Panhandle Faithless

Physics, Facts, and Faith

2008-04-06T15:20:00.050-05:00

So, I decided not to say anything about my last post. Really, everyone has heard why comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia are fallacious. Those who still accept these comparisons are hardly ever doing it from ignorance, but rather from complete stupidity. Anyway, that's not what I'm intending to discuss.

For those who aren't a personal friend of mine and haven't heard, I got myself switched from roustabout to pipeline. I just wasn't getting enough hours on roustabout, and pipeline was desperate for some workers, so I talked to my boss, and he had no problem transferring me. The only reason I bring this up is because of something that happened this past week at my job.

We've been putting in an 8 inch and 10 inch pipeline for Whiting Oil and Gas. We finished up the 10 inch this past week, except for the tie-ins. So, we had to pressure test the line. Before they put the water in the line for the pressure test, they push this rubber thing called a "pig" through the pipeline to clear out any dirt or other debris. Hardberger and Smylie's pipeline crew doesn't have much experience with 10 inch diameter pipeline. So, they originally brough in the air compressor they used on the 6 inch and 8 inch lines. When it ended up taking much longer than they expected, I mentioned to my boss that I could do some math and get him an estimate of how long it would take.

For those few that may care: The pipe was 10 inch diameter, which meant it had an area of pi*(5/12)^2 square feet, or roughly 0.55 ft^2. The pipeline was 8,000 ft long, which meant that its volume was about 4400 ft^3. The compressor was running at 150 psi, and 185 cubic feet per minute. At this rate, it would take 23 minutes to fill the line. However, the advertised CFM is intake CFM, not exhaust CFM. Using the ideal gas law, one can say that 14.7*CFM1=150*CFM2, which means that it's only actually running at about CFM2=(14.7/150)*CFM1=18.13 CFM.

That means that it would actually take about 242 minutes to push the pig through the line. Much too long! They had a water truck rented and waiting to fill the line. So, they got a pressure truck out there, and got the job done much faster, because of my estimate on the time it would take.

Afterward, the main pipeline foreman said, "you're pretty good at that math. Are you interested in that science stuff, too?" I replied "Of course! I love it." To which he responded, "So, you're one of those non-believers?" That rather shocked me. After all, I am, and a lot of science-minded people are. But, I would have thought it was taboo to ask an individual about their beliefs just because of that.

I didn't know how to respond, so I replied that it was possible to be a Christian and a scientist. He had the misfortune to ask me about this in front of the most religious person on the pipeline crew. I happen to really like this guy, and enjoy working with him. So, I tried to bluff my way through as being a Christian that likes science. Even so, evolution came up.

Very few things in this world anger me more than disbelief in evolution. It's real. It happens. The evidence is simply staggering. To deny evolution is to deny science. I couldn't resist defending it! I said that I thought it occurred. The highly Christian worker in the truck with us answered with that oft-used bromide, "there is no evidence for evolution." He didn't merely suggest it as a possibility, but said it with full-confidence in its truth. What could be more frustrating, but for someone to repeat a complete lie as if it were the purest truth!

I said, "of course there's evidence for it." He demanded an example. Lucky me, I happen to know a bit of biology. So I used the example of whales. Whales are mammals, and like all mammals they breath air. Yet, they're sea-faring creatures. Not exactly the best design! Yet, evolution would predict this quality in a mammal that lives in the sea. The separation of mammals from other creatures occurred well after they left the oceans. It would take much more evolutionary time to re-evolve gills than it would take to simply evolve large lungs and the ability to store lots of oxygen in the blood. A designer who had already created gills would not have this problem, however.

Even so, the individual with whom I was debating said, "Isn't that one of the wonders of God, that he creates such unusual creatures?" I cannot argue against that! It is the height of irrationality. "Isn't it amazing that something which looks like it works this way is actually the product of this, even though there is no evidence for that position?" Rather than get in a heated debate, I quickly moved the conversation on to work. I had much better things to do with my time than argue against the unchangeable mind of a creationist.

Fact: Evolution occurs, whether your faith likes it or not.

One Chipper's Point of View, By Joe

2008-03-26T21:41:00.001-05:00

This is an excerpt from a column called "One Chipper's Point of View" in the local newspaper (The Herald Democrat). I don't have time to comment on it tonight, but perhaps tomorrow I'll be able to decide what I want to say about it.

---Excerpt---
This came from the Martin family in Ohio. Wilma Overton's son and daughter-in-law

Jim Neugent is a coach in Childress, Texas

Jim writes:

My name is Jim Neugent. I wrote to ABC (on-line) concerning a program called "THE PRACTICE." In last nights episode, one of the lawyer's mothers decided she is gay and wanted her son to go to court and help her get a marriage license so she could marry her 'partner.' I sent the following letter to ABC yesterday and really did not expect a reply, but I did get one.

My original message was:

ABC is obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to convince the world that homosexuality is OK. "THE PRACTICE" can be a fairly good show, but last night's program was so typical of your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one who was against the idea of his mother being gay, and made him look like a whiner because he had convictions. This type of mentality calls people like me a "gay basher."

Read the first chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the apostle Paul had to say about it.... He, God and Jesus were all 'gay bashers.' What if she'd fallen in love with her cocker spaniel? Is that an alternative life style? (By the way, the Bible speaks against that, too.)
-- Jim Neugent

Here is ABC's reply from the ABC on-line webmaster:

How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the declaration of independence (what our nation is built on), where it says, "All Men are Created equal," and try treating them that way for a change!

Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your lame crutch for your existence. You are in the minority in this country, and your boycott will not affect us at ABC or our freedom of statement.

Jim Neugent's second response! To ABC: Thanks for your reply. From your harsh reply, evidently I hit a nerve. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns and I will be praying for you.
-- Jim Neugent

Note: Wouldn't Satan just love it if people stopped using the Bible.

Thanks, Jim Neugent.

I wonder if the person from ABC considered how many people would read this story! This is one we should definitely pass on.
---End Excerpt---

Christian Porn

2008-03-23T21:05:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the long delay in updating. Work just keeps me so busy I hardly get a chance to think of anything to write about

We all know the classic story re-hashed again and again. Some young person comes into contact with a preacher or a Christian friend. This young person is highly receptive to the constant proselytizing of the Christian friend. After a few discussions on "fulfilled" prophecy, or "irreducible complexity," or just an emotional appeal to Jesus suffering, the young person has a major change of heart, and becomes a Christian.

I thought this story was just reserved for the especially shallow and naive form of Christian; those who haven't actually "studied" the Bible, or attempted to proselytize. Those who don't know that, in fact, the evidence for Christianity is very unconvincing. It should be obvious. My father is a major fan of evangelism, and he has had very limited success. Sometimes (very rarely), he succeeds at convincing one type of Christian to become his type of Christian. Even then, those who take his stance usually end up backsliding into a less insane form of Christianity. Of all the evangelism he has done, I cannot think of any clear example of success.

Despite this personal experience with the unconvincing nature of the classic "evidence" for Christianity, the Church of Christ in Beaver decided to show a series of videos my father suggested which follow this classic theme. Unfortunately, I finished work so early this past Wednesday that I was unable to avoid attending. I conceded that, when work did not interfere, I would attend on Wednesdays.

Anyway, the specific videos which they have chosen to show involve three teenagers hiking in the country. They decided to meet up with one of their professors on this hike. Of course, this professor is highly religious. One of the teenagers is already a Christian, supposedly because of the convincing evidence of this preacher ... excuse me, I meant "professor." In the first video, when they took breaks from hiking, they discussed some "kingdom" the professor had mentioned. Obviously, this kingdom ended up being the kingdom of God. The professor went on, talking about "fulfilled prophecy." None of these prophecies, however, was really that specific. But, these students fell for it, and are now highly receptive to further preaching. In the next few videos they show, they'll be discussing other "proofs" of God. Want to bet the end up praising Jesus by the end of it?

Well, as one can imagine, it's easy to see through this video. A hike is an activity considered non-confrontational and very laid back; very casual. It's an environment "surrounded by God's Creation." Clearly, it's meant to be evidence of the beauty and glory of God. Also, the only adult is a professor. That means he must know best, right? And, he's an authority figure. We wouldn't distrust an authority figure, would we? Then there's the fact that all the teenagers are highly receptive of his message, and do not raise any intellectual objections to what he is saying. In fact, they're a perfect straw man version of the unbeliever. Nothing about this encounter is truly believable as an example of a genuine conversion.

So, what then about this hackneyed story is useful in preparing church-members for the real-world challenge of conversion? Nothing. No true, honest person would say that what the film portrayed is what proselytizing is like in real life. What it does do, however, is bring hope and further conviction to the believer. It makes proselytizing look like a friendly endeavor; something that is fun to do. It makes the unbeliever look highly receptive and unable to raise any good objections. It makes Christianity look obvious and rational. In short, it is a wish fulfillment fantasy for Christians.

Where else can someone find such an obvious example of wish fulfillment fantasy? Where else is the older character such a clear authority figure? Where else does one see no objections raised by the teenagers? Where else is the teenage characters made to look so receptive and eager? Oh, yes, that's right; porn! Is there a porn film where the older character was rejected; where the teens refused to go along with him? Have you ever seen a porn film where the older character spent lots of time working hard to be seductive to the teens? No! No one wants to see that. No one wants to see the porn teens reject the older character. No one wants to see the older character spend lots of time learning to be seductive, and working out in the gym, so that he can be attractive to younger women again. No one wants to see that, because it is not the wish fulfillment of their fantasies. The exact same is true of a film about evangelism that shows nearly every individual as raising serious objections to what they're being told, that shows evangelism as a confrontational behavior which is not welcome, that shows the Christian as being unconvincing and a clearly less authoritative figure than who he is seeking to seduce... excuse me, "convert." No one makes these kinds of films because it doesn't fulfill the fantasies of their Christian audience. Just like no one makes a porn film where no one gets laid.

God is a BAD INVESTMENT

2008-02-24T22:18:00.001-06:00

Malachi 3:10 (NIV)

Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

Luke 6:38 (NIV)

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

God loves it when people give to him. So much, he gives more back. So God is a good investment. At least, that's the stance of the Beaver Church of Christ. They've started a series on "Stewardship" on Wednesday nights. The only reason I had to go was that I got off work early enough for it, and as part of the conditions for me living at home with my parents, I have to attend church when I'm not working.

I, of course, feel that I must object vehemently to their perspective on charity and giving. Their stance is that one should give before one has taken any for oneself, and that generosity should always be returned with greater literal wealth. This can be concluded from these two scriptures used in the "lesson" (if spreading falsities can qualify as such), even if one was not present for the actual lesson.

The preacher said, "this might test your faith somewhat." Well DUH! I should think so. It makes no fiscal sense, and it can be downright dangerous.

The great shock of the night came just a few minutes later, however. After the "lesson," my father brought the "message" for the night. He talked about how his faith had been challenged some on this issue. It seems that many years ago, when he was attempting to build a farm, he had been very generous with his donations to the Forgan Church of Christ. Much more so than the typical 10%. I believe he said it ranged from 30-40% gross, pre-tax income.

Now, the Church of Christ in Forgan is a large, dieing congregation of elderly ladies and barely enough men to even have a "church leadership." They have no local programs, and don't contribute to many charities at all. Who can blame them, really? Most of them are the wives of dead farmers, with barely any retirement at all. It's sad, but it's true.

Not only that, but my dad literally went bankrupt trying to farm. Perhaps if he had just taken the money, re-invested what he needed into the farm, and saved the rest, he could have made the farm work. Or, at the very least, have had a seed fund for later in life. Or maybe he'd have just had enough to pay off the debt and avoided bankruptcy.

Of course, my dad had to spin this to fit his belief in the supernatural. He said he had many wonderful things come into his life as a result of getting out of farming. He got to spend more time with his sons. He was able to be involved with the Boy Scouts. He was able to go to foreign countries to do mission work. Etc. Wonderful though these things are, it doesn't change the fact that it's a post-hoc analysis (which are typically regarded as only a way form a hypothesis, not to create a firm theory), and it doesn't change the fact that these are not quantifiable, intrinsically valuable things, as these two scriptures would imply. And it also doesn't change the fact that these sort of things might have happened anyway, had the farm become successful, and he could have had a hired hand for breaks.

On the way home, I had to bite my tongue. I wanted to ask how he could be so stupid. But, the thing is, I know how. I've been there. Faith is a powerful force. Terrifyingly so. Otherwise intelligent, lucid people can force themselves to see the world in a way completely contrary to reality. That's why I fight it. Nothing else can make people so blind.

I had to tone down my response somewhat. Instead of negatively arguing against his point, I decided to positively argue for a secularist view on charity. I noted that Lance Armstrong, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett are all very charitable individuals. They all also happen to be atheists. And they all also happen to have invested their time and money wisely to make sure they had their own lives safe and secure before they donated to charity.

This is the major difference between Christians and secular humanists when it comes to charity. Christians say "give it all to God" (whether God be a homeless man, Focus on the Family, or Kent Hovind's creationist museum effort, before he got busted). They say "hold none back for yourself." Secularists say, "give to a worthy cause" (whether that be cancer research, habitat for humanity, etc., but certainly not Focus on the Family). They say, "make sure you don't become in need of charity yourself before you decide to give to others."

I have nothing more to say for now. I have to get some sleep before work. But, do feel free to comment.

Work, work

2008-02-19T20:49:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the huge delay on updating! Still, expect updates maybe once a week or so from here on out. I just started work, and it's going to take up most of my time.

My parents are pretty hardcore Church of Christ. As a result, they won't pay for any college outside of a private CoC university. I did that for a year at Oklahoma Christian, but couldn't stand it, so I moved on to OU. I loved that, but I also didn't get many scholarships because I was a transfer student. So, now I'm broke, and living at home and working to pay for college.

So, off to Hardberger and Smylie Roustabout Service I go. Basically, I spend 60+ hours a week doing (as my brother says) "the bitch work of the oil field." At $7.50/hr., it's not great pay, but it's the best I can find around here.

Anyway, expect roughly weekly updates. I usually am too exhausted after getting off work to actually write, or do anything other than shower, eat, and sleep. Maybe it's just the fact that I haven't adjusted to the job quite yet.

When journalists attack

2008-02-09T17:26:00.000-06:00

This is a quick, hacked post. Quality is low, and the writing is trash. But, I found myself driven to make a few quick comments before I go off and have some fun.

Divine justice is perfect and tempered with mercy

All human beings, the philosopher Donald MacKinnon used to tell his Cambridge students, have a desire for a true judgment on the lives they have lived. They want to submit to the verdict of an arbitrator who will have inner knowledge of the cards they were dealt, and the conclusions they drew about the way to play them; who will comprehend at the deepest level their motives and intentions in face of the pressures upon them and who will have mercy when they whisper the truth.

I don't understand what it is that drives some philosophers to believe that they know what "all human beings" desire. I myself don't have a desire to submit to an arbitrator as described by MacKinnon. It is not the judgments of others that I have to live with, but rather the judgments I make of myself. I don't want to be on my deathbed and think, "well, I might not think I've lived life well, but at least God thinks I did!" Honestly, I hope people say, "well, he was kind of an ass, but he had a hell of a lot of fun! And what was with his obsession with charity?"

Such a judge is not obtainable on this earth, MacKinnon observed. This would seem to be what Pope Benedict XVI is driving at in his recent encyclical letter on hope, Spe Salvi, when he says that “I am convinced that the question of justice constitutes the essential argument, or in any case the strongest argument, in favour of faith in eternal life”.

Really? The Pope believes God is the ultimate judge? No shit? And I thought he considered the fifth precinct all-powerful!

Benedict does not believe that any secular substitute for the Last Judgment can succeed. In the West, the Christian conception of a divine judge has faded into the background, he writes, and has been replaced by a conviction that human beings must themselves establish justice. Such a protest against a God who allows so much injustice and suffering is “understandable”, Benedict thinks. But no one will ever find a secular judge who can perform the function that MacKinnon described, nor an answer for centuries of suffering, nor a guarantee against the cynicism of power.

Again, how retarded. Of course the Pope thinks no secular judgments can be better than the Last Judgment. HE'S THE POPE! I don't know many Popes who are atheists or naturalists, and believe only in earthly judgment. Nope, I'm not that impressed.

What's So Great About Christianity
(Speaking of the 'new atheists', and specifically Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al.)

"These men, deeply hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular, are also formidable debaters. Last fall, I attended a debate in which Hitchens carved to pieces a leading Christian theologian who conceded far too much, defended his faith far too little, and sought common ground where none exists."

Or perhaps he was just too honest? Perhaps this theologian knew all too well his faith could not be defended strongly. Or, perhaps, Hitchens is actually right, and the theologian was arguing from a position of little or no intellectual foundation? Or, perhaps, Satan put the words into Hitchens' mouth? Hail Satan! Professional orator of all atheists!

According to the writer of this article, "D'Souza's horse kick comes in the form of this new book. And quite a kick it is. D'Souza offers a persuasive, scholarly, and intelligent rebuttal to the main charges made by those who proudly carry the banner of atheism. And unlike the work of some leading atheists, D'Souza's book is blessedly free of rancor and reckless statements."

Well, let's consider a few of the arguments which the author of this article mentions:

First, Christianity is the main foundation of Western civilization and the root of our most cherished values. -- Which is why we observe the Sabbath, and saying "God" without religious intent is illegal, as well as why rebellious children are stoned to death.

Second, the latest discoveries of modern science support the claim that a divine being created the universe. -- Really? So science actually has discovered the world is 6,000 years old? And what of miracles. Why haven't any of those occurred since the invention of the camera, and the scientific method?

Third, Darwin's theory of evolution strengthens, not undermines, evidence for supernatural design. -- By explaining away the need for supernatural causes.

Fourth, nothing in science makes miracles impossible. -- Wrong. The density of water is not sufficient for Jesus to walk on it, no matter how anorexic a Messiah he may be.

Fifth, it is reasonable to have faith. -- What?! No way! No! Seriously, irrational belief in the face of contrary evidence is not reasonable. "Reasonable faith" is an oxymoron. When something is reasonable, it's not called faith. Otherwise, every single human thought could be classified as based on faith. Flag! Arbitrary redefinition! Opponent loses five yards, and other side gets the ball.

Sixth, atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history. -- Again, wrong. Hitler often invoked the name of Jesus and God when rallying the Germans against the Jews. The Inquisition was an actual religious movement. And then look at all the mass murders recorded in the Bible. If there is a God, and the Old Testament is his word, then the Great Flood was a massacre unequaled by all human wars!

Seventh, atheism is motivated not by reason but a kind of "cowardly moral escapism." -- Again, blatantly wrong. Few atheists are immoral or even amoral. In fact, religion is moral escapism; the religious does not have to consider whether an action is moral or not, but whether it is condoned by their religious texts or not. And based upon that logic, racism, slavery, xenophobia, ethnic cleansing, and many other morally reprehensible actions can be justified.

When Darwinists like Dennett invoke evolution as an "all-purpose explanation in cosmology, psychology, culture, ethics, politics, and religion," D'Souza writes, they go far beyond the evidence. -- Well, to a degree, yes. Most of the evolutionary hypotheses in cosmology, psychology, etc. are very early in their development. As far as I know, none of these writers and scientists consider evolution to be the only possible explanation for these things; they're just proposing it as a hypothetical explanation that needs further research. However, they certainly don't go more beyond the evidence than Christian theologians who believe these things exist because the great invisible magic man put them there.

For one thing, evolution cannot explain the beginning of life, and Darwin didn't even attempt it. -- Of course, these famous writers don't pretend that evolution is a pat answer for how life begin. But, it still beats saying "God did it." That is the God of the Gaps, and I would want nothing to do with him; he's prone to hiding in holes, and doesn't help anyone anyway. Bad God of the Gaps! No worship for you.

And among the limitations on evolution is that it cannot explain human rationality or morality. --Oops! Let me point out a few works on this issue: The Selfish Gene -- explains altruism. The Mating Mind -- explains human rationality. Both these works are by influential evolutionary biologists, and both provide superb frameworks for understanding humans from an evolutionary perspective.

We frequently see examples of people acting morally and against self-interest; in fact, we hold a special place of honor for those who die while trying to save people whom they have never met. -- And they were the ones whose evolutionary drive was broken, and as a result behaved in a way that weeded their genes out of existence. Notice how few people actually die while helping others? That's because it's not beneficial. Yet, it can still occur, just like albinism and cystic fibrosis.

Even supposing that human beings have a moral sense based on evolution, why choose to follow it? After all, we have lots of instincts--some noble and some base. Why choose the more noble ones, like cooperation and sympathy, fidelity and fair play? Why not use your power against those you have authority over? Why not rig the game in order to advance your own self-interest? -- It occurs all the time. There are murderers, rapists, child molesters, and more in the world. We lock these people up because they pose a threat to our lives and the lives of our children. That advances our own self-interest, and these poor fellows must resort to prison rape, which has very little reproductive value.

The moral atheist certainly exists, but it is because he lives in a society that takes a transcendent morality for granted. If the atheistic enterprise were to prevail, these beliefs would be unmoored--and the moral world it would create would be barren and bleak. -- I actually heard of a study mentioned on the Non-Prophets which shows that there is a negative correlation between theism and societal health as measured by the occurrence of murder, rape, STDs, theft, and even abortion in the prosperous democracies. In other words, the more religious a country, the less socially healthy. However, it is only a correlation, not a cause-and-effect. If that's greek to you, do some research. Nonetheless, there are highly secular societies which are not "barren and bleak." Look at Japan and Sweden. Very nice! Can me haz seklurism too?

Okay, I'm wrapping up. I've wasted too much time already.

Needles in a haystack

2008-02-09T01:14:00.000-06:00

I'm so sorry for the delay in getting up this latest post. I just had to replace the tensioner, idler pulley, and main belt of my car. Then there was a lot of general maintenance. And I'm not much of a mechanic. I've been wanting to do this post for a while, but I haven't had a chance to write it, so I threw something together last minute.

The Oklahoma panhandle. Over twenty-nine thousand people. Over 550 square miles. A population density of 5 people per square mile. In Beaver county, where I live, the numbers get even worse. Nearly 2000 square miles, and 6,000 people; a population density of about 3 people per square mile. In the entire county, there is not a single stop light. The stats say that 10% of the US populace is atheistic. It might be a third of that in Beaver county. Six thousand people, 180 of which might be atheists. The atheistic population density: 0.03 atheists per square mile. For every hundred square miles, you have three atheists.

When people talk about the boondocks, this is the county they imagine. My high school class had 7 people in it going into high school. Two of them dropped out after they became pregnant. In the end, five graduated. Really, the only requirement for graduation was to stay in school. Even those who got pregnant could have stayed in and graduated. In the senior yearbook, every single one of them put God and family in their top two interests. One girl was a rebel. She put God, SCHOOL, family.

It's remote. In Beaver, the county seat of Beaver county, there is a Subway and a Pizza Hut. No McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, movie theater or other well-known symbols of American culture. If you want to go to a movie, visit a bookstore, go to a library that has an actual card catalog, you have to go to Liberal, KS. The family buys groceries from out of state.

Forgan doesn't even have that. There's no grocery store; only a quick stop. If you have a medical emergency, expect to drive the seven miles to Beaver. But, that's not to say that nothing happens out here. During the heat of any sports season, there's easily three games a week. One can go to the stands and see the senior citizens gossiping, the younger children running in the stands, the parents cheering on their son-or-daughter. Afterward, the richer families will go have a barbecue, while the poorer ones will let their teens run off with friends to get drunk.

Then there's church. Not everyone goes to church beyond Sunday morning. Some don't even then. But no one dares to criticize it. There are five different church buildings. This, in a town that doesn't even have it's own hospital! Of those five, the Church of Christ is the only one that insists the other four are going to hell. They're not very well liked. I grew up in the Church of Christ.

Church, out here, is not so much an obligation to God as it is a social activity. Parents and children get a chance to interact and gossip. All the networking that occurs in this town happens in the churches. To not go to church is to automatically put oneself at a disadvantage.

So, how would an atheist go about meeting other atheists or discussing their beliefs? Personally, I can hardly even imagine. Yet, when I look back on it, I can remember one time where I think someone might have been trying to reach out to me.

When I was in grade school, I was already a prolific reader. I was always going into the school library to check out books about everything. I would look in the card catalog, and if I couldn't find what I was looking for, I'd ask the librarian. Occasionally the librarian would make a suggestion. Half the time I took it, half the time I didn't. It just depended on whether my impression of the book and short description in the card catalog caught my interest.

One time, the librarian suggested "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. The only reason I probably even remembered this happening was that it was fiction. When I was younger, I never read fiction. Everything was non-fiction for me. So, when the librarian said, "here's a book to read; it's about an architect" I dismissed it right away. She explained to me that it was an exceptional book, and that she thought everyone should read it. She then went on to recommend "Atlas Shrugged" as a follow-up if I liked "The Fountainhead." The entire time, I just politely nodded.

There were two reason that I didn't read it. First, as I mentioned earlier, it was fiction, and I wasn't that interested in fiction at the time. Second, "The Fountainhead" is pretty long, especially for a grade schooler. Even worse, she had shown me "Atlas Shrugged." The page numbers went up over a thousand! At that point, I probably hadn't read anything beyond two hundred pages long.

After I started college, "Atlas Shrugged" became one of my favorite books, because of its philosophical commitment to reality, and the power of the human mind, and the human will. In many ways, it epitomizes how I try to live my life. If I want something to change, it is a problem to be solved, and I can't expect it to resolve itself if I don't do any work, both mental and physical. The human mind is no good if it is forced to work with false premises. If I want to increase how effective my thinking is, then I have to quit believing and using false premises. Thus, my rejection of theism, especially Christianity.

Now, looking back on it, I realize that this librarian might have been an atheist. If nothing else, she was a rationalist and willing to have her ideas challenged. Yet, in my entire time spent in the library (no small amount!), I cannot remember her ever even implying she was a skeptic, a rationalist, or questioning the status quo belief of protestant Christianity in Forgan. What scares me most is that she might have been these things, and yet was too frightened to ever act on it, except for once telling a bookish little boy that he should read a certain writer at least once, hoping it would open his eyes to the errors in the fundamentalist Christian indoctrination of his parents.

The Thinking Man

2008-02-05T17:45:00.000-06:00

I wanted to plug The Thinking Man. While not a major blog, the author seems to make a roughtly daily post about some news bit that needs a more skeptical eye turned towards it. A little dry, perhaps. Maybe a bit predictable. But, what do you want! I mean, there are hundreds of ways to believe in gods and spirits; and only one way not to believe. So, for all his dryness, I want to recommend The Thinking Man as a blog to consider.

Talk about an act of Faith!

2008-02-05T16:26:00.000-06:00

I hate to do this, but I know no one will ever see this response unless I put it here.

Anyway, I found an article via Pharyngula to an article called "Christians: Tips to Doing Battle With Evil Atheists." It was an excellent article; the author seems to have understood atheism very well, especially for being a Christian. Anyway, I wanted to submit it to digg. I went to digg, and low and behold, it had already been dugg! Thus, I cast my digg, and was on the verge of going on my merry way, when I noticed a snarky little self-righteous comment:

Did you know an atheist can never be proved right when he/she dies? Think about it. Talk about an act of faith.

Clearly, this poor individual has not thought through their argument! Otherwise, it might extend beyond the length of a single sentence, followed by two self-platitudes. I couldn't leave it at that, so I wrote my own snarky little self-righteous comment in reply:

Afraid not. See, there is no evidence for a soul, and as such all that a human is composed of is the chemical reactions of their body. When a person dies, these chemical reactions cease to occur. Therefore, there is no more "human" in the chemicals.

An atheist claims that this is exactly what occurs in death. Their claim is that, once one dies, they'll never be conscious again. So, if an atheist dies and never regains consciousness, then that means they are proved right. Tada!

"Talk about an act of faith." Whoa there! Remember, the Christian claims that there is a heaven, a hell, and three Gods who are actually one God, but not really one God; actually, they're three, kinda. Then, they claim prayer works, despite scientific evidence being to the contrary (they've done actual studies about the effectiveness of prayer). Not only that, but Christians claim to have a monopoly on morality, yet cannot even live up to their own standards! 1 John 1:8. Not only that, but the path to heaven is narrow. Matthew 7:13. In a country where more than 80% of the populace claim Christianity, one must conclude that most are wrong and are headed to hell. Yet, when speaking with a Christian, they nearly all claim to be headed to heaven. And, of course, they believe this to be their destination with no proof.

Talk about an act of faith!

The greater irony is that the article which I was reading included a part saying, "They are much more likely to have carefully thought through their position and understand why they believe what they do. We are more likely simply to present some argument that the person we heard it from guaranteed would destroy the enemy."

And, one has to wonder where the commenter got their cute little "atheists need more faith" argument from. Clearly, it's not a "carefully thought through position." More of a "some argument ... guaranteed [to] destroy the enemy."

Pity this person won't bother to see if a counter-argument was presented to their comment. But, it did present itself as a nice little opportunity to practice my bible-recall.

Oh, and the article can be found here

And, you can digg it here

Jesus loves the little zygotes

2008-02-02T23:24:00.000-06:00

Wow! I was listening to the Non-Prophets podcast, Episode 7.3, and I heard the following song (not sung, thankfully). I just couldn't resist writing it down and sharing it with you. This might be the most witty spoof I have ever seen. Sure, it makes your skin crawl, but then there are scientists searching for a way to cure that; by making sure Jesus has no more "gifts" to give you.

Jesus loves the little zygotes
Sung to "Jesus loves the little children"

Jesus loves the little zygotes
All the zygotes of the world
Jesus loves them 'til they're born,
Then abandons them, forlorn
Jesus loves the little zygotes, 'til they're born

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Jesus gives them heart-defects
Measles, mumps, and ring-wormed necks
Jesus loves the little children of the world

Jesus lets their parents beat them
Bruise their bodies, black and blue
Jesus gives them birth-defects,
Scurvy, ticks, and palate-clefts
Jesus loves the little children of the world

Jesus gives the children cancer
Earaches, lice, and scabies, too
Bowel obstructions, ulcered lips
Blighted brains, and twisted hips
Extra-chromosomes to help them when they pray
Hallelujah

Jesus gives the children acne
AIDs and leprosy galore
Germs and worms of every kind
Things to make the children blind
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore

Scientists, and unbelievers
Wiped the 'pox right off the earth
Jesus still gives gifts to kids
Broken nose, and burned eyelids
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore

In the News

2008-02-02T15:00:00.000-06:00

I just went to the movies two nights in a row, and did the whole "family fun" thing, so I haven't had the time to update. As a result, instead of thinking of something new and witty to comment on, I'm going to give a quick discussion about a few news articles I've read lately.

Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem
'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

An article with author Vox Day about his new book, "Irrational Atheist." I haven't read the book myself, but based on this interview, I can already guess what it will be about. Throughout the entire article, he asserts that the "Unholy Trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens make factually incorrect, and scientifically wrong statements. Yet, not once did Day state an example of this factual vacuity. One wonders what qualifications this "Vox Day" has. I took a look on Wikipedia.

Vox Day is the pseudonym of Theodore Beale. He graduated from Bucknell University, a private Baptist University. Apart from "Irrational Atheist," he has also written a series of Christian Fantasy novels, and done some other writing. He also has done some work in developing video games, including a video game called "The War In Heaven."

Does this really qualify him to critique Richard Dawkins, who studied at Balliol College, a constituent college of Oxford? A man who has spent years teaching and writing about biology and science?

What about Christopher Hitchens, who studied at The Leys School, Cambridge, and Balliol College, Oxford?

Sam Harris is the odd one out, in that his education is not immediately impressive. After all, he only has his bachelors degree. But, it is in philosophy, and it is from Stanford.

Nonetheless, Day sees fit to criticize Sam Harris' intellectual capacity, saying in response to the interviewers question of whether Day's comparison between Harris and Bellesiles was fair, "It's probably not fair to Bellesiles. He may have made stuff up, but at least he can handle elementary school division. I also suspect he knows the difference between difficult concepts like 'counties' and 'states.' Harris demonstrably does not."

Clearly, Day considers his Bucknell degree and experience in video game design qualification enough to criticize the intellectual capacity of a Stanford graduate.

When asked about common mistakes made by Christian apologists, he says:

Too many Christians forget that their basic assumptions are not shared by the atheist with whom they're talking. Christians always want to quote the Bible to try to prove a point, but to the atheist, that's no more meaningful than reading Shakespeare at them. And Christians often want to talk about the way God makes them feel, forgetting that the atheist's feelings are equally relevant. My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter. "The Irrational Atheist" isn't a defense of God or Christianity; I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.

It's really a pity that he should make a surprisingly honest series of statements (that the Bible means just as much as Shakespeare to an atheist, and that the atheists' emotions are just as relevant), and then end the question with something as idiotic as "I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself." Apparently, he doesn't realize that his book is attempting to do exactly that. Not only that, but defending Christianity is much more difficult than defending simple theism. After all, Christianity makes specific claims that can be tested. Was the world made in seven days, as portrayed in Genesis? Science says no. Were there tragic plagues in Egypt, including the genocidal death of all the first-born? History does not record it. Can an omnipotent and benevolent God dish out infinite punishment in hell for finite sins on the earth? Only the tainted philosophy of Christian theologians can bring themselves to even suggest the possibility.

Poor Vox Day has bitten off more than he can chew, and is just waiting for an intellectual Heimlich from his fellow Christians. Let's just hope that no one else takes him seriously.

Headline-only-readers beware!
Formerly atheist Belarus embraces religion
... NOT!

The writer of this article has clearly mislead the readers. First, the article opens with the parents of Misha, 10, and Pavel, 12, being "appalled" because the police brought the youngsters home after they were caught "actively practicing religion."

As it turns out, reading past the first paragraph brings out the full truth. While the author claims that Belarus is atheistic, it has been historically a Russian Orthodox country. Which means that it is now suffering from the fact that the Russian Orthodox repressed other religions (as is common in countries where Russian Orthodoxy has been powerful); not the atheists of the country.

Also, the children weren't "practicing religion." In fact, they went Christmas caroling, and took the money that they earned from the generosity of neighbors, and:

They spent it on vodka and cigarettes, leading to noisy behaviour by Misha and Pavel in public, arrest by Minsk security forces, and very unpleasant scenes with their parents.

"We were just absolutely shocked," Misha's Mother told a Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Apparently, the author didn't think the fact that this 10 and 12 year old bought cigarettes and vodka with the money they earned Christmas Caroling was important enough to mention in the first paragraph. Instead, it was tacked on to the end of the last paragraph.

In short, this author FAILS! Please, fire this individual and get someone with half a brain to write instead.

Don't believe what I wrote about this story is fair? Read the original! The link is at the top.

Dismantling preconceptions one link at a time
Morality and the 'new atheism'
This is probably my favorite article. Not only is it well written, but it is direct, intellectual, and witty. The author takes a look at the question, "how can we have morals without a God," and answers it succinctly using biology and philosophy.

Seriously, just go read it. You'll learn something new, and perhaps be a little entertained by the "monkey kicked in the testicles" analogy.

The loving tolerance of the Christian right
Zogby Poll Indicates Voters Won't Support Atheist for President
Apparently, voters support Christian presidents, want presidents to cite scripture (I wonder if they include scriptures like Leviticus 20:9, which endorses murder as a just response to insult), and would just refuse to vote for a president that doesn't believe in God.

This isn't really news. Anyone that has researched at all about politics and religion already knows this. All it really shows is that atheists are mistrusted in this country that has "religious freedom." Another reason I encourage atheists to stand up and let the world know: We are moral. We do love others. We can be trusted. And we don't encourage people to "... kill without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children." Ezekiel 9:5-6

Quick links
Here are articles I only read, but didn't take the time to say much about.

Q&A About Atheists and Atheism
An article with questions and answers about atheists and atheism (umm ... duh?) Clearly, most atheists will already know the answers to these questions, but most theists probably won't. So, if you have a question, read this article. Or write it in the comments, and I'll see if I can give a decent answer.

People use Internet to confirm pre-existing beliefs
(Link found via Mind Hacks)
Mainly about medicine, but there's no doubt that theists and atheists alike are quite likely to use the internet for such a purpose. Concerned that you're not getting the full perspective? Look up blogs that disagree with you and sign up for the RSS feed. There's a lot you'll learn. Just ... be careful not to let the anger boil over too much.

Teach the controversy? Or when ID expells ... A case of missing links
An article about a debate between PZ Myers and the Discovery Institute's (that abomination of anti-scientific research) Senior Fellow Simmons. The debate didn't go well for Dr. Simmons. I listened to it myself. Poor fellow hadn't done enough research.

Anyway, the Discovery Institute removed a link to the debate on their blog, Uncommon Descent. Luckily, there are others with more intellectual honest that try to avoid twisting results to match our pre-dispositions. The debate can be listened to by following this link.

If you enjoyed the points that PZ Myers makes, go ahead and visit his blog: Pharyngula

And some links to specific posts made by PZ Myers before and after the debate:
Standard Creationist Tactics
Was That Fun or What
That's Some Memory Hole

The Power of Analogy, and a Short Sermon

2008-01-30T14:38:00.000-06:00

Ouch. I'm so out of practice at writing. Reading this just before I decided to publish it, I actually cringed.

Warning! The following is long and boring. Don't waste your time! Instead, enjoy this comic and the nice little irony:

Looking at my first blog post, I realized that a Christian reading it would likely not see why looking at Mormonism should cause them to see their own faith as similarly unusual. More clearly, I doubt many Christians would immediately be willing to see this. However, given that Jesus taught in parables so often, I can't imagine that this would be due to an incapability to understand analogy.

Analogy is a powerful way to learn more about the world. Through analogy, one can gain a better understanding of morality, science, language, literature, and nearly every other field of human pursuit.

Christian Analogies
Christianity uses analogy all the time. So many parables! Clearly, Christianity sees analogy as a powerful way of learning and understanding the world. Christians have years, even decades, of experience dealing with analogy. It is a way of understanding "spiritual elements" that one can understand in no other fashion. Parables are an analogy of the unseen and unknown in religion, formed in naturalist terms that one has seen or knows.

Mormonism as an analogy
Mormonism is a religion based on special revelation. So is Christianity. Mormonism has the tenets of baptism, life after death, an unseen God, unseen angels, and other supernatural elements. So does Christianity. In short, they are highly similar. Yet, many Christians (and others) view Mormonism as alien; something no sane person could believe. That is why it is so powerful as an analogy of all faiths. Unlike Scientology, it is somewhat similar to that hideous strength (catch the irony?) of Christianity. Yet, unlike the differences between Church of Christ and Baptists, it is different enough to seem a whole other religion.

A Missed Analogy
Consider, then, another analogy that often goes ignored by Christians; those masters of reasoning by analogy.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin discussed artificial selection in domesticated animals, and the diversity of the breeds which were produced. Few (if any) Christians argue that domesticated breeds do not change drastically under the intentional selection pressures produced by humans. Darwin then showed that there were selection pressures in nature. These selection pressures are often present for much longer times than the selection pressures of breeders. These selection pressures are also often much more powerful than the selection pressures of breeders (since breeders have not had millions of years to perfect their stock). From this, he concluded that natural selection does a very good job of explaining the diversity and fit of species. Creatures fit so well into their niche in the environment, not because of the specific form in which they were created, but rather because they were forced into that niche. It's like forcing round modeling clay through a square hole. Again, a powerful analogy (and a double analogy, with the clay bit), but few Christians accept that.

The Sower, The Seed, The Atheist: A Short Sermon for Christian readers
I'm sure the reader is familiar with Matthew 13:1-30. If not, you should read it now. Here: NIV

I don't believe atheists are predestined to their beliefs (or lack thereof). Not that many atheists are born into atheistic families. Rather, most are apostates, having lost faith later, after reaching adulthood; the age when one can use reasoning and logic instead of relying on authoritarian instruction. One could even argue that they were preconditioned for faith, and not against. How many grew up attending Bible school on Sundays? How many were taught to say their prayers before eating, or going to sleep? Why, more children are preconditioned for faith than there are atheists in the whole world! The Bible itself even encourages this. Proverbs 22:6 (NIV) - "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." From such a childhood, one has very rich soil indeed!

In this country, there are so many Christians, so many churches, so many religious institutions, one can't help but believe that this seed is not only planted, but watered, weeded, even given the richest fertilizer; all as is needed.

Yet, why doesn't the seed grow?

Look before you! There is a field. There is water. There is sunshine. There is the richest soil one could find anywhere! But, what does it matter, if the seed is dead?

Mormonism

2008-01-29T18:52:00.001-06:00

Welcome!

Have you seen the South Park episode about Mormonism? As ridiculous as it seems, they got pretty close. Yet, why does it seem so ridiculous? Because you're not a Mormon! As the title of this blog suggests, I am not a Mormon either. Nor am I a Christian. Yes, in the past, I was a Christian, and a very faithful one at that. Now, however, I see Christianity (and theism in general) much like the rest of the world sees Mormonism. It is a tragedy that the faithful cannot see their own faith like they see Mormonism.

Imagine; a person comes up to you and says, "I have seen a ghost; a vision of a man long dead. He tells me that I must become a cannibal and a vampire, and I must bathe in his blood, in order that I might go to the great Disneyland in the sky." Yet, this is traditional Christianity.

Traditional Christianity: There is life after death. Mormonism: Not only that, but there is life before life. I don't see much difference there.

How is it that Mormonism is viewed so differently from good ol' Jesus lovin'?

Anyway, given the need that people educate themselves more about Mormonism, especially now, here are a few links about the subject:

Inside Mormon Faith (a podcast from NPR with an interview of Robert Millet about Mormonism)
Wikipedia on Mormonism

I hope that learning more about Mormonism will inspire others to think about their own faith, and all it's anachronisms, continuing suspension of disbelief, and sadism. Listening to Robert Millet, it seems clear to me that Mormonism has some things going for it that the more popular faiths don't. Like continuing revelation. Boy, that would make the issue of abortion more cut-and-dried. And how about that "baptism for the dead?" Beats having a one-way-ticket-to-hell if you happen to never get around to ritualistic thinking while taking a bath.