If you intresting in sport Buy trenbolone and Buy testosterone enanthate you find place where you can find information about steroids
  • Resources

  • Book of the Month

  • Shopping on Amazon? Use this search box and support Dangerous Talk at the same time.
  • Blog Directories

    blog search directory Religion Top Blogs
  • AdSense

Stop Hating on ‘Sluts’

As Halloween approaches, I always look forward to seeing adults dressing up in sexy costumes. Some people however, maintain the religious demonization of sexuality and label anyone who wears a scantily clad outfit a “slut.” They use this term to demean others who chose to express their sexuality publicly.

I don’t consider myself to be a very attractive person (although my wife would disagree). I am also not a very athletic individual. So when I was growing up, I took the attribute about myself that was the strongest (my intellect) and focused on using it to get ahead. I used my intellect to get attention from others and to validate myself as a person. I even hated those who used other attributes the way I used my brain.

But when you really think about it, what really is the difference? If I were a super good-looking guy, I would probably use my looks to get ahead. If I were athletic, I would probably use my physical skills to get attention. If I were a super sexy person who everyone wanted to bed, I would probably use my sexuality to validate myself the way I use my intellect now.

Some people are naturally smarter than others. Some people are more athletic. Some people are naturally better looking and some people are naturally more sexual. Others have to work at those traits and some may never have those attributes in abundant no matter how much they work at it.  Aside from lingering religious prejudices, the only reason I can think of for why sexuality is demonized is envy.

What does it matter to someone else if another adult enjoys having multiple sex partners? Who cares if someone likes to express their sexual? With that said, if someone wants to be scantily clad, that’s fine with me. I appreciate it. Don’t let the haters get you down. There is nothing wrong with having multiple sex partners and there is nothing wrong with wearing sexy outfits… especially on Halloween.

Oh, and don’t forget to check out the new Book of the Month: Fighting the Crusade Against Sex: Being Sex-Positive in a Sex Negative World

Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality? 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Religious Bullying

I was reading a friend’s blog yesterday and one of the things she experiences seemed similar to what I recently experienced in relation to my friend’s funeral. We were both bullied into silence and forced to hide our lack of belief in the ridiculous.

As it turns out, most people in the greater community of reason tend to put a value on morality. We care about the feelings of others. We are considerate people. The religious don’t seem to care and aren’t considerate and they have no problem using our consideration as a weapon to silence us and force their religious upon us.

Sometimes that is unintentional as it probably was in my friend’s case. Other times, it seems like it is very intentional like I think it was in the funeral case. Religious believers know that they can push us around and force their ridiculous beliefs on us and that we will stay silent because we have a desire to be respectful and we don’t want our objection to be disruptive to others. If we do end up saying something, we then reinforce the old “angry atheist” stereotype. It is a win/win for the religious.

Being in the majority helps them to bully us, but the truth is that they don’t need to be in the majority to bully us in this fashion. All they really need is a screwed up sense of morality… check. They don’t care about people’s lives. All they care about is people’s afterlives. Because of this, they have no problem pushing their religion in any and every situation without regard for appropriateness.

In my friend’s case, her teacher casually brings up religion in a lecture or discussion and if my friend raises an issue about it, it derails the conversation from the topic that is supposed to be discussed.  It was inappropriate for the educator to insert religion into the conversation without consideration of the religious beliefs (and lack of beliefs) of his or her students. In my case, the pastor used the highly emotional situation to push his beliefs knowing full well that we were all grieving and that it was an inappropriate occasion to push religion on those he knows don’t share those beliefs.

I don’t have an answer to this problem. As outspoken and vocal as I am, there are times in which I think it is inappropriate to challenge the religious on their bullshit. The funeral was a perfect example of this. There is no right answer, but there are plenty of wrong answers. In these situations we have become victims of religious bullying because we want to be kind and considerate people and they don’t care to be either.

It seems like the only way out is to be just as inconsiderate and inappropriate as they are. But then we become no better than they are. So we are stuck being pushed around by these religious bullies. 🙁

Enhanced by Zemanta

Soul Murderer

Over the years, I have helped to de-convert many people away from religion. One would think that if the religious really believed what they claim to believe then they would consider me to be a worse criminal than most serial killers. A murderer takes away someone’s life, but I have taken away people’s eternal afterlife. I am a serial soul murderer.

Okay, they still have an afterlife according to most Christians, but that afterlife is filled with eternal torture. What would you think if you were told that someone had half a dozen people locked up in their basement and tortured them for a week? That would be a pretty heinous crime, but not nearly as bad as what I have done according to the majority of Christian believers. I am responsible for torturing people for all eternity merely by dissuading them from their religious beliefs. My words are weapons of eternal torture.

Of course, there are extremely few religious believers who actually think that I am a worse criminal that a serial killer or someone who tortures others in real life. There are no laws on the books protecting the eternal lives or innocent souls. No one is even trying to pass that legislation. Not even Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson. Why not?

Because despite all their talk about how sincere their beliefs are concerning eternal torture and eternal bliss, part of them has their doubts. In fact, I dare say that part of them knows that it is all make-believe. If they really believed this stuff, then they would consider me to be a worse criminal than any serial killer.

Apparently in some Muslim countries they do take their belief in an afterlife seriously. De-converting people away from Islam is a serious crime. In the west, even the most hard-core fundamentalist Christian thinks that type of thing is absurd. Christians just don’t think souls have rights… and neither do I. That is why I continue to murder souls. If you are a Christian, yours may be next.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Funeral Dilemma

A friend of mine died recently. When I first met him, he was a Christian. However, he also had a strong analytic mind and so it didn’t take long for him to research the questions I posed to him. As a result, he de-converted. He told me once or twice about his really religious family. He was also gay and worried about how they would react to that reality. Now my friend is dead and his family was planning the funeral.

Even though he made it clear that he was a Secular Humanist, I had feared that his funeral would be religious. I asked Brother Richard from Friendly Atheist for advice on how to deal with such a dilemma should it have arisen.

In my mind there are essentially two ways I can think of to response should the funeral be religious (although there may be more). The first is that I could be respectful and not vocally object. The second is that I could vocally object, call attention to the rudeness of disrespecting my friend’s Secular Humanist values, and for using the situation to reinforce their religious beliefs.

Brother Richard advice fits in with the first and at the funeral that is exactly what I did. Every situation is different and in my particular situation, part of me wishes I said something. To say that the funeral was religious would be an understatement. In fact, the pastor (who was a non-blood relative) actively tried to convert non-believers. He made a point to insult my friend’s Secular Humanist values too. The family didn’t seem to know my friend and they didn’t seem to want to know him either. Except for one of his aunts who came over to us (his friends) afterward, the rest of his family just wanted to pretend he was someone that he was not.

There were two big musical numbers both of which were super-religious in nature. The pastor cut short the time his friends could speak about our beloved friend so that he could preach to us and talk about how our friend had a God-shaped-hole in his heart. I did get a chance to speak and I talked about our conversations about religion and humanism. But I didn’t really speak out the way I wanted to. I really bit my tongue (metaphorically speaking).

There was a repass scheduled for after the funeral service to gather and talk. I had originally intended to go to that so that I could talk to his other friend about him and remember him better. But it was clear after the funeral service that I would almost certainly have been vocal about how insulting I found the funeral. It turns out that his other friends didn’t really want to go either so we decided to go out for lunch together to talk about all the good times we had with our friend. So once again his family squandered the opportunity to get to know him better through his friends.

I really feel that his family engaged in a form of psychological/religious bullying and it was really inappropriate, disrespectful, and insulting. Part of me wishes I would have been more vocal about my outrage at the funeral, but I just don’t know if that would have been the right thing to do either. I do know that the aunt who was dancing in the isle yelling, “Praise Jesus” every few minutes was not the right thing to do.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Jesus Was a Harold Camping

Christians hate to admit this, but Jesus was the Harold Camping of his day. According to the Bible, he thought that the world was coming to an end soon. He constantly warned everyone to give away all their money and possessions because he didn’t think they would need them since the end was nigh.

Jesus told his followers to leave their family and friends behind and to go and preach the “Good News” from the rooftops. The mission was to warn everyone that the End Times was coming very soon. He preached that a generation would not pass before the end came.

Paul also believed this to be true and that was what he preached. They really didn’t preach that 2000 years later the world would end. Revelations was not a prediction of the future; it was a poetic telling of the recent past.

Jesus was a failed prophet and today Christians ignore all these details and many still believe that the world will come to an end “soon.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

The End is Nigh!

Yea, that’s right the end of Harold Camping’s trek to doomsday is nigh… or near… or something. For me, this has been a long journey. When I was in college back in 1993, I started listening to Camping with my friend Greg. Greg was a believer and a follower of Camping. I interviewed him about Camping in April of this year – HERE.

In May of this year, Camping bought a ton of billboards and many of his followers drove around the country in vehicles with Camping’s End Times prediction on them. The media loved it and was quick to quote Bible verses at Camping and his followers. But Camping spent decades “calculating” his dates. On his website he accuses those who quote scripture at him of taking those verses out of context. He then offers other verses to support his claim that, “we can know.”

When the world is still here on Saturday, it is unlikely Camping will pick another date. He is getting old and it is unlikely he will survive for another Rapture. Of course he could always predict the Rapture at some time in the future past his life expectancy, but this is really unlikely.

Despite what many people believe, I don’t think Camping is lying. That is to say that I don’t think he is laughing all the way to the bank. I think he really believes this crap. He really wants to live to see the End Times and he isn’t alone. As such, all his predictions have been within his live time.

The shock of being wrong about his October 21st date won’t drive him to suicide either… at least not alone. He might predict that in order to be Raptured one must be Rapture Ready. This might imply leaving one’s material body behind and allowing the soul to be free to be Raptured. In other words, it means multiple suicides! But maybe not. He could just be disappoint that 7 billion people haven’t died and then live out the rest of his life. Only time will tell.

Harold Camping Article – Please share them on your favorite social network site:
Rapture: For real this time?
On Faith: What is the appeal of the Rapture?
Advice for May 21st Rapture believers
Interview with former Harold Camping follower
End Times according to atheism

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is it Santorum’s Turn?

I love this election season’s Republican candidates. They are so entertaining. Everyone knows that Mitt Romney is going to be their candidate and even they don’t like him. So week after week, one of the other clowns takes their turn beating him in the polls. This week just might be Santorum’s week.

First, it really looked like “The Donald” would be a tough challenge for Romney. But that was pretty much a joke. So then Bachmann captured the soul of the Religious Right. That was a fun time for everyone except Buchmann and her gay husband. Rick Perry drew his wit and lost. Some still consider Perry to be a threat, but he pretty much lost the religious. As wacko as he is, they think he is too liberal.

The current champion is Herman Cain who no one really takes seriously despite being the current front runner. His 9-9-9 pizza plan is ridiculous. It lowers taxes on the super-rich and raises them on the poor. Aside from being a GOP wet dream, it has zero chance of passing and his gamble to make it the center-piece of his campaign will obviously fail. Plus, it is doubtful that the Tea Party would ever vote for a black man.

Huntsman took a gamble of his own yesterday by purposely skipping the debate in protest. Maybe it will pay off for him, but I doubt it. I like Huntsman the most out of the Republicans and I am routing for him to win their primary, but it won’t happen.

Santorum had a good night last night though. He jabbed with Romney, Perry, and all the rest. He focused on defense and family. His strongest moment was his claim that he could win Pennsylvania which would put a Republican over the top in the Electoral College votes. Republicans might just eat that shit up. Send a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex into a debate and he comes out a king shit.

So my prediction is that Santorum will take his turn as a frontrunner. He may not be ahead on Romney, but he will be right up there for about a week or two.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Dogmatic About Death

Last week, when I was at the Silverman/D’souza debate, Dinesh D’souza accused David Silverman of being dogmatic about his “belief” concerning death. Silverman asserted that there is no afterlife. He later walked back his assertion to say that we know that to the degree that we can know anything. But the thing that gets me is that religious believers like D’souza really are making a dogmatic claim about death.

D’souza kept beating the point that we can’t know what happens after death. This however doesn’t square with his belief in a very specific view about death. He admits that he has a belief in Heaven and Hell. These aren’t just some vague concepts. They are very specific ideas based on no real evidence or reason.

We observe that all creatures die. We are creatures. Therefore we die. There is no reason to believe that we are different at a fundamental level from any other creature. Do mosquitos go to Heaven or Hell too? If not, why not? The Christian would say that mosquitos don’t have souls and humans do. But do we really? How do you know?

There is no evidence for this soul thing. It is just a dogmatic belief created to explain why humans have an afterlife while mosquitos don’t. As an atheist, I am willing to entertain the possibility that an afterlife could exist, but there seems to be no reason to believe that one, let alone two specific destinations exist. In fact, there seems to be good reason to support the idea that there isn’t an afterlife.

We know that our brain is essentially who we are. If our brain is damaged, our personality is damaged. We can adjust the chemicals in our brain in order to adjust our personality. When our brain dies, we die. Our brains are physical. So how can we live on without our brains?

Now, are religious believers willing to entertain the possibility that not only is their specific view of an afterlife is wrong, but that there is no afterlife at all? No, I don’t think they are. In fact, I doubt very much that even D’souza would honestly entertain that possibility. So who is the dogmatic one?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Christians Stole Death

Over the weekend, one of my college friends died. He was a young guy and would occasionally comment on my facebook wall when I was discussing politics. While he might have denied it, I claim him as the first person I deconverted away from Christianity. What I realized however is that much of the words we use to discuss death have a decidedly Christian ring to them.

When we say, “Rest In Peace” what are we really saying? The dead don’t really rest and they have no feeling of angst of inner peace either. We all know this and yet the phrase is still used even by atheists.

People don’t like to say that someone died, so they often say that they “passed away.” I guess this one isn’t so bad, but to me it also smacks of supernatural. Passing implies moving from one place to another and there is no place that the dead have passed away to.

In the case of my friend, he was “taken too early in life.” Taken where and by whom? All these phrases imply an afterlife, which almost certainly don’t exist.

Then of course, there are the obviously religious phrases which just beat us over the head; “He went home to God,” “God took him to a better place,” etc.

To me, I would like to say that I miss my friend and that he will be remembered. He isn’t in Heaven or Hell, he lives on in our memories. A fellow friend put it this way, “He was a bright light in the world and a deep thinker who thought about the issues of our time… It is not how long you live, but how you lived.” He will be missed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Heart/Brain Dichotomy

Thinking with your brain is important, but some things only your heart knows. The only problem with this is that hearts don’t ‘know’ anything. The heart is a muscle that pumps blood.

Religious believers are always trying to separate human compassion from the brain and transfer that capacity onto the heart. I get that there is a certain metaphoric use of the heart as the center of emotion, but I think that some religious believers take that metaphor literally.

Our brain is the center of both our cognitive reasoning and our emotional feeling. As a matter of biology, we are our brains. This is why our brains are so tasty to zombies. 😉

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Was The Master Debater?

Last night I attended a debate between American Atheist president, Dave Silverman and Ann Coulter’s ex-fiancée and hack, Dinesh D’Souza. The question on the table was, “Is Christianity good for the world?”

While the debate was held at the University of Pennsylvania, I noticed that the crowd was heavily religious. When I left, I saw many of the people getting on a bus. So I am guessing that they were bussed in probably from D’Souza’s Kings College in New York. It is also interesting to note that the moderator identified himself as a Conservative Christian and often times when Silverman was speaking; D’Souza appeared to be conferring with the moderator.

Silverman started out strong. He focused on the three S’s, “Society, Science, and Sex.” He cited specific studies showing that religion was indeed not good for society. The main study he cited was on societal health of various nations. One statistic he quoted I found particularly interesting was that 95% of Christians have pre-marital sex. He also mentioned that Christians have a higher divorce rate and that they actively push to prohibit others from marrying (i.e. gays). There were several other statistics cited on a range of issues. On the issue of Creationism, he had a great quote that I will try to paraphrase, “Christianity dumbs down society so Christians don’t have to admit they are wrong.”

D’Souza started out with his usual opening that he will rely on facts and reason and that he will make no appeal to the Bible. This is great for him because no one really wants to defend the Bible. In fact, later in the debate D’Souza actually distanced himself from the Bible and claimed that “atheists view the Bible as fundamentalists” and that the Bible isn’t a science book or a book about politics. This is interesting considering that much of his later argument was geared toward showing that Christianity is responsible for our government.

He pointed out that the charges Silverman made (Stem Cell Research, gay rights, abortion, and Creationism) only relate to America currently. He actually said, “Christianity is only bad recently.” This to me was a pretty surprising confession that went largely unnoticed by the audience and even by Dave Silverman.

A large amount of time was spent talking about how Jefferson used the word “Creator” in the Declaration and that humanity is all a bunch of evil sinners. Dinesh then talked about how Christianity opposed slavery and MLK Jr. was a Christian. Then he practically called moral philosopher Peter Singer a Nazi and claimed that only about 5% of Christians really believe in Creationism.

Silverman correctly pointed out that none of the positive attributes D’Souza credited Christianity with are actually in the Bible. I thought he should have mentioned that slavery was in the Bible, but it came up later in the debate anyway. Dave tried to refocus the debate on how Christianity is bad for America…Today!

When D’souza touted out a handful of scientists who were Christian like Newton and Kepler, Silverman pointed out the difference between Christians and Christianity saying, that there are good people who are Christians, but the belief system of Christianity is not good for the world.

There was a cross examination part of the debate where each opponent grilled the other. This got pretty heated and I think it worked against Silverman because D’souza kept throwing more stuff out there in his answers and Silverman didn’t really get a chance to respond to those things. I was surprised when Dave actually wanted to have a second round of this when there wasn’t really supposed to be a second round.

In this cross examination, Silverman asked the main question of the debate, “Why is Christianity good for America?” Dinesh responded by saying that the Constitution was created on the mountain of Christian principles. I have heard this type of reasoning before and I will have to write an Examiner article on that down the road. It is a theme that Dinesh used quite a bit during the debate.

Silverman also asked which D’souza had more loyalty towards, the Constitution or the Bible? This really backfired on Silverman. Dinesh used it to transition into a conversation on morality which Dave really couldn’t address in a short amount of time. Even if he had, it would have been too much of a distraction from the actual debate. This is a real problem that atheists have to deal with. We really need to be able to explain the entire field of ethics in a short sentence or two. I’m not really sure how to do that yet.

In any case, the debate started to spiral out of control at this point. One interesting thing that D’souza said that again got left unnoticed was when he compared morality to taste. This is normally not something Christians do and I am sure Dinesh didn’t mean to do it. That might be why it was ignored by Dave and even the audience.

Within the morality debate, D’souza also made an interesting point that morality doesn’t come from the Bible. He said that morality comes from our conscience and that the Bible ratifies our conscience. To me, this is Ivory Tower Christianity. It is an interesting idea, but it isn’t the belief that the vast number of Christians in America today hold. In fact, it reminded me of Dinesh’s earlier statement that only about 5% of Christians actually believe in Creationism. According to the Harris Interactive poll, that number is actually closer to 45%.

Silverman asked which Christianity does D’souza believe is good for America, pointing out that there are 33,000 different denominations. Here D’souza climbed back up to his Ivory Tower and tried to distance Christianity from Waco… you know, those people who picket funerals. I think he meant the Westboro Baptists, but they both have start with “W” at least. He insisted the the core of Christianity was the same and that “mainstream” Christianity had the monopoly.

D’souza questioned Silverman on the afterlife. Silverman claimed that when we die we don’t go anywhere. This Dinesh claimed was dogmatic. He says he doesn’t know but later claimed that Heaven and Hell could be other universes outside our own universe with their own separate laws of physics. At the end of the debate he even talked about how much he was frightened of Hell. It seems like he was being dishonest when he said that he doesn’t know what happens when we die. I think he does claim to know… just not when he wants to make Silverman look like the dogmatic one.

Silverman re-traced his steps to say that he knows it as much as he can know anything. He pointed out that every creature dies and that there is no reason to believe that we are any different. D’souza claimed that caterpillars don’t die, they turn into butterflies, but that seems like a poor analogy to me.

The audience Q&A was pretty boring and D’souza actually altered the rules so that he got to respond to every question even the ones directed toward Silverman. One interesting thing was that all the Christians who got up to ask a question started out with a long sermon and their questions weren’t really all that clear. In fact, Dave had to ask one person which question he should answer. The atheist questioners on the other hand asked one pointed question and then gave up the mic.

During this period, Dinesh attacked Richard Dawkins as a scientist, while crediting Christianity for most of the scientific discoveries in history. He even stated that there was plenty of reason for a flat Earth. I found that surprising and no one really bat an eye at it. He also tried to distance himself from the Bible’s support of slavery to which Silverman accused him of cafeteria style Christianity.

Then the Hitler/Stalin card was played by a questioner. D’souza jumped on this and claimed that communism was a result of atheism. He then continued by conflating evolution with eugenics. If that wasn’t enough, he stated that this was  “admitted by Dawkins.” I really don’t know where these Christians come up with this nonsense.

Silverman then summarized D’souza’s position as “everything good is from Christianity and everything bad is from atheism.” Christianity takes the credit for everything.

One Christian audience member thought he had a point no one has ever considered before and brought up the Argument by Design… after he gave some sermon about a variety of other topics. Another audience member delivered some rambling sermon which eventually ended with a question about the Shroud of Turin proving Christianity. The conservative Christian moderator was so embarrassed by this question he just skipped that guy completely and went on to the next question.

The final question was for Dinesh dealing with the 9/11 Cross case that American Atheists is fighting. He went into a tirade about the evil establishment clause and then called it, “religious bigotry.”
The moderator then wanted Dave to give his closing statement, but Dave pushed to address that 9/11 Cross case before he began his closing remarks. Three quotes stood out to me in his closing:

1.    “Ignorance of facts is not evidence for fiction.”
2.    “I dare and beg you to research your religion.”
3.    “Christianity is not just bad for America, it’s bad.”

For Dinesh’s closing he talked about how Christian missionaries exploited the people of India to convert to Christianity because the caste system was so bad. I don’t think that helped his case, but maybe I missed the point there. Then he accused atheism of the before mentioned dogmatism in saying that when we die we are dead. He concluded by talking about his fear of eternal Hell.

There was a lot of stuff covered in this debate and I surely left a lot out. Overall, I think Dave Silverman did okay, but I think he could have done better at some points. I wish he could have talked about the various civil rights fights and name dropped prominent atheists in those fights. By ignoring that, he conceded that Christianity was responsible for those fights and that just isn’t true. I wrote an article on this for Examiner: Human Rights: Religion vs. secularism.

Also, I wish Dave could have really gotten into the morality debate, but I don’t think that would have been possible. The sad fact is that ethics is a pretty complex subject matter and I really don’t know how to boil it down to a sound-byte. I think that Sam Harris’s book, The Moral Landscape is the best book on the subject matter. At one point during the morality back and forth, I thought about John Rawls and the idea of the original position also.

My view is that when you can’t give a good sound-byte, you should direct people to a good source so that they could do their own research. I was glad that Dave really pushed people to go to the internet and research their religion but I think he should have recommended particular websites and books. But overall, I don’t think any of the Christians there were particularly swayed. Still, the debate might lead to some interesting conversations on their bus ride back to King’s College in New York.

My friend and fellow Examiner, ShaunPhilly also wrote up his analysis of the debate.

Here is an additional thought about formal debates with the religious in general: Formal debates are a win for atheists.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Double The Debating Fun

Yesterday was another Republican Primary Debate and tonight I will be attending the Silverman/D’souza Debate. These are however very different debates with very different objectives. Both are entertaining for their own reasons.

The political debate is focused on persuading people to support other people while the religion debate is focused on persuading people to change fundamental ideas about the world. In politics, the intended audience for the debate might not have an opinion or if they do, their opinion is generally not resistant to change. That isn’t the case for religion debates. The audience generally comes into the debate fully supporting a particular position. In a way, they are rooting for their champion.

For the Republican Debate, I don’t have a dog in that fight so for me it is pure entertainment. I enjoy watching the candidates out crazy each other and attack each other’s positions. Although, I have to admit that I occasionally find myself rooting for Jon Huntsman.

With the religion debate, I am much more invested. I am definitely excited to see how Dave Silverman does. I consider Dave to be a friend and I obviously agree with his position in the debate. However, I try to put myself in the shoes of a neutral party when observing debates and I have been known to be very critical of my fellow atheists in these situations.

D’souza is a very smart guy and he knows his way around the debating podium. He knows how to distort facts and name drop to make it seem like he has the scientific high-ground when he doesn’t. Normally, I would think this debate is a bad idea for Silverman, however I think that Silverman’s debate style may be perfect for this situation. When most people debate the religious, they tend to give legitimacy to them by arguing their points specifically. This implied that their points have at least some level of credibility.

This is where I think Silverman might be the ideal opponent against Dinesh. Silverman isn’t known for debating particulars. Instead, he tends to focus people back on to the ridiculousness of the proposition. I’ll let you know how it works out.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is Mormonism a Cult?

Rick Perry’s pastor friend recently called Mormonism a cult because Rick Perry’s opponent Mitt Romney is a Mormon. But I have found that a surprisingly number of Christians make this claim also. The fact is that Mormonism is a cult… and so are Christianity and every other religion.

A while ago, I did a two-hour Dangerous Talk radio show on the history of cults. I did a lot of research into that show. Now however the tape of that show has been lost. I can’t find my notes either. However, I remember some of it and now I also have the benefit of Wikipedea which I didn’t have back then. So I want to talk about this topic briefly.

The original meaning of the term, “cult” was a religious practice. In this original sense, all religions are cults by definition. Christians often tell me that they don’t have a religion and that they just have a relationship with God. That is a cult too!

Then in the 1940s (although I remember that my original research suggested that it was closer to the 1960s but I’m not going to argue with Wikipedea), Christians got their hands on the term and turned it into a pejorative. The new definition was any religion other than the established view of Christianity.

If I remember correctly, “good” Christian parents became worried that their children were leaving Christianity for other more hippy religious ideas. Christian parents started to hire professional “de-programmers” to get their teenaged children back into Christianity. The problem occurred when some teens became Born-Again Christians when their parents were more mainstream believers. So the parents started to hire the same de-programmers to get their children out of the fervent fundamentalist Christianity.

This is where the definition of cult changed again to its current definition of a religious belief which uses mind-control, psychological and sometimes physical abuse, etc. Even by these newer standards, I think the case could be made that most religions today fit the bill. Religious mind-control starts at an early age. When it comes to most forms of Christianity, children are psychologically abused into believing that if they doubt or reject the beliefs, they will be tortured for all eternity in Hell. Guilt concerning sexuality and “sins” is also very psychologically damaging. Many Christians are fans of corporal punishment which is physically abusive.

The main difference I see between cults like Scientology and Christianity is that Christianity is much more subtle and the form of abuse it uses has become much more accepted as “normal” while Scientology is much less subtle in their techniques. Christianity used to be more in-your-face like Scientology but over time they took over society and used that domination to control people without overtly torturing them.

Mormonism is no more or less a cult than most other forms of Christianity. Sure, there are some factors within Mormonism which may seem more cultish to outsiders, but a look at evangelical Christianity shows similar rituals and beliefs.

Enhanced by Zemanta

In My Reality…

Sometimes I get into conversations with New Age religious believers. Interestingly enough, they often start the conversation with three interesting words. Christians sometimes use these same three words in conversations too, but they usually don’t start the conversation with them. Those three words are, “In my reality…”

The problem is that I think these people don’t really understand what the term “reality” means. We don’t all live in separate realities. There may be other parallel realities out there, but as far as I know no one has been to one and no one can even prove they exist. While it makes for great sci-fi, going to another reality is not yet a reality (sorry, couldn’t resist).

So for practical purposes, there really is only one reality and we all live in it regardless of what religious believers might believe. For example, no one would take me seriously if I said that in my reality babies can fly. In fact, if I really believed that and tried to throw a baby off the roof, I bet you that those people who claim that they have their own reality will be pretty certain that my reality is not really reality.

It seems to me that claims of individualistic realities are really just a way of expressing false tolerance. It isn’t a statement that everyone’s realities are equally valid. Instead, it is just a way of protecting beliefs that have no evidence and are usually even contrary to the evidence. Anyone who claims that the laws of physics are different in their reality just isn’t living in reality (metaphorically speaking).

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Missionary Position

The public relations arm of the Christianity long ago realized that they can get more converts with honey. So they came up with this idea of going to under developed nations and helping them out. While they are at it, they can push their religion on those who are physically and emotionally not in a position to reasonably debate them. This helps them win converts at home and in the third world nations as well. This is called the Missionary position.

Personally, I find it unconscionable to push unverified beliefs on people who are not in a position to physically, cognitively, or emotionally to disagree. Even though many people agree with me on this, the argument has always been made that at least the Missionaries are saving lives and helping people. Even many atheists are willing to let this extremely immoral behavior pass because of the services these religious people provide. Now however, there is an alternative.

For example, in the horn of Africa there is wide spread drought and famine. Tens of thousands of people have already died due to the famine and millions more are at risk. Church groups see this as a perfect opportunity to proselytize. Atheists on the other hand see this as a great opportunity to help people and not push beliefs on them. In this way we can also lead by example and show people how wrong it is to take advantage of these people.

Foundation Beyond Belief is working with various other secular organizations to help those in this region of Africa. As a community, I think it is really important to help other human beings in a secular way without pushing religion on them. You can help. Please check out the Foundation Beyond Belief and donate to their campaign.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Political Hostage Taking 101

I have had this conversation before and it really does seem that my fellow progressives are just not getting it. Now that Chris Christie has made it clear that he is NOT running for President in 2012 and Rick Perry has fallen out of favor with both the Republican establishment and the Religious Right, it is pretty clear that Romney will be the Republican candidate in 2012. This puts Obama in a difficult spot.

According to David Axelrod, Obama’s re-election strategy is to make it clear that progressives can either vote for Obama or vote for the insane Republican candidate. This however is not a solid strategy if Romney is the candidate. Romney is a super corporatist candidate, but Obama isn’t much better. Romney isn’t as insane as Perry or Bachmann either. Most moderates realize that Romney is actually pretty liberal on many issues, but that in order to win the nomination he has to appeal to the wackos.

Romney’s record isn’t really crazy. Sure there are tons of areas that progressive do and should disagree with him about, but rhetoric aside, moderates kind of like him and few are really scared that he will blow up the planet because of some ridiculous religious belief. He could be President and the world won’t come to an end. Sure it would be worse, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

Now Obama will need every vote he can get. He will need his base which has become pretty disillusioned with him as of late. Personally, I think this is a great thing. Based on Obama’s record, in 2012 he is going to try to appease someone. He is either going to try to appease the right or he is going to try to appease his base. Up until now, his strategy has been to appease the right and give his base the choice of the insane Republican or him. Now, he can’t use that strategy so he might actually try to appease his progressive base.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Politician’s Use of Religious Language

In a debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe, Harris talked about how when people talk about their belief that Elvis is still alive in job interviews, etc. there is an immediate price to be paid. When politicians invoke religious terminology there should be a price they too should have to pay.

Let’s be honest here, if you write a letter to Rick Perry and tell him not to use religious language, he almost certainly won’t pay any attention to you. However, if enough of us wrote to Democratic politicians, we can probably get them to stop using religious language. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t write to Republican politicians, we should. It just means that we aren’t going to win that fight right now.

I also think we should start writing letters to the editor of various local newspapers and let them know that you find it unacceptable when local politicians invoke religion in order to appear more pious. You can even cite Matthew 6:5-6 to support your point.

The goal is to make politicians pay a price for their use of religious language. That price is our support and also in their public image. This isn’t going to happen overnight, but if we call our local politicians out on their use of religious language consistently, they will slowly stop using this language. Non-religious people are a growing demographic and they know this. We need to show them that this is actually the case and that they have to work to get our vote and support. By using religious language, they are intentionally alienating us and we will no longer accept that insult.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tea Party Stupidity Infecting Democrats

Awhile back, I met a Democratic Party candidate running for a local county office. I have met this candidate several times since I am active within the county party. But not long ago, my friend learned that this candidate rejects the science of evolution in favor of Creationism.

It is one thing for the wacky Teabaggers to reject solid science in favor of Biblical bullshit, but when this crap infects Democratic candidates… well my tent just isn’t that big. I can’t abide this type of religious bullshit.

When I first heard about this, I asked the candidate on facebook if he indeed rejected the solid science of evolution in favor of young Earth Creationism. I of course asked that in a more polite manner since I actually wanted to get an answer from him. He dodged the question so I pushed him on it a little bit more. He again dodged the issue. So I let it go. Now months have gone by and so I asked him again. He immediately unfriended me and threatened to report me to facebook for “harassment” if I contacted him again. I found out this morning that despite not contacting him again, he still reported me to facebook and I had trouble logging as a result.

I didn’t realize that asking a candidate about his position on an important issue was considered harassment. I was pretty polite every time I talked to him. My tone was not combative at all. I wonder who he will threaten to report me to if I called his campaign office or confronted him at a party function. I really think we need to start holding candidates (all candidates) accountable for their religious rhetoric and in some cases, extreme religious beliefs.

To anyone in Delaware County, PA please be aware that Keith Collins who is running for County Council is anti-science and apparently anti-questions about his views on the subject. I won’t tell you who you should or shouldn’t vote for, but I think everyone should be aware of his extreme beliefs before voting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

Today is International Blasphemy Day! I love holidays like this. For one thing, I am a huge supporter of free speech and this is an opportunity to express free speech in a creative way that hopefully sends a powerful message to those who need it most. For this reason, I consider it among the most wonderful times of the year.

If you don’t know what Blasphemy Day is or why it started, I posted an Examiner article on that yesterday. For me, the only thing that is really blasphemous to me is when religious believers attempt to restrict free speech or when they complain that certain forms of speech are indecent. This is why films today have almost no nudity and very little sexuality. There are whole organizations dedicated to preventing “indecency” in the entertainment industry and every other industry too.

Since sexuality drives these religious believers so crazy, I decided to put together a small gallery of the sexiest blasphemy photos I could find on the web (without nudity because the religious have partially won this war already) in my latest Examiner article. Please check it out and pass it around to all your favorite social networks.

What I would love to do is over the next few years, start taking back that partial victory that the religious believers have won. I want to see anti-nudity and indecency laws repealed.

Yeah, there are countries where the laws are so extreme that people are jailed for life, tortured, and/or killed for indecency crimes. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have work to do here in America too. No one in America gets the death penalty for being topless but there still shouldn’t be restricted from being topless. In fact, while HBO and other premium television channels feature topless actresses, they never show men’s penises? Why not? My wife wants to know. Quite frankly, she is right and I think these stations should show men’s genitalia too.

When was the last time you saw full frontal male nudity in a mainstream film? Over the last twenty years there has been less female nudity in mainstream films too. This is because the religious fundamentalists have organized and have been successful. Now it is our turn. Blasphemy Day is our opening volley.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Bible and Economics

Some Christians believe that the Bible has answers to every question and I suppose that if to read into it enough that is true. However, if you read into it enough you can find contradictory answers to every question too. Since we are in an economic crisis, I thought I would consult the Bible about economics.

Well surprise, surprise, the Bible supports two contradictory extremes of the economic spectrum and no middle ground. On one side there is the prosperity gospel. This is the view that God rewards the righteous with prosperity on Earth. This means that the rich are wealthy because they are righteous and the poor are poor because they are not. The supporters of this view often cite Malachi 3:10, Matthew 25:14-30, John 10:10, Philippians 4:19, and 3 John 1:2.

Then there is the opposite extreme. Instead of God rewarding the rich, he rewards those who give away all their wealth… all of it! To best illustrate this view, check out this video from GodIsImaginary (skip to the 2:15 mark… or just watch the whole video because it is awesome!):

Enhanced by Zemanta

Activism Doesn’t Pay

“Being a freedom fighter, a force for good, is a wonderful thing. You get to make your own hours, looks good on a resume, but the pay… sucks.” – Alfred Bester, Babylon 5

Being an atheist activist or any activist for that matter is a lot like being a freedom fighter in that sense. Sure there are a handful of people who might write a best-selling book and make a lot of money, but most of us are not so fortunate.

Yesterday, Sam Harris posted a blog post about how the nature of publishing had changed and how making money publishing books is becoming harder to do. In my opinion, this fact will make it even harder for activists to make a living. Most blogger activists like me hope to publish at some point, but as it becomes increasingly harder for publishers to make money, it will also be increasingly harder to get published.

Self-publishing is one avenue, but it rarely makes enough money to support someone. For me, the only revenue I get for my activism is the occasional donation (mainly from the same three or four people) and my Examiner articles (which don’t pay much). I am super grateful to the people who do donate (especially to one person in particular) and I do my best to use those funds to further my atheist activist activities. I often use some of the Examiner money for the same purpose.

Ideally, I would love to be able to not just fund further atheist activism but to also be able to pay my bills. I have noticed that a lot of atheist activists are having the same problem. Even people like Sam Harris who does presumably pay his bills through his work are struggling to find ways to increase their income. I have the pre-requisite amazon bookstore, google ads, and shirts for sale and none of that really helps.

So I am open to suggestions. How can atheist activists make a living? How can we continue to push memes and get ideas out there in the market place of ideas and pay the bills through our hard work?

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Don’t Judge But My Invisible Dragon Thinks You’re a Dick

I really do hate when religious believers tell me that they don’t judge people and then proceed to call those who don’t believe in their ridiculous beliefs evil sinners. When I call them out on it, they inform me that they aren’t calling me an evil sinner, God is through the Bible. Well shit, that’s much better. I’m sure glad they weren’t judging me.

This is just a typical Christian passive/aggressive attack. When they presume to speak for their deity, they are just pushing their own opinions… unless they are claiming to know the mind of God… which they always tell me that we can’t know because we are mere mortals and evil sinners and stuff.

The beauty of the Bible is that you can pretty much justify anything with it. If you want to support slavery, there are verses for that. If you want to speak out against slavery, there are verses for that too. If you support murder, you can easily find verses for that and if you want to oppose murder, there are verses for that too. There are verses both for and against rape, stealing, abortion, fascism, etc. There are verses for and against peace, love, and compassion too. The Bible really is a mirror to the soul… to use the old cliché.

So when a Christian bases his or her opinion on the Bible, it is not God’s opinion but their own. If a Christian claims that God considers homosexuality a sin, then it is really that Christian who is intolerant of gays. There are plenty of verses every Christian ignores so there is no reason why they can’t ignore the anti-gay verses in the same way they ignore the women are property verses. I’m just say’n.

Enhanced by Zemanta

#OccupyWallStreet vs. The Tea Party

I am a big supporter of the #OccupyWallStreet protests that most of the media isn’t talking about. Recently, I read an article in the New York Times by Ginia Bellafante in which she criticizes the movement and attempts to justify the lack of media coverage with a lack of credibility on the part of the #OccupyWallStreet movement.

Her criticisms are that the protests aren’t really that large,  individual protesters have individual issues, and that there isn’t a focused goal. This is allegedly why most of the major media hasn’t covered the more than a week long on going protest.

According to the article, the protest actually only had several hundred people, not the 2000 that was being promoted by the group. Well, considering that over one hundred people were actually arrested and the protests still had plenty of people left, it seems that several hundred just might mean 20 hundred or for the math people out there, 2000. But let’s take her number for the sake of argument and say “several hundred.” The fact that a handful of Tea Party protesters were able to get massive news coverage shows just how odd it is that a protest that has been going on for over a week with “several hundred” people gets very little to no media coverage. Could you imagine the news coverage if several hundred Teabaggers were protesting somewhere?

It seems to me that the protests center around that fact that Wall Street has destroyed our economy by buying politicians to make rules that allow them to risk tax payer money with no down side risk to themselves. Now there are a number of elements involved. You have Wall Street greed, the buying of politicians, government corruption, poor regulations, out of control gambling on the part of Wall Street speculators, the wealth gap between rich and poor, the high unemployment rate, etc. But all of these things are interconnected. Sure there are going to be a few wackos complaining about the New World Order or the Federal Reserve, but even these wacky people are discussing related issues.

How focused was the Tea Party in comparison? People who showed up to those rallies were protesting government spending, Wall Street bailouts, government “take over” of health insurance, social security, illegal immigrants, taking prayer out of schools, abortion, Hollywood, gays, Obama’s birth certificate, Obama being black, and even the New World Order and the Federal Reserve. They didn’t seem all that focused either and were in fact much less focused than the Occupy Wall Street protests. The media covered it as general frustration.

What are their demands? Occupy Wall Street could be better with this admittedly. I think they should come out with a list of viable and credible demands. Such a list might include forcing Wall Street to pay back the bailout (like the auto industry had to do), stronger regulations on the financial district, stronger campaign finance laws, an amendment reversing the Citizens United decision, criminal prosecutions for particular CEOs who broke the law, etc.  But what were the demands of the Tea Party? Hang Obama from a tree? Seriously, did they have any demands?

Ten years ago, I would have laughed at the idea of a media blackout ordered from corporate interests, but after Cenk quite MSNBC because of the conversation they had with him to tone down the criticisms on Washington and Wall Street, I have realized that there really is something to this type of top-down media control. Sure we all know Fox News does this kind of thing, but MSNBC? Plus, CNN partnered with the Tea Party to host a debate. Don’t get me wrong though, I think ratings are still important to these news stations, but every once in awhile there does seem to be some decisions made by corporate which are questionable.

How many Tea Party protests went on for longer than a few hours? This is a protest that has gone on for over a week and was largely peaceful despite unprovoked police brutality. Politicians had to find obscure laws that haven’t been used in over 150 years to justify some of the early arrests. Few if any of the #OccupyWallStreet protest signs have misspellings. No one is saying anything racists and few if anyone are saying anything even remotely controversial. These are generally well educated people. I guess the media only covers stupid clowns running around yelling racial slurs.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Consistency of God… or Not

One of the big selling points for God is that he is alleged to be unchanging. One Christian I recently talked to put it this way, “God is the same today as he was yesterday.” The implication is that God’s views are consistent and unchanging.

In one sense, this makes sense. If God knows everything, then his “standard” is always the same. He will never receive new information to cause him to change his view. The only reason why humans change our opinions on any given issue is if we are presented with new information either in the form of evidence or an argument we had not heard before. But if God is all knowing, then no new evidence or new arguments can be made and so he would have no reason to change his view… ever.

On the other hand, the Bible does not agree with this reasoning. There are many places in the Bible where God “relents” or changes his mind on a particular course of action after being persuaded by an evil sinning human. Plus, just try bringing up an Old Testament verse advocating stoning, slavery, or some other horrifyingly immoral action and see what your average Christian has to say about it. Most will tell you that the old law no longer applies because Jesus fulfilled the convenient… or something. That is just a sly way of saying that God changed his mind.

Now of course, God doesn’t actually exist and this is just an interesting discussion which shows just how poorly thought out the concept of a God really is.  But it is always interesting to bring these discussions to the religious and see what they have to say on this dichotomy. Will they support a God that is all knowing and therefore can’t change or will they support the character as he is portrayed in the Bible, who clearly isn’t all knowledge and has changed quite a bit over time.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Microscope Honesty

I hate when people go out of their way to appear honest. This usually means that they really aren’t honest and are just trying to put up a false front. However, sometimes actually being honest isn’t enough. For atheists we not only have to be honest, but since we are often under a microscope by theistic believers, we have to appear honest when viewed under that microscope as well.

What I mean by this is that we shouldn’t put up a “pious” (for lack of a better term) front, but we should make sure that if we are put under a microscope, our virtue is easy to discover. This of course necessitates being virtuous and that may not always be what theists believe it to be.

My point is that we should be aware that as vocal atheists we might at some point be under a microscope. Now some people are less vocal and therefore less likely to be under that microscope. So it really depends on how vocal one is. I am pretty vocal, so I have thought a lot about how I would look under that moral microscope.

When religious leaders are put under the moral microscope and their immoral behavior is discovered, they make a big show of asking God for forgiveness. For us, I am pretty confident that most vocal atheists are honest from the start. But because we are atheists, we need not be leaders to undergo this microscope treatment. This means we ought to be authentic and virtuous even in the small aspects of our lives and dealings.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Ninth Commandment

After reading Sam Harris’s new book, Lying, I started to wonder what Christians would think about this book. After all, Harris is making a case for the Ninth Commandment. He is basically saying that in almost every situation, telling the truth is better than telling a lie.

While this seems to be an intersection in which atheists and theists might be in agreement, I don’t think Harris is advocating that liars ought to be tortured for all eternity in Hell (as many Christians believe). On the contrary, Harris is making the case that lying is not moral on purely secular and logical grounds.

How might Christians view this book? Would they praise it and say, “See, the Bible told you that lying was wrong and here is a leading atheist who agrees with us!” Or will they say, “Harris has it all wrong, lying is wrong only because God says so.” Perhaps, they won’t even bother to read it considering that Sam Harris is an atheist.

Interestingly enough, it has been my experience that Christians lie quite a bit more than atheists anyway. Many seem to have no problem deceiving people if they believe that they can save their souls in doing so. A good example of this was when I was in college, one of the Christian groups put on a program about getting over alcoholism. They made sure that there was no mention of religion on the posters for the event and the whole event was just a deception to get people to come learn about Jesus.

Even in the Bible, God lies:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. – 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Please check out my review of Lying by Sam Harris and let me know what you thought of the book.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Death Makes Life More Meaningful

Religious believers seem to think that if life is finite, then life is meaningless. As an atheist, I think the opposite is true. The very fact that life is finite is the very thing that makes life meaningful.

If we had eternal life, then what would be the point of it? We strive and work hard in life because life is short and so we feel an urgency to live our lives with passion. Every moment has value because once that moment is gone, it will never come again. By taking death out of the equation, religious believers also take the passion out of our existence. If we were to live forever, then a moment is just a moment and we have an infinite number of other moments ahead of us.

However, all this is aside from the obvious fact that regardless of what has more value has no real determination on what is actually true. As a point of fact, there is no evidence to suggest that life is infinite.

No one would suggest that all maggots have a choice between Heaven and Hell. Christians have a hard enough time telling children that there is no Heaven and Hell for dogs. Whether believers like it or not, humans are just animals with more developed mental capacities. So the question for believers is, what makes us any different than the cockroach? The theist answer, we have souls. Oh yeah, prove it. An eternal life is neither desirable nor is it true.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Brick Wall Argument

I always find it interesting when Christians tell me right from the start that they will never be convinced that they are wrong. But what is really interesting is that they then project that stone wall mentality onto me. They tell me that they will never be convinced or that neither of us will be able to convince the other.

As a point of fact, I was once a religious believer and now I am not. I was convinced based on evidence and reasoning that God almost certainly doesn’t exist. So I think it is possible for the Christian to convince me (but not probable) if he or she presents strong evidence and solid reasoning for their position. However, they do not believe that any evidence of solid reasoning on my part will convince them by their own admission.

Then they make claims that I have, “closed my heart of God.” It seems to me that my “heart” is open to being persuaded if strong evidence and solid reasoning is presented. They on the other hand have closed their hearts and minds to the possibility that there might not be a God and that they might have been mistaken.

I think we can find a way around this brick wall. If religious believers attempt to put up such a wall, we call them out on it. This is what makes their beliefs dogmatic. We ought to point out that we are open to changing our view, but that it is they who are not. They have admitted that talking to them is like talking to a wall.

Once they are able to admit that they are open to the possibility that they might be wrong and that God might not exist, then they will start down the journey of questioning their religion on their own. But we have to knock down that wall of dogmatism in order to get them to even consider the possibility.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Never Tell Me The Odds

Christian apologists really have no understanding of statistics. They are always making claims like, “The chance of the Earth being in just the right spot for life as we know it to exist are…” Unless that number is 100% they are wrong.

John Allen Paulos has a great book on this called, Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up. In it, he talks about how the odds change after the fact. After you win the lottery, the odds of you winning the lottery go up quite considerably.

But Christians use this trick all the time. They are making claims and assigning probability to them that just doesn’t make sense. Sometimes they will leave out key pieces of data to make the statistic look more ridiculous too. For example, they will say things like, “The odds of humans evolving from a single celled organism are…” They might even use some sort of analogy like, “It would be like a plane randomly coming together.” Here they leave out the process of natural selection which changes those odds and invalidates their analogy.

Christians like to confuse people with numbers and odds. They know that most people aren’t good with numbers and if they word the math problem in such a way, people will be fooled. But we can play that game too. If you look at all the possible gods that could exist, the odds for the existence of their god in particular is pretty low. Not as low as some of the claims they make about other things mind you, but still pretty low.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Diversity of Humanity: Why Aren’t We All Clones?

In the western religious traditions, it is believed that we are not only children of the same God of Abraham, but that we were created in His image. However, people come in many shapes, sizes, and colors so questions arise. If we are all created in the image of God, what does God look like? Why is there such wondrous variety within the human species?  Why wouldn’t we all be clones of each other?

The very fact that there are fat people, thin people, short people, tall people, people with differing skin colors and hair colors seems much more consistent with evolution than it does with the view that God created everyone in his own image. What color hair does God have anyway?

This may seem like just a minor thing, but it really does show the ridiculousness of the Creationist claim. If God created everyone in his own image by a specific design, then we would all be the same. One could argue that animals might be different only in so far as they aren’t in the image of God. But even this claim would be pointless. If God made animals for us to have dominion over, then why would he have made them different from each other? Why aren’t all rabbits the same? What purpose does it serve to have black bunnies, brown bunnies, white bunnies, and spotted bunnies?

The more probable explanation would be that evolution is true and Creationism is not. Now of course this seems obvious to atheists, but there are Creationists out there and I think these are good questions to bring to their attention.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...