occurred, just as it is more likely that I am typing this text rather than it just appearing without any direct or indirect user input. To quote Hume: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." This fairly accurate worded phrasing puts the nail in the coffin concerning that which would be required for a testimony of a miracle to be accepted as factual. We then have to ask ourselves how such a falsehood of testimony could ever be more miraculous than the miracle itself.

*On a quick side note, I can foresee the argument that my terminology only suggests that I will accept the more probable event, and that while winning the lotto is less likely than not winning the lotto, both are possible outcomes, and thus I erroneously equivocate the less likely (or improbable) with impossible. However, before you can suggest something to be possible it has to have been given evidence to support the claim. Miracles have yet to be shown possible and thus I do not run into the obstacle just described. Winning the lottery is indeed possible and has been proven so. Moreover, the analogy is a descriptor of what happened before the lottery numbers were picked, not after. After the lottery numbers are known, it's either impossible that I've won if I haven't, or impossible that I haven't won if I did. One merely needs to look at the numbers and submit it to the lottery board to find out. The claimed miracles in question have already occurred and their validity of being called a miracle is in question, not the perception that it has occurred.*

When David Copperfield, the magician, made the statue of liberty disappear, no reasonable person thought that he actually made the statue disappear. To the viewer, however, the statue did indeed disappear. Similarly, we've probably all seen women cut in half with a saw and rabbits being pulled out of hats by many self-proclaimed

magicians. While we do enjoy these illusions greatly, very few, if any, people actually think that the event was anything more than an illusion. Ask yourself why you don't believe the magician actually suspended the laws of nature; why you believe it's a trick of mirrors or the likes; why the idea that what you just witnessed was a miracle does not enter your stockpile of possible explanations. You'd probably answer because we know that people can be deceived. We've seen these tricks before, and some guy wearing a mask explained how a lot of them were done on FOX. But magicians aren't the only people or objects which are capable of deceiving.

Lyre birds are capable of mimicking the most unusual sounds, including the sound of a chainsaw cutting through a trunk of a tree. We constantly deceive children into thinking there's a Santa Claus. Mirages occur to people travelling through a desert. Derren Brown can use his powers of deception to convert an entire room to believe there might be a deity, or to convince people that a losing race ticket is a winning one.

Hallucinations will form to those who are mentally ill or extremely physically sick.

People actually believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist, and the Saddam Hussein actually had WMD's. Hell, you've probably even thought that it was your left hand that was shaving your beard, looking in the mirror.

Pick up any psychology book and you're bound to find numerous instances defining some sort of mental disorder which creates illusions. Are aliens really infiltrating our minds? Is the government wire-tapping my phone line? Am I the next Messiah? Why do the pink elephants steal my pillow at night? When will Nessy wakeup? Who is Bigfoot? We are in constant reminder of the ability of people to be deceived, and yet we never give them any credit to their illusions/delusions.

On all levels, and in every corner of the globe, people are deceived, have been deceived, and will continue to be deceived. But what we have never witnessed anywhere near as much is the laws of nature to be suspended. Even if the miracles claimed by the various religions were indeed to have occurred, they are far outweighed by the instances of deception that is continually being put to use for bad and good intentions, and sometimes unintentionally.

Thus it is always vastly more probable should you witness or be told by a witness of a miracle to occur that you and/or said person was deceived, and your first

inclinations should be as such.

But let us assume, for the moment, that by some 'miracle' the likelihood of deception was actually outweighed by the miracle itself. That what we saw really did happen and what happened went against the grain or was unknown of our current knowledge of the natural laws of the universe.

Do we really attribute it to miraculous circumstances?

When scientists discovered that light bent around a planet, did we think it was a miracle that it went against Newton's law of gravity? When the animist of old witnessed lightning, something they certainly didn't understand the physics of, did it command miracle status? Is birth still considered a miracle after biologists have dissected the process of specie fertilization; that of sperm and egg, meiosis, and mitosis?

No.

In any instance in history where there has been a verifiable observed seeming suspension of natural laws, it is not the event that is deemed miraculous; it is our ignorance of the natural laws. Never do we (or ought we) assume that which we don't understand a miracle. Especially since the introduction of quantum mechanics, even some of the most improbable and counter-intuitive events could conceivably occur by no suspension of what is natural. It will always be more likely that we will yet discover what happened by the natural order of the universe than for such an event to actually have ignored the true natural order.

Lightning, medicine, gravity, stars, chemistry, etc were all once thought miraculous or magical and since then there has been substantial proof that deeming such things as miraculous is to admit our ignorance of natural laws, not of such events being actually miraculous. And since all of our current knowledge of the universe has been preceded by our ignorance of it, it will always undeniably be far, far more likely that we as of yet do not understand how such an event has occurred than for such an event to be truly miraculous.

That is why no evidence will ever suffice for the proof that miracles happen. That is why the falsehood of the testimony and our ignorance of the natural world will always be far less miraculous than the miracle itself, and thus not command our belief..

And that is why I, as a rational human being, will always be an atheist.

by Watts of AvC

A New Atheism 2008-09-04 02:00:57

Me — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:00:57 +0000

moar funny pictures