Ten Commandments in School Classrooms?

I swear, stupid people are outbreeding smart people by a large margin! I was just made aware of a poll that the San Antonio Fox affiliate conducted on their Web site asking if the Ten Commandments ought to be posted in all public school classrooms, following a proposal by representative Dan Flynn. Thankfully, there were enough rational people voting in the poll to push the results to 1.19% Yes and 98.77% No. However, read through the comments and very quickly you'll come to this gem:

It would definitely help with so many kids taking guns to school, dishonoring their parents, lying, stealing, doing immoral things and most importantly not giving God the recognition he deserves. by Nancy

Really?! Having stone monuments posted in a classroom is going curtail gun-toting, disrespectful children in public schools? I'd love to have some of what Nancy is smoking. Oh, wait. Would that violate any of the Big Ten?

OK, so here's the problem as I see it: the introduction of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms has absolutely no purpose other than the forcing of religion into our lives. It doesn't matter how you try to word it or disguise it, the sole purpose of this proposal is to shove your religion down our throats! The Ten Commandments aren't educational, don't apply to all world religions, start off with divisive rhetoric, and will cost taxpayers money that could actually benefit the schools in tangible ways. In short, it's a lose/lose situation!

The argument that the Ten Commandments don't solely apply to Christianity is false. I'll make a blog post about this soon.

The argument that the Ten Commandments contain sound moral guidelines is false. That'll be included in my upcoming blog post.

The argument that the Ten Commandments compel people to behave is demonstrably false, ignorant, naïve, and just plain fucking stupid. If the presence of these magical rules "helped" with curtailing bad behavior don't you think the religious community wouldn't have nearly the amount of problems it historically and currently has? Are you really that blinded to reality that you cannot see this?

Let's start thinking, people. Please.

Jesus Potter, Harry Christ

I've been informed of a new project which will reach its conclusion in the near future. It's a book entitled "Jesus Potter, Harry Christ" by Derek Murphy which examines the mythos of Jesus Christ as a literary figure in contrast to Harry Potter, who has garnered much animosity and fear from Christians. I'm particularly intrigued by this idea in the wake of discovering another book, "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald.

The character of Jesus is surrounded by a haze of vague preconceptions, credulity and wishful thinking –- especially when it comes to fulfillment of prophecy and miracles. I'm looking forward to reading both of these books very soon and giving my thoughts on the matter afterward.

Facebook Faith

I have friends on my Facebook account – either those with whom I currently associate or old friends from High School – who are believers in some sort of deity. This being the United States, the overwhelming majority are, of course, Christians. These friends (not all of them, but several) will periodically post status messages proclaiming the greatness of their god, or the greatness of their faith. Some examples would be:

Scripture Quote

For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone. You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent. “Because he loves me,” says the LORD, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name. ps 91 11-14

Public Prayer/Praise

God IS SO SOSOSOSOSOSOSO GOOD..... still praise you when my throat is sore... you are an awesome GOD.

There's nothing wrong with you believing whatever you want. However, you should realize by now that not everyone else is going to believe it just because you do. That being the truth (and it is), you shouldn't be surprised when somebody disagrees with you and chooses to comment on your status. Since Facebook allows for commenting on statuses, you must have expected that your friends would be able to do this. So, why do you type responses like this when that happens?

Help, I'm Being Persecuted!

I think your hate for God is clouding your judgment and has cause you to become angry in the conversation. Just because you live by a different belief than me or others does not make yours right. You came on this page of someone who has faith to blast there faith in order to try and cause confusion in her mind. You have allow the devil to enter your thought system to destroy faith and I am here to help you see the what you have allowed to come into your life. If you choice to walk away from that, that is your free will. No one should ever force another to believe like them.

Two Problems…

First, why do Christians have such dreadful spelling and grammar? I don't want to flippantly draw a parallel between religious belief and intelligence, but they almost make it too easy to do so without trying. Obviously, not 100% of Christians write poorly but it's definitely prevalent enough so that I'm picking up on a pattern.

Second, how in the world do you figure I'm mad at or hate god? Does having a contrary opinion automatically mean I'm filled with hatred? That's ludicrous! This is a classic Christian persecution complex and it makes me want to pull out my hair a handful at a time. What gives you the right to project feelings onto me that I'm not experiencing? Get over yourself!

The Hypocrisy, It Burns!

All of that being said, when it comes time for me to update my status on Facebook I sometimes (more often, recently) quote a notable atheist or make my own observation about religion. I do this with full expectation that somebody will disagree and probably comment on it. I don't accuse them of hating me or some imaginary being and I don't project my insecurities onto them because they've shared their opinion. Why is it that the atheist is being more Christ-like than the believers?

Let's start thinking, people. Please.

The Problem with God's Foresight

This has bugged me for quite some time and I have yet to get any kind of explanation for it from Christians, let alone from god. Tell me this isn't completely weird, in describing an all-knowing creator:

Prior to creating the world, God set a rule for Himself that the people He was going to create for the express purpose of loving unconditionally would not be allowed anywhere near Him because He would purposely instill them with a degenerative condition to which He is allergic and which cannot be cured but only conceptually controlled by a symbolic treatment of Jesus' blood; and because He set this rule for Himself He is unable to break it even though it doesn't make any sense, causes Him grief, forced Him to kill His son, and He's omnipotent?

Weird. Let's start thinking, people. Please.

The Problem with Using Poetry as Evidence

Wow, it's been a while since I posted an entry here. My attendance at Skepticon III this weekend (which was freaking awesome, BTW) has renewed my fervor in my pursuit to educate the willfully ignorant. So here we go…

Christians, why do you constantly cite selected verses from books of the Bible such as Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon? Do you not realize that those books are poetry? Do you not realize that these poems are not the words of a deity? Are you purposely ignoring these facts?

My point is this: if you want to present evidence for your god and you absolutely have to use a book to do it, you honestly need to choose a better book than the one you've got, because I'm not going to accept poetry as fact. If I were to allow myself that practice as the norm, then I'd have to accept all sorts of ridiculous notions like, oh, every single deity ever imagined by mankind throughout history! You do realize that people wrote a lot of poetry about them too, right?

If I were so incredibly in love with a woman that I was blinded to every single one of her faults, I might write a piece of poetry like the following:

Her skin as smooth as milk,
Her hair as strong as steel,
Her eyes as deep as oceans,
All men bow at her heel.

In reality, this woman who seems to have a supernatural ability to capture the attention of every man on Earth and possess the most incredible qualities a woman possibly could possess, might look like this:

The fact that I'm so enamored with her has precluded my ability to see that this chick has a horrible unibrow, huge teeth, dry and damaged hair, a gnarly mole on her cheek, and nostrils the size of jet engine intakes. Not to mention the fact that I'm probably the only man in the world clamoring for her attention. That's fine, really. Each person ought to have the opportunity to see beauty and perfection however they see fit. But here's the rub:

Each person does not have the right to project their biased perceptions onto other people – especially if they're just waxing poetic.

Christians, please do me a favor in the future and remove Biblical books of poetry from your arguments for your god altogether. I think they're crap, other people think they're crap, and they absolutely, positively do not prove anything whatsoever.

Let's start thinking, people. Please.

Evolution for Dummies

This post is titled "Evolution for Dummies" on the blog When Pigs Fly Returns. I really want to read this, and you should too. There's no replacement for education.

The Problem With God's Purpose

The belief in a personal, intervening deity presents another problem in my mind. Theists believe that a god created the universe and everything in it with a final, triumphant pinnacle of creation that is humans, for whom this god cares above all else. So this god's purpose is A, B, or C as follows:

A: God's purpose is to create the universe and everything in it.
B: God's purpose is to care for human beings.
C: God's purpose is to create the universe and everything in it, and to care for human beings.

God's Purpose is to Create the Universe

If this is a god's purpose, then a more appropriate stance toward a god is deism. That is to say, a supernatural agency ("The Supreme Architect") created the universe and everything in it, setting it into motion before stepping back and impassively and impartially watching it all work out. This god doesn't intervene in human affairs and had no special reason for creating us. There is no afterlife, no Heaven or Hell, and no holy text on which to base one's life. This view is compatible with science, since the god has no personal characteristics and the natural world is what it is without any supernatural phenomena like miracles or prophecy.

The problem with this, however, is that if this god's sole purpose is to create the universe then there was (a) no need for this god to exist prior to the creation of the universe, and (b) no need for this god following the creation of the universe. A deist's stance, in this case, is still a little bit silly because even if a supernatural agency did create the universe, there's absolutely no reason to wonder about it, worry about it, or inject it into any conversation because it has lived out its purpose and now – for all it matters – doesn't even logically exist.

For a theist, however, this presents a wholesale contradiction to everything they believe. For one, it means their god doesn't care about them any more than an ant or a deer. Second, it means there's no reason to believe in an afterlife because their god has already done its job and now – for all it matters, again – doesn't even logically exist. It's pretty clear that theists believe their god has another purpose other than just being a creator.

God's Purpose is to Care for Humans

If this is a god's purpose, then there's no reason for the god to exist prior to the advent of homo sapiens. This means that the universe was formed via natural processes without the intervention of a supernatural agency, the Earth came about via natural processes without the intervention of a supernatural agency, life spawned, evolved, and finally got to the point where homo sapiens emerged.

The problem is this: if there was no god prior to homo sapiens emerging, what prompted the spontaneous generation of this god? Is it the sudden influx of human souls? Did humans will this god into existence specifically because they felt too weak and insecure to care for themselves?

Another problem is this: if this is god's purpose and everything in the universe happened according to natural laws, then why do theists so adamantly reject and mock things like the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution? Why not embrace these ideas as truths and continue on their merry way of feeling like a special creation in an otherwise un-special world?

Another problem is this: if this is god's purpose, then why are humans suffering and dying en masse, when all it would take is a little bit of intervention on the god's behalf? No, I'm not trying to argue the old "Why is there suffering in the world" line, but you have to admit that a being whose sole purpose is to care for humans has proven itself ineffective throughout history. It's pretty clear that theists don't limit their god to this single purpose, so that brings us to the final option.

God's Purpose is Twofold

If a god's purpose is to create the universe and everything in it and to care especially for human beings, then my first question is this: what was this god doing prior to creating the universe and human beings? There's no reason to believe that this god existed a nanosecond prior to "In the beginning" and no reason to further believe that this god existed a nanosecond prior to "Male and female, God created them."

If this god's purpose is to do both of these things, then both of these things should have been created in tandem so as to give god its purpose and start of its existence with any degree of logic. Since no creation myth gives an account in accordance with this logic, then it's difficult to figure out why any such god should be believed as existing.

If this god's purpose is contingent on two conditions - the universe existing and human beings existing – then why weren't humans created before (or, at the very least, at the same time as) all the other plants and animals that this god doesn't necessarily care about as much? Doesn't that seem backward? I'm sure there's a wonderful apologetics argument for this, such as "God saved the best for last, as we are the pinnacle of His creation" or "God knew what humans would need to survive and built all of the infrastructure for us beforehand." Both of these are fairly silly because this perfect, personal creator god is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing and could have designed humans in such a way that all of the crazy infrastructure wasn't necessary. As in my argument against souls, this god could have simply created a universe that was solely habitable for souls and foregone all of the physical universe nonsense.

In my opinion, a god with both of the purposes of creating the universe and caring especially for human beings doesn't make any more sense than a god with either purpose and only raises more questions as to the nature and/or origin of its existence in the first place. And that doesn't even take into account its motives or methods of creation and…ahem…caring.

Let's start thinking, people. Please.

The Problem with Persecution

I've been in numerous, seemingly endless conversations with theists about their beliefs. In every discussion, I attempt to maintain a high degree of objectivity and emotional disconnect from the subject because it's generally better to show that you can remain a rational, reasonable person regardless of how the conversation goes. However, I find that on the theist side of the discussion, this isn't usually the case. Once you begin questioning their beliefs – because they've so deeply bound their beliefs to their identity – they start getting really passionate about the whole thing and discontinue rational discourse in favor of emotional appeals to persecution. For example, I recently started a thread on a Web site after being visited by some door-to-door Christians. Here's how it went:

Door-to-Door Salvation

A couple of nice, older ladies rang my doorbell just a little while ago because they're in my neighborhood to talk about the Bible. Regrettably, I have to get some work done so I couldn't invite them in and talk to them. The conversation went like this:

LADY: We're in the neighborhood sharing some uplifting words from the Bible. The Bible is a source of good news and, as you know, most people believe in the Bible. Are you much of a Bible reader?
ME: I'm sorry, I'm actually at work right now and don't have the time.
LADY: Oh, OK. Well, we'll try to stop back by later.

I actually wish I had the time to sit down with them and find out just how much they know about the Bible and whether or not their goal is to cherry-pick verses to try and save me. I'm curious as to how prepared they are to field probing questions about their book. Most people I've found who believe in the Bible haven't really read it all the way through, so it's always intriguing to me to see the different views on what it contains. I'd really like to get it on video.

The funny things to me about door-to-door evangelism are that it's (a) stereotypical and (b) harder to sell than Kirby vacuum cleaners. Usually, people don't want to or don't have the time to sit down and talk about abstract concepts over which they've typically already made up their mind. What do the rest of you do when/if people show up at your door to spread the good news?

The first two respondents simply answered the question I posed at the end of my post. The third (Christian) respondent answered the question, but felt it important to include this statement:

Jon instead of attacking people who come to the door so that you can feel intellectually superior, why not seek spiritual advice from a pastor or minister who can answer your deeper questions about faith and who have studied the Bible. Just saying.

Help! Help! I'm being persecuted!

It's funny to me that a question about how people handle door-to-door salespersons can turn into an all-out attack on everyone of faith. It's also funny to me that it only took three posts to degrade the discussion. The rest of the thread is (as of now) 54 pages of back-and-forth about whether or not belief in a deity is rational, necessary, or valuable, and whether or not it takes faith to be an atheist. Incredible!

I was on Yahoo! Answers for a long time and came across a person (Tinker Grey) who put a name to the logical fallacy that is the automatic defensive position theists take: Argumentum Ad Martyrdom, or "I perceive they don't like me, therefore I'm right."

I'm of the mind that theists don't want to be liked, and I suspect the reason is this:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." – Matthew 5:10-12

Yes indeed, the more people hate you, the more righteous you are. Or conversely, the more righteous you are, the more people will hate you. The way Christians think, if they believe they have people who hate them, then they've got to be doing something right. What utter nonsense!

Here's the more likely cause/effect relationship at work here:

The more ridiculous garbage you spew as though it were fact, the more justified people are in thinking you're off your rocker.

Theists, there's no hate involved. I'd call it more of a no-holds-barred lesson in reality. We're just trying to educate you theists, honestly! It's for your own good.

Let's start thinking, people. Please.

I Have No Soul

I have several problems with the concept of a soul (or spirit, or whatever you may choose to call it). Aside from the argument for lack of evidence, there are issues facing a person who claims that humans have souls that are created by God and that outlive the body on a separate, spiritual plane of existence. I'll outline these issues as follows:

If I Have a Soul, Why Do I Need a Body?

This first question stems from the idea that God creates human souls (I'm not sure when) and implants them or attaches them to the fertilized egg at conception so that the bundle of cells becomes a viable human. Never mind that 25% of these "viable humans" will be naturally aborted or miscarried without intervention from humans. What I don't get is this: God's ultimate plan for everybody is that their souls reside in Heaven with Him eternally and that we are all happy, healthy, and free of sin. So…why do I need a body? If my soul would be happy in Heaven then why can we not forego all of the formality, suffering, and nonsense and just get right to the end goal? If God cares nothing at all for my body and only wants my soul, then He should have just created my soul in Heaven directly. It's reasonable, it's simple, it's loving, and it accomplishes the goal with zero room for error.

Where Was My Soul Before I Was Born?

Since we're assuming that God creates souls, but don't know when He does it, we might assume that He created my soul a long time ago and was waiting for my parents to find each other and conceive the body into which He would ultimately place my soul. This begs the question(s): how long was my soul around before it was joined to my body, and where was it? If my soul was in heaven with God waiting to be transplanted, then I find it particularly disturbing and despicable that He wouldn't have just left me there. After all, Heaven is where He wants me to end up, isn't it?

If my soul was not in Heaven with God, then where was it? What other existential plane is there on which my soul may have sat in wait for a body? The flip side to this question relies on the idea that souls don't exist prior to being joined with a body and that God creates them at the point of conception (kind of a chicken-and-egg argument, in my opinion). This brings us to my next question.

When Does God Create Souls?

If, statistically, 25% of all pregnancies end in natural abortion or miscarriage then we have to question when, exactly, God is creating these souls. Is there a period of time during which the bundle of cells is under observation and in a probationary period before God deems them worthy of being joined to a soul? If not, and God joins the soul immediately at the time of conception, then why does He deem some souls lucky enough not to have to undergo the suffering of mortality and get a "Go Straight to heaven" card? Is He showing favoritism, or is He just shooting dice with these souls and they happen to hit the jackpot? If these souls were destined to end up in Heaven without having to struggle through life, then why did He bother with their conception (obviously wasted energy and resources for nothing) and bonding of their souls at all? He would have already known where they were going, because they never got to exercise their free will (a central tenet of religions which I find incredibly contradictory).

Why is God Still Creating Souls?

God presumably knew prior to creating the first human soul that He would have to mourn their poor decisions, deal with sin, and eventually sacrifice His son for their forgiveness. The question then arises: why did God – angry at Adam and Eve for sinning – command them to go out and make more sinners?! To whom does that make any sense at all? Not to me. So perhaps my biggest question is why God is even creating souls at all. If I were in charge, I would have just let the two sinners die, send their souls wherever they needed to go, and call it good enough – an experiment that turned out poorly and from which I can learn a valuable lesson.

Why Does My Soul Not Define Me?

If we have non-corporeal souls that outlive us, then whatever defines who we are should be contained in that soul. That is to say, our personality, our compassion, our jealousy and anger and greed should not simply be a product of chemical reactions in our physical brains, but should transcend our bodies on the spiritual plane. If we have these souls, then they would not be affected by drugs, social pressures, local culture, or trauma. Regardless of what was happening to our bodies, we should always be exactly what our soul defines us to be. We know this isn't the case. Brain trauma sometimes causes an irreversible shift in a person's personality to the point where – behaviorally – they would be unrecognizable even to their own family. Drugs cause personality shifts and behavioral changes where people will do things and say things they would otherwise never do or say. It can be argued that moving to a different geographical location or immersing oneself in a different culture causes fundamental shifts in behavior and personality as well. We tend to change ourselves to suit our surroundings if we are unable to change our surroundings to suit ourselves.

How could this happen if we have an immortal soul? I don't think it could, and I have yet to come across an argument convincing me that this question isn't valid.

If I Have a Soul, Why Do I Need a Brain?

Even if my soul doesn't define my personality, then it is said that it is what gives me life. Religious people often claim that our brains are so complex and amazing, it couldn't possibly be reduced simply to electrical impulses and chemical reactions – an argument from incredulity. But why, if I have an immortal soul that gives me life, do I need a brain? Why doesn't my soul do that work? Why isn't my soul more actively and apparently involved in my living process? This may be the weakest of my problems with the soul concept, but it's still a problem.

If Animals Have No Souls, How Do They Live?

It is commonly accepted and stated as fact in religious circles that only humans bear a soul. Animals don't have souls and they don't go to Heaven or Hell. It seems odd then that animals have identical living processes to humans – that is, brains, hearts, digestive systems, etc. Why do we look the same as animals on the inside if we're so much different? Why are we made up of exactly the same material? This makes absolutely no sense. If humans have souls, then animals must also have souls because we can find no fundamental difference between animals and humans (who, as we all know, are still animals). I find it frustrating to think that any religious person could hold to this idea and even go so far as to construct some type of elaborate defense of this position that defies all logic and reason.

I Have No Soul.

Given that these questions are never answered, I have to operate under the assumption that I have no immortal soul. As such, I am not in any terrible danger of ending up in Hell and I have no reason to make myself subservient to an oppressive deity on the off-chance I might make it to Heaven. Instead, I'll act as though this life is the only one I get; that I should be kind to my fellow humans in the hopes that it will propagate to all and we'll live in peace; that my happiness here on Earth is my ultimate goal, so long as I don't harm others in my attempts to attain it; that I should not waste a single moment of my life bowing and scraping to an invisible person who doesn't care about my mortal existence anyway. I'll just be the best human I can be. Is that so bad?

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day 2010

I'm participating in this exercise of free speech and freedom of expression. I feel the value in this day is showing the impotence of the imaginary deity and his long-dead prophet and the horrible injustice of bowing to the bullying of those who would censor us based on their personal beliefs. We need to be reasonable and rational and stop giving in to extremists and those who wish to oppress us. Here's my YouTube submission:

YouTube Channel/Playlist!

I'm attempting to start a YouTube channel (actually a playlist, because my channel has already been created and I don't want to go through the hassle of creating another YouTube account) containing my thoughts on free thought, skepticism, and religion. It's tied to this blog and some of the videos will mirror these posts and/or my Facebook notes. Check this video out and let me know what you think!

Hey, Nice Book!

The biggest problem I have with the Christian Bible is that not even Christians actually believe it. I mean, sure, there are groups of Christians who adhere to every word of certain parts and other groups who cling to other parts, but not all groups of Christians give all parts of the Bible the same weight. They use distinct verses of scripture for their purpose-of-the-moment (would it be wrong to call them "Crusades?") and knowingly discard others as uncomfortable, indefensible, or just plain nonsense.

Cherry-Picked Scripture

Christians, for any situation, can pick out a single verse or short passage of scripture from the Bible that totally sets their mind at ease on the subject. It doesn't matter if it was the verse's intent or not; it only matters that it appears to support the Christian's position. For instance (the best-known example), the Romans Road to Salvation, consists of the following verses:

John 3:16, Romans 5:8, Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 10:9, Romans 10:13

Right off the bat, you notice one thing: the verses are from different books and completely out of order. They've been cherry-picked!

Out of Context Verses

Let's stick with the Romans Road for this one. If you look at the entire context of these verses, you'll notice that some of them are not messages of hope and peace (which would have the desired effect of drawing people closer to God), but of condemnation or injustice or nonsense. To whit:

John 3:16 is followed by John 3:18 which claims that anyone who doesn't believe in the name of Jesus is already condemned from the start. Makes you wonder about people to whom Jesus never appeared and who don't have a Bible.

Romans 5:8 is followed by Romans 5:12 which states the ridiculous idea that all of humanity's sin came about because of a single person.

Romans 3:23 is only a tiny snippet of a larger discussion on atonement through Jesus' death and the value of circumcision. At one point it says circumcision is a valuable part of obedience to God and later states that God is the God of the Jew and the Gentiles and justifies them in exactly the same way, regardless of circumcision.

Romans 6:23 is immediately preceded by the phrase, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God…" How comforting. I can see why they leave that part out.

2 Corinthians 5:21 is begging you outright to accept Jesus: "We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

Romans 10:9 and 10:13 are followed by Romans 10:14, which makes a profound statement: "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?" Indeed, how can they?

Here's the single, most important problem with the context of these verses: They weren't written to you. They were found in personal letters from Paul to specific churches, during specific periods of time in their development, to address specific concerns within that church. Nowhere does Paul indicate that these letters are to be disseminated to everybody, everywhere, for all time. In fact, an attentive reading through his letters shows him to be a misogynistic, racist slavery advocate who never actually met Jesus Christ but thought highly enough of himself to put words in Jesus' mouth that Jesus wouldn't have. All of Paul's letters are taken out of context, no matter how Christians spin it.

Suspension of Disbelief

Not all Christians believe in a literal six-day creation or Noah's global flood. In order to do that, they'd have to suspend their disbelief and convince themselves that something so completely silly is true. They believe the rest of the Bible is true, but they pass these types of things off as allegory or parable. This is a big problem with the Bible, and it can be seen clearly by the disparate groups of believers, that it is largely unbelievable. Some of the stories are cool, but they just have no basis in reality.

To summarize, it is clear by looking at "Bible-believing Christians" that the Bible has problems. They don't agree. They don't interpret it the same way. They don't give the entire Bible the same factual and evidential weight. Any rational, level-headed person can see where this leads. If it cannot be verified factually, then it should be considered fiction. If it is considered fiction, it is not a basis on which to live your life. If it is not a basis on which to live your life, then it is absolutely repugnant and morally outrageous to even attempt to base governmental and educational decisions and policies on it! Let's start thinking, people. Please.

Blogroll Announcement!

Boolean Boycott has been added to the Atheist Blogroll. I'm placing the blogroll in my sidebar and you should check it out! The Atheist Blogroll is a community-building service provided free of charge to atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

The Problem With Faith

Look at the picture of this car. From the side, I can see only two wheels. I can reasonably assume by the definition of a car and from my own experience that there are two more wheels on the other side of the car. I can reasonably assume that these two hidden wheels are the reason the car sits level on the ground. If I were a gambling man, I'd put money on the fact that when I walk around to the other side of the car I'll see two wheels in identical locations on the vehicle.

Looking at this picture of the other side of the car, I can verify two things: first, that there are in fact two more wheels on this car and that they are positioned in identical locations on the vehicle. Second, that my knowledge and experience with cars has led me to a correct conclusion as to the construction of this particular car. This presents a dilemma for those with faith.

As one who trusts in the laws of the physical world, there is no reason that I would ever assume that there are elves holding up the other side of the car, nor would I attribute the apparent hovering effect to a magical repulsor lift system. Even if someone knowledgeable in automotive engineering told me that one side of the car rides on a cushion of air I'd be skeptical and would have to see for myself. Such are the workings of a rational mind. People like me require evidence. The more exceptional the claim, the more exceptional the evidence would need to be.

Believers in gods have faith in a being or beings that exist outside of our physical plane and have various, exceptional properties. These properties include such things as omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection. Some of these beings are said to be personally involved in the events of the physical universe, some are said to take more of a passive role, and some have even moved on since kick-starting this cosmic play. The one thing all of these beings have in common is that their definitions change and their boundaries shift depending on the situation.

For example (and I'm using the Biblical God because that's where my experience lies), God is defined as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. He's perfect in every conceivable way and never makes a mistake. But let's not jump to conclusions just yet, that may not always be true. In Genesis 6:7, we see that the perfect creator admits to having obtained new knowledge about His creation: "So the LORD said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.'" God -- who knows everything -- says He is grieved (troubled, regretful) that He created man. How can this be? Surely, a perfect being with infinite knowledge of time and space would have foreseen the events leading up to this defining moment in His existence when He comes to a startling realization that His perfect creation is, in fact, imperfect. Why is He surprised? Surprise, regret, and anger are all emotions we imperfect humans feel when we obtain knowledge previously hidden from us that alters our perceptions about our situation - especially in a negative way. Merriam-Webster defines these terms as follows:

Surprise (noun): a taking unawares.

Regret (noun): sorrow aroused by circumstances beyond one's control or power to repair.

If a being such as God exists, who is defined as omniscient (all-knowing), such a being could never be surprised, regretful, or angry because all of the knowledge available in the universe would already be known to that being. If that being is also defined as omnipotent (all-powerful) then there would be nothing beyond that being's control. Admitting that your creation has surprised you is admitting to a mistake. So we begin to see where the definition of a "god" breaks down. In fact, it could be said that if one or more of the defining properties of a god is not true, it's highly likely that the other remaining properties of that god are also not true.

Let's get back to the car. If I were to have walked around to the other side of the car and seen this image, I would have been very surprised! Given my knowledge about cars, this image makes no sense (in fact, it's not even a good Photoshop job). Given this new information, I might reasonably assume that I have miscategorized this object and it is not a car at all. While it may, from certain angles, appear to be a car, it does not actually have all of the properties of a car. Likewise, I can also not logically classify this vehicle as a motorcycle even though it has only two wheels. Because one of the properties by which I had defined this object a "car" is not true, my skeptical mind would begin to question whether or not this object is a car at all, and I would want to test the object for the other defining properties of a "car."

People of faith hold so dearly to their ill-defined supreme being(s), they overlook these obvious contradictions in favor of the comfort that the concept of god(s) gives them. At face value, there's nothing wrong with that. If faith in a god or gods gives you a meaning for your life, a sense of comfort and well-being, and a reason to be a good person then I suppose I can understand why you believe and would urge you to continue to do so. I would not, however, urge you to treat your faith as fact. I would not urge you to make the assumption that your faith is a universal truth and therefore applicable to everyone. Merriam-Webster defines "faith" as follows:

Faith (noun): firm belief in something for which there is no proof. (I prefer the term "evidence" to that of "proof")

Most of all, I would not urge you to make it your personal quest to convert others to believing as you do. This is where the concept of god(s) becomes dangerous. Because there's no proof even of the existence of such a being, there's also no proof of what such a being would or would not command its believers to do. Because each believer holds to the idea that their personal relationship with this being is a different, individual experience even from other believers, there's no way to tell exactly what each believer would do in this being's name. The end result is a large population of people who share the same foundational beliefs but differ in their individual interpretation and implementation of those beliefs and are therefore unpredictable. When there is a large, unpredictable population attempting to govern the rest of us on the basis of their faith (as has been done in the past) we see bigotry, intolerance, forced allegiance, and violence as the status quo. I don't want to live in that world.

You're Doing it Wrong!

"He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind." - 1 Samuel 15:29

Tell me again how prayer works. If you have faith in God, then you hold a belief that your communication with God (either directly or via an intermediary) can make a difference in the outcome of a situation. However, you also hold a belief that God is perfect, just, and unchanging and that He cares what happens to His creation. When God gets it in His head that something is going to happen, it's going to happen.

Oh sure, there have been "righteous" people in the past who have bargained and haggled with God over His decisions and He catered to their limited knowledge and let them figure out for themselves that eventually God will do what God does regardless of how you feel about it or how earnestly you ask for a change of mind. God doesn't change His mind.

God also doesn't reveal His plans. Those are for Him to know and you to find out...after it's all over. He's a secret-keeper. Even when it's something that's going to affect you or the ones you love.

Think about this: you're a child and your dad says, "let's get in the car, I have a surprise!" You don't know what he's got in mind, but you know from past experience that it's probably something like a trip to the park or Chuck E. Cheese, so you climb in the car and sit in silent anticipation. But then your dad wipes out an entire civilization. Are you OK with that?

How about if your dad lets you know in advance that he's going to wipe these people out and allows you to present arguments as to why he shouldn't, but then ultimately ends up killing them all anyway? Are you OK with that? Did bartering make you feel any better about it?

The truth is, people have been praying to God (or gods, or goddesses, or demons, or stone statues) for thousands - perhaps millions - of years with no effect. Then, when the inevitable happens they just throw up their arms and say, "well, God's mysterious!" When will you realize that prayer only works if it's accompanied by decisive action - and that the decisive action alone will yield the same result? Everything else is just talking to yourself.

The Greatest Single Cause of Atheism…

I recall a DC Talk song (yes, I used to listen to DC Talk) called "What if I Stumble?" The song has an intro that goes like this:
"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

This quote seems to be based on scripture, since you can find a similar theme in Romans 2:24:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written." (KJV)
"As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'" (NIV)

I'm not entirely certain that the "greatest single cause" of atheism can be traced to Christian hypocrisy since there are so many other reasons people don't believe in a deity. I, for one, have seen the light and dark side of Christianity and while the prevalence of hypocrites did sour me a bit on religion I can honestly say that it was the paradox of God itself that put the final nail in the coffin.

What Christians need to realize (and what Paul apparently understood nearly 2,000 years ago) is that their definitive, unwavering stance on the existence of God and His claim on morality must absolutely be backed by a compatible lifestyle. You can do so much irreparable damage to your credibility when you don't realize that your religion automatically makes others hold you to a higher standard.

Feel free to use that as your daily devotional.