Evangelical Atheist

In a discussion today, I was asked why I spend so much time talking about or promoting atheism and why an atheist would be “preaching” against Christians. If I don’t believe in God why do I spend so much time discussing the topic? I do get this type of inquiry often and felt compelled to address this question.

It is well known that the Christian and Islamic religions engage in efforts to proselytize others to their theological belief system. When my friends see my websites or Facebook pages they naturally draw a conclusion that I am engaging in the same activity as they, only in reverse.

My primary goal in my communications mediums is to simply explain what atheism is and how we live our lives without any deities and answer questions or more importantly correcting misinformation someone may have picked up. To a Christian or a Muslim it may appear that I am engaging someone to “recruit” new members into our way of thinking. I personally have observed some atheists who “evangelize” the atheist experience in a way that promotes atheism.

I however am not engaged in an effort to recruit new members, I simply encourage people to question and dismiss information or beliefs I consider to be false or more often than not harmful or dangerous. It is not that I want to convince you that you shouldn’t believe in something outside of yourself, just stop supporting and engaging in activities that give credence to people within those belief systems that are oppressive and or destructive. In most of my writings and information sharing I find myself dispelling myths or misconceptions about atheist more than anything else.

My interests have always been in the human animal, its psyche, its social interactions and the anthropological or sociobiological aspect of how and why we are here in this place and in this time. Having a very objective point of view of humans and the other living creatures on this planet simply fits very well with an atheistic belief system.

What I do try to promote is critical thinking and a holistic approach to any information one may encounter. If I told you that trolls lived under bridges and if you are not careful they will jump out and take you away, there is simply no logical reason to believe me. If you told me to prove my statement and I offered no facts or evidence to support the claim then you have no reasonable expectation to accept the information as true. If I then tell you that you have to prove to me that there are no trolls living under bridges you would simply dismiss my statement and go about your business. The skeptical approach to this and any information is what I am promoting.

From a critical thinking point of view, theism in general is an easy target. But I strongly encourage everyone to engage in reasonably critical or skeptical thinking with every piece of information they encounter. Not to the point that it becomes a philosophical quagmire such as “No one could actually KNOW that the sun will come up tomorrow” But to a point to where simply taking someone at their word is not the norm

- Peace, Chad aka TK

Sex Education the people who harm our children

I received a text message the other night from a friend whom informs me that she has just learned; from her son, he was instructed to sit through a sex education presentation at his school.

My first thought is great, I fully support giving kids the information and facts around sex education. The more you know the easier it is to make reasonable and rational decisions when the time comes.

Now for the punch line. This was an abstinence only program.

I then asked if there was a notification sent to parents prior to this “presentation”. My friend informed me that she had not seen any such permission slip or request or letter announcing this would be taking place. To be perfectly clear, I would not stop my child from attending such a presentation, I would simply provide them with all the facts ahead of time and then follow up afterwards with questions and answers. I want my children to be fully informed and educated on all points of information, especially the false points so they may recognize them in the future.

As most of you know I tend to lean toward rational, logical, and reasonable approaches to knowledge, and information. I of course disregard or am suspicious of information that does not have any supporting evidence for a claim. We (society) know from the facts and studies conducted that abstinence only programs fail to achieve what they are designed to do. (stop children or young adults from engaging in sex) they are, in my opinion blatantly putting our youth in danger because they refuse to even acknowledge factually sex education information regarding how one may protect one’s self from sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies.

This seriously makes me nocuous to think someone would intentionally withhold information from someone that could potentially help protect them or prevent something that could be devastating to our youth and their families.

Starting with the Adolescent Family Life Act of 1982, conservative Christians have been able to push through an agenda that has crippled sex education in America.

Obama is the first president in over a decade to say that we must teach our children the facts about their bodies and the options they have should they choose to be sexually active; Obama-as usual-is right on the mark.

Thankfully President Obama has cut funding for these types of programs and restored the rational approach to education that will actually teach our children something of value.

From one of the websites…

“Aim For Success: America's largest provider of sexual abstinence programs.

Aim For Success is an independent, non-profit, educational organization that promotes a lifestyle of excellence by encouraging the development of self control, self respect, and self discipline. Through live presentations students are encouraged to develop strong, responsible character as they deal with sexual pressure.

Through Aim For Success presentations, students learn the wisdom of committing to be sexually abstinent until marriage. Parents are inspired to raise responsible children who know their choices have consequences. Teachers receive creative ideas on how to implement the abstinence message into their classrooms.”

So let’s be perfectly clear on what the facts are and how reality works in our children's lives.

Studies published in a special issue of the online journal Sexuality Research and Social Policy by the University of California Press reveal that abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education programs fail to change sexual behavior in teenagers, provide inaccurate information about condoms, and violate human rights principles.

In sum, the articles show that abstinence-only programs contain medical inaccuracies, fail to help young people to change behavior, and conflict with ethical standards. Abstinence-only programs violate young people's right to accurate information—and also teachers' and health educators' rights to answer questions and provide medically accurate information. Many states have now refused to participate in the federal program (25 states as of August 2008) citing concerns about efficacy and accuracy of abstinence-only programs. The federal program provides funding for abstinence-only education and restricts information about contraception and other aspects of human sexuality.

If you have children, I would strongly suggest reading the full report

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/pihhr/files/SexLies_Stereotypes2008.pdf

Texas and her conservative social order

Normally I would say beware if your child’s school district is teaching something that doesn’t use the most current information or is based on something completely ridiculous like teaching intelligent design in science class. But this… this is down right malice and harmful to our children.

In his book, America’s War on Sex, Marty Klein agrees that Abstinence Only programs don’t protect kids from disease, pregnancy, or broken hearts. That’s because they aren’t effective at postponing sexual involvement or at making kids safer when they do have sex…so abstinence programs don’t help kids.

But they do benefit adults—both emotionally and financially. “Abstinence programs help [adults] convince themselves that kids are less sexual than they really are. They get to maintain the illusion that kids aren’t doing it, are going to stop doing it, or aren’t going to start.” It makes some parents feel better to say that because my child doesn’t know about condom use, birth control or STI’s, they won’t be sexual.

And it is this emotional cowardice and flagrant dismissal of the parental responsibility that seriously gets under my skin.

This is a horrible false logic that screams at us when you look at the statistics:

• In 2001, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy published a review called Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy. It concluded that “the evidence is not conclusive about the impact of abstinence-only programs,” and that “there do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with reasonably strong evidence that they actually delay the initiation of sex or reduce its frequency.”

• In 2005, The Journal of Adolescent Health found that teens who pledge abstinence until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse.

• In 2007, a long awaited, federally mandated study that began in 1997 concluded that abstinence only programs do not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

• Of late, many states have begun to reject federal funding for abstinence only programs, or create a hybrid version that allows for full sex education

Grow up and take responsibility

You know and the youth of our nation know that sex is one of the most wonderful things on this planet. They see it in ads they see it on television and in movies. They talk about it with their friends and they hear some of the most absurd stories about it that you could imagine.

Our youth are a lot smarter than most people give the credit for. Having a conversation with your children about sex and the responsibilities of engaging in the activity is not only the right thing to do it is the ONLY thing to do. Talk your kids, they need to understand the responsibilities and the consequences of their decisions regarding decisions to have sex.

Lastly, talk to your school administrators, and leaders. Tell them you do not want abstinence only curriculums to be presented as the primary source of sex education in your schools.

Peace

Chad/TK

God in a cage, and two people of whom I am sure the Christians are proud

Some people want to put the Christian God in a cage, and they want it to be part of the exhibits at the Tulsa Zoo.

Republican mayoral candidate Anna Falling said Tuesday that putting a Christian creationism display in the Tulsa Zoo is No. 1 in importance among city issues that also include violent crime, budget woes and bumpy streets.

Mrs. Falling apparently thinks that creating new exhibits at the Tulsa Zoo is more important than any other of the current issues with which our country is being bombarded.

I know, next let’s push for a flat earth exhibit at the Smithsonian! Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

"It's first," she said to calls of "hallelujah" at a rally outside the zoo. "If we can't come to the foundation of faith in this community, those other answers will never come. We need to first of all recognize the fact that God needs to be honored in this city."

But what about all the other gods? Shouldn’t they be honored too?

Falling's campaign has been overtly Christian-themed. But she said she wants to embrace people of all religions, not alienate them.

Oh, ok that makes me feel better. At least you aren’t alienating all the other gods. Wait, why did they all of a sudden decide they needed a Christian God exhibit at the Tulsa Zoo?

The exhibit was thought to calm down those who felt one religion was being honored over another because the elephant exhibition includes a statue of the Hindu elephant-headed god Ganesha.

Ah, so the Zoo was showing favoritism to the Hindu religion. Now I get it. But wait, wouldn’t the simple answer be to just remove the other statue?

I also wonder if the Zoo’s architects were thinking “Oh you know what? We can put a statue of Ganesha in the elephant exhibit and everyone will just think it is really cool, but we will really be promoting Hinduism. Oh we are so smart!”

Mrs Falling continues…

"We will also look for people who want to characterize the origins of both man and animals in a way that honors Judeo-Christian science that proves God as the creator," she said.

WHAT? What Judeo-Christian Science? There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian Science. There is Science and everything else is NOT science. And as far as proving that “God as the creator”, you first have to prove there is a God. Shesh, she can’t even make a fallacy free argument.

She continues…

"I'd love to be able to visit with them," she said, adding that there's common ground. "I know God loves them. I love them. This is an opportunity for us to be able to be friends and make a difference in this community."

Why you condescending little…. You know your god loves them? The common ground is your god loves them? Do you even know who the other gods are? Do you care if they love you? Do you care if someone else doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of your god? Mrs. Falling, now you just made me sick at my stomach.

Controversy over having a creationism display at the zoo dates to 2005, when it was proposed by Dan Hicks, a Christian activist.

As it turns out, Mr Hicks was visiting the Zoo with his son and, while enjoying all of the sites and letting his son gain knowledge of the animal kingdom, they happen to visit the chimpanzee habitat and ran across a bit of information that just didn’t seem to fit into Mr. Hicks way of thinking.

The sign said something to the effect of: "The chimpanzee is our closest living relative, branching off from a common ancestor four million years ago."

Hicks complained that the sign offended his beliefs, and zoo officials eventually removed it.

"I think the zoo staff believes evolution is truth," he says. "And they think I'm an absolute nut."

Well Mr. Hicks… if believing that the earth is only six thousand years old and that humans and dinosaurs lived together in the same time period on this planet, I think that qualifies you as a nut.

As it turns out, Mr. Hicks also provides services to the community…

Hicks, who lives in Tulsa, gives creationist-centered tours at the zoo, and last week he spoke to the media against a gathering of gay people and their supporters at the zoo.

So Mr. Hicks also provides a scientifically debunked OPINIONS of how the earth was created while providing tours of the Zoo AND speaks out against gay people. I take back my previous comment Mr. Hicks. You are not a nut, you are an idiot.

Conclusion

If you are a Christian apologist you should know that these are the people making the headlines. These are the people who are representing themselves as Christians and disseminating information they believe to be true. Regardless of your position on the issue of creationism, these people are representing themselves as Christians and that reflects on all Christians.

Personally I think everyone with the exception of the young earth creationist should be upset;

• If you are not a Christian, then obviously Mrs. Falling and Mr. Hicks are pushing their singular point of view on both city government and the Zoological Scientific community.
• If you are a believer of a differing religion, then your religion is being rejected in favor of another.
• If you are a non-believer, then religious views are being pushed upon you without your consent.
• If you are a political advocate, then you should be upset that someone is AGAIN attempting to inject “church” into “state”.
• If you are a republican, then you have a lunatic claiming/representing your party.

My Opinion

Recently I have been accused (again) of not being accepting and understanding of other peoples views or opinions. Hmmm. Lets see, if someone told you that trolls lived under bridges and they would get you if you didn’t hold your breath when you drove over a bridge, would you begin holding your breath every time you traversed a bridge? If someone said they were Jesus Christ and they had returned to earth for the second coming, would you believe them? (David Koresh)

Of course you wouldn’t. Those people are mentally disturbed at best or complete idiots at worst. I don’t suffer fools, and I don’t have a problem calling an idiot for what they are.

Don’t push religious nonsense into our schools and communities, and I won’t push logical thinking and scientific process in your church. And for the sake of all that is sane, don’t let morons like these two get into positions of power or influence.

Sources

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20090812_11_A11_Republ227159&allcom=1

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=050610_Ne_A13_Onema38279&archive=yes

http://www.examiner.com/x-8948-Dallas-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m8d15-Tulsas-mayoral-candidates-creationist-incentive

http://annafalling.wordpress.com/

Hypocrisy for the Masses

The republican party is almost to the point of looking like a script from the Keystone Cops (see circa 1912 – 1917 film archives).  For the political party that has classified itself as the party of morals, character and traditional belief. It appears to be the party of comic relief, at best and at worst, a hypocritical grandiloquent machine that is crashing and burning.

How many government officials have been caught in moral high ground battle?

And these are just the ones I am aware of who have been caught. I do suspect many others who have yet to be discovered.

1. Senator David Vitter R-La (2007) Caught in a scandal involving a Madam. And he is still in office I might add. What does that say about the “good” people of Louisiana who kept him in office? A right wing Republican who campaigned on “Family values” and was fully active in his church because he is “a man of god” . In a most recent story that can only be classified as purposeful Irony Vitter accused his current opponent Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) of having a “Love fest” with fundraisers at a Martha’s vineyard fund raiser.

 

• Gov Mark Sandford (R-NC) (2009) His escapade to South America to be with his mistress while railing against, gay marriage and campaigning on “family values.

 

• Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) (2009) Who had an extra marital affair with a staffer and who’s family paid money to the woman’s family almost a hundred thousand dollars because they were concerned about them in these hard economic times. (WTF?)  AND who says he has no intention of resigning. Again I am sure making the good people of Nevada proud. The one thing that makes me laugh is he doesn’t seem to profess the whole “man of god” crap that most republicans seem to spew.

 

• U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss) Pickering was in Congress and living in a Christian facility for lawmakers on C Street near the U.S. Capitol. He retired from Congress in January and joined a lobbying firm. Of course the obviouse joke here is the “Christian facility”. At least this guy had the decency to leave the house of representatives and take a job working for a consulting (lobby) firm in Washington. LOL

 

• US Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl) Resigned in 2006 over sexual text messages and emails sent to male congressional pages. I will give him credit for his support of hate crime bills. (no wonder, he’s gay) and his introduction of legislation on protecting children from child pornography predators. My issue was he touted the whole Catholic Christian “holier than thou” nonsense the Republican party has been screaming for years. “We ‘the Republicans’ are a party of God”

OK, whatever, Hypocrite.

• Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) arrested for homosexual lewd conduct in the men's restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11, 2007.

and last but not least…

• US Rep. Dan Crane: (R-Ill) Married, father of six, received a “100% Morality Rating” from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a US congressional page. On July 20th, the House voted for censure of Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.

OK I know Crane was from the 80’s but he is one of my favorites just because of the “100% Morality Rating”

Now don’t get me wrong… Democrats get caught in scandals too. And the irony there is that they seem to get caught in scams that involve greed. Democrats who are always claiming to fight for the poor and neglected are chasing money, and the Republicans who have all the money are chasing sex. Interesting don’t you think?

Let he with no sin cast the first stone

I’m claiming no moral high ground here and those who know me know I live my life according to my rules or the rules of law. Ok most laws. My issue here is it has been proven over, and over, and over again, that you CANNOT legislate morality. and second anyone who claims the moral high ground better damn well know who they are placing in their leadership positions.

Lastly, the only morals that others have that even remotely concern me are the ones that affect my interaction and well being in our society. I couldn’t care less who you are having sex with, but you damn well better not be doing something to harm me or others.

 

Peace

Chad

Mythology

On a recent vacation we stumbled across an old used book store. We love books, and especially old books. I enjoy old books because they provide a glimpse into the past and what we as humans may or may not have found to be true at the time.

J found a book Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. It was published in London in 1959. For the most part the book is simply what it says in the title, an encyclopedia. What caught my attention was one of the opening paragraphs.

“Mythology is the study of whatever religious or heroic legends are so foreign to a student’s experience that he cannot believe them to be true. Hence the English adjective ‘mythical’, meaning ‘incredible’; and hence the omission from standard European mythologies, such as this, of all Biblical narratives even when closely paralleled by myths from Persia, Babylonia, Egypt and Greece” and of all hagiological legends. “

Of course the part that I find interesting and most amusing is that the author admits to Biblical narratives closely paralleling other hagiological legends, but then states they will not be documented in this book.

The introduction continues;

“Myth has two main functions. The first is to answer the sort of awkward questions that children ask, such as: ‘Who made the world? How will it end? Who was the first man? Where do souls go after death?’ The answers, necessarily graphic and positive, confer enormous power on the various deities credited with the creation and care of souls – and incidentally on their priesthoods.”

The author specifically points out that the questions come from children. This would lead one to imply that once grown a person would not be asking such questions because reason and logic would provide the correct answers to replace the childish fairytales. Second the author specifically labels the questions as awkward. I find this interesting simply because it would be the grownup answering them and at some point the adult should have obtained the correct answers which they could then provide to the child thus rendering them “non-awkward” I’m not sure why this author finds these questions to be awkward.

The author continues;

“The second function of myth is to justify an existing social system and account for traditional rites and customs. “

This would lead one to believe that a society is using the myth to justify something that is not reasonable. If something is reasonable and serves a purpose then no justification should be required.

Conclusions;

One thing I have always maintained is that religious books should not have a separate place within book stores or libraries. At best they belong in a subsection of philosophy but I would rather see them shelved in the fiction section or a section for mythological studies.

The Biblical mythologies and all the documentation associated with them should be regarded with the same reproach and skepticism as is given to every other story of fancy and frivolity. For the most part the Jewish Torah, the Muslim Qur’an, and the Christian Bible are horrific accounts of human indecency inflicted by man upon man, with all the credit given to an imaginary monster. The perpetuation of these myths does little more than provide support and justification to the priesthoods that preside over said myths.

It is time to put away the childish things…

Peace

Do you know your commandments?

This posting is a follow up to my previous blog “Your god is a moral adolescent”.

I did not specifically call out the “Ten Commandments” simply because there are questions regarding their origin and what other cultures influenced them. A majority of people in the US would claim to know the Christian Ten Commandments. And, based on my experience and reading, it appears that most of them are wrong.

I’m always amused by people who stand up and claim that our society was founded on the Christian belief system and that our founding fathers constructed our constitution around the Christian commandments.

Point No. 1 –

First amendment battles continue to rage across the US over the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places. Christians argue that they are a part of our western heritage that should be displayed as ubiquitously as traffic signs.

Congressman Bob suggest that the Columbine massacre wouldn’t have happened if the Ten commandments (also called the Decalogue) had been posted in the high school, (this guy is an elected official?) and some government officials have directly and purposely disobeyed court rulings against the display of these ten directives supposedly handed down from on high.

Every Decalogue you see, from the 5,000 pound granite behemoth inside the Alabama State Judicial Building to the little wallet cards sold in Christian book stores, is wrong. You might say, “Really?” Yep you can look it up for yourself. Get out your King James Version, turn to Exodus 20:2-17. You will see the familiar list of rules about having no other gods, honoring your parents, not killing or coveting and so on. At this point, though, Moses is just repeating to the people what God told him on Mount Si’nai. These are not written down in any form (as described by the King James Bible. The other Christian versions are the essentially the same with some wording variations.).

Later, Moses goes back to the Mount, where “God” gives him the “tablets of stone” with rules written on them (Exodus 31:18). But when Moses comes down from the mountain lugging his load, he sees the people worshiping a statue of a calf, causing him to throw a tantrum and smash the tablets on the ground (Exodus 32:19).

In neither of these cases does the bible refer to “commandments”. In the first instance, they are “works” which “God spake,” while the tablets contain “testimony”. It is only when Moses goes back for the new tablets that we see the phrase “ten commandments” (Exodus 34:28)

Personal side note here – When you give your child something important and he/she pitches a fit and breaks said important thing do you turn around and give them another one?

In an interesting turn of events, the commandments on these tablets are significantly different than the ten rules Moses recited for the people, which would lead one to believe that either Moses’ memory is faulty or his “god” changed its mind.

So you may say “what are the commandments given to Moses by his lord”? In case you don’t want to look this up in Exodus 34:13-28, they are;

I. Thou shalt worship no other gods.

II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shall keep.

IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the first fruits of wheat harvest and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.

VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.

VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven

VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.

IX. The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the lord thy god.

X. Thou shalt not seethe (churn or boil) a kid (i.e. young goat) in his mother’s milk.

Now the question that immediately comes to mind is;

The so called creator of the universe is speaking directly to his creations and giving them the 10 most important things they should know to live their lives and this is the list? Seriously! This list is a joke, and oh by the way, there is nothing there about killing, adultery, stealing, or being honest. So the “real” Ten Commandments don’t even offer any socially redeemable advice either - in my opinion, of course.

It appears that the guys who wrote the bible really should have thought this through a bit more. And yes we know they were guys because we have evidence of their social structure of that time period and of that culture.

Reference Notes:

· Point one reference www.disinfo.com publishing 100 things you’re not supposed to know.

· King James Version of the Christian Bible

· My blog; http://positiveatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/your-god-is-moral-adolescent.html

Point No. 2 –

There are other, and much older, social rules by which to live your life. AND, they actually give guidance on how one should interact with his / her fellow human beings.

I offer the example of the Samurai moral code, the Bushido code of conduct, the wisdom and serenity of Confucianism or Buddhism, or the ten commandments of Solon. All of these are older than Christianity and seem to have a much better grasp on the things that should be important to one leading a “good” life.

Personal Note – You cannot mandate morality or “clean living” - these virtues are only relevant to the person or social code of conduct as guidelines. I do not wish to pick up the debate here, but there are levels or degrees of all codes of conduct and only the individual can decide what is appropriate for them. (Yes, there are social orders that must be obeyed for a society to flourish and mature. In this case I am speaking only of one’s own personal growth or maturity.)

In case you aren’t familiar with any of the previous mentioned “commandments” or codes of conduct, I offer you a sampling for your review.

Ten Commandments of Solon;

1. Trust good character more than promises.

2. Do not speak falsely.

3. Do good things.

4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.

5. Learn to obey before you command.

6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.

7. Make reason your supreme commander.

8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.

9. Honor the gods.

10. Have regard for your parents.

The Seven Virtues of a Samurai;

1. Rectitude (義, gi)

2. Courage (勇, yū)

3. Benevolence (仁, jin)

4. Respect (礼, rei)

5. Honesty (誠 makoto, or 信 shin)

6. Honor, Glory (名誉, meiyo)

7. Loyalty (忠義, chūgi)

In conclusion;

My point is that the Christian’s bible versions of the social commandments is at best a list of things that will ensure one celebrates the changing of the seasons and, at worst, was a poor list of items that is useless to anyone after the invention of pasteurized milk and modern farming techniques.

Lastly, if you are going to call for the inclusion of the biblical Ten Commandments in anything you need to, at least, know what you are talking about. The list that everyone is so excited about being in our public buildings is not the commandments that the Christian god carved in stone for Moses.

Now if you are going to defend the “commonly known” commandments and disregard the list that was supposedly presented to Moses in stone, then I would ask you;

1. Where does your god inform you that you can pick and chose what parts of the bible to abide by, and

2. Which ones you can discard as irrelevant?

OR one of my favorite defenses of the apologist,

3. That it was a written in a different time and social structure than our own and thus is not relevant.

The Christian bible will offer an occasional stone of wisdom. The fact is that this wisdom in every instance I am aware of, was already concluded, refined and practiced, or can be taken independent of its source. In both instances the bible serves no purpose.

While Thomas Jefferson’s version of the bible managed to strip away a lot of the nonsense contained in the King James Bible, I would argue that the Christian bible’s sadistic, barbaric and grotesque representation of the human condition and its god, in and of itself should disqualify it from any further use.

Your god is a moral adolescent

I recently had a discussion with someone regarding freewill, consciousness and determinism. This in turn led to morality and the social orders that influence said morality. Consciousness and determinism I’ll save for another time, as that is a long discussion in and of itself.

After the discussion, I had gone back to catch up on some reading on the study of morality and its evolution. This inevitably leads to more discussions with my theist friends and their concepts of their gods.

Several points to make here…

1. Throughout the history of man there have been more than two hundred and fifty recorded gods. Each and every one of them has some variation on a set of standard moral objectives.

2. Moral edicts provided by these gods seem to tie in very closely to the current moral maturity of the person / people collecting the information.

3. Religious text or tenants are usually non-evolutionary and may never be updated or changed, as the particular god is seen as all knowing or omnipotent.

Concerning moral evolution

Per Lawrence Kohlberg, there are six commonly accepted stages of moral evolution. Kohlberg’s work is an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived of by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and is as follows:

Stage 1 – Blind Egoism

Stage 2 – Instrumental Egoism

Stage 3 – Social Relationship Perspective

Stage 4 – Social System Perspective

Stage 5 – Contractual Perspective

Stage 6 – Mutual Respect as a Universal Principle

Now it should be pointed out that some sociologists argue that individuals define their “personal” moral judgments while disregarding the interest of others. This is achieved by ignoring social laws, the human rights of others or any ethical value outlined by a standard social order or those of their gods.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will focus on the social order and perspectives. We all know, based on personal experience, we can manipulate any personal moral or ethic to justify any action we have either engaged in or wish to engage in. See “cognitive dissonance.”

Setting the stage

Now that we have the established base, we can draw conclusions on the moral maturity of our society and the moral maturity of religious doctrine.

My current position is that the religious doctrines I am familiar with, and study, all originate sometime prior to or during the Bronze Age.

Argument

My argument is – having your moral values dictated to you from information that is known to be derived from a social order that is, at best a stage 3 maturity level, is not only counterproductive, it is illogical.

1. Religious doctrine was constructed during a time when the moral maturity was less than the social maturity of our current social order. This is assuming that the goal of a socially conscious group is to advance to the highest moral stage.

Religious doctrine = less than desirable moral maturity goal.

2. Religious doctrine, according to theists, is not allowed to be modified or changed.

Religious doctrine = infallible and reliable

3. Current social order, while not perfect, is at a higher level of maturity than religious doctrine. Assuming that this is a true statement, it provides evidence that the previous variable (No. 2) is no longer valid.

Current social order = higher moral maturity than religious doctrine

4. To achieve a goal of a higher moral maturity level, a society must modify or discard lesser level moral directives.

Religious morals being less than desirable = should be discarded or modified

Conclusion

Current social moral maturity is more advanced than any religious doctrine currently known to man. Therefore, any moral construct based on religious doctrine should be discarded in favor of a higher level of moral maturity.

Based on a simple matrix, it can be demonstrated that the moral maturity of each religion currently in practice may be compared to all other religions and the current social order / maturity level of our society. This leads one to identify “the best” moral guidelines.

I, then, conclude that the current social maturity of our social order is at a higher level to that of any current religious doctrine and, thus, religious morals outlined by said doctrine should be discarded.

Please feel free to poke holes in the argument. I am always interested in creating fallacy-free arguments and positions. I look forward to your feedback.

Emotions, Reason, and No God Required

In a recent discussion I met someone who is recovering from an emotional trauma. As you would expect this person is very upset but moving on to a point in their life where they are finding some peace.

In a completely separate conversation I was discussing emotions, rational decisions and the human element with regard to making decisions and how emotions influence them. While there are theories ranging from David Hume to Max Scheler regarding emotions and their use, it is my observation that regardless of their usefulness we must acknowledge their persuasion on our lives.

If we understand, then we may begin to examine how to use them to our benefit or hold them in check when their purpose is detrimental to rational judgment or logical outcome.

Emotional terrorism

People lie every day. I believe all lies are contrived as deception in one way or another, most lies provide only minimal harm and most are engaged to spare feelings. Some lies are used to hide and some are intended to be malicious.

What does this have to do with anything?

As I have stated before I believe theology is nothing more than mankind’s first attempt at philosophy. It is obvious to some that it failed, but to others it holds great truths and guides their lives beyond reason. I believe theism is simply a lie that has been perpetuated over time because it serves a purpose. That being to provide comfort (sparing someone’s feelings) and used to control. I believe most humans have no grasp of atheism simply because they would never be able to physically handle the impact of the theory of chaos. The simple emotion of fear is too strong to overcome.

My point…

Your emotions are extremely powerful, especially ones concerning love and the heart. Regardless of your theological beliefs or lack thereof I strongly advocate close protection of said heart. When you find a heart that is willing to share with you and you with them, be even more vigilant in how you handle it because someone else has placed a very precious thing within your care.

Using your god as an excuse to destroy someone else is not only a cowardly act, but one that is most despicable in deed itself. Claiming that you are governed by your god and then blatantly engaging in acts that contradict your god’s laws not only makes you a hypocrite, but a morally bankrupt individual.

From the atheist point of view you and you alone are responsible for your decisions and the emotions that guide you. Guard your heart at all costs, but when you find the one with whom you can share it the benefits are bountiful. If you are hurt it is not the fault of a god, it is yours and the person with whom you trusted.

Beware the cliff; it is a long way down

I observe people in relationships where it is obvious to me that underlying tensions are present. I am often offended when I hear derogatory comments made by a person regarding someone whom they profess to love. I have a friend who would refer to his wife as “the old lady” when I questioned him about it he laughed and said, it’s just something people say, it is a term of endearment. I honestly fail to see how anyone could make such a comment about someone they care so deeply about that they would marry them. And by the way, this same person will go to church every Sunday and claim to be a Christian. That just makes me sad.

Your words as well as your actions impact all those around you. Obviously they impact emotions, both yours and other people. If you are in a relationship where someone is constantly “jabbing you in the ribs” or “kicking you in the shin” emotionally, it will not take much to push that relationship over the cliff. Keep your eyes open, burying your head in the sand or avoiding a discussion will only lead to a detrimental end.

In closing…

I take complete responsibility for all my actions. I take complete responsibility for control of my emotions and whom I share them with. If I am hurt by another individual I may ridicule them for not being civilized or not engaging in ethical behavior, but in the end it falls to me to recover, understand and learn from the experience. There is no god required to be a better person in the end.

Love thy Atheist?

In a story published in the Manchester Evening news, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor instructs everyone…

"Love thy atheist neighbor"

Well thank you father for being so… Christian???

I had a discussion not too long ago with a friend who commented; “look what good work all the Christians are doing, building play grounds for kids, helping the homeless, giving to shelters…” The big issue I have always had with putting a label on kindness is just that, you are putting your label on something that doesn’t require a label.

We all have good intentions, thoughts and desires. We all have some really ugly ones too. The difference is that some humans listen to one side and some to the other. The theist is always quick to point out that this is simply their God or their Satan. I maintain it is even more simple than that. It is simply human nature. There really are good people and bad people. Sometime circumstances drive the nature; sometimes the human overcomes the circumstances. The bottom line is, you are either good at heart or you are not. (I believe most people are, but a bit misguided)

People who build playgrounds and give generously of their time are generally doing it because they are good people. They don’t need a label to show why they are good. I know many atheists who are much more generous than I and they do all the things you would associate with a kind hearted person. The difference is the Christians have good PR people. They gather all their friends together (I suspect a few atheists are in there as well) and then tell everyone to “smile for the picture”. Now to be perfectly fair...it should be pointed out that Atheist are quick to point out how they too are helpful. Atheist Volunteers

So what happens if you take away the label? In the perfect world; when there are no religions, what would all the children be left to play in the dirt? Would the homeless be left to fend for themselves? The obvious answer is “NO”. All of the same kind hearted people would do the same things they are doing now.

In a discussion between and atheist and a theist I heard the atheist ask “if you have irrefutable evidence today that god absolutely did not exist, would you start rapping, pillaging and killing.” The theist answered “Well sure, why not?” So for this person his religion was the only thing making him a “good person”. At the conclusion of the conversation the atheist told the theist, “I hope you stay in church for the rest of your life!” I agree. Not only was the theist psychotic but obviously an idiot.

Bottom line…
Be kind to everyone PERIOD! Because you are the guardian of your kind heart and you don’t have to be a god, or worship one, to offer a helping hand.

Christian Social Graces

I try to keep up with most of the news / information going on in the world as it relates to Atheism or Theism in general. For the most part it is the usual noise in the system. Well I ran across a headline that did not strike me as noise.

Atheist Bashing Week

It took me a moment to digest this simply because I could not believe what I was reading from a posting that is supposedly a Christian apologist. Some of these guys can really make some claims or statements and apparently get away with it. (Remember Kent Hovind?)

So my first response is, Mr. D'Souza you are being very offensive in making a statement such as this. If you feel you have not been offensive in this statement I would like to request that your next blog be on Jewish radio host Dennis Prager with which you participated in a debate, and call it JEWISH BASHING WEEK.

I have dismissed Mr D’Souza as nothing more than a regular guy who is using Christianity and right wing politics to drive his on prosperity. This reminds me of someone else like that. Anne Coulter!

Well now my keyboard has burst into flames from typing the name Ann Cou…