Saturday, February 27, 2010

My View On Abortion

The issue of abortion is a complex one. Many people lump all Christians into the pro-life group, and secular liberals as being pro-choice. In my case, the stereotype couldn't be more wrong. I am pro-life in most circumstances, some of the examples where I would view an abortion as being acceptable are...

  • Rape
  • Incest
  • Mental retardation
  • Puts mothers life in jeopardy
  • Mother is a drug addict (laws should be in place to require the mother to get 'fixed')
  • Severe deformities
The above list is where I differ from many pro-lifers, they would want all of the above pregnancies to go through. But the listed examples are not the most common reasons for why women get abortions. I don't have any numbers in-front of me, but I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of abortions are caused by women that don't know how to use preventative measures and/or keep their legs closed. In these cases, I feel that abortions should not be permitted. Human life is something which I view as special (I would hope most would agree with this) -- having a complete disregard for human life and the beautiful process that allows it to continue is quite sickening to say the least. Commercials that dramatize the loss of potential life lost by abortions is often shrugged off by pro-lifers -- in reality however, if abortion was more limited, many people whose life was cut off in the womb would be alive today -- many of which would have lived enjoyable and productive lives.

Pro-choicers seem to think that women should have control over their bodies (which I agree with), however that is irrelevant here. For example, should a parent have the right to kill their child if they live in the same house? -- the only difference between the example and abortion is the location and age. When a women is pregnant the fetus is a separate organism, with a different set of DNA. As far as the idea of each fertilized egg as having a soul, that is impossible to know, and unlikely (e.g., can divide and make twins, can divide and reabsorb). But this doesn't remove the fact that a fertilized egg would grow into a human being, and killing it is essentially destroying that possibility, which is a form of murder (sounds a bit dramatic, but 'murder' is the only word that comes to mind). Pro-lifers are really 'pro-irresponsible behavior', if abortion in cases of 'irresponsible behavior' was banned, it may make women think twice about whether or not they should take preventative measures, knowing that they don't have abortion to fall back on. In my opinion abortions in these cases should not be legal, and perhaps make preventative measures even more available. There needs to be more respect for human life. The mentality behind those whom view abortion as acceptable in cases of 'irresponsible behavior' may cause problems down the road for society -- this mentality may pave the way for a dark future. There are consequences for everything, running away from your problems by destroying human life is immoral and cowardly.

Mirrors (Poem)


mirrors are boring
only reflecting
reflecting what already exists
adding nothing
this is what mirrors do best
and all they understand
the mirror is worthless
a waste of space
doing nothing but reflecting
mirrors take what they reflect for granted
for if it were only mirrors which existed
there would be nothing to reflect


Friday, February 26, 2010

Jesus Summoning Ritual

"For where two or three come together in my name, I am there with them." -Matthew 18:19-20

There you have it, the existence of Jesus (which is also God according to Christians) can be proven or disproven by this ritual. Now many will claim that this just proves whether or not this piece of scripture is true -- but I think little things like this (and many others) just keep showing how based in reality the scripture is.

The Death At SeaWorld.



While this is sad, I believe the wrong stance is being taken by most of the people in the media etc. Here are a few ideas to improve the situation.

  • No longer have trainers in situations which they could get killed, these animals are not domesticated, and are called "killer whales" for a reason.
  • The animal responsible for killing the trainer should be "put-down" and made into whale burgers (probably very delicious).
  • The animal-right's people that say "whales should not be used for our enjoyment and should be free", should be thrown into the ocean, because it is such a great place to live. An unfortunate situation happened and they act like it's the apocalypse, they are taking the death of this trainer and using it to push their own stupid agenda. 
  • People should calm the f@#! down, one person died, we should be more focused on the MILLIONS of people that are dying over in Africa. While it is sad that she died, people die all the time, this is not the first time this whale killed a person, she knew the risk. Thousands of people die every year of automobile accidents, should we stop driving cars because it is "unnatural"?
I don't mean to sound uncaring towards this trainer, as I said before, it is sad, and some things can be learned to prevent this from occurring again in the future. But people really need to get a grip. The media making such a big fuss over this is ridiculous. Imagine what the people overseas that are collecting body-parts from the streets because of suicide bombers must think of us, yet we don't talk about that, those people are just numbers to the media.

Why Vegetarians/Animal Rights People Annoy Me.

Ever run into a vegetarian and be forced to hear them rant about it?

"how they harvest meat is cruel"

"meat is so gross"

"I could never eat something with a soul"

Hearing about it makes me think of two things. Firstly, "wow this person is retarded" and secondly "I want a burger". Which is why I think vegetarians should just shut-up, if you don't want to eat meat, that is your problem, no one wants to hear about it. Giving the 'vegetarian speech' to someone that enjoys meat is like an atheist running into a church and talking about evolution -- and like a Christian, us meat-lovers will never give up our love of meat (the irony is intended).

This group of people leads me to another (a-lot of overlap here), that is the 'animal-rights' activists. While I do think animals should not be tortured, I think these people take it way to far (like many feminist seem to). Many of these people place the value of let's say a dog, at an equal, or higher level then a human's life. This is, as Richard Dawkins would say, a "misfiring" of a Darwinian impulse (and so is being a vegetarian, which I will get into in the future). We are a social species and have developed a sense of empathy for other humans within our societies (the golden rule), which allows us to have things like justice. We can put ourselves in another's shoes, however, this empathy is not "intended" to be shown towards other species (no direct benefit to our genes) -- or rather, when this mechanism developed in humans, the benefit it provided for the species was not because of the animals which we currently feed and house, and only receive a sense of companionship (unless its a cat, which it will just ignore you, unless you give it food). One must ask whose genes are the beneficiary? The humans? or the pets? And who is the one being tricked, who is the victim here?

Now I'm not saying that I don't like pets, or do not wish to have any in the future. What I am saying is that animal-rights activists are always overstepping the boundary for what rights animals should have. For example, does anyone remember when Obama killed that fly that landed on him during an interview? If you don't, here it is..



These people actually got upset because the president KILLED A FLY. These people probably can't sleep at night at the thought of the holocaust caused by windshields, children running in grass, and let's not forget the worst of all, bug-zappers! I can see one of them committing suicide over the guilt of accidentally stepping on a grasshopper, of course not before giving it a proper eulogy and burial.

Chicken Head Anyone?



I'm sorry but this is funny as hell.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Jesus: The Prince Of Peace



I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood.. -George Carlin

The symbol of Jesus being nailed to a cross is big in Christianity. If Jesus was around (under the assumption that he existed) he would probably be sicked by how he is remembered and portrayed in art. In-fact Christians worship the image of the guy being tortured on 'two pieces of wood' which does violate the rule against worshiping idols (that is another discussion on its own). Some people find inspiration in imagining a guy being sacrificed -- Jesus is loved not for his message, but for the scape-goat he provides.

I'm sorry but it's not my fault that dumba** Eve ate fruit from some tree. Where is the logic? Eve eats a fruit that makes being naked is embarrassing, God gets pissed, so he comes down thousands of years later in human-form, get's executed by Romans, and this causes him to forgive humanity. Christians can understand this, but somehow evolution just doesn't make sense.

Anyways, back on topic -- Christians claim to love Jesus, if someone that you loved was arrested, then tortured on two pieces of wood, would you want to remember this person by wearing a plastic/metal replica of this around your neck? Seems a bit demented to me, but so does the concept of human sacrifice in general -- which is exactly what Jesus was, a human sacrifice. They claim that Christianity is a step-up from the Old-Testament, I suppose that is relative. You try sacrificing a loved one by nailing them to a cross them stabbing them in the rips and see how it goes over. Human sacrifice is so 2,000 years ago, and so is Christianity. Get with the times!

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

David Benke (February 24, 2010)

'A middle school teacher describes the seconds before and after a gunman opened fire inside a school outside of Denver. David Benke was able to tackle the man and get the gun away.'




I will never understand what would motivate a person to commit such a nasty act. It is atleast good to know we still have people like David Benke in the world -- many others would have just ran away in fear -- it takes balls to do what he did. Regardless of Mr. Benke's humility, the guy is a true-hero.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Republicans: Party Of Hypocrites (Part 1)

Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites. Now I am not saying the Democrats are not, however the level of hypocrisy they exhibit is no where near that of the GOP. The core of the hypocrisy lies in what they refer to as their 'values'. They claim to be 'more christian' then the rival party (which they probably are). Their base is (or they claim it is) white, Christian, older, and typically poor -- the "real Americans". There are many reasons for why they are hypocrites, I do not have the time to cover such a long list unfortunately (at-least not in one post). I'm no expert on politics, so this may be a bit more rantish then most of my posts. Enjoy!

If you asked a Republican if they followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, they wouldn't hesitate to say 'yes'. This is the biggest reason (in my opinion) for why Republicans are hypocrites -- for example, they strongly oppose the idea of government-ran health-care. What is more un-Christ-like then that? Jesus had a major dislike of the rich -- he obviously would not be on the side of the wealthy insurance companies (no lobbyist could buy off Jesus). Not only this, but the Republicans constantly speak of how great our current system is. While our system is great, great if you have the $$ to afford it. I'm sure Jesus would not support a health-care-system that caters to the wealthy and ignores those that cannot afford to stay alive.

I recently seen an ad on TV that talked about how the new (watered-down) health-care plan would still be the most horrible thing ever -- this new plan would decrease the survival-rate of cancer patients etc. (they don't really go into the details). The irony (and close-mindedness) in this commercial, is that they seem to leave out the survival-rate of cancer victims that don't have health-insurance (it's not all that high).

As a person that does not have health-insurance, I can speak from expirence for how bad it is. For example, about 5 months ago I shattered my wrist -- I tried to straighten it out the best I could, no way I was going to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to get a surgery like that. I'm hoping the health-care bill passes (especially the part about not being able to be denied for pre-existing conditions) -- then I can get it fixed up better. It will probably cost many thousands more to get it fixed now then it would have at the time (but republicans are worried about costs). Think about how much more efficient it would be if slime-ball insurance companies that make billions off of people getting sick, did not exist. The people that work for insurance companies provide no valuable role for society. They are a bunch of vampires, but instead of sucking blood, they suck money, and they do this in the one area where it is the dirtiest, and that is health-care. How much money do they suck out of the pockets of Americans? How many billions do they make? That is how much money they suck out of our country, billions -- what have they given in return? Absolutely nothing -- insurance companies are a scam. And while it may seem like I have digressed, I have not, for there is one thing that the insurance companies do with Americans money (other then going on vacations), they use a good amount to buy-off politicians (which ones are opposing the health-care reform?). And Republicans can say with a straight face that they are followers of Jesus? How hypocritical, what would Jesus do? -- the complete opposite of what the republicans have been doing. Perhaps Republicans are more worried about wealth and power then eternal salvation, perhaps they don't believe it at all -- regardless, they are hypocrites!

There are many more hypocrisies of this political party (I'll probably get into the party 'without a backbone' later down the road). As for the Republicans, this will be "part 1".

Bible Bull!@#$ (Part 3): Jonah Inside A Whale

In the Bible there is a story which is obviously a fairy-tale. This story is found in the 'book of Jonah' (KJV)

Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me. But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. But the LORD sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken. Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep. So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not. And they said every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah. Then said they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us; What is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country? and of what people art thou? And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him. Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them. Then said they unto him, What shall we do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you. Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them. Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said, We beseech thee, O LORD, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for thou, O LORD, hast done as it pleased thee. So they look up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows. Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice. For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me. Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple. The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God. When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple. They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD. And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.
 This story speaks for itself, obvious bulls@#$ -- it sums up how much the writers cared about the accuracy of the book they were piecing together. I'm sure some 'believers' will try to defend the accuracy of this tall-tall -- but just because a person believes in unicorns, doesn't make it real.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Jesus The Horse Thief

After Jesus had said this, he traveled on and went up to Jerusalem. When he came near Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples on ahead and said, "Go into the village ahead of you. As you enter, you will find a colt tied up that no one has ever sat on. Untie it, and bring it along.
If anyone asks you why you are untying it, say this: 'The Lord needs it.'" - Luke 19:28-31
They (Christians) say Jesus is 'without sin', however in the old-testament I recall reading how stealing was a sin, if this is the case, Jesus committed a sin -- not only this, but he ordered two other people to commit sins as well. Now, the person that was to have their horse stolen, ended up giving consent, but that does not change the fact that Jesus ordered two disciples to commit an act which is considered a sin. Is Jesus 'without sin' because he is God? and God can do no wrong? Well this would make him by default sinless -- but saying he is without sin, as being a bragging point is like bragging about water being wet. Not only this, but if Jesus was God, why did he not just create one? He created the entire universe, a horse would be child's-play for him -- wouldn't that have been a much better route to take? This would have avoided pushing his followers into being willing to commit a sin, and Jesus could have avoided the hypocrisy. Why is Jesus hypocritical? Well, he constantly speaks of helping the poor, and is a guy of love and peace -- yet he takes someones property, even though he didn't need to. This person would not have went along if he did not feel a sense of obligation or fear towards 'The Lord'. If God can make a universe, he can make a horse -- hell, he could just fly or whatever. This also sends a bad message to 'believers', the message is, anything that 'God's people' need, they are free to steal (if they believe they're on a mission for God), for they believe their actions are what god wants, therefore stealing is not a crime if 'believers' think their actions are divine. Double-standards are great.

Human Sacrafice vs. Murder



In the eyes of the rational, all human sacrifice is murder. But in the eyes of the 'believer' there is one  difference, albeit twisted. For example, when Abraham was going to sacrifice his son Isaac, it obviously would not have been a sacrifice if Abraham viewed him as being a 'little sh@$' -- everyone would agree that it would have been an act of cold-blooded murder if Abraham hated Isaac. But somehow if you destroy something that you love, it is a good thing. Some Christians do a form of sacrifice on lent -- the more miserable you can make yourself, the happier god is -- I'm not sure why people would love such a figure. The concept of sacrifice is to intentionally lose something which is important to you -- the rational view it as the ultimate-stupidity -- the religious view it as the ultimate-act-of-faith. Perhaps they are right, perhaps we can save some time and conclude that faith is the ultimate-stupidity. Just like Abraham losing what is dearest to him to show a voice in his head how much he believes -- this is the ultimate-stupidity and the ultimate-insanity bunched together, and not surprisingly the ultimate-act-of-faith. Yet faith is widely regarded as being one of the greatest attributes a person can have; being a 'man of faith' is considered a compliment by most -- what a disturbing world we live in. A world where an insanity and stupidity are twisted together and referred to as faith -- and this "faith" is something which should be strived for? -- I don't get it, and I hopefully never will.  Feel bad for us Christians, when you feel bad, you are suffering -- giving up potential enjoyment for our expense is a form of sacrifice, it is what your god wants. At the same time, do not try to change our minds, for you are trying to achieve something which would be enjoyable for you (and some of you enjoy a good argument), this destroys your sacrifice, be miserable.

Christianity: The Polytheistic Monotheism? (Part 3)

for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God, - Exodus 34:14 RSV
Here is another example of the Bible acknowledging the existence of other gods. It is funny how a being with infinite-knowledge, power, love, and ego -- would be jealous of something. Why would a being which as great as this one claims to be, be jealous of anything? It is claimed by 'believers' that he made everything -- along with having a 'divine plan' and the ability to do whatever he wants -- so rather God is not all of these, or he enjoys feeling jealousy. Some people enjoy that sort of thing, perhaps this god enjoys feeling pissed-off (old-testament god surely does). Let's say hypothetically you made an ant farm -- you essentially created their world and provided them life (with food and shelter etc.). These ants begin to organize greater then any ant colony ever has -- they begin to create these mini-statues, and worship them. Would it not be ridiculous for you to get jealous of this and poor boiling water on them? Isn't the concept of a jealous omnipotent-god ridiculous? As an atheist, I don't get it -- Christians seem to understand it, my hat is off to them.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

God: Divider Of People (Genesis 11:1-9)

Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Ba'bel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. -Genesis 11:1-9 RSV

 This story is funny for many reasons. First off, we now know that languages have 'evolved', and are constantly changing as time passes -- like how we know languages like English, French, Spanish, and German all originated from the same source. Perhaps people in the past didn't have access to the historical records we do now, they saw all of these complex languages and found it much easier to rationalize it by coming to the conclusion that God did it (the parallels with evolution are great).

""Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."" This shows that an all-loving god does not want his creation to succeed, he sees people building a tower, and he swoops down with some other beings (other gods? angels?) and destroys what unites these people, and their society -- why? because god does not want them to build a tower -- makes perfect sense Christians -- such a great explanation for why we have so many different languages.

The biblical lesson here is people can accomplish great things and can unite as one -- God just doesn't want them to. This little story is true in a metaphorical sense, God is the great divider of people, and that appears to be the underlying message -- he confuses our minds and divides our people.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Simpson's Evolution Intro.

While surfing the interwebs I found this clip, enjoy.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Funny Video

I found this funny, check it out.

Scared Parents (poem)

a lonely child had a friend
this friend was the greatest
always there
always loving

the parents become worried
is there anything wrong with my child?
they would be concerned
don't worry 
it's just a phase
the doctor would say

the parents still wished it would stop
they would try to convince the child
but this did nothing


for the child it was different
this friend was as real as anything
but for the parents it was not
it is scary






Thursday, February 18, 2010

Christianity: The Polytheistic Monotheism? (Part 2)

 Here, another example of God using the word 'us'.

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"- Genesis 3:22
 On a side note, I wonder where this tree of life is -- and this implies there is only one. Still, there should be thousands of immortal people walking around -- where are they at Christians? Even if there was only one, that would be HUGE news. Hell, even the immortal worms and insects would surely gather some attention.

know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. - Deuteronomy 4:39 
 And here we have another quote which contradicts genesis. Unless there are gods outside of Heaven and Earth -- then there would be no contradiction.

Should God Stay On The Currency? (Poll)

NBC is presently taking a poll on "In God We Trust" to stay on our
American currency.
I recently got this message in the mail -- at the moment the poll is vastly in favor of a 'pro-God on currency' view -- go vote! Link below.

Click Here To Vote

Christianity: The Polytheistic Monotheism? (Part 1)

In the Bible the existence of other gods is acknowledged -- and it is done so several times throughout the book. However this contradicts other times, in which it states that there is only one god. Being that there are many examples of this, I will be presenting one example of each.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." -Genesis 1:26
It is often said that humans are made in God's image, but here God is referring to making humans in the image of multiple entities by using the words "us" and "our". And obviously this implies -- well no, not implies -- directly states that multiple gods exist. Not only does it do this, but it also is saying that humans were made not by one god, but by many "Let us make man in our image".

To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him. -Deuteronomy 4:35 
Here  it states that the 'Lord' is the only god -- which contradicts what is said in Genesis. If the writers were inspired by an omnipotent being, you would think that being would have sent a clearer message.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

What Does God Need With a Starship?



Funny clip from an old Star Trek episode.

Cheese-Deniers



File:NCI swiss cheese.jpgOnce upon a time, a new cheese came into the world, this cheese was filled with holes. Sadly, not everyone was happy with this new cheese. Some would deny that the cheese even existed. Cheese-deniers claimed that there were too many holes in it. "How can we believe in this cheese", "all these holes in it make it hard to believe in". But those that knew that this cheese was real, and delicious, would scratch their heads in confusion. They would say "of course this cheese is real, here is a slice of it". They would pull out a slice of this cheese; but sadly, the cheese-deniers would still not be convinced. The cheese-deniers would take the cheese, and focus on one of the holes. "Here! Look at this hole here" they would say. They would look through the hole, and at the cheese-promoters "I don't see any cheese here, I'm looking right through it and at you. Surely if there was cheese here, I wouldn't be-able to see you".  Poor cheese-deniers, never knowing how ridiculous they looked, and how much they missed, by never eating the cheese.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Pascals Wager?

Pascals Wager is a commonly used argument by 'believers' -- "what have you got to lose? if your right, and God is real, you win -- if there is no God then you would have lost nothing by believing". This is probably the best argument 'believers' have. However, the ones making this argument are forgetting a few things -- first off that their god is not the only god that humans think or have thought to be real. The amount of gods man has believed to be real are in the thousands -- each one having an equal probability of being real (unless some evidence surfaced that showed otherwise). The odds of some how being lucky enough to have "picked" the right god to believe in are not all that great. But let's forget that, what about this character God? He can read minds, right? He would know which people believe only because of Pascals Wager; which would make them not legitimate -- he would probably treat them as he would any atheist -- perhaps even worse, because at-least atheists are honest (lying is a sin).

'Believers' will often say "what if your wrong" -- well, the answer is obvious if atheists are wrong -- we would be subjected to eternal suffering for an eternity, for being honest. But what if 'believers' are wrong. What if you only have this one life, this one shot to be alive -- and you blow it by living in a fantasy -- never truly enjoying the world and universe as it is. If there is meaning in life, I believe it would be to understand and enjoy it the best we can -- if 'believers' are wrong, then they spent their lives worshiping, conforming, and fearing a figment of their imagination -- what a waste of a life. If there is nothing greater then being alive -- this being the peak of existence, then the 'believers' would have suffered the ultimate loss. Considering how many claims in the bible have been disproved (by historical records and the scientific process), the Bible is shown by this to not a book of fact. If the writers were unable to know that the Earth was round, I'm certain they would have no way of knowing about something as unknowable as the existence of God. So what if I'm wrong? I am very confident I am not. While many will disagree with this, I feel that if believers are wrong, they face consequences as bad as any Hell -- which is being alive, while absorbed in fantasy.











.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Cherry-Picking Scripture.

This issue comes up quite often -- and that is people being selective with verses to further their own agenda, and at the same time ignoring other verses which do not. If you wanted to hate homosexuals, this can be done very easily -- in-fact the Bible states that they should be stoned to death. While you may be a bigot, God can be used as a scapegoat to help justify unjustifiable hatred of others. If you are a friendly person that likes to help others -- well this can be easily supported by scripture -- however you may want to ignore much of the old-testament, and look towards Jesus. But Jesus' teaching have not always been used for good purposes -- slavery is something which Jesus seemed to support. He even taught that a person should not only be an obedient slave, but to love their slave masters as well -- but this is something which 'nice Christians' try to ignore.  If you wish protest war, you need not look further then the '10 Commandments', which let people know it is wrong to kill others (otherwise we would have had no idea) -- ironically this is found in the Old-Testament. Of course the rule not the kill others is a part of the Bible that many Christians in history loved to over-look. Some today even use the rule not to kill others to justify killing abortion doctors (ironic).

If a person was to use the Bible in it's entirety as a moral compass they would find themselves spinning in circles. The contradictions make following the religion impossible, which forces people to cherry-pick the ones that sound the best to them. This quote sums this up quite well...


"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

 There is a reason why many modern-day Christians ignore the nastiness of the Old-Testament -- they do this because killing babies and genocide does not reflect their inner-morality. They view things such as rape and slavery as bad, but they certainty did not get such views from scripture. Chimpanzees should know that murder is okay, they haven't had God tell them it's not.

A Few Illogical Arguments For God's Existence.

1) The fact that the universe began.

2) That fact there is existence rather than not.

3) The fact that the universe and life reveals organization, design, symmetry and systems so complicated that nature and random evolution could not possibly offer an alternative explanation. This makes God probable and existence without God improbable.
I found this short list of arguments on the Internet a few days ago -- these are used very often by 'believers' when arguing for the existence of a God. Starting out with the first one "the fact that the universe began". Those that attempt to use this argument forget two important things. Firstly that it is not a fact that the universe began, it is assumed that it did with the Big Bang Theory. They believe that before the Big Bang there was nothing -- in their ignorance they truly believe they have a respectable argument when they say "how can something come from nothing". But that is not what the Big Bang theory is suggesting, it is not suggesting that it was the creation of all energy, it suggest that it is the creation of this particular universe. The energy and matter that we are composed of is much older then we are -- to say that the energy and matter that composes us will turn to nothing after we die is as wrong as it is to say the that nothing created everything.

The second and third arguments are very similar -- and neither even come close to doing what they are suppose to, which is argue for the existence of a god. Is the universe complex? Well, if we assume humans are the baseline for understanding in this universe, then yes, it is complicated for us. People that assume this universe was "made" just for them, are the same people that are unaware of the billions of galaxies in this stupefyingly large universe. They think that if they cannot understand how this large universe works in its entirety, that it must have been all created by a god who loves us, and cares about us, and sends us to Hell for not knowing about him. It is like saying "the sky being blue is proof of fairies". The only thing that the complexity of this universe proves is that us humans have a long ways to go before we are able to fully comprehend it (which will probably never happen). And to touch on the end of the third argument, how probable is it that we exist? The odds of existing are 100% -- why? because we do exist, there is a zero chance of not existing. To say that existence is proof of God is like saying rainbows are proof of leprechauns.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

The Father Of Faith.

The story of Abraham is shared by many monotheistic religions. Abraham is thought of as being the "father of faith". For those that are not familiar with this story, here is the biblical account....


After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.  On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off. Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Abraham said, "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided." And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies,
- Genesis 22:1-17  (Revised Standard Version) 
 A person-of-faith would read this story, and view it as admirable. Most rational people however would view this story in a much different manner. Here is a guy that is "hearing" a voice in his head which is ordering him to slay his son. Now which is more likely the case:

a). The all-powerful creator of the universe likes to screw around with random people.
b). Abraham had hallucinations.

Odds are that if this story actually happened, the cause would have been hallucination, not divine. If there was the god that Bible describes, then he would be all-knowing, and would already know what Abraham would do, so testing him would be pointless. It would be like a kid frying ants with a magnifying glass — he knows the ants would be roasted, but he enjoys watching them squirm in pain. Of course the Biblical god can be a prick, so if by chance he is real, him doing this wouldn't surprise me.

Stories like that of Abraham occur all of the time. Here is an example of one which is similar, the main difference is that the hallucination didn't intervene.




Obviously in modern-times the Father-of-Faith would have found a much different outcome to his story, probably one similar to that of Deanna Laney. But what were the reasons that Abraham obeyed this voice? Were they noble? Where they not? I suppose it depends on your perception of faith. In my opinion, an act like that of Abraham is both selfish and cowardly. Selfish because he is the only one that stands to benefit from killing his son; Isaac certainly doesn't benefit, and God doesn't — but Abraham does, he believes that by committing this murder, he will stand to benefit (otherwise he wouldn't have done it). He is cowardly because he is afraid to tell the voice in his head "no, I will not murder my son". Even though Abraham did not kill Isaac, he fully planned on doing so, which makes him no better then a murderer — no better then Deanna Laney. For they both heard voices in their heads that they thought of as being God.

One finds it funny that Abraham is viewed as such a revered figure by so many; he is as insane as the day is long — he is self-centered and cowardly — what a role-model. And all this story shows is that Abraham will obey any voice he "hears" in his head — surely he would have no way of deciphering between what is 'The Lord' and what is an hallucination. For all Abraham knew, that voice could have been the demon, yet he blindly obeyed.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Homosexual Fantasy

In my previous post 'What is Faith?' I compared religious faith to being faithful in a relationship. And that faith in God is essentially the idea that you will not be with any other gods, along with remaining loyal to God (as seen in the 10 commandments) — so there is little difference between the two.

There are many other parallels between the relationship one has with God and that of a sexual partner. It says in the Bible that if you are "with" any other god, The Lord becomes filled with anger and jealousy — which is what typically happens in relationships that break off because of cheating or whatever. I could list many more, but that is not the purpose of this post (perhaps I'll get into more down the road). The purpose of this post is to add insight to why priests tend to be more homosexual/asexual then what is represented by population as a whole.

I do no believe that the church creates these sorts of people, I feel that they are drawn to the church.  Much of this is obvious, but let me run through what I believe causes this. First off, the idea of celibacy is incredibly unattractive to males; the majority are hard-wired to reproduce — you do however have some people on the fringe, that have a different biological set-up. Imagine being homo/asexual, while at the same time living in a culture that has an extreme dislike of those sorts of people. A culture that heavily promotes marriage (between a man and a women) and creating a family. Obviously if you are asexual (are not attracted to either sex) or are homosexual, being a catholic priest, for example, would be a good fit. Playing a role in society is an important thing for humans, we are a social species, we want to belong. Being celibate for religious reasons is considered a respectable thing to do, especially in a more traditional culture; and it is something which would be preferable to someone who is asexual or an in-the-closet homosexual.

But this is obvious, I believe there is another reason for why the church is such a magnet for these type of people. And it is the homosexual-fantasy. It is often said that god is an imaginary friend for adults. When children are young, they often have imaginary friends to help cope with loneliness. Imaginary friends give a sense of security and companionship that is not offered for a person in reality. And as it was said previously, there are only a few differences between the relationship one has with God with the one one has with a lover. So God can fill that hole closet-homosexual-men have, the void of not having a partner. God being the ultimate masculine figure, would be the perfect imaginary friend for these sorts of people. Their imaginations would provide a sense of security. Women tend to look for intelligent men that can provide protection and give them the feeling of being loved (I imagine it would be the same for a gay man), and god is the ultimate in that respect. As it has been said in previous posts, the god doesn't need to be real, for the feelings to be. What they are looking for is the feeling of security a masculine figure provides. They probably view homosexuality as being as bad of a sin as a man "looking at" another women when married. I am not saying that all priests are this way, but I do believe they make up a substantial amount of them. I would be willing to bet that as homosexuality becomes more of a socially acceptable thing, priests will be much harder to come by.

As a disclaimer, I am not saying that the type of people mentioned in this post are sexually attracted to God, nor to I believe that is the sole reason people maintain relationships. I am speaking of components of a relationship outside of sex (e.g., comfort, love, security).

I believe the homosexual-fantasy is a big part of this trend. Ted Haggard is not a catholic, and doesn't have to obey the celibacy rule. He claims to be heterosexual, but that is like a fork claiming to be a spoon. Observe...



I rest my case.

What Is Faith?

Someone that is described as being a "person of faith" is thought of as being a moral and honest person. The word "faith" can be used in many ways; such as when a person is faithful towards their significant other, this means that they have not committed adultery. Is the same use being applied here in the context of religion? Is having faith merely not "sleeping" around with other gods and at the same time maintaining the relationship?

I feel that comparing the relationship one has with a sexual partner and that of a god fits well; because we are talking about faith in a relationship, and people that pull the faith-card claim to have a relationship with God. When I say "God" I am referring to the internal perception of an entity which may or may not exist (my position is obvious). Most people which do not possess faith, find it hard to understand it. Below is an analogy that gets at the heart of what faith is (if you are not a guy, then replace "girl" with "guy", actually just change it to whatever your sexual orientation is).....

You are in a culture that has arranged marriages. When you were a young child, your parents forced you into an arranged marriage; being that you had no choice in the matter, you obeyed. For the next five years you hear all kinds of stories about this girl. The day came when you would finally meet face-to-face with the person that you will be spending the rest of your life with. You are thinking "what will this person look like" and "what will she think about me?". Your parents take you into a room, and your father says "there she is". But you don't see her. "Where is she?" you ask, your father replies "she's all around you". And at this point you are thinking to yourself "what the f@#k?".  But out of obligation you play-along. You think to yourself "are my parents insane? no, they can't be, they raised me — they must see something that I do not". After getting married to your invisible wife, you make a great effort to try to feel her presence. If you think about it enough, you can almost feel a warmness inside of you, but this is very unsatisfying. 

A few days later your parents sit you down, and talk to you about how you must remain faithful to this invisible wife. You cannot be with any other girl, or even think about it. For if this happens you will become castrated by your invisible wife. Such a shame that you were brought up in a culture that forced marriage down your throat — not even giving you a chance to decide who you wanted to be with. You are stuck with this one girl that can not be seen. And the constant fear of becoming castrated keeps you from being with any other women. It has always been your dream to get married and have a family; you thought you would get this with the arranged marriage. But now you find yourself stuck with an invisible girl which may or may not exist. Your mind shackled out of fear of castration and the obligation you feel towards your family.

And that is faith, faith that the invisible girl is real, and the loyalty that it forces you to have -- this is the faith the religious claim is so great.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Death

One of the greatest fears in life is death. People are afraid to lose loved ones, and the thought of dying one day is in the back of most people's mind. The one thing that is certain about death is that it will come one day. It is natural to fear death, thus far the main consolation of death is through religion. While religion does make people feel comforted; imagining loved ones as being in the clouds, waiting to reunite with them. It is not all that likely to be real. For rational people, we would rather be sober in truth, then deluding ourselves superstition. I do however think religion provides a good service here (unless it motivates people to commit suicide bombings etc). It offers people good consolation, this is perhaps the only service religion plays in a society. Have less anxiety about death will lower stress levels, which in-turn would make a person healthier. Understanding what happens after death is irrelevant to this life, and being right or wrong really plays no important part in this life.

Being fearful of death is a good survival aid, but being comfortable with death will provide an enjoyable life, free of the constant fear of what will eventually happen. I feel if people want to believe they go to paradise after death, more power to them. But the purpose of this post is to provide some consolidating ideas for nonbelievers.

When it comes to death, there are two possible outcomes which come to mind. The first being that there is no consciousness beyond the physical brain — after death there is nothing. We as humans are fearful of this idea, and this is the worst possible outcome next to Hell. Actually picture with your mind's-eye an infinite amount of time, of nothing, a universe without you. It is scary.

I prefer to think about death in a different way. I view myself as being part of a vast universe. Most think we live within this universe — and are separate from it. In reality we are just as much of a part of this universe as any star (just not as big). The matter that makes up our bodies will continue to exist long after we die. Existence continues after death, the question is, does consciousness? To answer that, first we would need to know what consciousness is — there is no answer to this at the present moment.

People like to think that we all have a spirit, separate from our physical body. While this is not  impossible, there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim (doesn't mean it is not a real thing). When a person brings up the idea of a soul, they are not really bringing up an idea, but a mere word. When asked: "what is a soul?", they are unable to answer (they can dance around, and play with words, but cannot directly answer it). Masking ignorance with imaginary knowledge is something which I do not like — it is a waste of time.

We are not here to be comfortable, this universe was not built with us in mind, we were built for this universe (not literally 'built', but evolved). We like to look for patterns in our surroundings, and use those patterns to envision possible future events, or events that occurred in the past. Consciousness is something which we take for granted, it has always been with us (we cannot imagine what it would be like to not have it). But like memory, consciousness is more then likely something which disappears when the brain is destroyed. And yes, memory is gone after death, in the same way it can be lost from a head injury. People have forgotten how to speak, entire life memories, how to walk, and so on — just from head injury. Imagine what it would be like to lose everything, imagine what it would be like for your brain to be not only slightly damaged, but completely gone?

As I said before: we do not know what consciousness is, and there is nothing that appears in our reality which we can compare it with — so even if we had information about it, our minds wouldn't be-able to digest it. Being that there is no survival benefit to understand what happens after death — evolution did not push animals into doing so (would be a waste of energy), the only thing we needed to adapt was a strong fear of it. However this is what I think death would be like. Try to imagine this series of events (not in any particular order). This is what death could be like (this is not a description of the process of dying, but actual death itself). If you are reading this, it is assumed you are alive. Imagine now, losing your vision, you are now blind. There is no color, nothing. Now imagine you are deaf, no noise, complete quite. To get a good sense of what this would be like, close your eyes, and put your hands over your ears (not perfect quite, or blindness, but good enough). Do this for a few moments, try to fully grasp what it would be like.

Now that you have imagined what it is like to be blind and deaf, now imagine losing the ability to control limbs, you cannot do anything. Many people have experienced this sort of thing when sleeping, waking up early, not being able to move at all — if you have experienced that — try to recall what it was like. Imagine with your mind's-eye what it would be like to be blind, deaf, and paralyzed.

Now imagine the rest of your sensory nervous system gives out. Starting off with losing the ability feel, your arms and legs are as unfeeling as any inanimate object — along with being blind, deaf, and unable to move. To you, your body is of no more meaning to you, then a pile of meat. Now you lose the ability to smell, along with taste. Now you cannot gain any information from the outside environment.

Restricted to your own mind, you can only recall past memories, or dream. You can't determine what is going on, you don't know if you are dead or alive at this point. But you are not not quite dead yet, in-fact you are still very alive, this is the point where most people are unable to imagine what it would be like. Most people can imagine not having a body (to an extent), but have difficulty imagining not having a mind.

To strip away the mind (which is destroyed when you die). We start off with language, this is now gone. This eliminates the ability to have complex thoughts, you now can only think in imagery and emotion. Just imagine not having a language. We take our inner-monologue for granted, not having one would make our thoughts become much more basic. After losing language, imagine losing memory. No memory is when the moment of real death comes, if you cannot recall your life, then your life never happen — as far as you are concerned. Without a nervous system, language, or memory, you really have no ability to imagine anything, you would have no idea what a thing even was. But just to pile it on, you now lose the ability to imagine things with your mind, to dream — to think in general. You are a void, nothing. What made you, you, is now gone.

Some people would still claim to believe in a soul, but even if there was one. What makes us human is not that, it is our memory, are intellect, personality, and emotions, it is our experiences — which are all gone after death. It is life which makes us human, in death we are nothing but a void. A void is the only way in which a human could comprehend such a thing, because everything we take for granted would be gone, and essentially nothing is left. If you think the soul is just a form of energy, may I point out that that form of energy might be matter itself — combining all which is lost in death — all working together like a finely tuned clock. 

This may sound awfully depressing — but it doesn't need to be. For your life will someday be over, but it was stuff that made you up, and that stuff will exist forever, energy is eternal — which in-turn makes us eternal as well. We are energy, and energy is us. Whatever it is that makes us up, will exist forever, regardless of the form it takes. Life has made us think we are separate from this universe, it has made us individuals, in death we will become one with the universe again — even though we never really left in the first place.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Human Sacrafice.

I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood. -George Carlin

Dawkins Interviews Wendy Wright (Creationist )

The Exploitation Of Ignorance

Religion has been exploiting ignorance for as long as its been around. According to them, God is hiding in ignorance. At one point, god used to be responsible for much more — before we understood things like bacteria, mental disease etc. Before these things were understood, they would be wrongly explained with divine intervention. Even things like the origin of the Earth's species. Obviously we now know that evolution is responsible for the complexity of life — over billions of years. And the people that still believe in the genesis story — over evolution, are similar to those that still believe the earth is flat over the "theory" of it being round.

While many Believers still deny reality, many accept evolution as an explanation; but these people think that a god is responsible for getting it all started, or for helping evolution along (macro-evolution etc.). God is hiding in ignorance, and when the light of science shines upon it — God is never there. Humans being fearful of the dark is the reason why religion can exploit ignorance as easily as it can. The lower a person's IQ, the more religious they tend to be (there have been many studies that show this trend). People with poor intellectual abilities prefer simple fairy-tales to understand the world around them (regardless of how wrong they are), to complex ones which would leave them feeling even more ignorant.

Perhaps it has to do with feeling comfortable with ones surroundings. Some people prefer simple fairy-tales and an all-powerful god looking out for them, over a complex world without the sense of control that an omnipotent god provides.