After reading some of the ridiculous claims against evolution, I found myself thinking about how to relate this to regular people without using something like gravity. Many moons ago I took electronics and it seems this fits quite nicely to help some people in understanding What evolution really is. Basically, just like evolution, the DC Theory is also a theory. Same with AC. The funny thing is, even with DC/AC Theory.. sometimes people will debate the direction current flows. In any electronics, current flows from negative/ground to positive. To sum up, ground has an abundance of electrons and those electrons flow towards the available holes on the positive side where electrons have been kicked out of the way to create holes or places for the electrons to fill up. Now for me, I'm not 100% sure how to "prove" witch direction the current flows, and to be quite honest it does not matter.. All the equations for AC/DC theory work. Everyone knows that their electronic devices are obviously working, but we don't Believe IN the AC/DC Theory, we simply use it as a tool to answer how something happen, or what will happen. I mean, hell on a quantum level, we still do not KNOW or understand how the electron even moves. Anyway, this is kindof a short post, I'll try to edit and fill in some other information. I just thought about it today and thought maybe it would give someone a glimpse of how the theory of evolution is no different the the hundreds of other theories we use everyday that are not up for debate. I think the AC/DC Theory is a pretty good one that many people should be able to relate to or understand. Evolution is simply the best answer to understanding everything around us and how it all works.
My first though was the "Internal Combustion" ( i mean Thermodynamics Theory). lol... but I wasn't sure if that would work as well... I could imagine someone claiming that every time a piston fires it must be god igniting the gas... course I'm just rambling off topic now, but it was kinda funny.
Author Archive for Robert Page 2 of 3
A good friend of mine sent me this via instant message today, and I thought it was pretty funny so, figured I would post it.
From NPR
From NPR
A Singapore retailer has pulled a line of Jesus cosmetics after receiving complaints about the American-made products branded "Lookin' Good for Jesus." They included a "virtuous vanilla" lip balm, as well as hand and body cream. Their slogan: "Get His Attention."Here is the link to NPR site.
Is it odd that every time I read that title I have the sudden urge to break out into a Jimi Hendrix tune? Maybe it's just me. Anyhow, onward to what I have to say today. It's of course nothing new, but for some reason today it bothers me as I think about it.
Today, after having a wonderful lunch with my wife, I find 2 pamphlets standing upright against my front door. Not surprisingly it was from the Jehovah's Witness. My complaint here is not really about them coming by the house. Heck, I even give them some credit... At least they DO what they preach lol.... Out of the 20 or so churches in town, they have been the only ones that come by consistently trying to find that one moment of insecurity where they can be there to try and save the day.
Anyway, I had to spend a few min in the house after eating a fulfilling lunch so I grabbed the pamphlet on my way to the Throne. This is the February 1, 2008 issue of The Watchtower. The front cover has storm clouds at the top, a man with his head down holding the top his suit jacket over his left shoulder with his forefinger and the jacket on his back, and a newspaper in his right hand. Giving that appearance that his is maybe not having the best of days. Then the title is what got my attention:
"Mankind would have no source of superior wisdom to consult - no one to help us solve our problems.."
Exactly!!! We have to use our own intelligence to get by! That is the point... If you remove the supernatural, you are left with the natural, the common, the normal, the only difference is now you have no one to blame. One of my biggest problems with religion is this small tiny fact that remains constant. Belief in the supernatural removes personal accountability.
After reading that page the rest of the pamphlet got progressively worse, leaning more towards the divine at one point proving my point of removing accountability by answering the question why does god allow suffering by blaming it on Satan. If I have some extra time, I'll try to blog on that because they really did not answer the question, they simply blamed Satan and and said god allows it because there is still a score to settle... Really lame explanation if you ask me..
Today, after having a wonderful lunch with my wife, I find 2 pamphlets standing upright against my front door. Not surprisingly it was from the Jehovah's Witness. My complaint here is not really about them coming by the house. Heck, I even give them some credit... At least they DO what they preach lol.... Out of the 20 or so churches in town, they have been the only ones that come by consistently trying to find that one moment of insecurity where they can be there to try and save the day.
Anyway, I had to spend a few min in the house after eating a fulfilling lunch so I grabbed the pamphlet on my way to the Throne. This is the February 1, 2008 issue of The Watchtower. The front cover has storm clouds at the top, a man with his head down holding the top his suit jacket over his left shoulder with his forefinger and the jacket on his back, and a newspaper in his right hand. Giving that appearance that his is maybe not having the best of days. Then the title is what got my attention:
How CanYes, on the pamphlet the font slightly increases to emphasize Peace of Mind. So, I figured what the heck, lets see what they have to say. I began to flip through and the first stop was pg 4.
You Find Real
Peace of
Mind?
Where did We Come From?Now, lets just ignore the typical straw man setup at the beginning for a moment. We all know how easy that is to refute. But check out the consider portion!!
WHY DOES THE ANSWER MATTER? Many people are taught that life on earth emerged by accident. They are told that through a series of unlikely, random events, evolution produced the human race with all its emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capacities.
But consider: If we really are the product of evolution and there is no Creator, the human race would, in a sense, be an orphan. Mankind would have no source of superior wisdom to consult-no one to help us solve our problems. We would have to rely on human wisdom to avert environmental disaster, to solve political conflicts, and to guide us through our personal crises.
Do these prospects bring you peace of mind? If not, contemplate the alternative. Not only is it more appealing but it also makes more sense."
"Mankind would have no source of superior wisdom to consult - no one to help us solve our problems.."
Exactly!!! We have to use our own intelligence to get by! That is the point... If you remove the supernatural, you are left with the natural, the common, the normal, the only difference is now you have no one to blame. One of my biggest problems with religion is this small tiny fact that remains constant. Belief in the supernatural removes personal accountability.
After reading that page the rest of the pamphlet got progressively worse, leaning more towards the divine at one point proving my point of removing accountability by answering the question why does god allow suffering by blaming it on Satan. If I have some extra time, I'll try to blog on that because they really did not answer the question, they simply blamed Satan and and said god allows it because there is still a score to settle... Really lame explanation if you ask me..
While I’m certainly entertained by this whole Web 2.0 thing, I’m finding myself growing more and more skeptical of it. Although most people like to single out Wikipedia as the main problem on the web, if not the world, today, I’d like to point my finger towards what I consider to be a more problematic website. And the worst part is that we here at Sexy Secularist are complete sell-outs to it.
The site, is Digg, which allows users to submit webpages or stories they find interesting. If enough other people find the site interesting, it gets pushed through to the front page, where more and more users “Digg It” and make it more and more popular until another webpage’s popularity takes over.
Like that horrible car wreck on the freeway, you can’t help but look at what pages are coming up, especially during those long stretches of the day where you don’t want to work, so you visit the same few sites over and over on the internet, hoping that one of them will have updated, giving you something to read. Digg changes rapidly enough to fill that void and occupy approximately 90% of my day, while I look at random shit.
Here are some recent examples of Digg’s offerings:
A LOL Cat mocking something to do with the recent Scientology hacker thing (note to self: this would be something a bit more meaningful to write about, if only I had any idea what was going on with it).
Also, an unfortunately couple.
But, in the past week, bar none, the worst example of digging has been this screen cleaning webpage, which earned over 14500 diggs. For a flash animation.
This is all mostly harmless, but stories with political agendas are posted with nothing even approaching factual accuracy and it’s very easy to trust them, even for a hardened skeptic. This is especially true when the articles gel with your deeply held beliefs.
Another story begins with a quote implying that Richard Dawkins supports vegetarianism (he supports not making animals suffer, which is not the same thing) and only goes downhill from there, stating that vegans live 15 years longer, on average, than us lowly meat-eaters and that fruits and vegetables “help us detox naturally”.
This recent availability of information is certainly a good thing, though we’re going to need to learn to better sort through the information and increase the sensitivity on our bullshit detectors before they become reasonably useful. As far as on-line sources go, this humble blogger places the reliability of Digg several notches below Wikipedia. But please, dear reader, take that with a grain of salt. After all, this opinion does come from the internet.
I couldn't resist, Everyday I see this sign and kept telling myself I was going to snap a shot of it, and finally today I did. The irony of this sign speaks for itself :)
It's been 2 months since my last post! My how time flies. I've just not found much to blog about lately, besides I barley have enough time to read through the 400+ posts a day from the various news feeds. I think PA hammers out around 200+ posts a day itself. Really it's getting quite crazy yesterday I checked my google reader after not logging in for 3 days.... Over 3000 posts where in there. Granted some are dupes, but wow. Anyway, life is going pretty good.. Obviously getting prepared for all the holiday fun. Got a nice long weekend coming up. Looking forward to spending time with the family and maybe getting some home projects done. I think my problem with the blogging thing is the fact that I spend roughly 60hrs a week in front of a pc coding applications. Well, just figured I'd wish everyone a fun filled year end :)
In doing some work above and beyond the call of duty for my physics class, I Googled Relativity and found, on Google books, the theory straight from the horse’s mouth. I confess, though, that I didn’t bother reading it since I noticed an ad at the bottom of the page informing me that relativity is bullocks.
Personally, this was quite a relief, since if it’s not real, I don’t need to bother learning it. The link brought me to a site where I learned that Einstein made a mathematical error and that the writer at the site, who pursued a Phd in Physics, has corrected it with his own theory of Complete and Incomplete Coordinate Systems.
The site seems to address experimental results as well as theoretical problems with relativity, which, as we all know, is just a theory. And, frankly, the discussion was more or less completely lost on me. However, it’s presented convincingly enough and, as we all know, true scientists will often place ads on Google with their revolutionary discoveries as a means of telling the world, since the scientific community is too stuck up and exclusive to accept them, much like a 4th grader’s treehouse.
How convenient these advertisements are! Just a few weeks ago, I was also a firm believer in evolution, and might still be today if an advertisement didn’t direct me to a site that informed me Creationism — ooops, I mean Intelligent Design — is an Obvious Truth — just like what the Discovery Institute and friends promise, providing both points of views has really helped broaden my horizon from the one-sided perspective that I get in my science classes.
So, rather than do the problem sets related to relativity, I plan on printing out a few pages from this Relativity Challenge website and ask my professor to engage us in debate as a class. Rather than learn about relativity, we should have an open discussion about what we all believe. Because, let’s face it, belief is the most powerful thing in the world, and we shouldn’t ever be taught something that contradicts our beliefs.
God bless America!
Second Life Players Bring Virtual Reality to Court
However, is it really surprising that people would be so obsessed with Second Life? We have millions who still believe in the invisible sky daddy... I've never played around with Second Life, but does it have churches too... that would be quite funny....
Since when has reality been required for legal action?Now that's hilarious.
In Second Life, more than nine million users spend many real hours and lots of very real money to clothe, feed and comfort their avatars. According to Linden Labs, proprietors of the virtual environment platform where all this craziness takes place, users cumulatively conduct transactions totaling more than $1 million each day. That's real dollars -- the kind you can use to clothe, feed and comfort yourself in the real world.That is just plain sad. Although not surprising, so many people are unsatisfied with their own lives and feel this is a way to "Fix" that.... Instead of actually getting out of the house and making things happen or socializing with real people face to face.
Still, these virtual-world real-world lawsuits can get pretty tricky. How and to what extent should real laws apply in Second Life?Here is the simple answer, They shouldn't!! What happen? did the "Virtual" court system throw the case out? I mean if they have a CSI-NY in Second Life one would expect they have some type of justice system, right?
However, is it really surprising that people would be so obsessed with Second Life? We have millions who still believe in the invisible sky daddy... I've never played around with Second Life, but does it have churches too... that would be quite funny....
Like we didn't see this shit coming--- Democrats worry Bush setting up war with Iran... Except now instead of claiming that they have WMD's we are going to claim that because they have the potential to have WMD's we should attack them? I posted a few months back on what I think about this shit, and it's again starting to piss me off that our war mongering President George W Bush has yet to quench his thirst for blood. I've never hated anyone in my life, but mr President you are at the top of my most disappointing people's list! Your ignorance and idiocy has put our country smack in the middle of problems that could have been avoided. In my opinion if you continue down this road this WILL start another global war. I am deeply ashamed of this country and what it appears to be turning into. The leaders of our country are acting no different than other totalitarian countries, claiming to bring freedom and democracy while destroying people's lives in the process. It's time we grow up and begin to use our heads instead of trying to prove our might. It's so damn hypocritical of us to think we and our allies are the only ones allowed to have nuclear power. This world needs to stop with the bullshit and treat everyone as allies. Course thats difficult to do when the rest of the world sees our embarrassment of a president, and the appearance that our country is a god fearing nation of christians. Why don't we just paint a big freaking bulls eye over our country? It really does not matter how much of a super power we are, if we start heading in this direction we will all loose eventually. I'm done ranting now.... Yea, this post may be one sided but just the thought that our government would entertain the idea of "bombarding" Iran pisses me off.
This will probably be a regurgitation of what others might have said, but it was something that hit me last night as I was pondering stuff while sitting in front of a nice little bond fire in the back yard last night and wanted to write it down.
I watched this debate between D'Souza and Hitchens and one of D'Souza's claims is that our morals came from christianity and that many of the great minds that founded science were also founded on christianity as well. Between this argument and a documentary that I watched on the History Channel called "A The History of God" got me thinking....
In the documentary they were showing how god evolved throughout the bible. The "Evolution" of god so to speak or if you prefer how our understanding of god changed through time. How the biblical patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc..) began the transition to a monotheistic religion and how god changed from knowable to unreachable or incomprehensible. They explained how the god started as El during the time of Abraham, then transitioned to a no name god when Jacob wrestled with him and won, then turned to a deliberate vague god with Moses by answering Moses's question as to what god's name is with Eyeh Asher Eyeh: "I am what I am"; A mysterious phrase, A Hebrew idiom of deliberate vagueness. Again this happen because in those days knowing a gods name gave you power over that god. I'm not going to do a full review of this show, but my point is there is clear evidence of how god changed over time to become what we know and don't know about god. This boils down to the simple concept that no one can grasp a new idea without growing it from the old ones. Something that we see when we look at the history of god. He started as El a knowable god and ended up unknowable as well as personal.
So, as I thought about this evolving of god I thought hey wait a minute. If the concept of god can evolve over time. Why can't the same be said of morals, and values? Not only that, but if new ideas and concepts must be grown out of old ones within the same confines of the current environment or belief systems, then surly the same is true with morals and values. Realizing that god is not going to provide all the answers, and is not THE answer to all unanswerable questions forces one to no longer rely on a god, but to rely on other people. The transition to this line of thought would then force people to admit they do not know everything and through communication with other people they would learn that other people can also have value. Not to mention the morals and values that developed around the same time in other religions.
And this leads me to contemplate other issues as well. If we ideas are grown from old ones, witch is very clear throughout history. In every field of science, math, philosophy, astronomy, even theology we can see how ideas and concepts were born then evolved to what we have today from within the confines of the idea's in their own times. So, when someone tells me Einstein was a believer it really does not shock me. I would not be surprised if Einstein used wording that was vague as to his beliefs. Look at the time in witch they lived. They were trying to breed new thought from existing idea's in order for those thoughts to be taken seriously they had to find common ground with the majority. In my opinion, if any of these excellent thinkers of their times were here today it would be very unlikely they would be theists at all.
I'm sure you've heard the old adage that great minds think alike. I disagree with that statement, I think great minds simply think.
I watched this debate between D'Souza and Hitchens and one of D'Souza's claims is that our morals came from christianity and that many of the great minds that founded science were also founded on christianity as well. Between this argument and a documentary that I watched on the History Channel called "A The History of God" got me thinking....
In the documentary they were showing how god evolved throughout the bible. The "Evolution" of god so to speak or if you prefer how our understanding of god changed through time. How the biblical patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc..) began the transition to a monotheistic religion and how god changed from knowable to unreachable or incomprehensible. They explained how the god started as El during the time of Abraham, then transitioned to a no name god when Jacob wrestled with him and won, then turned to a deliberate vague god with Moses by answering Moses's question as to what god's name is with Eyeh Asher Eyeh: "I am what I am"; A mysterious phrase, A Hebrew idiom of deliberate vagueness. Again this happen because in those days knowing a gods name gave you power over that god. I'm not going to do a full review of this show, but my point is there is clear evidence of how god changed over time to become what we know and don't know about god. This boils down to the simple concept that no one can grasp a new idea without growing it from the old ones. Something that we see when we look at the history of god. He started as El a knowable god and ended up unknowable as well as personal.
So, as I thought about this evolving of god I thought hey wait a minute. If the concept of god can evolve over time. Why can't the same be said of morals, and values? Not only that, but if new ideas and concepts must be grown out of old ones within the same confines of the current environment or belief systems, then surly the same is true with morals and values. Realizing that god is not going to provide all the answers, and is not THE answer to all unanswerable questions forces one to no longer rely on a god, but to rely on other people. The transition to this line of thought would then force people to admit they do not know everything and through communication with other people they would learn that other people can also have value. Not to mention the morals and values that developed around the same time in other religions.
And this leads me to contemplate other issues as well. If we ideas are grown from old ones, witch is very clear throughout history. In every field of science, math, philosophy, astronomy, even theology we can see how ideas and concepts were born then evolved to what we have today from within the confines of the idea's in their own times. So, when someone tells me Einstein was a believer it really does not shock me. I would not be surprised if Einstein used wording that was vague as to his beliefs. Look at the time in witch they lived. They were trying to breed new thought from existing idea's in order for those thoughts to be taken seriously they had to find common ground with the majority. In my opinion, if any of these excellent thinkers of their times were here today it would be very unlikely they would be theists at all.
I'm sure you've heard the old adage that great minds think alike. I disagree with that statement, I think great minds simply think.
After my previous posts, I was doing some more thinking and it occured to me that the kirby salesman (or almost any door to door sales) and christian witnessing have a lot in common.
- They knock on your door at the most inconvenient times
- They are only there to sell you something to gain something in return
- They begin to present their case by showing you how it has helped them and others
- They will show you the dangers of not having their product
- They will sometimes measure their product against others to show how theirs is so much more powerful
- They attempt to use fear to ensure you side with them that their product is better
- They will offer you a reward by acting today
- They try to break your will to say no by continuing to stay long after they are no longer welcome.
- They will show plenty of documentation to back up what they are saying
- If by chance you do say no they attempt to influence you by saying something to the affect that your lifestyle and the way you live is completely filthy and maybe one day you will realize the benefits of their product and come back to them.
I absolutely love these stories. Read this today from "Kill The Afterlife: Atheist Turned Christian" The claim of a christian saying they were just like me an atheist! My initial knee jerk reaction is "Oh really? Apparently you were not just like me otherwise you would not have been converted?" It's always so interesting to hear their testimony on how they used to be atheist but the found god. Most of the time there was some traumatic event or instant revelation personally that suddenly caused them to loose all sense of reason thus proving god was working in their lives personally. It reminds me how kirk cameron uses this same ploy to try to convert people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what is or is not an atheist. What kills me is the thinking that being an atheist means we automatically share some type of bond. No offense to the other atheists out there, but if we ever met out somewhere in the real world and it came out that you were an atheist as well. I seriously doubt it would change how I perceive you. Sure knowing that would tell me we could probably have some healthy conversations, but I'm sure we would have probably already been into some type of good conversation by the time that information came to light :) Again my point is this is just another strategy of winning souls for god. It's no different than the Rainsoft salesman that walks in the door. Within the first few minutes you have to find some camaraderie, something that will identify with the "target" in order for them to let their guard down. This makes it easier to persuade them to your thinking, maybe even play on some emotions. Basic sales and persuasion techniques 101.
I'm sure everyone at some point has encountered this situation when discussing god with a believer. Especially after you've made a very compelling case against them that they are not able to ignore. Their typical reply? You just don't understand, god is beyond our comprehension, beyond our understanding, beyond our imagination. We simply can't even know who or what he is. I find this funny as hell honestly. I liken this to those discussion when you were 3.. you know the ones.. "Oh yea, well I say yes times infinity" then the friend would reply "Oh yea, well I say times infinity times infinity!" aaahh such fun..
The problem is most religions have already defined what god is and what god is not. Therefore they have already built the construct for what god must be. I'm sure it is convenient when faced with obvious facts to the contrary to say god is all things unknowable, and yet still be everywhere, know everything, yadda yadda. By bringing spirituality into the mix they are able to convince themselves that there is "More than Meets the Eye" to god. Personally, I think spirituality is nothing more than another emotional state.
To duplicate this what if I told you last night I was lying on the ground star gazing and saw the most indescribable view of the universe. The stars were unimaginably bright, the constellations were unfathomably vivid. The view literally took my breath away and at that moment I felt connected to the entire universe. In this instance you know the parameters of what was viewed, and seen, so the construct is there. The rest could be embellishment, or simply the emotional state I was in when viewing the sky. My point is together we could view a thousand other night sky's and with this definition I just gave, I could always say that this particular night could never be duplicated and you would never be able to fully comprehend it.
This may be an over simplification when it comes to god, but I don't think so. Instead of something tangible and viewable they simply replace the night sky with nothing and add stuff that we are aware of. For example relating god to the ether to explain his ability to be omnipresent etc.
My thought is that religion is simply a tool of persuasion that plays on emotions in order to bring people together for a goal. The men who created the first religions wanted to ensure their powers over others by use of something greater. Unfortunately, I think this is still the case with religion. It's a measure of control over people. Goto any church, and I guarantee you a majority if not all of the parishioners will show submission to that pastor. For that matter check out the definition of reverend when used as an adjective: worthy of adoration or reverence
Just some more of my thoughts for today... ;)
The problem is most religions have already defined what god is and what god is not. Therefore they have already built the construct for what god must be. I'm sure it is convenient when faced with obvious facts to the contrary to say god is all things unknowable, and yet still be everywhere, know everything, yadda yadda. By bringing spirituality into the mix they are able to convince themselves that there is "More than Meets the Eye" to god. Personally, I think spirituality is nothing more than another emotional state.
To duplicate this what if I told you last night I was lying on the ground star gazing and saw the most indescribable view of the universe. The stars were unimaginably bright, the constellations were unfathomably vivid. The view literally took my breath away and at that moment I felt connected to the entire universe. In this instance you know the parameters of what was viewed, and seen, so the construct is there. The rest could be embellishment, or simply the emotional state I was in when viewing the sky. My point is together we could view a thousand other night sky's and with this definition I just gave, I could always say that this particular night could never be duplicated and you would never be able to fully comprehend it.
This may be an over simplification when it comes to god, but I don't think so. Instead of something tangible and viewable they simply replace the night sky with nothing and add stuff that we are aware of. For example relating god to the ether to explain his ability to be omnipresent etc.
My thought is that religion is simply a tool of persuasion that plays on emotions in order to bring people together for a goal. The men who created the first religions wanted to ensure their powers over others by use of something greater. Unfortunately, I think this is still the case with religion. It's a measure of control over people. Goto any church, and I guarantee you a majority if not all of the parishioners will show submission to that pastor. For that matter check out the definition of reverend when used as an adjective: worthy of adoration or reverence
Just some more of my thoughts for today... ;)
Presbyterians grapple with question: who should be allowed to join the church?
What a cool idea... I've often thought about picking a church and attending. I've joked about this with the wife often, usually on a Sunday morning around 10am I'd roll over in the bed and say "Honey, why don't we go to church this morning" .. Usually, the reply is "I'd rather stay here in bed." or just as sarcastically as I said it she will say "Sure, I'll get dress.." hehe.. Anyway, I've considered going just for the socialization.. But then I realize it would not last very long. The first time someone asked me a question, or the pastor started asking me about my salvation things might get interesting. I would find it difficult for me to respond in the manner they expect, not to say that I couldn't, but if I did it would simply be to pacify them and I'm not one that condones agreeing with someone just to keep the peace or the "Status Quo". On the other hand it would be interesting to see what types of conversations could be brought up...
I give this guy some kudos.. Apparently, not only did he attend the services regularly, but he became a member (I wonder if there was a fee?) Anyway, I was just curious if anyone else considered attending a service strictly for the social interaction? Or have you considered joining a church just to be the inquisitive mind asking the questions no one else in the congregation would dare to ask the (Sheep in wolves clothing)? And I'm not talking about the just visiting various churches, I'm mean attending regularly, partaking in the social events, etc. Where I live there is little hope of starting a successful "Free Thought" group, but there are plenty of religious organizations around here toproselytize I mean attend :)
What a cool idea... I've often thought about picking a church and attending. I've joked about this with the wife often, usually on a Sunday morning around 10am I'd roll over in the bed and say "Honey, why don't we go to church this morning" .. Usually, the reply is "I'd rather stay here in bed." or just as sarcastically as I said it she will say "Sure, I'll get dress.." hehe.. Anyway, I've considered going just for the socialization.. But then I realize it would not last very long. The first time someone asked me a question, or the pastor started asking me about my salvation things might get interesting. I would find it difficult for me to respond in the manner they expect, not to say that I couldn't, but if I did it would simply be to pacify them and I'm not one that condones agreeing with someone just to keep the peace or the "Status Quo". On the other hand it would be interesting to see what types of conversations could be brought up...
I give this guy some kudos.. Apparently, not only did he attend the services regularly, but he became a member (I wonder if there was a fee?) Anyway, I was just curious if anyone else considered attending a service strictly for the social interaction? Or have you considered joining a church just to be the inquisitive mind asking the questions no one else in the congregation would dare to ask the (Sheep in wolves clothing)? And I'm not talking about the just visiting various churches, I'm mean attending regularly, partaking in the social events, etc. Where I live there is little hope of starting a successful "Free Thought" group, but there are plenty of religious organizations around here to
Just the other day the family and I went to SAM's to pick up some supplies, as we were leaving I heard a very familiar sound.. (I tend to always drive with the window down) Anyway, it was the sound of an engine failing to have enough juice to ignite the fuel. Immediately, I stopped the truck and began looking around. Then threw the truck in reverse, slowly backing up to see if I could spot this sound and verify my suspicions. Sure enough "bingo" I noticed a red ford ranger with 2 people in it. The man already a cell phone to his ear attempting to find someone to help. I waved to the gentleman and asked if he could use a jump. His facial expression changed from disparity to excitement instantly. Since I always carry jumper cables in the truck I was more than happy to help this man and his wife. I mean hell it takes me what 5 or so min to pull up, jump out of the truck, connect the cables and BAM he and I are both on our merry ways.
In all honesty this is not really a rarity for me. Anytime I see someone on the side of the road, hood up, or someone walking down an isolated road with a gas can in hand.. I will usually give them a lift or see if they need help. What is shocking to me is the fact that so few other people put forth this simple gesture of concern for others. What is quite humorous, is that when I mention this gesture of kindness to others to those I know personally of a religious faith, their response is usually surprising. Instead of seeing the "Good Samaritan" side of this act, their initial reply would be something like, "Well, you just never know.. They might have a gun, or want to rob you". How pathetic, so they don't help people because they are afraid it's a muse? You would think their "god" would protect them... Of all the various people I've helped, I've yet to find one that was "faking" being broken down. So, if you see someone in need take the 5 or 10 min to see if you can help. I'd be willing to bet if everyone did just a little something to help others as cliché as it might sound the world truly would be a better place. We shouldn't be fearful of doing something kind.... Just some thoughts for today...
In all honesty this is not really a rarity for me. Anytime I see someone on the side of the road, hood up, or someone walking down an isolated road with a gas can in hand.. I will usually give them a lift or see if they need help. What is shocking to me is the fact that so few other people put forth this simple gesture of concern for others. What is quite humorous, is that when I mention this gesture of kindness to others to those I know personally of a religious faith, their response is usually surprising. Instead of seeing the "Good Samaritan" side of this act, their initial reply would be something like, "Well, you just never know.. They might have a gun, or want to rob you". How pathetic, so they don't help people because they are afraid it's a muse? You would think their "god" would protect them... Of all the various people I've helped, I've yet to find one that was "faking" being broken down. So, if you see someone in need take the 5 or 10 min to see if you can help. I'd be willing to bet if everyone did just a little something to help others as cliché as it might sound the world truly would be a better place. We shouldn't be fearful of doing something kind.... Just some thoughts for today...
....And why they should not be intermingled, even in a small town. This incredible display of "chrisitan" character absolutely disgusting!
City Commission Meeting Turns Ugly
They should make excellent commissioners! I just hope the citizens remember this later, and if they don't... you can be damn sure I'll still have this post around to remind them.
One of the great things I did notice about this election, is that the "Good ole Boy" network is loosing strength in this town. The final tally for mayor was only a difference of 15 votes.. 49% to 51% at least that shows that the town is growing closer to becoming more progressive. Hopefully, in another 4yrs, enough new people might move in and finally wipe out the old school of thought and actually bring about the much needed change in this area.
City Commission Meeting Turns Ugly
They should make excellent commissioners! I just hope the citizens remember this later, and if they don't... you can be damn sure I'll still have this post around to remind them.
One of the great things I did notice about this election, is that the "Good ole Boy" network is loosing strength in this town. The final tally for mayor was only a difference of 15 votes.. 49% to 51% at least that shows that the town is growing closer to becoming more progressive. Hopefully, in another 4yrs, enough new people might move in and finally wipe out the old school of thought and actually bring about the much needed change in this area.
I'm posting this because I'd like to hear how others might have responded.
I recently received this in my inbox:
I pondered over this email for awhile and decided to respond as follows:
And now for his reply:
Now, if you happen to make it through all of that... What do you think? He brought up truth, yet I don't recall mentioning anything about truth. Any hypothesis has an equal chance of being true as it does being false prior to being verified who says the one hypothesizing wants it to be true or false? Anyway, I had so many thoughts on this that I simply didn't know where to begin, so i figured I'd share and see what others thought as well.
I recently received this in my inbox:
I found your site. Your definition of faith is flawed, because it assumes that all faith is flawed. Emotion about an irrational notion or a false notion is certainly a problem. But faith is something that you use all the time whether you are rational or not to find truth about things that are true.
For example, I have faith in the future. The future is something that hasn't happened yet, because I cannot yet see it. But that doesn't mean that it isn't real, because it will shortly present itself. And from past experience, I know that it is real, because it has presented itself previously. And it takes faith for me to believe that it will continue to present itself. And wait, what is that? Woah, the future just became the present, and I believed it would, and hey, I was right! And I just proved it. Because the future just became the present. See the mental exercise there? Faith is useful when based on the truth. A hypothesis is faith, because its hope in that which is not seen, but which might be true, and if proven, then it is true. A natural law is a proven fact that started out with a hypothesis that is now proven. Therefore your definition of faith is fundamentally flawed, because the principle of faith is interwoven with science. You just have just dismissed it entirely in the realm of religion, because you have dismissed religion entirely. If you don't believe in religion, you should just say so, but don't trash on faith. Faith is something that you can't do away with, because it is fact when it is used with something that is true.
Faith, or the HYPOTHESIS, opened the way to every discovery in science. Faith is the CREATIVITY that brought about the reason for doing the EXPERIMENTATION, that let to the DISCOVERIES in science. Therefore, I challenge your fundamental definition of faith. If you hate religion, just say so. If you don't believe in God, because you don't believe in something that the scientific method can't touch, then just say so. But you can't trash on faith, because it is the core principle behind the scientific method.
Now, how do you get to know God? Not through the experimentations of science, but through spiritual experimentation. If you don't believe in that, then it is simply because you haven't done the experimentation, and you haven't had the true desire to experiment to get the result that would yield fruit. Therefore I challenge your notion that God and religion is something deluded or irrational, because you haven't used the principles of the scientific method to prove that your assertion is so. And you can't use the tools in your lab to scientifically prove God is there. You have to scientifically pray.
A believer and knower of a scientific and rational God,
XXXXXX
I pondered over this email for awhile and decided to respond as follows:
Hello XXXXXX,
Thanks for visiting my site, and taking some time to send an email. I appreciate your input, however, all you have really done here is prove your lack of understanding not only in the definition of faith, but in your definition of a hypothesis and your complete disregard for the scientific method.
You are attempting to integrate faith into logic and the 2 are mutually exclusive. Time or "The Future" does not require faith. The mental exercise you so sarcastically presented really proves nothing. Why not attempt to prove this with some evidence? How could we possibly do this without faith? To begin with we would have to create a hypothesis based on observable repeatable evidence (A hypothesis is simply an educated guess based on observable evidence it is not faith) from there we could make a prediction and based on the results we should be able to share this evidence with others to verify our observations in order to validate our initial hypothesis. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.... We could use our rising sun as the basis, the fact that we grow older, etc.. So, you see no "faith" is required. Faith is never based on "Truth". It is however something required to believe in something that has no evidence.
PS. "You have to scientifically pray" is probably the funniest thing I've heard in awhile... Thanks!
I'm providing you with a few links that may clear up your understanding of the scientific method..
Sincerely,
Robert
And now for his reply:
You sound a bit overconfident in yourself. Let me quote from dictionary.com since you reject the definition (http://dictionary.referenceMy last reply was as follows:.com/browse/faith ):
14 results for: faith
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
The relevant results here for a secular definition of faith (outside of a religious context) are 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9, and all back up my points in my original email.
Therefore, this refutes your argument on faith, and shows that my definition was perfectly fine. Further, reference #2, specifically backs up the fact that having confidence in the ultimate result of a hypothesis, and the proposal of a hypothesis, is indeed an act of faith. Therefore you are simply wrong. Faith is a HOPE of truth. Faith is always based on something that you hope turns out to be true, and is useful when that which is hoped for does turn out to be true, just as a scientist hopes that his hypothesis turns out to be true once tested. Therefore you are plain wrong.
Faith is a principle of reality that is based upon a guess that you hope for might turn out to be true, and if it does turn out to be true, then the faith was useful. This principle can be used in a secular context just as easily as a religious context. Just because you reject the religious context out of hand doesn't justify dismissing its usefulness in a secular context. Therefore, the fact that it is used in conjunction with a hypothesis means that it is a core piece of the scientific method and you are now refuted. Don't argue with me. Go argue with the dictionary.
Now, in a religious context, if you don't believe something to be true, and it does turn out to be true on judgment day, then you are damned because you didn't care to attempt to find out if it was true before judgment day.
Now, in the scientific method, facts are found out by the use of observation of observable phenomena. The problem with spiritual things is that they are not observable phenomena, and are usually only discernible by their effects, not unlike dark matter and dark energy. How do you use the scientific method with spiritual things? By spiritual experimentation. First, you must have a desire to know if spiritual things really do exist, and if they do, then you must want to know if God exists. If you don't care, then don't bother. But you should know first of all why it would be useful for you to know why God exists.
Many Christians are absolutely wrong about the reason for existence. Is it really to serve God as the religious people that originally indoctrinated you tried to drill into you? No. That is only something that you end up doing because you want to, that is, if you end up being happy in the state you end up being in. Happiness is the design and purpose of our existence. Misery is not.
What makes you happy right now? And what is lasting happiness? What if you die and then you haven't prepared to be happy after death? Let's say for the sake of argument that your mind is an immortal thing that cannot be destroyed, just as light is, or matter is. If your mind is indeed going to outlive your body, and is actually an independent entity that cannot be destroyed, doesn't it make sense to find out ahead of time before you can't do anything about it, and haven't prepared for the eventuality?
Interesting argument. In your honor, I will rename my "Definition for Faith" on my website to "A Religious Definition of Faith".
I still have my doubts as to your conclusion and your use of the term faith, but i have read where this argument has been made before.
Thank you for your feedback.
Robert
Now, if you happen to make it through all of that... What do you think? He brought up truth, yet I don't recall mentioning anything about truth. Any hypothesis has an equal chance of being true as it does being false prior to being verified who says the one hypothesizing wants it to be true or false? Anyway, I had so many thoughts on this that I simply didn't know where to begin, so i figured I'd share and see what others thought as well.
I really love this stuff. A new theory is always intriguing in my opinion. When theorizing on things of this scale it's simply mind boggling. This really begins to make you think we really are just a drip of water in someones cosmic sink.
Cristiano Germani Slingshot Theory
Here are some highlights that I found interesting..
When someone claims to be a heretic it always seems to catch my attention. And oddly inspires me to at least listen to their view point as objectively as possible :)
See what I mean.... A drip in someones cosmic sink lol.... I've thought about this when contemplating the Bubble Theory as well. This stuff is way above my head, but very interesting.
Cristiano Germani Slingshot Theory
Here are some highlights that I found interesting..
"I AM a heretic," Cristiano Germani announced to an audience of
cosmologists last month. Few would disagree, as he is proposing a
radical alternative to standard cosmology: a universe with no big bang
creation moment, and no rapid inflation. Rather than a big bang, he
suggests a slingshot.
When someone claims to be a heretic it always seems to catch my attention. And oddly inspires me to at least listen to their view point as objectively as possible :)
But then Germani considered a spinning universe. "In fact, it is much
more realistic that the universe will be rotating as it drops," he
says. Something more interesting happens to a rotating universe as it
hurtles down the throat. Because it is spinning, it avoids falling
into the tip of the throat and whirls round it instead. Like a
boomerang or a stone from a slingshot, it then flies back up again.
Germani realised that the second leg of this journey could correspond
to the expanding universe we observe today.
See what I mean.... A drip in someones cosmic sink lol.... I've thought about this when contemplating the Bubble Theory as well. This stuff is way above my head, but very interesting.
So I noticed this post about Dr Craig's argument for god by Goosing the Antithesis today and it got me thinking so i wanted to jot down some things that popped in my head..
first here is the statement he lays out..
My first thought was the term god could easily be replaced with societies.
I think we could take it a step further and say:
It is my opinion that morality is based on society, in addition Objectivity increases as Diversity increases. I'm glad I watched that video it seemed to open my mind as to where our morals come from.
If we look through history we know that when societies began moral values were very different than they are today. But as cultures began to intermingle, and society became more diversified, our "Objectivity" to moral values has also increased due to the increase in diversity.
What a fun little exercise :)
first here is the statement he lays out..
- If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
- There are objective moral values and duties.
- Therefore God exists.
My first thought was the term god could easily be replaced with societies.
- If Societies do not exist, then there are no objective moral values and duties.
- There are objective moral values and duties.
- Therefore Societies exist.
I think we could take it a step further and say:
- If diversity within society does not exist then there are no objective moral values and duties
- Objective moral values and duties do exist.
- Therefore diversity within society exists.
It is my opinion that morality is based on society, in addition Objectivity increases as Diversity increases. I'm glad I watched that video it seemed to open my mind as to where our morals come from.
If we look through history we know that when societies began moral values were very different than they are today. But as cultures began to intermingle, and society became more diversified, our "Objectivity" to moral values has also increased due to the increase in diversity.
What a fun little exercise :)
I've been quite busy for the past few months with some other priorities... And i must say it is quite difficult to just keep up with all post. (Planet Atheism jumping from 39 to 103 blogs! wow) However, things have somewhat slowed down. After I play catchup for the next few days attempting to read some posts, I'll be posting some new stuff. Also, you might have to bear with me but I'm planning on migrating another blog to this one. It's just too much trying to maintain 2 blogs :)
I was flipping through the channels tonight, when this seemed to just glare as an odd and out of place title:
** Update **
I did do some research after posting this, and the White House does in fact host many musical concerts in the East Room of the White House. Still that title just got my attention :)
White House Salute to Gospel MusicWhile I am in no way surprised that the White house would host a Religious Concert it just weird. I mean surly they host multiple types of other concerts at the White House right? Just never thought I would see White House and Gospel Music in the same sentence lol...
** Update **
I did do some research after posting this, and the White House does in fact host many musical concerts in the East Room of the White House. Still that title just got my attention :)
This was an interesting movie, quite long. but informative as well. Any one that watches news exclusively from American media should at least watch this once.
As I read through this article I could identify with it, hell there was a point in my younger years where i would be supportive of this.. But now when i read it so many things run through my head. but more interesting was some of the comments made in the post itself.
Like some of the following:
aaahhhh, ok that makes sense... So they are taking advantage of those suffering, in grief, poor, sick , and alienated... Yup, that's what made christianity strong in the first place.
The other thing that gets to me about this whole story is how strong the use of peer pressure is being pushed on these people. In practically every story mentioned the individuals are constantly berated and pushed.. Being told that if they don't speak in tongues something is wrong with them or they don't "Truly" believe.
In each case they end with something like this
Like some of the following:
Today Pentecostalism and related charismatic offshoots have spread across the globe and account for at least a quarter of the 2 billion Christians worldwide, according to the World Christian Database. A large part of this growth is happening in Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia. Although the movement was marginalized in the early 1900s, by the end of the century, it had made inroads in such mainstream denominations as Catholicism and Presbyterianism.Really?
Why the rapid growth?
"It's a very emotional form of worship that enables people in groups to experience ecstasy, emotional release and communal support," said Amanda Porterfield, the Robert A. Spivey Professor of Religion at Florida State University.
It also allows people to share suffering and grief, whether because of poverty and illness or social alienation, she said. And it creates community.
"To belong to a group that is the custodian of a supernatural experience," she said, "is powerful."
aaahhhh, ok that makes sense... So they are taking advantage of those suffering, in grief, poor, sick , and alienated... Yup, that's what made christianity strong in the first place.
The other thing that gets to me about this whole story is how strong the use of peer pressure is being pushed on these people. In practically every story mentioned the individuals are constantly berated and pushed.. Being told that if they don't speak in tongues something is wrong with them or they don't "Truly" believe.
In each case they end with something like this
But she doesn't need to be convinced. Her spirit has already been released to God.So in the end they finally submitted. It seems as if this a legal way to torture someone until they finally cave to the churches will. Terrible!
During my latest encounter with a couple of door to door "soul" winners from the local church... This was the statement they decided to leave me with when our conversation was over:
I've also noticed that every time I encounter people on their "Soul Winning" salesman pitch, they continue to try to find what your "problem" is. These 2 constantly kept saying things like:
You know in your heart that god is real. You know in your heart that you should follow god.As if saying everyone is "Born" knowing that god is real. I happen to disagree with this claim. If you can be born knowing a particular god is real, then why does "christianity" have a specific beginning in a specific area of the world? What about the native Indians... you know those people that lived in harmony with the land before we arrived and practically wiped them out... Also, if you can be born with the knowledge of the existence of a god...... Why are we not born able to speak? or Why are we not born knowing fire is hot? Why does it have to be learned through experience?
I've also noticed that every time I encounter people on their "Soul Winning" salesman pitch, they continue to try to find what your "problem" is. These 2 constantly kept saying things like:
So your problem is with religion?It continues to get irritating. I don't mind people wanting to understand you and asking probing questions. My problem is when they try to answer themselves instead of listening to what I say. I don't see my lack of belief in a divine being a problem.
Is your problem with churches?
Oh your problem is with Preachers?
Oh you don't believe in hell, so you believe in reincarnation?
Well, I don't know what happen to you... but in my experience I found that people who don't believe in god had something happen to them or disappoint them during church.
and of course i say this with a hint of sarcasm.... checked my email this morning to find that I had a new comment on one of my older blogs titled "Do you believe" from Victoria. I thought it was kinda funny, and figured I would respond to it here. From her writing and spelling I figure she's probably still in high school.
Listen dude, God is real and if u wanna have a convo about it, i'll straighten all the insucurities u have about the bible.First let me say, I have no problems having a "convo" about it, but in all fairness I doubt you will "straighten all my "insucurities" about the bible. I have no insecurities about the bible. Calling the bible fiction and worth reading does not seem to me to be an insecurity, it's simply my honest opinion.
It is ashame that u r so stubborn and unsure about the bible as well as urself.I'm not unsure about myself.. I did not think i was being "stubborn". I'm quite willing to change my views... Given enough proof :)
No matter what u believe, I promise, u will know the truth one day, and God WILL give u a second chance.Ok? I've noticed this seems to be a common "physiological" game with those of faith. It's an interesting trick... but really does not mean much... It would be like me saying "I promise you... one day you will doubt".
U have alot of knowledge, now use it in a useful and beneficial way.Thank you for the kind compliment, but everyone has the capability to learn unfortunately many do not want to.
u probly won't listen, but at least u now know SOME truth.I have listened, but you have not provided me with any truth unless you consider your promise to be a truth. Thanks for your comment, but I won't be contacting you to enlighten me of my "insucurities".....
To the three women being held captive, and spoke to them God's word that one of them would give birth to a daughter that would save the Sea....
Hey, you never know... maybe god speaks to the fishes too. Too bad the young saviour was killed by a stingray, or maybe that was the sacrifice needed.. lol
Ok seriously, I came across this in "The New Scientist" about a "Virgin Birth" and I could not resist. It makes one wonder... Is it possible for humans to reproduce asexually? Sure, it probably is very rare.. but could this possibly explain many of the stories about virgin births? I mean heck... is it possible that Mary was actually a hermaphrodite? Yes, highly unlikely... but quite interesting to ponder :)
Hey, you never know... maybe god speaks to the fishes too. Too bad the young saviour was killed by a stingray, or maybe that was the sacrifice needed.. lol
Ok seriously, I came across this in "The New Scientist" about a "Virgin Birth" and I could not resist. It makes one wonder... Is it possible for humans to reproduce asexually? Sure, it probably is very rare.. but could this possibly explain many of the stories about virgin births? I mean heck... is it possible that Mary was actually a hermaphrodite? Yes, highly unlikely... but quite interesting to ponder :)
I must admit, at first I thought this poll was pretty interesting. It was also nice to see atheists taking part and voting. However, I think it is safe to say this is no longer the case. It appears that someone is simply running a script to continuously vote Atheism "is the only rational outlook", probably with the intention of hitting 100% or at least 99% at the most. That's quite unfortunate in my opinion. I think simply by us participating in the poll whether we won or not would have said more than faking the data.
I was going to post a pic of the poll, but decided it was not worth it, since it's very obvious it has been turned into a joke. My reason for this?
1) There were at my last check 46,292 people that had voted.
2) "is the only rational outlook" was at 96%
3) Approximately 6 votes were cast every second (approximately 354 votes each min). I determined this by simply taking 2 snapshots 60 seconds apart. At 5:20pm there were 45,938 then at 5:21 there were 46,292.
4) It is simply not logical for this website to get that much participation. And if it did for real, the poll results would be much different.
Based on the above evidence, and the fact that the other poll barely hit 2,000 votes... My hypothesis is someone has turned this into some contest to brag about. Again, kinda sad. I think it would have been a more powerful message to them if we had simply participated. Oh well.....
I was going to post a pic of the poll, but decided it was not worth it, since it's very obvious it has been turned into a joke. My reason for this?
1) There were at my last check 46,292 people that had voted.
2) "is the only rational outlook" was at 96%
3) Approximately 6 votes were cast every second (approximately 354 votes each min). I determined this by simply taking 2 snapshots 60 seconds apart. At 5:20pm there were 45,938 then at 5:21 there were 46,292.
4) It is simply not logical for this website to get that much participation. And if it did for real, the poll results would be much different.
Based on the above evidence, and the fact that the other poll barely hit 2,000 votes... My hypothesis is someone has turned this into some contest to brag about. Again, kinda sad. I think it would have been a more powerful message to them if we had simply participated. Oh well.....
After reading the "Christianity Today Poll" by Friendly Atheist, I figured I would participate and vote as well.... You can imagine my delight when I noticed the results as of 11:10pm May 18, 2007. I wonder if they will spin this? or simply disregard it as a bogus poll? lol you can vote/view the results here.
I was laying in bed last night after listening to some of Julie Sweeney's clips earlier that day, recalling to myself some of the questions I had in my younger years involved in the church. I suppose it started with questions like these:
If God created Adam, did he have a belly button? (later i would here jokes saying sure he did, when God was finished he said "Pop" your done!)
When God created Adam from clay, was he standing up or lying down?
If he was lying on the ground how did God sculpt his backside? Did he breath life into Adam, then when he stood up he sculpted his backside? or did he flip him like a hamburger before bringing him to life?
If he was standing up, how was the clay strong enough to hold the weight of the clay for the upper body?
How did God create Eve from a Adam's Rib? Did he just form more clay around the rib? Or did he just grow eve from the rib bone like you would grow algae?
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge? Does that mean God wants us to remain stupid or ignorant?
Why did he want us to be naked? Is God some sort of pervert?
These were questions I would ask and never get replies from. Instead, I was typically told, "Well God is all powerful, what we can't understand we are not meant to." or they would get angry at the questions I would ask.
I started thinking about the physiology in the christian faith as well. This faith developed employing some rather successful techniques. Besides the obvious believe or go to hell. One of my mothers favorites was "Be sure your sins will find you out" a paraphrase of Numbers 32:23 "But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out." At first this was a powerful motivator as a child until my first "test" of it :) I did many such tests as a kid. After not getting good answers to my questions above.. There were nights I would lay and bed asking God or even Satan to reveal themselves to me. I tried to make deals with them. I'd say stuff like ok God, if your real, if you exist, prove it to me! Show me with something tangible or personal. Honestly, I made the same offer to the Devil. Obviously neither took the challenge.
My wife tells me sometimes I'm obsessed. She will ask me if you don't believe in god why is it something you talk about or mention so often. Well, because it's everywhere!
Sorta like when you buy a new car. You love this car, and you don't recall seeing that many of the on the road. However, once you are in the car and driving around you start to notice they are all over the place. The same seems to be true with respects the christianity, once you move away from it you start to notice how intrusive into main stream life it is.
If God created Adam, did he have a belly button? (later i would here jokes saying sure he did, when God was finished he said "Pop" your done!)
When God created Adam from clay, was he standing up or lying down?
If he was lying on the ground how did God sculpt his backside? Did he breath life into Adam, then when he stood up he sculpted his backside? or did he flip him like a hamburger before bringing him to life?
If he was standing up, how was the clay strong enough to hold the weight of the clay for the upper body?
How did God create Eve from a Adam's Rib? Did he just form more clay around the rib? Or did he just grow eve from the rib bone like you would grow algae?
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge? Does that mean God wants us to remain stupid or ignorant?
Why did he want us to be naked? Is God some sort of pervert?
These were questions I would ask and never get replies from. Instead, I was typically told, "Well God is all powerful, what we can't understand we are not meant to." or they would get angry at the questions I would ask.
I started thinking about the physiology in the christian faith as well. This faith developed employing some rather successful techniques. Besides the obvious believe or go to hell. One of my mothers favorites was "Be sure your sins will find you out" a paraphrase of Numbers 32:23 "But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out." At first this was a powerful motivator as a child until my first "test" of it :) I did many such tests as a kid. After not getting good answers to my questions above.. There were nights I would lay and bed asking God or even Satan to reveal themselves to me. I tried to make deals with them. I'd say stuff like ok God, if your real, if you exist, prove it to me! Show me with something tangible or personal. Honestly, I made the same offer to the Devil. Obviously neither took the challenge.
My wife tells me sometimes I'm obsessed. She will ask me if you don't believe in god why is it something you talk about or mention so often. Well, because it's everywhere!
Sorta like when you buy a new car. You love this car, and you don't recall seeing that many of the on the road. However, once you are in the car and driving around you start to notice they are all over the place. The same seems to be true with respects the christianity, once you move away from it you start to notice how intrusive into main stream life it is.
Just finished up reading Hemant Mehta's (aka The Friendly Atheist) book "I Sold My Soul on eBay" and figured I would make a few comments about it.
First, I was not very impressed with the forward. I thought it seemed to directed towards the "Christian" majority especially when ending with "Because prophets can come from the most unexpected places, can't they?". Of course at the same time I suppose that was the point of the book, but still after reading the whole book; this seems to be in conflict with Hemant's own recommendations later on in regards to not ostracising others :). I understand it is just a forward and heck it's not even a full 2 pages, but for me it did seem to set the wrong kind of mood to start off the book.
The next thing I was slightly disappointed about was the fact there was absolutely no description about the alter calls? Hemmant, you mean out of all those churches you had nothing to say about the those very awkward situations? Have churches stopped this practice at the end of the preaching? In my experience with church service this is a very common practice, one that in my opinion would at least deserved a bit more information on how different churches handled it. There was only one reference I found, but it was more informal than what I've seen in other churches. The alter calls I'm talking about involve the preacher asking everyone to close their eyes with soft music playing and typically share some type of intimate thought to set the mood asking people to raise their hand if their not saved then offering them a chance to be saved or come forward to be led to salvation.
I know that's probably a bit nit picky, but other than that it was a very enjoyable read. Hemant has a great story to tell, and I enjoyed every page. After finishing the book my first thought was I wonder how many churches in my area would be open to the idea of an open dialog similar to what Hemant had with Pastor Tim. My next thought was should I send copies of "I Sold My Soul on eBay" to the local churches? :) . Then I started searching for atheist groups near me. There does appear to be 2 in the Tallahassee area (CFI Community of Tallahassee, and The Union of Freethinking Students). I might try to attend one of them, but that's still a day trip for me. It's about an hour 1/2 drive one way. Doesn't sound like much but 3 hours just in drive time adds up. If anyone knows of atheist groups or atheists/agnostics/freethinkers around Apalachicola, Eastpoint, Carrabelle, or Port Saint George Florida please post me a comment! or drop me an email to rpkthoughts@gmail.com
Seriously, I think Hemant did a great job. With each evaluation of the various churches he attended I was taken back to my younger years and could identify with everything he said. Many of the same questions he raised where thoughts I had when I was involved with Christianity. It was funny to listen to some of the sermons overviews... It was like hearing voices from the past. Since the Bible never changes, neither do many of the sermons.
First, I was not very impressed with the forward. I thought it seemed to directed towards the "Christian" majority especially when ending with "Because prophets can come from the most unexpected places, can't they?". Of course at the same time I suppose that was the point of the book, but still after reading the whole book; this seems to be in conflict with Hemant's own recommendations later on in regards to not ostracising others :). I understand it is just a forward and heck it's not even a full 2 pages, but for me it did seem to set the wrong kind of mood to start off the book.
The next thing I was slightly disappointed about was the fact there was absolutely no description about the alter calls? Hemmant, you mean out of all those churches you had nothing to say about the those very awkward situations? Have churches stopped this practice at the end of the preaching? In my experience with church service this is a very common practice, one that in my opinion would at least deserved a bit more information on how different churches handled it. There was only one reference I found, but it was more informal than what I've seen in other churches. The alter calls I'm talking about involve the preacher asking everyone to close their eyes with soft music playing and typically share some type of intimate thought to set the mood asking people to raise their hand if their not saved then offering them a chance to be saved or come forward to be led to salvation.
I know that's probably a bit nit picky, but other than that it was a very enjoyable read. Hemant has a great story to tell, and I enjoyed every page. After finishing the book my first thought was I wonder how many churches in my area would be open to the idea of an open dialog similar to what Hemant had with Pastor Tim. My next thought was should I send copies of "I Sold My Soul on eBay" to the local churches? :) . Then I started searching for atheist groups near me. There does appear to be 2 in the Tallahassee area (CFI Community of Tallahassee, and The Union of Freethinking Students). I might try to attend one of them, but that's still a day trip for me. It's about an hour 1/2 drive one way. Doesn't sound like much but 3 hours just in drive time adds up. If anyone knows of atheist groups or atheists/agnostics/freethinkers around Apalachicola, Eastpoint, Carrabelle, or Port Saint George Florida please post me a comment! or drop me an email to rpkthoughts@gmail.com
Seriously, I think Hemant did a great job. With each evaluation of the various churches he attended I was taken back to my younger years and could identify with everything he said. Many of the same questions he raised where thoughts I had when I was involved with Christianity. It was funny to listen to some of the sermons overviews... It was like hearing voices from the past. Since the Bible never changes, neither do many of the sermons.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription