http://planetatheism.com Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:31:41 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/bad-thingsgood-people-when-all-else.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/bad-thingsgood-people-when-all-else.html#comments Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:37:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon ]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/6743090672100442275/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/bad-thingsgood-people-when-all-else.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/bad-thingsgood-people-when-all-else.html#comments Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:37:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=b0743b2c0830df14b531ab151b68ea03 ]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/6743090672100442275/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/free-will-and-why-bad-things-happen-to.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/free-will-and-why-bad-things-happen-to.html#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:28:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon Yet now that we've got a little down time, we bring our attention back to obliterating some of the more significant pillars of the argument for god according to the major monotheistic traditions.

The non-believer is often asked what he or she would do if, upon dying, he/she were to discover that there really is a god (and heaven, devil, hell, etc.) after all. The question is meant to strike fear, or at least doubt, in skeptic's very soul (brain); the same fear/doubt which motivates most believers to do the things they do in an attempt to reserve their seat at god's feastin' table. The easy response to the believer's question is simply: "I'll do the same thing you will in the event you discover there is a god, but not the one you worshipped your whole life." It's unlikely one would get very far with such a response however, for as we've pointed out in earlier posts, a believer's faith that his god is in fact the right choice out of hundreds, is surprisingly, and unreasonably, strong.

Yet, there is another way to answer this question that, frankly, cuts through the bull. In speaking for myself (Steve writing) I can say that yes, were I to die and find myself standing at the pearly gates, I would most certainly be surprised. Incredibly so. However, would I regret living my adult life as a non-believer and subsequently beg god's forgiveness for my indiscretion? No. On the contrary, if I had the chance to speak with him before being shipped off to eternal damnation, I would spit in his face. I would not be doing this out of anger over my fate (though I'm sure I'd be pretty pissed about that part, too), but rather for the billions of people he allowed to suffer through this so called gift that is life.

This brings us to the issue of bad things happening to good people. Like the skeptic, the believer is also asked her fair share of questions (whether she responds with anything of value is another issue), among them is a classic: if god is so benevolent and kind, why does he allow evil to exist in the world? This question is frequently equated with the query as to why bad things happen to good people. They are essentially the same, for evil and evil deeds would not be a conceptual reality were they not being directed toward the innocent and good.

The religious community's traditional response to this troubling reality is simply and seemingly flawless: man has free will. You see, god loves man above all other things. Thus, in his infinite wisdom he realized that it would be cruel to forcibly ensure man's adherence to certain rules; it would be too limiting to deny Adam his own will with which he could choose right from wrong. By providing man with free will god endowed his greatest creation with the power of choice, but at a cost: the inevitable reality that some men would choose to do evil things. Therefore, the little boy who must endure years of beatings by his alcoholic mother's hand, or the undergraduate who is gang raped after being drugged at a party both must recognize that were god to have interfered and preventing these tragedies, he would have to deny free will, and to do such a thing would be utterly cruel and unloving. Moreover, the reward for those who choose righteousness will be that much greater after having resisted years of temptation.

Now, while the above paragraph is saturated with sarcasm, it does accurately represent the religious assertion that man's free will accounts for the evils of the world, and essentially god had to weigh the benefits of man's freedom against his potential for cruelty; freedom evidently won. The believer's solution is full of holes from point A. One need only consider disease to realize that not every instance of bad befalling the good can be blamed on someone else's free will.

If a woman has a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, that reality is completely out of her control. Yes, her very existence is the result of her parents' free decision to procreate and pass on potentially flawed DNA. However, even if we follow her family tree all the way back to its roots, the ultimate blame for her genetic disadvantage lies with faulty DNA replication rather than some ancestor's conscious decision. There is no free will to be found in the realm of chromosomes, and therefore, the buck of any disease which has a genetic cause cannot be passed off on free will.

Further, the free will theory is a blatant contradiction of another religious favorite: the belief in miracles. If god truly chooses to stay out of human affairs, leaving us free to make our own choices, than how can anyone claim that some occurrence of great fortune is the result of "god's plan." The mere idea of a divine plan doesn't jive with free will, for how can one be both free to do whatever he pleases yet all the while progressing along some predetermined path?

However, the ultimate weakness to be found in the free will solution lies in the fact that it doesn't actually solve the problem at hand. To refresh our memories, the theory goes as follows: god loved man, and because god loved man so much, he realized that man needed to possess his own will rather than be slave to the will of god. Unfortunately, by giving man free will, god also gave man the potential to do evil things, and therefore, the evils of the world are the result of certain individuals' misuse of god's gift. The problem lies in the unwarranted assumption that god's giving man free will necessitated his giving man the ability to do evil.

If the incongruity is not yet clear, consider this: I cannot turn myself invisible; does this mean I lack free will? Further, I can not remove my own head; does this too mean that I lack free will? The answer in both cases is no. Freedom of will simply refers to one's ability to choose how he utilizes his built in capabilities, not his ability to do anything imaginable. Therefore, the fact that I cannot fly like a bird or breathe under water like a fish simply illustrates two of the myriad of limitations that come with being human.

Now if we, like the believer, are assuming that man was designed by god, and if we are further assuming that god is benevolent, then why would he not create man, the being after his own image, with a limitation that prevented evil. Just as he failed to endow Adam with gills, claws, wings, eight arms, the ability to morph into different shapes, etc., god needed only make the man incapable of murdering, raping, stealing and the like. Humans would still be free to choose what kind of foods to eat, or what sort of clothes to wear, but when it came to murder and torture, such deeds, like flying, would be imaginable but impossible.

I can sense that some will disagree and simply insist that man's ability to become a killer or a rapist must come with his free will to do other things; if we are to be free to swing an axe, how can we not be free to swing it wherever we please, like into someone else's head? This is a classic example of the illogical argument that current circumstances stand as evidence for their inevitability; that things had to turn out the way they did, because, well, that's how they turned out. However, this simple is not true nor does it jive with the concept of god. We are asked to imagine a being with unlimited knowledge and power, and yet we must accept that he failed to come up with a design that somehow prevented evil deeds? Such a creator would be neither perfect nor very smart.

The believer must come to terms with at least one of three possibilities: a) god failed to realize the simple fact that if he didn't want men to do evil deeds he simply needed to make evil one of the many things men can't do, and in failing to realize this god demonstrates himself to be a moron unworthy of worship; or b) that god, knowing full well that, if given free will, men would commit all sorts of evils (many in his name) resulting in the suffering of billions, still chose to proceed accordingly, in which case he is not benevolent and thus unworthy of worship; or c) that god does not exist, the evils and misfortunes of the world are simply bad luck, and by not existing, god is unworthy of worship. I'm personally circling choice C, but since the result of all three is the same, be my guest and choose freely.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/2395632473053259328/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/free-will-and-why-bad-things-happen-to.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/03/free-will-and-why-bad-things-happen-to.html#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:28:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=0339eaa172bff2dbc44b63faa0f4930f Yet now that we've got a little down time, we bring our attention back to obliterating some of the more significant pillars of the argument for god according to the major monotheistic traditions.

The non-believer is often asked what he or she would do if, upon dying, he/she were to discover that there really is a god (and heaven, devil, hell, etc.) after all. The question is meant to strike fear, or at least doubt, in skeptic's very soul (brain); the same fear/doubt which motivates most believers to do the things they do in an attempt to reserve their seat at god's feastin' table. The easy response to the believer's question is simply: "I'll do the same thing you will in the event you discover there is a god, but not the one you worshipped your whole life." It's unlikely one would get very far with such a response however, for as we've pointed out in earlier posts, a believer's faith that his god is in fact the right choice out of hundreds, is surprisingly, and unreasonably, strong.

Yet, there is another way to answer this question that, frankly, cuts through the bull. In speaking for myself (Steve writing) I can say that yes, were I to die and find myself standing at the pearly gates, I would most certainly be surprised. Incredibly so. However, would I regret living my adult life as a non-believer and subsequently beg god's forgiveness for my indiscretion? No. On the contrary, if I had the chance to speak with him before being shipped off to eternal damnation, I would spit in his face. I would not be doing this out of anger over my fate (though I'm sure I'd be pretty pissed about that part, too), but rather for the billions of people he allowed to suffer through this so called gift that is life.

This brings us to the issue of bad things happening to good people. Like the skeptic, the believer is also asked her fair share of questions (whether she responds with anything of value is another issue), among them is a classic: if god is so benevolent and kind, why does he allow evil to exist in the world? This question is frequently equated with the query as to why bad things happen to good people. They are essentially the same, for evil and evil deeds would not be a conceptual reality were they not being directed toward the innocent and good.

The religious community's traditional response to this troubling reality is simply and seemingly flawless: man has free will. You see, god loves man above all other things. Thus, in his infinite wisdom he realized that it would be cruel to forcibly ensure man's adherence to certain rules; it would be too limiting to deny Adam his own will with which he could choose right from wrong. By providing man with free will god endowed his greatest creation with the power of choice, but at a cost: the inevitable reality that some men would choose to do evil things. Therefore, the little boy who must endure years of beatings by his alcoholic mother's hand, or the undergraduate who is gang raped after being drugged at a party both must recognize that were god to have interfered and preventing these tragedies, he would have to deny free will, and to do such a thing would be utterly cruel and unloving. Moreover, the reward for those who choose righteousness will be that much greater after having resisted years of temptation.

Now, while the above paragraph is saturated with sarcasm, it does accurately represent the religious assertion that man's free will accounts for the evils of the world, and essentially god had to weigh the benefits of man's freedom against his potential for cruelty; freedom evidently won. The believer's solution is full of holes from point A. One need only consider disease to realize that not every instance of bad befalling the good can be blamed on someone else's free will.

If a woman has a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, that reality is completely out of her control. Yes, her very existence is the result of her parents' free decision to procreate and pass on potentially flawed DNA. However, even if we follow her family tree all the way back to its roots, the ultimate blame for her genetic disadvantage lies with faulty DNA replication rather than some ancestor's conscious decision. There is no free will to be found in the realm of chromosomes, and therefore, the buck of any disease which has a genetic cause cannot be passed off on free will.

Further, the free will theory is a blatant contradiction of another religious favorite: the belief in miracles. If god truly chooses to stay out of human affairs, leaving us free to make our own choices, than how can anyone claim that some occurrence of great fortune is the result of "god's plan." The mere idea of a divine plan doesn't jive with free will, for how can one be both free to do whatever he pleases yet all the while progressing along some predetermined path?

However, the ultimate weakness to be found in the free will solution lies in the fact that it doesn't actually solve the problem at hand. To refresh our memories, the theory goes as follows: god loved man, and because god loved man so much, he realized that man needed to possess his own will rather than be slave to the will of god. Unfortunately, by giving man free will, god also gave man the potential to do evil things, and therefore, the evils of the world are the result of certain individuals' misuse of god's gift. The problem lies in the unwarranted assumption that god's giving man free will necessitated his giving man the ability to do evil.

If the incongruity is not yet clear, consider this: I cannot turn myself invisible; does this mean I lack free will? Further, I can not remove my own head; does this too mean that I lack free will? The answer in both cases is no. Freedom of will simply refers to one's ability to choose how he utilizes his built in capabilities, not his ability to do anything imaginable. Therefore, the fact that I cannot fly like a bird or breathe under water like a fish simply illustrates two of the myriad of limitations that come with being human.

Now if we, like the believer, are assuming that man was designed by god, and if we are further assuming that god is benevolent, then why would he not create man, the being after his own image, with a limitation that prevented evil. Just as he failed to endow Adam with gills, claws, wings, eight arms, the ability to morph into different shapes, etc., god needed only make the man incapable of murdering, raping, stealing and the like. Humans would still be free to choose what kind of foods to eat, or what sort of clothes to wear, but when it came to murder and torture, such deeds, like flying, would be imaginable but impossible.

I can sense that some will disagree and simply insist that man's ability to become a killer or a rapist must come with his free will to do other things; if we are to be free to swing an axe, how can we not be free to swing it wherever we please, like into someone else's head? This is a classic example of the illogical argument that current circumstances stand as evidence for their inevitability; that things had to turn out the way they did, because, well, that's how they turned out. However, this simple is not true nor does it jive with the concept of god. We are asked to imagine a being with unlimited knowledge and power, and yet we must accept that he failed to come up with a design that somehow prevented evil deeds? Such a creator would be neither perfect nor very smart.

The believer must come to terms with at least one of three possibilities: a) god failed to realize the simple fact that if he didn't want men to do evil deeds he simply needed to make evil one of the many things men can't do, and in failing to realize this god demonstrates himself to be a moron unworthy of worship; or b) that god, knowing full well that, if given free will, men would commit all sorts of evils (many in his name) resulting in the suffering of billions, still chose to proceed accordingly, in which case he is not benevolent and thus unworthy of worship; or c) that god does not exist, the evils and misfortunes of the world are simply bad luck, and by not existing, god is unworthy of worship. I'm personally circling choice C, but since the result of all three is the same, be my guest and choose freely.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/2395632473053259328/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/heath-ledger-and-westboro-baptist.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/heath-ledger-and-westboro-baptist.html#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:22:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon
Many religious moderates are standing on the side of reason in regard to the WBC and its protests, calling members of the group extremists guilty of misinterpreting the bible. Here arises a serious problem, one which has been mentioned previously on this blog. For functional atheists, which is to say those who lead their everyday lives in a completely secular fashion save for the occasional prayer for assistance, holiday celebration, or reference to an anticipated eternity of bliss, there is this idea that the bible is open to interpretation, and moreover, the proper interpretation is one that ignores most of the rules contained therein. Therefore, in the minds of functional atheists (better known as religious moderates), the members of the WBC are indeed extremists who have taken biblical text too far, out of context, and what have you.

I would argue that the bible was not intended to be interpreted; it is not presented as a poem or a story in the literary sense of the word, but rather as a historical account of god and his instructions to man. Interpretation has stemmed only from cognitive dissonance as believers struggle in vain to reconcile their desire to believe in an afterlife with the fact that time and time again science has demonstrated the bible to be filled with utter nonsense.

Yet for the sake of argument, let us imagine that the bible indeed is open to interpretation as the religious moderate would believe. Certainly, a reasonable interpretation would consist of reading the text as is. No one pretends to imagine that when Frost claims to have taken the road less traveled he really means the beaten path, and here we are discussing metaphor-filled poetry. Accordingly, we cannot in good faith pretend that when god declares lying with mankind as with woman to be an "abomination" there isn't the slimmest chance he means just that. If such is the case, it would follow that the WBC is not in fact a cult of extremists, but rather a church of righteous crusaders doing their damnest to save Americans from eternal torment. Certainly no religious moderate would complain if one were to protest the funeral of a mass murderer, for god tells us that "thou shall not kill." In the same vein, the WBC takes god at his word and acts accordingly.

Now, is the WBC in fact a group of fanatics, bigots and hate mongers? Most certainly. They ignore the fact that their supposed god also stresses the importance of forgiveness, fail to fuss over the myriad other inane rules god arbitrarily laid out, and, through the fervor with which they've latched onto one biblical line, reveal themselves as nothing more than backwards bigots capitalizing on the fact that outward gay-bashing goes unpunished in a nation which refuses to allow two tax-paying, law-abiding citizens to enjoy the legal rights of a married couple. However, it is only we secularist who have the right to point out such things. For anyone who goes to church on Sunday or prays at night or lights a certain candle for a certain period of time all because the imaginary man in the sky told him so is barred from the conversation, unless of course, he's calling to WBC to say "hello pot, just wanted to let you know that you're black."

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/2653549555038468607/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/heath-ledger-and-westboro-baptist.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/heath-ledger-and-westboro-baptist.html#comments Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:22:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=2d1af528b583d95b7005e836e28b3e24
Many religious moderates are standing on the side of reason in regard to the WBC and its protests, calling members of the group extremists guilty of misinterpreting the bible. Here arises a serious problem, one which has been mentioned previously on this blog. For functional atheists, which is to say those who lead their everyday lives in a completely secular fashion save for the occasional prayer for assistance, holiday celebration, or reference to an anticipated eternity of bliss, there is this idea that the bible is open to interpretation, and moreover, the proper interpretation is one that ignores most of the rules contained therein. Therefore, in the minds of functional atheists (better known as religious moderates), the members of the WBC are indeed extremists who have taken biblical text too far, out of context, and what have you.

I would argue that the bible was not intended to be interpreted; it is not presented as a poem or a story in the literary sense of the word, but rather as a historical account of god and his instructions to man. Interpretation has stemmed only from cognitive dissonance as believers struggle in vain to reconcile their desire to believe in an afterlife with the fact that time and time again science has demonstrated the bible to be filled with utter nonsense.

Yet for the sake of argument, let us imagine that the bible indeed is open to interpretation as the religious moderate would believe. Certainly, a reasonable interpretation would consist of reading the text as is. No one pretends to imagine that when Frost claims to have taken the road less traveled he really means the beaten path, and here we are discussing metaphor-filled poetry. Accordingly, we cannot in good faith pretend that when god declares lying with mankind as with woman to be an "abomination" there isn't the slimmest chance he means just that. If such is the case, it would follow that the WBC is not in fact a cult of extremists, but rather a church of righteous crusaders doing their damnest to save Americans from eternal torment. Certainly no religious moderate would complain if one were to protest the funeral of a mass murderer, for god tells us that "thou shall not kill." In the same vein, the WBC takes god at his word and acts accordingly.

Now, is the WBC in fact a group of fanatics, bigots and hate mongers? Most certainly. They ignore the fact that their supposed god also stresses the importance of forgiveness, fail to fuss over the myriad other inane rules god arbitrarily laid out, and, through the fervor with which they've latched onto one biblical line, reveal themselves as nothing more than backwards bigots capitalizing on the fact that outward gay-bashing goes unpunished in a nation which refuses to allow two tax-paying, law-abiding citizens to enjoy the legal rights of a married couple. However, it is only we secularist who have the right to point out such things. For anyone who goes to church on Sunday or prays at night or lights a certain candle for a certain period of time all because the imaginary man in the sky told him so is barred from the conversation, unless of course, he's calling to WBC to say "hello pot, just wanted to let you know that you're black."

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/2653549555038468607/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/imaginary-dominion-of-man.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/imaginary-dominion-of-man.html#comments Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:08:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon Let us first look at our rule over the animal and plant life mentioned above. We will grant that in the year 2008, it would certainly seem as though mankind does indeed exact a significant degree of control over the rest of the Earth's flora and fauna. We have the power to genetically engineer livestock to better suit our dietary taste, the ability to slaughter creatures of any size using our advanced weapons, and even the capabilities to level entire habitats when we so choose. However, this control is a very recent development. Our present ability to manipulate plants and animals to suit our needs has been a long time coming, and for millions of years prior to this age people were nothing more than another type of creature struggling to compete with the myriad others. Early man was lucky to live into his ripe old thirties, and only did so through surviving his fair share of potentially fatal injuries (archeological evidence demonstrates that your average adult "caveman" usually suffered numerous fractures over the course of his/her life).
Even today, a solitary person stripped of the technology others developed over millennia stands little chance in a show down against most other animals; our bodies are soft, our muscles weak, and our agility and senses laughable. And even with all our modern technology at hand, man's dominion is at best transient and at worse a facade. We need only look to any one of the many instances in which a "domesticated" animal decides to show its true colors and attack its master.
As we turn to man's supposed "rule...over all the earth" in general, the monotheistic theory truly begins to buckle. If there is one thing than humans have failed to control, even today, it is the Earth itself. At present, we have zero ability to regulate climate or geologic phenomenon. Humans can only do their best to shield themselves from the onslaught of Mother Nature, and these efforts are by and large pathetic. The recent tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina provides a vivid reminder of our crippling limitations.
When one takes into account the existence of extraterrestrial threats, the situation becomes far grimmer. For example, were an asteroid of sufficient size to happen upon a course intersecting our orbit, mankind would be helpless to do anything but patiently await its destruction. Our chances of diverting the rock prior to collision are abysmal, and once it struck we would almost certainly go the way of the dinosaurs. Even if a few straggling tribes were capable of eking out a living, who could call such an existence evidence of dominion?
Yet, we really need not look to the catastrophic as evidence of the reality that man lives thoroughly under nature's thumb. Simply consider the fact that the Earth is 70% water; salt water no less! This means that the majority of the Earth is utterly uninhabitable by the human race; when taken into consideration, this fact makes it much more likely that god, if he exists, is either a fish or a sea mammal.
The final consideration takes us back to the issue of controlling animal species. It is no surprise that the authors of monotheism failed to consider the most glaring contradiction to their dominion theory, for said contradiction was unknown to mankind 2000 years ago. The existence of bacteria and viruses are highly suggestive that mankind is anything but the dominant species on earth. Not only are these creatures many times more versatile and adaptive than humans, they are capable of bringing entire continents to their knees. Only recently have scientists been able to wrest some control from the microvilli of the microscopic, and even so, our efforts fail more frequently than they succeed.
Before closing, we would like to address one counterpoint we foresee the believer raising. It is highly possible that our reading of this passage is skewed by god's lack of temporality. For, while god may not have endowed man with dominion over all of nature at his (man's) inception, perhaps there will come some time in the distant future when such unequivocal dominion shall be a reality. Certainly, god will still be "living" in the present a billion earth years from now. Thus, perhaps this dominion is more a promise than a present reality. In this regard, we the nonbelievers would level the following charge: how is it that god, in his infinite wisdom would fail to recognize that, unlike himself, his greatest creation is anything but timeless, and thus would go through a great deal of suffering at the hands of nature prior to realizing its ultimate dominion? Either he somehow failed to recognize this fact, and is thus reveals himself to be rather unintelligent, or he did perceive this unfortunate reality and yet proceeded in spite of it. If the latter turns out to be true, than god is not quite the loving father men like to imagine him to be.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/374099031899671382/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/imaginary-dominion-of-man.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/imaginary-dominion-of-man.html#comments Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:08:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=7c360c1da43e3f9f19daf801c085f33f Let us first look at our rule over the animal and plant life mentioned above. We will grant that in the year 2008, it would certainly seem as though mankind does indeed exact a significant degree of control over the rest of the Earth's flora and fauna. We have the power to genetically engineer livestock to better suit our dietary taste, the ability to slaughter creatures of any size using our advanced weapons, and even the capabilities to level entire habitats when we so choose. However, this control is a very recent development. Our present ability to manipulate plants and animals to suit our needs has been a long time coming, and for millions of years prior to this age people were nothing more than another type of creature struggling to compete with the myriad others. Early man was lucky to live into his ripe old thirties, and only did so through surviving his fair share of potentially fatal injuries (archeological evidence demonstrates that your average adult "caveman" usually suffered numerous fractures over the course of his/her life).
Even today, a solitary person stripped of the technology others developed over millennia stands little chance in a show down against most other animals; our bodies are soft, our muscles weak, and our agility and senses laughable. And even with all our modern technology at hand, man's dominion is at best transient and at worse a facade. We need only look to any one of the many instances in which a "domesticated" animal decides to show its true colors and attack its master.
As we turn to man's supposed "rule...over all the earth" in general, the monotheistic theory truly begins to buckle. If there is one thing than humans have failed to control, even today, it is the Earth itself. At present, we have zero ability to regulate climate or geologic phenomenon. Humans can only do their best to shield themselves from the onslaught of Mother Nature, and these efforts are by and large pathetic. The recent tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina provides a vivid reminder of our crippling limitations.
When one takes into account the existence of extraterrestrial threats, the situation becomes far grimmer. For example, were an asteroid of sufficient size to happen upon a course intersecting our orbit, mankind would be helpless to do anything but patiently await its destruction. Our chances of diverting the rock prior to collision are abysmal, and once it struck we would almost certainly go the way of the dinosaurs. Even if a few straggling tribes were capable of eking out a living, who could call such an existence evidence of dominion?
Yet, we really need not look to the catastrophic as evidence of the reality that man lives thoroughly under nature's thumb. Simply consider the fact that the Earth is 70% water; salt water no less! This means that the majority of the Earth is utterly uninhabitable by the human race; when taken into consideration, this fact makes it much more likely that god, if he exists, is either a fish or a sea mammal.
The final consideration takes us back to the issue of controlling animal species. It is no surprise that the authors of monotheism failed to consider the most glaring contradiction to their dominion theory, for said contradiction was unknown to mankind 2000 years ago. The existence of bacteria and viruses are highly suggestive that mankind is anything but the dominant species on earth. Not only are these creatures many times more versatile and adaptive than humans, they are capable of bringing entire continents to their knees. Only recently have scientists been able to wrest some control from the microvilli of the microscopic, and even so, our efforts fail more frequently than they succeed.
Before closing, we would like to address one counterpoint we foresee the believer raising. It is highly possible that our reading of this passage is skewed by god's lack of temporality. For, while god may not have endowed man with dominion over all of nature at his (man's) inception, perhaps there will come some time in the distant future when such unequivocal dominion shall be a reality. Certainly, god will still be "living" in the present a billion earth years from now. Thus, perhaps this dominion is more a promise than a present reality. In this regard, we the nonbelievers would level the following charge: how is it that god, in his infinite wisdom would fail to recognize that, unlike himself, his greatest creation is anything but timeless, and thus would go through a great deal of suffering at the hands of nature prior to realizing its ultimate dominion? Either he somehow failed to recognize this fact, and is thus reveals himself to be rather unintelligent, or he did perceive this unfortunate reality and yet proceeded in spite of it. If the latter turns out to be true, than god is not quite the loving father men like to imagine him to be.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/374099031899671382/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/complexity-continued.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/complexity-continued.html#comments Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:44:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon
Before getting to the fallacies inherent in this line of thinking, it should first be pointed out that said theory is so rife with selfish motivation it almost need not be considered. Human beings spend very little time marveling at the complexity of a rooster or a palm tree. Likewise, we rarely concern ourselves with the possibility that the universe in its entirety was created so as to provide a home for black holes (which I should say are equally if not more impressive entities than human beings). Granted, all of the non-human pieces of the universe are supposedly part of God's overarching creation. However, the general religious theory holds that this myriad of parts exists merely to support and supplement human life, thus suggesting that ultimately it is the wonder known as man which begs the issue of a creator. This would be akin to one particular American citizen imagining that the entire historical course of the particular land mass now known as America was but a lead up to his personal, somehow uniquely significant existence. Such a theory is so obviously, pathetically arrogant that one could easily dismiss it as a vain mussing unworthy of logical consideration. Yet, for the sake of argument, we will consider just such a position.

We first must clearly establish two essential elements of the theory to be evaluated. First, man is such a wondrously complex, functional unit that he simply can not be explained, or is at least best explained by the actions of an intentioned creator. Secondly, this creator is an omnipotent being, perfect himself, and in accordance with his omnipotence, the greatest engineer the universe has ever or could ever know. One may take issue with the second essential element, claiming that he could easily imagine a supreme being who is not omnipotent, but only powerful enough to create the universe and man. This is most certainly true, but since this is not the supreme being passed down by religious dogma, nor the creator who plays a functional role in people's lives, it need not be considered at this juncture.

Unfortunately for the theist, the two elements which, supposedly when taken together logically point to the necessity of a creator, in fact do just the opposite. Let us first consider the marvelous complexity of man. Proponents of the intelligent design (ID) theory (which it should be noted is really no more than an idea) point to human experience with complexity as evidence for design. For example, we all know that working television sets do not simply come to be. The probability that all the requisite components of a television set would simply fall together, and in the proper configuration without the goading of an external agent, such as a TV manufacturer, is absurdly unlikely. Likewise, why would one ever imagine that the pieces of a human being would just fall into place, and in working order, without an equally necessary designing force. First of all, the ID theorist fails to recognize that evolutionary biology has provided a perfectly feasible and logical external agent: all those natural forces which exist outside of an organism or population of organisms. No one pretends that the individual cells of an organism simply coalesce into its ultimate form; rather a billions of years long process of external and internal (for let us not forget that organic compounds, unlike the parts of a TV, interact with each other according to their respective properties) influence gradually shapes the ultimate product.

Yet more important than the above consideration is the fact that the complexity of a television set is a glaring demonstration of the limitations of its designer. The skill of a designer is found not only in his producing a functional object but also in the deftness with which he produces it. Who is the more skilled engineer, he who makes a toaster of 300 parts or he who produces one made of only 3? Clearly the latter, assuming that the toast is equally delicious. Apparently, there are two ways to go about making a toaster, and one of these is one hundred times more efficient. More importantly, the latter design has 297 less pieces to be worried about replacing or fixing. Every engineer knows that the more parts a machine has, the more likely it is to break, for not only must he worry about the failure of each and every part, but also the failure of each and every connection between adjacent pieces. The complexity of the human body, which is millions of times more complex than my example toaster, begs a creator only when we are assuming that this creator's skill is in many ways limited. The omnipotent creator is capable of doing anything, and in recognizing the dangers of overly complex machinations, would logically design his ultimate project to be as simple as possible.

It makes sense to imagine that the incredible complexity of the human body was the best that nature, a nonthinking force, could come up with, especially considering that the building blocks of life must interact with each other in ever more complex manners rather than morph into simpler structures possessing more complex functions. However, to imagine that a omnipotent, thinking entity's best shot at the human body would be as convoluted as it presently is would be utterly absurd. If the creator truly were all powerful, a man would likely be no more than a solid figure with an attached soul. Thus, in regard to man's complexity, we must either accept the reality that such complexity is much more likely to come about by accident rather than intention, or endow our creator with limitations and flaws. Neither of these outcomes sits particularly well with religious dogma.

Lastly, it should be pointed at out that, if one attempts to cast his vanity aside, he will quickly realize that the human body is really not that much of a marvel. Modern medicine provides plenty of examples of just how flawed our bodies really are. Take birth defects for example. How can we call our bodies miraculously well designed when the reality is that they very frequently come out wrong. If one were to lump all birth defects together, she would quickly see that the odds of developing as one should are just as good if not worse than ending up with some horrible defect. Further, in the event that one does survive prenatal development unscathed, there are a myriad of conditions she can acquire in postnatal life which demonstrate the body's propensity for "screwing up." Autoimmune diseases, inflammatory disorders, cancers, and sensory deficits name only a few categories of diseases in which one's own body turns on itself and wreaks havoc from inside out. The point is this: if a manufacture produced a product with as high a malfunction rate as the human body, you would be hard pressed to find anyone preaching the godlike merits of his company. Rather, we would probably consider the manufacture a dolt and his products, well, crap. This is not to say that I consider the human body crap, however, if this thing we call man is the best that a supposedly all-powerful being could come up with, than I'd like to make a return.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/610569951152334447/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/complexity-continued.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/complexity-continued.html#comments Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:44:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=a86909965cd784a6c26d4bcd31a5d267
Before getting to the fallacies inherent in this line of thinking, it should first be pointed out that said theory is so rife with selfish motivation it almost need not be considered. Human beings spend very little time marveling at the complexity of a rooster or a palm tree. Likewise, we rarely concern ourselves with the possibility that the universe in its entirety was created so as to provide a home for black holes (which I should say are equally if not more impressive entities than human beings). Granted, all of the non-human pieces of the universe are supposedly part of God's overarching creation. However, the general religious theory holds that this myriad of parts exists merely to support and supplement human life, thus suggesting that ultimately it is the wonder known as man which begs the issue of a creator. This would be akin to one particular American citizen imagining that the entire historical course of the particular land mass now known as America was but a lead up to his personal, somehow uniquely significant existence. Such a theory is so obviously, pathetically arrogant that one could easily dismiss it as a vain mussing unworthy of logical consideration. Yet, for the sake of argument, we will consider just such a position.

We first must clearly establish two essential elements of the theory to be evaluated. First, man is such a wondrously complex, functional unit that he simply can not be explained, or is at least best explained by the actions of an intentioned creator. Secondly, this creator is an omnipotent being, perfect himself, and in accordance with his omnipotence, the greatest engineer the universe has ever or could ever know. One may take issue with the second essential element, claiming that he could easily imagine a supreme being who is not omnipotent, but only powerful enough to create the universe and man. This is most certainly true, but since this is not the supreme being passed down by religious dogma, nor the creator who plays a functional role in people's lives, it need not be considered at this juncture.

Unfortunately for the theist, the two elements which, supposedly when taken together logically point to the necessity of a creator, in fact do just the opposite. Let us first consider the marvelous complexity of man. Proponents of the intelligent design (ID) theory (which it should be noted is really no more than an idea) point to human experience with complexity as evidence for design. For example, we all know that working television sets do not simply come to be. The probability that all the requisite components of a television set would simply fall together, and in the proper configuration without the goading of an external agent, such as a TV manufacturer, is absurdly unlikely. Likewise, why would one ever imagine that the pieces of a human being would just fall into place, and in working order, without an equally necessary designing force. First of all, the ID theorist fails to recognize that evolutionary biology has provided a perfectly feasible and logical external agent: all those natural forces which exist outside of an organism or population of organisms. No one pretends that the individual cells of an organism simply coalesce into its ultimate form; rather a billions of years long process of external and internal (for let us not forget that organic compounds, unlike the parts of a TV, interact with each other according to their respective properties) influence gradually shapes the ultimate product.

Yet more important than the above consideration is the fact that the complexity of a television set is a glaring demonstration of the limitations of its designer. The skill of a designer is found not only in his producing a functional object but also in the deftness with which he produces it. Who is the more skilled engineer, he who makes a toaster of 300 parts or he who produces one made of only 3? Clearly the latter, assuming that the toast is equally delicious. Apparently, there are two ways to go about making a toaster, and one of these is one hundred times more efficient. More importantly, the latter design has 297 less pieces to be worried about replacing or fixing. Every engineer knows that the more parts a machine has, the more likely it is to break, for not only must he worry about the failure of each and every part, but also the failure of each and every connection between adjacent pieces. The complexity of the human body, which is millions of times more complex than my example toaster, begs a creator only when we are assuming that this creator's skill is in many ways limited. The omnipotent creator is capable of doing anything, and in recognizing the dangers of overly complex machinations, would logically design his ultimate project to be as simple as possible.

It makes sense to imagine that the incredible complexity of the human body was the best that nature, a nonthinking force, could come up with, especially considering that the building blocks of life must interact with each other in ever more complex manners rather than morph into simpler structures possessing more complex functions. However, to imagine that a omnipotent, thinking entity's best shot at the human body would be as convoluted as it presently is would be utterly absurd. If the creator truly were all powerful, a man would likely be no more than a solid figure with an attached soul. Thus, in regard to man's complexity, we must either accept the reality that such complexity is much more likely to come about by accident rather than intention, or endow our creator with limitations and flaws. Neither of these outcomes sits particularly well with religious dogma.

Lastly, it should be pointed at out that, if one attempts to cast his vanity aside, he will quickly realize that the human body is really not that much of a marvel. Modern medicine provides plenty of examples of just how flawed our bodies really are. Take birth defects for example. How can we call our bodies miraculously well designed when the reality is that they very frequently come out wrong. If one were to lump all birth defects together, she would quickly see that the odds of developing as one should are just as good if not worse than ending up with some horrible defect. Further, in the event that one does survive prenatal development unscathed, there are a myriad of conditions she can acquire in postnatal life which demonstrate the body's propensity for "screwing up." Autoimmune diseases, inflammatory disorders, cancers, and sensory deficits name only a few categories of diseases in which one's own body turns on itself and wreaks havoc from inside out. The point is this: if a manufacture produced a product with as high a malfunction rate as the human body, you would be hard pressed to find anyone preaching the godlike merits of his company. Rather, we would probably consider the manufacture a dolt and his products, well, crap. This is not to say that I consider the human body crap, however, if this thing we call man is the best that a supposedly all-powerful being could come up with, than I'd like to make a return.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/610569951152334447/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/common-sense-would-tempt-humans-to-ask.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/common-sense-would-tempt-humans-to-ask.html#comments Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:20:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon At this point it is crucial to discuss the idea of nothing. One may argue the snowflake did not come from nothing in the same sense as planets and galaxies. The snowflake came from liquid water that came from vapor gas. Not nothing! The previous claim dose make a point but ignores the fact that just as a snowflake came from prerequisite particles so did matter in the universe. The nothing is actually something, the big bang theory does not support otherwise. If one were to still be desperate to find absolute nothing, it may be suggested that the nothing we are searching for preceded the big bang singularity. This is one speculation of many, one of which (concerning evidence/experimental progress) pales in comparison to others such as the “no boundary model” presented by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle and “The tunneled” theory presented by Victor Stenger. Consider a tenacisous debater who just was not convinced by developing scientific research dealing with time before Planck Time and pushed the issue of absolute nothing. The question must be raised, why would the solution point to a creator. Using this concept of nothing, no human creator has ever created anything from absolute nothing therefore where would the inspiration for a divine creator come from? Such an argument would begin to fall into the field of the ontological argument. The argument in summary states. 1. God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. 2. Existence in reality is better than existence in one's imagination 3. Therefore God must exist in reality. The destruction for the ontological arguement has been shown by many philosophers, but the following example is presented by Douglas Gasking :
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist
(Grey, Gasking's Proof. Analysis 60 (4): 368-70).
Since something coming from nothing has been reduced to a natural event, it may be conceded that the only possible situation calling for a supernatural creator is one so eliquently put by Victor Stenger the event in which nothing was forever maintained in the universe (meaning no matter, no order, no big bang). In conclusion it is safe to say the only plausible creator possiblity did not occur, nothing in fact became something.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/1273917991871895116/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/common-sense-would-tempt-humans-to-ask.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2008/01/common-sense-would-tempt-humans-to-ask.html#comments Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:20:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=e129b81bd3e41a907b801595122a5eda At this point it is crucial to discuss the idea of nothing. One may argue the snowflake did not come from nothing in the same sense as planets and galaxies. The snowflake came from liquid water that came from vapor gas. Not nothing! The previous claim dose make a point but ignores the fact that just as a snowflake came from prerequisite particles so did matter in the universe. The nothing is actually something, the big bang theory does not support otherwise. If one were to still be desperate to find absolute nothing, it may be suggested that the nothing we are searching for preceded the big bang singularity. This is one speculation of many, one of which (concerning evidence/experimental progress) pales in comparison to others such as the “no boundary model” presented by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle and “The tunneled” theory presented by Victor Stenger. Consider a tenacisous debater who just was not convinced by developing scientific research dealing with time before Planck Time and pushed the issue of absolute nothing. The question must be raised, why would the solution point to a creator. Using this concept of nothing, no human creator has ever created anything from absolute nothing therefore where would the inspiration for a divine creator come from? Such an argument would begin to fall into the field of the ontological argument. The argument in summary states. 1. God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. 2. Existence in reality is better than existence in one's imagination 3. Therefore God must exist in reality. The destruction for the ontological arguement has been shown by many philosophers, but the following example is presented by Douglas Gasking :
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist
(Grey, Gasking's Proof. Analysis 60 (4): 368-70).
Since something coming from nothing has been reduced to a natural event, it may be conceded that the only possible situation calling for a supernatural creator is one so eliquently put by Victor Stenger the event in which nothing was forever maintained in the universe (meaning no matter, no order, no big bang). In conclusion it is safe to say the only plausible creator possiblity did not occur, nothing in fact became something.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/1273917991871895116/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/soul.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/soul.html#comments Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:15:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon The most obvious objection one might raise against the idea of a soul is this: how can an immaterial, eternal "thing" be associated with a material, temporal body? Those who believe in the soul consider it to be associated with an individual, either somewhere inside of them (there was once a time when the pineal gland was the supposed soul container) or around them. Yet how could this be? By simple definition, things which are immaterial are not bound by the laws of the material world. In fact, they represent the opposite of the world we know; these objects have no substance, can not be housed, nor can they interact with those things which are material, like a human body. In a perfect world, the argument would end here, and yet I'm sure that some of our detractors would appeal to the omnipotence of god and his creations to explain that my puny human mind can not understand the complex interactions of a soul and a body. I must admit that this is possible and therefore, must appeal to more complex arguments.
Let us take a moment to reflect upon the reason why the idea of souls is so appealing. Aside from the obvious appeal to be found in looking towards infinite bliss, one must admit that every ship needs a captain and the soul seemingly provides this role for the human body. The scientifically inclined may pipe up at this moment to claim that the human body already has a perfectly good (and clearly verified) captain, the brain. And yet, the brain is no more than a collection of neurons which send and receive signals amongst one another. Physiologists have yet to discover a "master neuron" which spontaneously instructs the other parts of the brain. Therefore, one can't help but wonder, when Sally decides she would like a new dress, which particular neuron or region of the brain came up with that desire? Surely something must be in charge, and the soul concept provides us with a conductor.
Indeed, most people who believe themselves to possess a soul, see that entity as more or less analogous to their personality/consciousness/mind. The soul, simply put, is us in the purest sense; it is the thing which desires, fears, loves, becomes inspired and somehow transmits these things to our brain. This is demonstrated by the way people discuss the afterlife: they look forward to seeing deceased relatives once more, and interacting as they once did in life, by speaking, and feeling emotions. Further, those who pray or speak with the souls of loved ones who have passed on, do so as though they were talking to any living person, which is to say, using their mind to communicate with an other's. Once again, one might wonder how an immaterial thing could communicate with the material brain (who's only language is physical neurotransmitters), yet this is besides the point. The far more important issues is the simple fact that, if the soul is in anyway similar to one's "mind," than this reality raises some serious concerns about the benevolence of the giver of souls, god.
These concerns arise because, if the soul is indeed some sort of reflection of the mind, then it would seem as though a great deal of mankind has been endowed with flawed souls. Take for example, the developmentally delayed, those whose minds never develop beyond late childhood, those who are never capable of the full complexity of adult thoughts and emotions. Are these minds a reflection of these peoples' souls? If so, this means that they must spend all of eternity as an idiot angel, never to fully reap the joys of paradise. One should also consider the mentally ill. Following death must a delusional schizophrenic spend all of eternity plagued by the delusions which tormented him in life? What heaven is this? It sounds much more like eternal damnation. Those who are born with imperfect minds, and thus imperfect souls, could not have possibly committed some sin at the moment of conception that would merit god's punishment. Why then does he choose to endow some of us with flawed souls, and others with normal ones? How can we call such a creature benevolent?
Yet the concerns do not end here. After death, we are told that one's soul continues on in either paradise or hell for all of eternity (though some religions do not include the concept of hell, they do all refer to the infinite nature of souls). This concept begs a serious question: what version of our soul/mind persists for eternity? One must admit that the mind certainly goes through significant changes as one goes through life. These changes can be rather mundane, from acquiring the taste for a new dish, or changing one's political affiliation. Yet, these changes can also be much more significant. Take for example, the development of a child. At one time, each and every one of us could not help but defaecate in our own clothes, nor could we communicate to anyone around us what we had done. Indeed, our minds did not even possess an understanding of defecation, or verbal communication at that time. Hopefully as we grew, these things changed, and our minds became more sophisticated and capable of a greater complexity of thought and emotion.
Now I ask you: does the child that sadly dies shortly after birth, persist in eternity as a dribbling, helpless soul, incapable of communicating or appreciating the situation it finds itself? Consider also the man who dies after having suffered from age related dementia; is his soul to forever wander paradise not knowing its name or recognizing the souls of its relatives? Once again one must wonder, have the above two reached paradise or hell? Perhaps our souls have the opportunity to transform into the form which represents us at the stage of life we enjoyed most. Thus, the old man's soul can become that which reflects him at his most vibrant age. This would pose a problem for the infant, who never had the life experiences necessary to transform its soul. Further, what of the murderer, who when standing at the pearly gates, and having to answer for his sins declares: "No, no lord, for that was me at age 34, I would like to submit my 32 year old soul for judgement."
The concept of the soul/mind is plagued with problems, and problems not encountered when one considers his mind to be nothing more than the sum of all the neural processes occurring in his central nervous system at any given time. The brain does change as we age, as neural connections become more extensive and varied, allowing for greater diversity of thought. Sometimes, these connections are aberrant, or individuals develop without the normal density of a certain neurotransmitter or receptor. In these cases, developmental delays or mental illnesses can arise. There is no current explanation for how a soul could lead to such malignancies. Further, does one's soul "go to sleep" when the brain does? What of the comatose soul, how does it know that it is not yet time to leave the body? What does it do in the meanwhile? When one takes drugs, drugs which physically interact with the brain to cause mental status changes, does the soul suffer the same ill effects? If not, why is it somehow incapable of preventing the lapses in judgement we are so prone to during these moments?
One could bypass all of the above arguments with one simple statement: the soul is not a reflection of one's mind, but rather something else, something completely different. Perhaps they would call this something one's "essence." If this were so, I would certainly have to admit that the issues raised above would no longer apply. However, I would also have to ask: of what besides one's consciousness is he aware? I am not aware of any part of myself that would not fall under the umbrella of my consciousness or mind, and so, if some part of me existing outside this umbrella were to pass onto eternity, why look forward to it? If the soul is not the mind, this would mean that one is completely ignorant as to the nature of his own. Where is the motivation to looking towards eternity as a foreign entity? No where to be found, I would answer.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/6585226838145291954/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/soul.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/soul.html#comments Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:15:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=fa6d9faab9707dbb4dae928d566a3d9e The most obvious objection one might raise against the idea of a soul is this: how can an immaterial, eternal "thing" be associated with a material, temporal body? Those who believe in the soul consider it to be associated with an individual, either somewhere inside of them (there was once a time when the pineal gland was the supposed soul container) or around them. Yet how could this be? By simple definition, things which are immaterial are not bound by the laws of the material world. In fact, they represent the opposite of the world we know; these objects have no substance, can not be housed, nor can they interact with those things which are material, like a human body. In a perfect world, the argument would end here, and yet I'm sure that some of our detractors would appeal to the omnipotence of god and his creations to explain that my puny human mind can not understand the complex interactions of a soul and a body. I must admit that this is possible and therefore, must appeal to more complex arguments.
Let us take a moment to reflect upon the reason why the idea of souls is so appealing. Aside from the obvious appeal to be found in looking towards infinite bliss, one must admit that every ship needs a captain and the soul seemingly provides this role for the human body. The scientifically inclined may pipe up at this moment to claim that the human body already has a perfectly good (and clearly verified) captain, the brain. And yet, the brain is no more than a collection of neurons which send and receive signals amongst one another. Physiologists have yet to discover a "master neuron" which spontaneously instructs the other parts of the brain. Therefore, one can't help but wonder, when Sally decides she would like a new dress, which particular neuron or region of the brain came up with that desire? Surely something must be in charge, and the soul concept provides us with a conductor.
Indeed, most people who believe themselves to possess a soul, see that entity as more or less analogous to their personality/consciousness/mind. The soul, simply put, is us in the purest sense; it is the thing which desires, fears, loves, becomes inspired and somehow transmits these things to our brain. This is demonstrated by the way people discuss the afterlife: they look forward to seeing deceased relatives once more, and interacting as they once did in life, by speaking, and feeling emotions. Further, those who pray or speak with the souls of loved ones who have passed on, do so as though they were talking to any living person, which is to say, using their mind to communicate with an other's. Once again, one might wonder how an immaterial thing could communicate with the material brain (who's only language is physical neurotransmitters), yet this is besides the point. The far more important issues is the simple fact that, if the soul is in anyway similar to one's "mind," than this reality raises some serious concerns about the benevolence of the giver of souls, god.
These concerns arise because, if the soul is indeed some sort of reflection of the mind, then it would seem as though a great deal of mankind has been endowed with flawed souls. Take for example, the developmentally delayed, those whose minds never develop beyond late childhood, those who are never capable of the full complexity of adult thoughts and emotions. Are these minds a reflection of these peoples' souls? If so, this means that they must spend all of eternity as an idiot angel, never to fully reap the joys of paradise. One should also consider the mentally ill. Following death must a delusional schizophrenic spend all of eternity plagued by the delusions which tormented him in life? What heaven is this? It sounds much more like eternal damnation. Those who are born with imperfect minds, and thus imperfect souls, could not have possibly committed some sin at the moment of conception that would merit god's punishment. Why then does he choose to endow some of us with flawed souls, and others with normal ones? How can we call such a creature benevolent?
Yet the concerns do not end here. After death, we are told that one's soul continues on in either paradise or hell for all of eternity (though some religions do not include the concept of hell, they do all refer to the infinite nature of souls). This concept begs a serious question: what version of our soul/mind persists for eternity? One must admit that the mind certainly goes through significant changes as one goes through life. These changes can be rather mundane, from acquiring the taste for a new dish, or changing one's political affiliation. Yet, these changes can also be much more significant. Take for example, the development of a child. At one time, each and every one of us could not help but defaecate in our own clothes, nor could we communicate to anyone around us what we had done. Indeed, our minds did not even possess an understanding of defecation, or verbal communication at that time. Hopefully as we grew, these things changed, and our minds became more sophisticated and capable of a greater complexity of thought and emotion.
Now I ask you: does the child that sadly dies shortly after birth, persist in eternity as a dribbling, helpless soul, incapable of communicating or appreciating the situation it finds itself? Consider also the man who dies after having suffered from age related dementia; is his soul to forever wander paradise not knowing its name or recognizing the souls of its relatives? Once again one must wonder, have the above two reached paradise or hell? Perhaps our souls have the opportunity to transform into the form which represents us at the stage of life we enjoyed most. Thus, the old man's soul can become that which reflects him at his most vibrant age. This would pose a problem for the infant, who never had the life experiences necessary to transform its soul. Further, what of the murderer, who when standing at the pearly gates, and having to answer for his sins declares: "No, no lord, for that was me at age 34, I would like to submit my 32 year old soul for judgement."
The concept of the soul/mind is plagued with problems, and problems not encountered when one considers his mind to be nothing more than the sum of all the neural processes occurring in his central nervous system at any given time. The brain does change as we age, as neural connections become more extensive and varied, allowing for greater diversity of thought. Sometimes, these connections are aberrant, or individuals develop without the normal density of a certain neurotransmitter or receptor. In these cases, developmental delays or mental illnesses can arise. There is no current explanation for how a soul could lead to such malignancies. Further, does one's soul "go to sleep" when the brain does? What of the comatose soul, how does it know that it is not yet time to leave the body? What does it do in the meanwhile? When one takes drugs, drugs which physically interact with the brain to cause mental status changes, does the soul suffer the same ill effects? If not, why is it somehow incapable of preventing the lapses in judgement we are so prone to during these moments?
One could bypass all of the above arguments with one simple statement: the soul is not a reflection of one's mind, but rather something else, something completely different. Perhaps they would call this something one's "essence." If this were so, I would certainly have to admit that the issues raised above would no longer apply. However, I would also have to ask: of what besides one's consciousness is he aware? I am not aware of any part of myself that would not fall under the umbrella of my consciousness or mind, and so, if some part of me existing outside this umbrella were to pass onto eternity, why look forward to it? If the soul is not the mind, this would mean that one is completely ignorant as to the nature of his own. Where is the motivation to looking towards eternity as a foreign entity? No where to be found, I would answer.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/6585226838145291954/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/to-touch-on-miracles.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/to-touch-on-miracles.html#comments Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:30:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon It is possible for a miracle to occur, but as the following will demonstrate the possibility is bleak. In order for a miracle to withstand sufficient proof, the falsification of the event must be more miraculous then the said event at question (An enquiry concerning Human understanding, Hume). For example is it more likely that Jesus was born of a virgin mother or as Hitchens brings to question is it more likely that a Jewish minx was telling a lie? Again we are simply applying Occam’s razor, with all things equal the simplest explanation is the best. To claim that the natural order of sexual reproduction was suspended only presents more questions.
Further, is a miracle a one-time event, or is it possible to have numerous occurrences? Based on the definition, a miracle is: a surprising and welcome event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. Therefore how many occurrences would it take to lose its surprise, Jesus is not the first deity born of a virgin, he is just one of at least fifteen others that we know of born by the same method. At what point does a virgin birth transform itself from miraculous to common occurrence. In this case a said miracle is in fact occurring more and more frequently. Perhaps then the current physiological model of procreation should be in question and remodeled, if this is accomplished. The stated miracle is dissolved, along with its claim to supernatural intervention.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/3269275211637680076/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/to-touch-on-miracles.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/to-touch-on-miracles.html#comments Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:30:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=da9f827cc0782c6587fe054bc62396fb It is possible for a miracle to occur, but as the following will demonstrate the possibility is bleak. In order for a miracle to withstand sufficient proof, the falsification of the event must be more miraculous then the said event at question (An enquiry concerning Human understanding, Hume). For example is it more likely that Jesus was born of a virgin mother or as Hitchens brings to question is it more likely that a Jewish minx was telling a lie? Again we are simply applying Occam’s razor, with all things equal the simplest explanation is the best. To claim that the natural order of sexual reproduction was suspended only presents more questions.
Further, is a miracle a one-time event, or is it possible to have numerous occurrences? Based on the definition, a miracle is: a surprising and welcome event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws. Therefore how many occurrences would it take to lose its surprise, Jesus is not the first deity born of a virgin, he is just one of at least fifteen others that we know of born by the same method. At what point does a virgin birth transform itself from miraculous to common occurrence. In this case a said miracle is in fact occurring more and more frequently. Perhaps then the current physiological model of procreation should be in question and remodeled, if this is accomplished. The stated miracle is dissolved, along with its claim to supernatural intervention.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/3269275211637680076/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/first-cause.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/first-cause.html#comments Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:51:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon Our response: we do not know how the universe came to be spontaneously. So we have lost, no? We have been thwarted by the most simple, fundamental argument for belief. Not exactly, for the believer has simply moved the argument for first cause back a step. If god made the universe, than what made god? The argument for first cause claims that something simply can not spring from nothing, and in claiming so, disproves the creator it's attempting to validate. Instead of delivering a definitive proof of divine creation, this argument leaves us with an infinite line of creation extending backwards in time: our universe was created by god, who was created by something else, which was created by something else, and so on and so forth. Further, in the process of looking backwards, we fail to see a solution to the original problem, we fail to find a first cause.
Further, where is the evidence for the first cause? Is the supposed necessity of a first cause to stand as evidence for its existence? When we look at the universe, we see no clearly expressed purpose for its myriad of parts; we see no signatures or "made by god" stamps; we certainly see no indication that all of this was made for us.
Are we to use the thousands of years old religious texts as evidence?; those texts which make no mention of the big bang or the billions of years during which the universe was made only of stars for the heavy elements necessary to form planets had not yet been fused? Any reasonable person looking at the timeline of events should clearly see what has happened: thousands of years ago, when men had no understanding of the universe or its origins, they came up with a story to explain things as best they could, "man makes things, thus something like man, but more powerful made everything else." Since then science has replaced speculation, and our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially. Yet, people are attempting to make the new information fit the original script; it's as though we're trying to fit a million new puzzle pieces into a puzzle which originally fit ten.
If we're talking evidence, then the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran have been disproven centuries ago. God supposedly revealed himself to a select few and told them how the universe was made. Yet, the story does not fit reality, and thus those books have been clearly debunked.
There are some who have attempted to resolve the inherent flaw of the first cause argument by claiming that the creator is infinite, and therefor exempt from the temporal necessity of first cause. There was a time when scientists appealed to this very argument in explaining the origins of the universe, however the advent of relativity physics revealed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Unfortunately, general relativity failed to demonstrate that god too had a beginning (not surprising considering that, in the hundreds of years of modern science science has not found one shred of evidence for his existence). Thus proponents of the infinite god pat themselves on the back, happy to have solved the problem of first cause. Unfortunately, they haven't. First of all, we must refer back to the fact that an infinite creator responsible for the big bang is not described by any religious text. Not one creation story, outside of science, describes the big bang, and thus no religion has been validated by this argument.
Further one must admit that, since there is no evidence linking a creator of the big bang to the seven-days-creator of the bible, any infinite deity one could imagine would theoretically satisfy the first cause equation. How's this: Father Positive and Mother Negative existed infinitly prior to the inception of the universe. Eventually they decided to copulate, and in the final throws of their passion, the universe exploded forth and all the particles of the universe (all their wee children) were endowed with some variation of their respective charges. This story is clearly ridiculous as it doesn't explain anything about the creators of the universe or their intentions for it, nor does it provide any supporting evidence, but in terms of solving the issue of first cause it works.
Here's another story: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Further, another law of physics demonstrates that mass is itself a form of energy. Is it not possible that energy itself is infinite, at at some point in time interacted in such a way as to change form and produce matter? If we are going to speak in terms of infinity, why not apply the concept to something scientifically supported? Why instead must we appeal to a being which we have no direct reason to believe in? Here we are appealing to Occam's razor, the concept that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. A divine creator is anything but the simplest solution. The idea raises a myriad of questions: where does the creator reside?; did he create that place too?; why did he create the universe? why create it the way it is? Appealing to the concept of an infinite creator simply creates more questions than it hopes to answer.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/4882652200899091148/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/first-cause.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/first-cause.html#comments Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:51:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=15d8a2b039e7b078bd02aab70e8bf548 Our response: we do not know how the universe came to be spontaneously. So we have lost, no? We have been thwarted by the most simple, fundamental argument for belief. Not exactly, for the believer has simply moved the argument for first cause back a step. If god made the universe, than what made god? The argument for first cause claims that something simply can not spring from nothing, and in claiming so, disproves the creator it's attempting to validate. Instead of delivering a definitive proof of divine creation, this argument leaves us with an infinite line of creation extending backwards in time: our universe was created by god, who was created by something else, which was created by something else, and so on and so forth. Further, in the process of looking backwards, we fail to see a solution to the original problem, we fail to find a first cause.
Further, where is the evidence for the first cause? Is the supposed necessity of a first cause to stand as evidence for its existence? When we look at the universe, we see no clearly expressed purpose for its myriad of parts; we see no signatures or "made by god" stamps; we certainly see no indication that all of this was made for us.
Are we to use the thousands of years old religious texts as evidence?; those texts which make no mention of the big bang or the billions of years during which the universe was made only of stars for the heavy elements necessary to form planets had not yet been fused? Any reasonable person looking at the timeline of events should clearly see what has happened: thousands of years ago, when men had no understanding of the universe or its origins, they came up with a story to explain things as best they could, "man makes things, thus something like man, but more powerful made everything else." Since then science has replaced speculation, and our understanding of the universe has increased exponentially. Yet, people are attempting to make the new information fit the original script; it's as though we're trying to fit a million new puzzle pieces into a puzzle which originally fit ten.
If we're talking evidence, then the Torah, Bible and Qu'ran have been disproven centuries ago. God supposedly revealed himself to a select few and told them how the universe was made. Yet, the story does not fit reality, and thus those books have been clearly debunked.
There are some who have attempted to resolve the inherent flaw of the first cause argument by claiming that the creator is infinite, and therefor exempt from the temporal necessity of first cause. There was a time when scientists appealed to this very argument in explaining the origins of the universe, however the advent of relativity physics revealed that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Unfortunately, general relativity failed to demonstrate that god too had a beginning (not surprising considering that, in the hundreds of years of modern science science has not found one shred of evidence for his existence). Thus proponents of the infinite god pat themselves on the back, happy to have solved the problem of first cause. Unfortunately, they haven't. First of all, we must refer back to the fact that an infinite creator responsible for the big bang is not described by any religious text. Not one creation story, outside of science, describes the big bang, and thus no religion has been validated by this argument.
Further one must admit that, since there is no evidence linking a creator of the big bang to the seven-days-creator of the bible, any infinite deity one could imagine would theoretically satisfy the first cause equation. How's this: Father Positive and Mother Negative existed infinitly prior to the inception of the universe. Eventually they decided to copulate, and in the final throws of their passion, the universe exploded forth and all the particles of the universe (all their wee children) were endowed with some variation of their respective charges. This story is clearly ridiculous as it doesn't explain anything about the creators of the universe or their intentions for it, nor does it provide any supporting evidence, but in terms of solving the issue of first cause it works.
Here's another story: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change form. Further, another law of physics demonstrates that mass is itself a form of energy. Is it not possible that energy itself is infinite, at at some point in time interacted in such a way as to change form and produce matter? If we are going to speak in terms of infinity, why not apply the concept to something scientifically supported? Why instead must we appeal to a being which we have no direct reason to believe in? Here we are appealing to Occam's razor, the concept that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. A divine creator is anything but the simplest solution. The idea raises a myriad of questions: where does the creator reside?; did he create that place too?; why did he create the universe? why create it the way it is? Appealing to the concept of an infinite creator simply creates more questions than it hopes to answer.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/4882652200899091148/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/shifting-gears.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/shifting-gears.html#comments Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:04:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool.
What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god.
At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma.
For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language.
It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/6573861211281509054/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/shifting-gears.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/shifting-gears.html#comments Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:04:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=ee90c1f1d0d936bc0114c2fe48d9be73 This sociological perspective can be applied to all belief systems, including science. For example, had one been born prior to the time of Galileo, he would believe the Earth to be the center of the solar system. Believing such would not be his fault, nor would it be foolish or stubborn given scientific understanding of that age. However, he would indeed be mistaken, and if he wished to consider himself a reasonable and intelligent person, he would have to be willing to change his mind once verifiable evidence to the contrary arose. Appealing to the fact that his original line of thinking is most familiar and comfortable does not make those beliefs correct, and reveals him to be a stubborn fool.
What we have said thus far should be enough to demonstrate two basic ideas: one must admit that her religious beliefs were determined by factors outside of her control. If she was fortunate enough to have been born to parents who got things right, wonderful. Yet, can she be so naive as to not explore things a bit further in the event they were wrong; we are talking about eternity here. The second concept is the fact that the "live and let live" policy does not apply to religion. All three major monotheisms instruct their followers to murder nonbelievers, and the simplest interpretation of these instructions is the literal one. Therefor, if a peaceful worshipper of one faith is to be tolerant of all others, he must be prepared to be slain in the name of another's god.
At this point it is time to engage in the true debunking. We will endeavor to demonstrate the evidence and logic which points in the opposite direction from the shared major tenets of most religions from the soul to the benevolent creator. It should be pointed out that, were one to think they had found a flaw in our upcoming arguments, this would not justify their particular dogma.
For example, demonstrating the fact that there is an intelligent creator does not say anything about that creators name, or intentions for us. The Bible does not describe an intelligent designer who created the strong nuclear force that holds all atoms together. It describes a deity that made the Earth in seven days, put two people on it, and then rested. The god of the intelligent design theory is not the god described by that text, and human beings have can not be so arrogant as to update the text without his (and yes, according to the books, it's his not her or its) permission; we'll just have to wait until the creator graciously decides to pay us another visit and explain things in updated language.
It should also be mentioned that, were god to come down from heaven and reveal himself to all mankind, call himself Zeus and demand a goat sacrifice at the foot of Mt. Olympus, the writers of this blog would recognize the indisputable evidence and be the first on a plane to Greece with a goat in tow. Would you be with us, or in your respective place of worship praying to your god to say it ain't so?

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/6573861211281509054/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/respecting-beliefs.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/respecting-beliefs.html#comments Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:15:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/4141936489493514405/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/respecting-beliefs.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/respecting-beliefs.html#comments Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:15:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=104c017f121b6dbf7e828ece68243d05 There is a second definition of respect which applies to the phrase in question. To show respect for something can also mean showing favor or consideration. This would imply that we should show special consideration for the beliefs of others. Functionally it seems as though those who share this sentiment are defending their right and the right of others to hold, express, and not be forced to defend their beliefs. In essence this acts as an insurance policy: you can express your beliefs as long as I can express mine, and neither are wrong. This may be an inherent right of men, however, human society does not work this way. A simple illustration of this reality would be failing an examination, and then explaining to your teacher that in your heart of hearts, you believed all of your wrong answers to be the correct choice. Based upon the premise of respecting all beliefs, that teacher must respect your incorrect answers as highly as she would the correct choices. Further, she is barred from asking for an explanation as to why you chose those particular answers, and from trying to demonstrate to you your fallacy. Although this may excite certain students, it should be clear that such a teaching policy is flawed. A more pertinant analogy goes as follows: let's say you have a sustained a serious laceration that according to all modern medical practice would require sutures. Imagine your ER physician believes that prayer, rather than sutures, are the cure for your wound. Would you respect this belief? Would you hold your tongue rather than challenge his decision? Would you even respect the man who dared express it? The point is this, human societies do not respect any and all beliefs; they establish both what is normal and what is correct and hold their members accountable to believe in reality. Yes, we do have the right to formulate and express our own unique beliefs. However, that does not inherently make them true, nor does it protect them from outside scrutiny. Truthfully, schizophrenic delusions do not reflect reality, certain answers to questions are in fact erroneous, and open wounds require evidence based medical care, and it is okay to say so. We realize that it seems politically correct to respect the views of others, and in a way it is as though we are trying to spare the feelings of those we disagree with. However, the above examples point out a dichotomy between what we do and what we say.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/4141936489493514405/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/did-you-decide-revisited.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/did-you-decide-revisited.html#comments Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:56:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon In regard to the question of whether or not we choose our faiths, Brandon and I are aware that several religious sects claim to practice a choosing period or ritual during which an individual makes a conscious, personal decision to embrace their religion. This is an illusion. Firstly, only a subset of religions practice such choosing rituals, and more importantly, these rituals vary extensively from one sect to another. For example, young people of the Amish faith participate in rumspringa, a year or more long immersion in the "outside" world, after which they either choose to dedicate themselves to the church for life, or to leave the community all together.
We can compare this to the Catholic confirmation, the sacrament during which a Catholic confirms his/her acceptance Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. The former case theoretically represents an unbiased, prolonged, and individual reflection upon one's religion. Whereas in the latter circumstance one spends a mere month exclusively learning the religion that he is "deciding" to accept. Our point here is that whichever choosing ritual one participates in, was in fact predetermined by circumstances completely out of their control. A young Catholic preparing for confirmation is not presented with the option of participating in rumspringa, or any other choosing ritual, for that matter. Therefore what seems to be a conscious decision is in fact a non-choice; rather it represents one more ritual in a long line of sacraments forced upon a child.
More importantly, this supposedly unbiased choice of a particular dogma, is intimately intertwined with significant social ramifications. Let's be honest, those participating in choosing rituals have not been raised since birth learning about, participating in, and analyzing every form of religion known to man, and even if this were the case, bias would be introduced by any awareness of the religion chosen by those who raised them. Choosing ritual participants are not evaluating the relative merits, or reasons to believe in one dogma over all others, but rather reflecting upon everything they have been raised to understand of the religious world. Essentially what this boils down to is choosing whether or not to reject the faith of your family and friends, your current understanding of the origins of the universe and morality, and every happy religious festival you have ever participated in. Going into such a situation with a free and unbiased mind is effectively impossible.
Now we understand the social reasons behind your supposed conscious choice to pursue your religion. At this point we should mention the factors which contribute to an individuals decision to convert to another faith later in life. Most convertees undertake this significant leap due to some social factor which necessitates transition, be it the need to compromise with a lover's faith, the desire to fit in with new peers,or the hope to escape persecution focused upon the current faith. If it has not become apparent how choice is conceived or you remain uneasy understanding dogma from a social perspective, what argument remains? Could it be that individuals select religion based on actual truth? If so, are all dogmas true, or only the one you like best?

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/2222479388656329768/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/did-you-decide-revisited.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/did-you-decide-revisited.html#comments Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:56:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=9130a991fae0bedbf3392fb481f7f97b In regard to the question of whether or not we choose our faiths, Brandon and I are aware that several religious sects claim to practice a choosing period or ritual during which an individual makes a conscious, personal decision to embrace their religion. This is an illusion. Firstly, only a subset of religions practice such choosing rituals, and more importantly, these rituals vary extensively from one sect to another. For example, young people of the Amish faith participate in rumspringa, a year or more long immersion in the "outside" world, after which they either choose to dedicate themselves to the church for life, or to leave the community all together.
We can compare this to the Catholic confirmation, the sacrament during which a Catholic confirms his/her acceptance Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. The former case theoretically represents an unbiased, prolonged, and individual reflection upon one's religion. Whereas in the latter circumstance one spends a mere month exclusively learning the religion that he is "deciding" to accept. Our point here is that whichever choosing ritual one participates in, was in fact predetermined by circumstances completely out of their control. A young Catholic preparing for confirmation is not presented with the option of participating in rumspringa, or any other choosing ritual, for that matter. Therefore what seems to be a conscious decision is in fact a non-choice; rather it represents one more ritual in a long line of sacraments forced upon a child.
More importantly, this supposedly unbiased choice of a particular dogma, is intimately intertwined with significant social ramifications. Let's be honest, those participating in choosing rituals have not been raised since birth learning about, participating in, and analyzing every form of religion known to man, and even if this were the case, bias would be introduced by any awareness of the religion chosen by those who raised them. Choosing ritual participants are not evaluating the relative merits, or reasons to believe in one dogma over all others, but rather reflecting upon everything they have been raised to understand of the religious world. Essentially what this boils down to is choosing whether or not to reject the faith of your family and friends, your current understanding of the origins of the universe and morality, and every happy religious festival you have ever participated in. Going into such a situation with a free and unbiased mind is effectively impossible.
Now we understand the social reasons behind your supposed conscious choice to pursue your religion. At this point we should mention the factors which contribute to an individuals decision to convert to another faith later in life. Most convertees undertake this significant leap due to some social factor which necessitates transition, be it the need to compromise with a lover's faith, the desire to fit in with new peers,or the hope to escape persecution focused upon the current faith. If it has not become apparent how choice is conceived or you remain uneasy understanding dogma from a social perspective, what argument remains? Could it be that individuals select religion based on actual truth? If so, are all dogmas true, or only the one you like best?

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/2222479388656329768/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/cant-we-all-just-get-along.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/cant-we-all-just-get-along.html#comments Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:55:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon First of all, any follower of one of the monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) who claims that their religion does not advocate violence, clearly has not taken the time to investigate their religious texts. Let's use Judaism as an example: commandment #355 (Deut 13: 16-17) of the 613 Mitzvot instructs Jews to "slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." Let me point out for those who may have missed it, this is a commandment from god, not a suggestion or interesting thought for interpretation, but rather a direct, and very clear instruction. Thus, to anyone who defends the peacefulness of your religion, please disist, for you are mistaken. If anything, the monotheisms can be considered contradictory to the highest degree, for there are both entreaties against murder and violence and those for them.
Yet, this argument must be taken further, for their are many believers who have rejected the nastier bits of their faith and proclaim that, if everyone else would simply follow suit, this whole difference of opinion (which, as we discussed earlier, is actually a difference of belief) wouldn't be such a big deal. The error in this thinking is twofold. Any Christian who has ever attended Sunday mass, or made a sacrifice for Lent has no right to criticize an Islamic jihadist. Both circumstances illustrate believers undertaking actions that they believe to be direct instructions from their god. Both consider themselves to be righteous, and both are supported by explicit scriptural passages. If anything, the jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his life out of love for Allah is the greater believer, and more righteous man.
Now, do I think that a suicide bomber is righteous? Of course not, for murder is morally abhorrent (we will get into the discussion of morals outside of religion later). Many self proclaimed believers agree, and yet unlike myself, they have no right to say so. More importantly, and herein lies this second fallacy of the passive believer theory, any man or woman who wishes to hold onto his or her personal faith, has no right to punish those who murder in the name of theirs. Those who defend their right to pray and celebrate as instructed by their god, must allow others to act in accordance with their god's supposed wishes. It is only after the majority of mankind throws off the yoke of superstition, that we can say as a collective voice: "evil perpetrated in the name of an imaginary being is irrational and unacceptable." To those who may be shocked by my assertion I ask you, how dare you tell the Jewish rapist who wishes to marry his victim in accordance with the 613 Mitzvah that he is acting immorally? He only wishes to obey and love his god as you would yours.
Before closing, since we are on the subject of divine decrees, I should like to take the opportunity to point out a major absurdity found in the personality of all three monotheistic gods. Yaweh, God, and Allah all have a very big problem with idoltry. In all three religions, the worshipping of other gods or man-made objects, and blashphemy against god are offenses punishable by exile or death. By placing such an emphasis upon this sin, the supreme being reveals himself to be rather vain. Now I ask you, how ludicrous is it that god would exhibit vanity; vanity, the most pathetic of human emotions, the reason that the majority of mankind simply can not imagine that the universe itself was not created just for little 'ol us? Could it be that god, with his demands of allegiance, daily worship, groveling, and sacrifice is in fact no more than a supernatural king imagined by men who lived in a time of king' and emperors. No, I'm sure that couldn't be the case.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/3760070569637846326/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/cant-we-all-just-get-along.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/cant-we-all-just-get-along.html#comments Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:55:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=5abb5286da8aef4f9f6752feea7eb62e First of all, any follower of one of the monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) who claims that their religion does not advocate violence, clearly has not taken the time to investigate their religious texts. Let's use Judaism as an example: commandment #355 (Deut 13: 16-17) of the 613 Mitzvot instructs Jews to "slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." Let me point out for those who may have missed it, this is a commandment from god, not a suggestion or interesting thought for interpretation, but rather a direct, and very clear instruction. Thus, to anyone who defends the peacefulness of your religion, please disist, for you are mistaken. If anything, the monotheisms can be considered contradictory to the highest degree, for there are both entreaties against murder and violence and those for them.
Yet, this argument must be taken further, for their are many believers who have rejected the nastier bits of their faith and proclaim that, if everyone else would simply follow suit, this whole difference of opinion (which, as we discussed earlier, is actually a difference of belief) wouldn't be such a big deal. The error in this thinking is twofold. Any Christian who has ever attended Sunday mass, or made a sacrifice for Lent has no right to criticize an Islamic jihadist. Both circumstances illustrate believers undertaking actions that they believe to be direct instructions from their god. Both consider themselves to be righteous, and both are supported by explicit scriptural passages. If anything, the jihadist who is willing to sacrifice his life out of love for Allah is the greater believer, and more righteous man.
Now, do I think that a suicide bomber is righteous? Of course not, for murder is morally abhorrent (we will get into the discussion of morals outside of religion later). Many self proclaimed believers agree, and yet unlike myself, they have no right to say so. More importantly, and herein lies this second fallacy of the passive believer theory, any man or woman who wishes to hold onto his or her personal faith, has no right to punish those who murder in the name of theirs. Those who defend their right to pray and celebrate as instructed by their god, must allow others to act in accordance with their god's supposed wishes. It is only after the majority of mankind throws off the yoke of superstition, that we can say as a collective voice: "evil perpetrated in the name of an imaginary being is irrational and unacceptable." To those who may be shocked by my assertion I ask you, how dare you tell the Jewish rapist who wishes to marry his victim in accordance with the 613 Mitzvah that he is acting immorally? He only wishes to obey and love his god as you would yours.
Before closing, since we are on the subject of divine decrees, I should like to take the opportunity to point out a major absurdity found in the personality of all three monotheistic gods. Yaweh, God, and Allah all have a very big problem with idoltry. In all three religions, the worshipping of other gods or man-made objects, and blashphemy against god are offenses punishable by exile or death. By placing such an emphasis upon this sin, the supreme being reveals himself to be rather vain. Now I ask you, how ludicrous is it that god would exhibit vanity; vanity, the most pathetic of human emotions, the reason that the majority of mankind simply can not imagine that the universe itself was not created just for little 'ol us? Could it be that god, with his demands of allegiance, daily worship, groveling, and sacrifice is in fact no more than a supernatural king imagined by men who lived in a time of king' and emperors. No, I'm sure that couldn't be the case.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/3760070569637846326/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-run-risk.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-run-risk.html#comments Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:48:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon One of the main forces behind religion’s virulence is the explanation of post death experience. This is a fairly serious concern, if religion not only provides an explanation, but a ticket to participate in such an experience, it would behoove one to pay close attention to the rules and regulations of many different creeds. This rarely happens, the majority of individuals do not shop around for after-life mythology. You do not see waves of devote people weighing the benefits between the journey to Hades and reincarnation, or being a resident of Christian hell, and being of righteous dead awaiting the messiah. Instead people choose (or as we pointed out before, receive) one religion. Not only do they feel that their myth is correct, most people are unaware of any other concept of immortality. This is quite interesting, it would seem that with the stakes so high (just to put this in perspective, we are talking how you spend the rest of eternity) one would want some reassurance that they participate in the correct dogma. Well the truth is, considering the countless types of possible religions (including cults) statistically you have selected/received the wrong faith. Just imagine you are Christian, die and to your awful surprise find out that heaven has 72 virgins per attendee and rivers of milk and honey, guess what? In this case the God of Islam is really the right god and you cannot enter. This point can be made equally well by inserting any dogma and an after-life example of a contradictory mythology. What can be done? As Daniel Dennett suggests in his wonderful book Breaking the Spell Religion as a natural phenomenon. We should examine religion objectively, the same as we would examine any natural phenomenon. If religion is as important as believers claim would it not make sense to examine it and find out as much as we could? For all we know, (however unlikely, although perhaps more likely then any working model of religion humans created) everyone could all be wrong and find out that a certain microorganism created the universe and governs some type of micro heaven. In that case all humans are in pretty bad shape, since we are already at the mercy of worldly microorganisms. Unfortunately until religion’s immunity to open criticism, study and discussion is lifted people will just have to keep gambling against tremendous odds that he or she is right. Why run the risk.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/1132472796651673481/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-run-risk.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-run-risk.html#comments Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:48:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=f04df8207fd4de720887f8326a931f38 One of the main forces behind religion’s virulence is the explanation of post death experience. This is a fairly serious concern, if religion not only provides an explanation, but a ticket to participate in such an experience, it would behoove one to pay close attention to the rules and regulations of many different creeds. This rarely happens, the majority of individuals do not shop around for after-life mythology. You do not see waves of devote people weighing the benefits between the journey to Hades and reincarnation, or being a resident of Christian hell, and being of righteous dead awaiting the messiah. Instead people choose (or as we pointed out before, receive) one religion. Not only do they feel that their myth is correct, most people are unaware of any other concept of immortality. This is quite interesting, it would seem that with the stakes so high (just to put this in perspective, we are talking how you spend the rest of eternity) one would want some reassurance that they participate in the correct dogma. Well the truth is, considering the countless types of possible religions (including cults) statistically you have selected/received the wrong faith. Just imagine you are Christian, die and to your awful surprise find out that heaven has 72 virgins per attendee and rivers of milk and honey, guess what? In this case the God of Islam is really the right god and you cannot enter. This point can be made equally well by inserting any dogma and an after-life example of a contradictory mythology. What can be done? As Daniel Dennett suggests in his wonderful book Breaking the Spell Religion as a natural phenomenon. We should examine religion objectively, the same as we would examine any natural phenomenon. If religion is as important as believers claim would it not make sense to examine it and find out as much as we could? For all we know, (however unlikely, although perhaps more likely then any working model of religion humans created) everyone could all be wrong and find out that a certain microorganism created the universe and governs some type of micro heaven. In that case all humans are in pretty bad shape, since we are already at the mercy of worldly microorganisms. Unfortunately until religion’s immunity to open criticism, study and discussion is lifted people will just have to keep gambling against tremendous odds that he or she is right. Why run the risk.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/1132472796651673481/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/belief-vs-opinion.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/belief-vs-opinion.html#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:04:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon
In past religious discussions, I have heard many religious moderates mention the fact that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that it is not my right to challenged their beliefs. And herein lies the problem. A belief and an opinion are not the same thing. An opinion refers to a personally held attitude which says nothing about the concrete state of things. For example, it is my opinion that sausage pizza is better than mushroom pizza. Here I am not attempting to demonstrate some inherent truth, but simple stating a personal taste representing a very local rather than universal reality. Further, opinions require no additional evidence beyond the statements themselves, for once again, one is not attempting to demonstrate a truth that extends beyond oneself. A belief, on the other hand is a statement concerning a perceived reality which may or may not turn out to be correct. True, a belief does not have to rest upon strong evidence when first stated, BUT if strong evidence should arises that contradicts such a belief, it should be strongly reconsidered and perhaps reject. Example: a woman claims to believe that her husband is faithful. Now, either he is or he isn't. If this same woman were to stumble upon her husband and another woman having sexual intercourse, her earlier stated belief would have been proven false. She can hold onto this belief if she so chooses, however, she can no longer claim this it to be reliable, correct, valuable, or what have you. Further, she can no longer expect that stating her bunk belief aloud will not be met with legitimate contradiction.
Thus, unlike opinions, religious beliefs can be demonstrated to be false, or at least very likely false, should enough evidence arise to do so. When someone tells me that they believe in the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent, anthropomorphic god they have made a statement concerning a supposed reality, which can be demonstrated to be true or false. I believe that the latter shall end up being the case.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/4412367408417314410/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/belief-vs-opinion.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/belief-vs-opinion.html#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:04:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=9bae4317639f2dc443234c7093b96ed5
In past religious discussions, I have heard many religious moderates mention the fact that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that it is not my right to challenged their beliefs. And herein lies the problem. A belief and an opinion are not the same thing. An opinion refers to a personally held attitude which says nothing about the concrete state of things. For example, it is my opinion that sausage pizza is better than mushroom pizza. Here I am not attempting to demonstrate some inherent truth, but simple stating a personal taste representing a very local rather than universal reality. Further, opinions require no additional evidence beyond the statements themselves, for once again, one is not attempting to demonstrate a truth that extends beyond oneself. A belief, on the other hand is a statement concerning a perceived reality which may or may not turn out to be correct. True, a belief does not have to rest upon strong evidence when first stated, BUT if strong evidence should arises that contradicts such a belief, it should be strongly reconsidered and perhaps reject. Example: a woman claims to believe that her husband is faithful. Now, either he is or he isn't. If this same woman were to stumble upon her husband and another woman having sexual intercourse, her earlier stated belief would have been proven false. She can hold onto this belief if she so chooses, however, she can no longer claim this it to be reliable, correct, valuable, or what have you. Further, she can no longer expect that stating her bunk belief aloud will not be met with legitimate contradiction.
Thus, unlike opinions, religious beliefs can be demonstrated to be false, or at least very likely false, should enough evidence arise to do so. When someone tells me that they believe in the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent, anthropomorphic god they have made a statement concerning a supposed reality, which can be demonstrated to be true or false. I believe that the latter shall end up being the case.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/4412367408417314410/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-decide-continued.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-decide-continued.html#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:18:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon
I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/5643260986225137913/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-decide-continued.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-decide-continued.html#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:18:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=5782dfad5b787df63496f8a3f57d5eb7
I'd like to answer a question raised in response to Brandon's ealier post. What do we think about cultural distinctions in general (Black, Italian, etc.). Becoming integrated in, influenced and molded by a culture is an inevitability, and in fact, necessity of human development. There is nothing wrong with speaking French if you were raised by French speaking parents or in a French community. What is inappropriate, and what is promoted by the dogma of religion, is the idea that our cultural preferences represent some sort of concrete reality, that the way We do things is fundamentally correct. When a Catholic refers to the saving grace of Jesus Christ son of God on high, and truly believes in this reality, the cultural issue arises. Either he must reject the reality that had he been raised under different circumstances (say the son of an Orthodox Jew)he would believe otherwise or he must admit to naivite on a grand scale: "I realize that, had my parents been Muslims I'd be a Muslim and reject Christ, but lucky me, my folks got it right!" (Further, he may want to ask what those poor saps who happened to be born prior to the rise of Christianity did to deserve missing out on the grand revelation [the Christian God is supposed to love all his creations equally]).
An analogous situation would be the Ohio State/Michigan rivalry. Is it reasonable to be a passionate alum who boos the other team and scorns their symbols? Sure. Is it reasonable to truly and honestly hate another person, or believe that one school is fundamentally inferior to the other? No. For in the latter circumstance, you fail to realize that, had you been born on the other side of the border, the coin would be flipped. I should point out, however, that this is not a direct analogy, for the Universities of Michigan and Ohio State represent concrete, verifiable realities. On could point out, for example, that Michigan Stadium is lager than Ohio Stadium.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/5643260986225137913/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-really-decide.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-really-decide.html#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:32:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon
Concerning other people's children I would often hear my mom claim, "if those kids were raised in my house, things would be quite different". She was telling the truth! If the neighbor's child grew up in my house he would have watched Entertainment Tonight at 7:30pm and gone to bed at his age appropriate bedtime (which happened to be arbitrarily decided). If that other person's child was French and adopted by my parents shortly following birth, his native tongue would be English, NOT French. Is this so because the child has made a cognitive decision that English makes more sense to him? No, his environment made the decision for him. It seems fair to say that the previous examples gives us a small glimpse of socialization's influence. To take the same idea a bit further, if any child once born to (insert your favorite religious conviction) _______ parents were to be raised by my parents he or she would be a reform Jew. Same as in the language example, does the child have any say; did the child decide that any one dogma made most sense to them? Probably not. You may be thinking that is only how it is in your family. If you are of that mind, I challenge you to explain your own subscription to faith and that of your parents and their parents before them. I am willing to bet that there is a certain pattern.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/7708136016373537644/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-really-decide.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/did-you-really-decide.html#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:32:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=f97f78f9624c23da532a8a7a1b68ab99
Concerning other people's children I would often hear my mom claim, "if those kids were raised in my house, things would be quite different". She was telling the truth! If the neighbor's child grew up in my house he would have watched Entertainment Tonight at 7:30pm and gone to bed at his age appropriate bedtime (which happened to be arbitrarily decided). If that other person's child was French and adopted by my parents shortly following birth, his native tongue would be English, NOT French. Is this so because the child has made a cognitive decision that English makes more sense to him? No, his environment made the decision for him. It seems fair to say that the previous examples gives us a small glimpse of socialization's influence. To take the same idea a bit further, if any child once born to (insert your favorite religious conviction) _______ parents were to be raised by my parents he or she would be a reform Jew. Same as in the language example, does the child have any say; did the child decide that any one dogma made most sense to them? Probably not. You may be thinking that is only how it is in your family. If you are of that mind, I challenge you to explain your own subscription to faith and that of your parents and their parents before them. I am willing to bet that there is a certain pattern.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/7708136016373537644/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-dogma-debunked.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-dogma-debunked.html#comments Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:46:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon
I'd like to take the opportunity to use this first post to lay out a sort of mission statement for this blog. Readers may be wondering who Brandon and I are, and why we've decided to create a blog dedicated to debunking dogma. I met Brandon during my freshman year of college at Ohio State. We had both joined Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, and quickly became good friends. To make a long story short, Brandon and I were two people who came into college belonging to "traditional" religious sects (I was raised a Catholic, while Brandon was raised a Jew), but left as athiests. The motivating factors which led to our transformations shall be elucidated in later posts, but suffice it to say, the process was both difficult and intensely considered. We have since come to the conclusion that organized religion, belief in a benevolent, supreme being, and more to the point, any belief system which lacks reasonable, supporting evidence (dogma) is utterly bunk, worthless, without defense, and quite frequently dangerous. Through this blog, Brandon and I hope to lay out the arguments that support the above statements, and ultimately demonstrate that irrational belief systems have no place in modern society. We hope that our readers will seriously consider what we have to say, and yes, we strongly encourage you to try to find flaws in our arguments and bring them to our attention. We are confident in our abilities to respond, and look forward to the hopefully rich discussions to come. Before signing off, I would like to address one question that frequently arises and deserves mention at this early juncture: what's the big deal in allowing people the right to believe in whatever makes them happy? To put it differently, why are Brandon and I bothered by the fact that some people like to believe in their chosen dogma, and why do we feel it necessary to point out the fallacy of their beliefs? We feel and hope to demonstrate that the dogma debate is the quintessential issue of our time. If every person on Earth agreed to keep their personal religion within the confines of their own minds and not allow it to influence any aspect of their interactions with others, all would be honkey dorey. This however is neither now, nor ever has been the case. Dogma directly influences the actions of believers, and in an era of modern scientific knowledge and technology, this influence could directly lead to the end of mankind. For this reason above all others, Brandon and I feel that what we have to say must be heard. Thanks; much more to come.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/5238954907917003662/comments/default 0 http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-dogma-debunked.html http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-dogma-debunked.html#comments Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:46:00 +0000 Steve and Brandon http://planetatheism.com/?guid=cb8ee4013fcb2cc12071e0e18de9554a
I'd like to take the opportunity to use this first post to lay out a sort of mission statement for this blog. Readers may be wondering who Brandon and I are, and why we've decided to create a blog dedicated to debunking dogma. I met Brandon during my freshman year of college at Ohio State. We had both joined Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, and quickly became good friends. To make a long story short, Brandon and I were two people who came into college belonging to "traditional" religious sects (I was raised a Catholic, while Brandon was raised a Jew), but left as athiests. The motivating factors which led to our transformations shall be elucidated in later posts, but suffice it to say, the process was both difficult and intensely considered. We have since come to the conclusion that organized religion, belief in a benevolent, supreme being, and more to the point, any belief system which lacks reasonable, supporting evidence (dogma) is utterly bunk, worthless, without defense, and quite frequently dangerous. Through this blog, Brandon and I hope to lay out the arguments that support the above statements, and ultimately demonstrate that irrational belief systems have no place in modern society. We hope that our readers will seriously consider what we have to say, and yes, we strongly encourage you to try to find flaws in our arguments and bring them to our attention. We are confident in our abilities to respond, and look forward to the hopefully rich discussions to come. Before signing off, I would like to address one question that frequently arises and deserves mention at this early juncture: what's the big deal in allowing people the right to believe in whatever makes them happy? To put it differently, why are Brandon and I bothered by the fact that some people like to believe in their chosen dogma, and why do we feel it necessary to point out the fallacy of their beliefs? We feel and hope to demonstrate that the dogma debate is the quintessential issue of our time. If every person on Earth agreed to keep their personal religion within the confines of their own minds and not allow it to influence any aspect of their interactions with others, all would be honkey dorey. This however is neither now, nor ever has been the case. Dogma directly influences the actions of believers, and in an era of modern scientific knowledge and technology, this influence could directly lead to the end of mankind. For this reason above all others, Brandon and I feel that what we have to say must be heard. Thanks; much more to come.

]]> http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com/feeds/5238954907917003662/comments/default 0