Are you a religious person? Do you believe in god? If your answer to either of these questions is "yes", my question to you is, "Why do you believe that?"
There can be only one answer to my question. You believe that because someone told you it was true. It could have been a parent, a friend or a mere acquaintance but somebody at some point in your life told you there was a deity and you believed it. You might not have believed it right away but the stories were spun in such a way that you, at least, grew to believe it.
Have you ever seen god? Have you ever heard god? No, you have not. If you hear voices in your head, that's just you. There are neurons firing in your brain that translate into thoughts... but that's just you.
You might say, "But I have these religious texts that tell of 'miracles' and god speaking to prophets so that proves there is a god." No... it... doesn't. The only real "proof" that you have is that someone (a human someone) or a few 'someones' wrote stories a few thousand years ago. The simple fact that these stories exist does not mean the stories are based on real events. Is "Harry Potter" a true story because it's written in a book and tells of supernatural events? No. It is fiction.
Do you even know who wrote these books or what their motives were for writing the books? Perhaps they were just creative writers attempting to launch a literary career. The books that were written 2000 years ago, were most likely allegories, as this was a common writing style of the time.
There is now a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Jesus might not have ever existed but let's just assume that he did exist for argument's sake and that he lived where the stories claim he lived 2000 years ago. We know, and all theologians agree that the first book to write about Jesus' life was Mark and Mark was written 40 years after Jesus' alleged death. Most people in that region were illiterate. How likely is it that if Mark actually did write down 'word-of-mouth' stories, that these stories were accurate?
Have you ever played the 20 person "tell the story right" game? In one hour long class at university, we played the game (to demonstrate this process). The twenty students leave the classroom. The 2 minute story was told to the rest of us and we were to write it down. The first of the 20 was brought into the room and told the story by the professor. None of the 20 were allowed to take notes. The second student was brought in and was told the story by the first student. The 3rd student was brought in and told the story by the 2nd student and so on. The only story that was quite accurately retold was from student 1 to student 2. After that it went downhill. By the time student 20 was told the story, it didn't even resemble the original story. And that was in the span of one hour. How accurate would the story be after 40 years?
Why do you believe these stories are true? It is because you were told over and over again by some very convincing orators that they are true. You were told you are not permitted to question the validity of these stories because god almighty will punish you with hellfire!
I have one response to that. If there was any conceivable reason for me to believe any of these fantastical stories, you would not have to threaten me to "believe them or else." They would be easy to believe.
Any book that tells someone that "YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ALL OF THIS STUFF IS TRUE OR YOU WILL BE PUNISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY" is obvioysly FULL OF SHIT. And, for that matter, any book that tells me I'm doomed for wearing a cotton/poly blend, is, in my opinion, bat shit crazy, and deserves no more consideration than horse feathers!
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
In The Beginning
Let's start from the beginning. In the hate-filled misogynistic book of fairy tales, commonly referred to as ‘the bible’, the beginning would be the book of Genesis. Now in the story, there was nothing. Now there wasn't just ‘nothing’ for a small fraction of time; there was ‘nothing’ forever and ever. The tale tells us that "god" had no beginning so he (I’ll call it a “he” to save typing “he/she”) just hung around an eternity of nothingness as far back as we can't imagine. Then suddenly, perhaps because of an eternity of shear boredom, this god character decided to create a planet in a remote section of a remote galaxy in a vast universe and make living creatures on it to use as play things for his amusement. And so I don't forget, this god also made light a day or two before he made the sun (which is actually a star). That was one of the first physically impossible tricks he did. He then made plants and animals and saved making the people for the end.
So he makes Adam out of dirt (another good trick). There was no cell division like we know for a fact exists now at conception. You've got this fertilized egg (single cell deal) which splits in two, then four and so on. I'm sure you catch my drift. Nope... god just "poof", out of dirt made a full grown man. Then he made a woman (not out of dirt like the guy) out of Adam's rib. Wonder if god used anesthesia. If not, that must have hurt like hell. Anyway, she was the same species, just the double X chromosomes instead of an X and a Y (and made out of two completely different materials – dirt and bone). Speaking of “Y”, why did god bother with chromosomes and DNA? Wouldn't it have been easier just to make fully formed parts instead of breaking every living thing down to a cellular level? But I digress.
So now you have a man and a woman running around a garden in the Middle East doing whatever new creatures do and they're told that they can eat whatever they want in the garden except for fruit from the tree of knowledge. Now here is where it gets interesting. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient super-being not want the creatures he created to have knowledge? What is knowledge? Knowledge is general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths or principles (although, definition #6 does say, “sexual intercourse” and with the obsession of all religions with sex, that could be what they meant). We’ll use the #1 definition as it is the most common definition of the word. One becomes aware of one’s surroundings, how things work, etc. Why would a god not want creatures he made to know anything or be aware of how things work (I’ve offered a hint here)? What kind of sick game is this god playing anyway? That's like me making my children and telling them they can have whatever they want but they can't have a cookie that I baked and put in the cookie jar. Now what is the kid going to do? It's the most ridiculous premise for an incredibly absurd fairy tale but I'll continue.
So then god, who made everything, also made this talking snake (snakes have no vocal cords). But the snake is actually Satan, who god made too. Now why would god make another very powerful creature (angel, so the story goes) who is very bad? One would think that an all knowing, all powerful god would have seen the next part coming. So the talking snake tempts Eve, the woman (yes the woman because men wrote the book and they couldn't blame the bad stuff on the man, Adam), and she eats the fruit. God must have been napping and missed the entire scene. It’s weird though, because the Xtians will tell you that god knows everything. How’d he miss that? If he was watching, why wouldn’t he stop it? And if he chose not to stop it, what kind of twisted fuck is this guy? He’s playing some pretty brutal head games with everyone involved.
OK, so now, Eve gets Adam to eat the fruit too and they suddenly realize they have no clothes on because, I don’t know, they were blind or something before that. God gets royally pissed off and decides to punish them by making them not live forever (thank “god” because that would be boring as hell) and to make Eve have pain during child birth (misogynistic bastard – Adam ate the damn fruit too).
So, yada yada yada, they end up with two boys, Cain and Abel and Cain kills his brother over jealousy (now the bible tells us later on that “god is a jealous god” and if god is completely good then this means jealousy is good… so why was Cain bad again? Anyway…). Cain is punished and sent out of the Garden of Eden where he meets a woman and they get married. NOW… hold the fuck on! Where did this other woman come from if Adam and Eve started the human race on planet Earth? If the woman was the daughter of Adam and Eve: 1. How did she manage to be outside of the garden of Eden? and 2. That would mean Cain and mystery lady number 1 are brother and sister and… well… incest… and eewwww!
Now, what we’ve all been waiting for… my point! This “creation” story is completely irreconcilable even if we had zero scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. There is (and can be) only one explanation for why a “god” would not want us to have “knowledge”. Because if we acquire knowledge we will realize that this entire “creation” story and every other theological story is pure and utter bullshit. Secondly, if a “god” were omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent he would, first of all make a perfect universe (not a hostile one), make perfect beings, never make an evil being, know everything that was ever going to happen (no need for head games or trickery) and not create a tiny little planet (in the middle of nowhere) where every living thing on it eventually dies. It does not matter at what angle you come at these tales. They defy every pattern of logic conceivable. Why is that? How can that be? I’ll tell you why/how. Men – superstitious, bronze age, racist, misogynistic, bigoted men – wrote these tales to explain their world and create a moral code which would satisfy their individual biases (bigotry, misogyny, etc.). In an ancient world where celestial events and natural disasters occurred they craved some measure of control over their environment. These tales would validate their fear and loathing of other tribes and give them control over their women (by demonizing them). Men never really knew for sure if the children were actually theirs. By inventing a god who said that women must “obey” and be completely subservient to their husbands, they were able to establish almost unmitigated control over their wives and ensure their own “immortality” through their offspring.
DNA can now verify paternity. The big bang theory is a solid explanation for why the universe is here. Evolution is a theory (with oodles of evidence) of why we humans are here. It is no longer necessary to invent fairy tales to explain our world. Every human being regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, deserves to be treated well based on a system of altruism, not on an ancient system of superstition.
With our current scientific, testable, provable knowledge of our world, all religions in this third millennium are rendered moot.
So he makes Adam out of dirt (another good trick). There was no cell division like we know for a fact exists now at conception. You've got this fertilized egg (single cell deal) which splits in two, then four and so on. I'm sure you catch my drift. Nope... god just "poof", out of dirt made a full grown man. Then he made a woman (not out of dirt like the guy) out of Adam's rib. Wonder if god used anesthesia. If not, that must have hurt like hell. Anyway, she was the same species, just the double X chromosomes instead of an X and a Y (and made out of two completely different materials – dirt and bone). Speaking of “Y”, why did god bother with chromosomes and DNA? Wouldn't it have been easier just to make fully formed parts instead of breaking every living thing down to a cellular level? But I digress.
So now you have a man and a woman running around a garden in the Middle East doing whatever new creatures do and they're told that they can eat whatever they want in the garden except for fruit from the tree of knowledge. Now here is where it gets interesting. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient super-being not want the creatures he created to have knowledge? What is knowledge? Knowledge is general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths or principles (although, definition #6 does say, “sexual intercourse” and with the obsession of all religions with sex, that could be what they meant). We’ll use the #1 definition as it is the most common definition of the word. One becomes aware of one’s surroundings, how things work, etc. Why would a god not want creatures he made to know anything or be aware of how things work (I’ve offered a hint here)? What kind of sick game is this god playing anyway? That's like me making my children and telling them they can have whatever they want but they can't have a cookie that I baked and put in the cookie jar. Now what is the kid going to do? It's the most ridiculous premise for an incredibly absurd fairy tale but I'll continue.
So then god, who made everything, also made this talking snake (snakes have no vocal cords). But the snake is actually Satan, who god made too. Now why would god make another very powerful creature (angel, so the story goes) who is very bad? One would think that an all knowing, all powerful god would have seen the next part coming. So the talking snake tempts Eve, the woman (yes the woman because men wrote the book and they couldn't blame the bad stuff on the man, Adam), and she eats the fruit. God must have been napping and missed the entire scene. It’s weird though, because the Xtians will tell you that god knows everything. How’d he miss that? If he was watching, why wouldn’t he stop it? And if he chose not to stop it, what kind of twisted fuck is this guy? He’s playing some pretty brutal head games with everyone involved.
OK, so now, Eve gets Adam to eat the fruit too and they suddenly realize they have no clothes on because, I don’t know, they were blind or something before that. God gets royally pissed off and decides to punish them by making them not live forever (thank “god” because that would be boring as hell) and to make Eve have pain during child birth (misogynistic bastard – Adam ate the damn fruit too).
So, yada yada yada, they end up with two boys, Cain and Abel and Cain kills his brother over jealousy (now the bible tells us later on that “god is a jealous god” and if god is completely good then this means jealousy is good… so why was Cain bad again? Anyway…). Cain is punished and sent out of the Garden of Eden where he meets a woman and they get married. NOW… hold the fuck on! Where did this other woman come from if Adam and Eve started the human race on planet Earth? If the woman was the daughter of Adam and Eve: 1. How did she manage to be outside of the garden of Eden? and 2. That would mean Cain and mystery lady number 1 are brother and sister and… well… incest… and eewwww!
Now, what we’ve all been waiting for… my point! This “creation” story is completely irreconcilable even if we had zero scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. There is (and can be) only one explanation for why a “god” would not want us to have “knowledge”. Because if we acquire knowledge we will realize that this entire “creation” story and every other theological story is pure and utter bullshit. Secondly, if a “god” were omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent he would, first of all make a perfect universe (not a hostile one), make perfect beings, never make an evil being, know everything that was ever going to happen (no need for head games or trickery) and not create a tiny little planet (in the middle of nowhere) where every living thing on it eventually dies. It does not matter at what angle you come at these tales. They defy every pattern of logic conceivable. Why is that? How can that be? I’ll tell you why/how. Men – superstitious, bronze age, racist, misogynistic, bigoted men – wrote these tales to explain their world and create a moral code which would satisfy their individual biases (bigotry, misogyny, etc.). In an ancient world where celestial events and natural disasters occurred they craved some measure of control over their environment. These tales would validate their fear and loathing of other tribes and give them control over their women (by demonizing them). Men never really knew for sure if the children were actually theirs. By inventing a god who said that women must “obey” and be completely subservient to their husbands, they were able to establish almost unmitigated control over their wives and ensure their own “immortality” through their offspring.
DNA can now verify paternity. The big bang theory is a solid explanation for why the universe is here. Evolution is a theory (with oodles of evidence) of why we humans are here. It is no longer necessary to invent fairy tales to explain our world. Every human being regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, deserves to be treated well based on a system of altruism, not on an ancient system of superstition.
With our current scientific, testable, provable knowledge of our world, all religions in this third millennium are rendered moot.
Monday, June 4, 2012
The Misogyny of Religion
The Superstition
Revelation 14:1- And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
The Logic
It never ceases to amaze me that so many fundamentalists think that several groups of people are going to hell yet they never fail to assume that they are among the very limited group of men going to heaven. It clearly states in their mythology that of the 7 billion people currently inhabiting the Earth, only 144,000 virgin males are going to heaven where they will sing all the time and follow a lamb around (sounds like fun?... not to me but whatever floats your boat). And any man who has ever touched a woman is not eligible for "eternal bliss". The 144,000 dudes entering the "kingdom" are all virgins. I suspect the guys who wrote the "fabulous work of fiction" were rather homely boys who never got a date in high school.
I also encounter female fundies frequently who go on and on about gender roles and how they are so devoted to god/Jesus. But not a single one of them seems to acknowledge that they don't have a "hope in hell" (pardon the expression) of entering the pearly gates. First and foremost, they are of the wrong gender (according to the pagan book of misogynistic fables commonly referred to as “the bible”). It is so very clear in "Revelation" that heaven is an exclusive male club. And we hear in the letters of Paul (who I am convinced was, himself, a closeted homosexual) so often that he really did not care for women at all. They were to be barely seen and not heard at all (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) and be forever obedient to their husbands who were free to abuse their wives and daughters at will. I find myself particularly thrilled (not) that the idea of selling one's "daughters" into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) is a very acceptable practice in the, what I like to call, book of hatred (the bible). How any woman can actually bring herself to "believe" in this obviously sexist nonsense is beyond me. Several people in her life must have had a great deal of success in brainwashing her into believing these ridiculous “morales”.
There is a great deal of anthropological evidence to suggest that early civilizations were matriarchal. Women were revered in primitive cultures as they were "the givers of life". Women carried and bore children and men felt quite useless "back in the day". Unfortunately, human males are larger and physically stronger than females. This is likely because males needed to be the hunters/providers of food and lodging while females cared for the young and so evolution (natural selection to be specific) took care of the larger, stronger and faster physical aspects of male humans. As time went on, it is quite likely that men became jealous of the important roles of women and so developed "religions" where males were superior and females were to be owned (property) and obedient. This is how males elevated their status in societies. Because these ancient societies were superstitious and knew nothing of physics, chemistry and biology, they were quick to believe that a "god" had communicated with a particularly charismatic male member of the tribe. Religions were born and as different tribes wanted superior status to other tribes, new religions were born which were “the only true religion and only true god”. What a load of crap.
It is very likely there is no god – no prime mover, no force of the heavens and earth, no divine daddy in the sky. It is phenomenally unlikely that there is a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. In fact, I can say with confidence that such a being does not exist. I could be wrong, but I truly doubt it. I believe our existence is a natural one. We are here simply because of physical, chemical and biological events that occurred over billions of years. I believe we evolved to be loving and caring simply as an insurance that our species would continue on our tiny planet in the universe for as long as it is able to. Nothing in nature is perfect – NOTHING. Humans are capable of great altruism and incredible evil. It is the altruism that ensures the survival of our species and this is the reason I think we should be good to each other.
Religious beliefs that promote hatred of large groups of people are detrimental to the progress of humanity and life on Earth. It’s time we all started caring for each other and the environment before superstitious nonsense succeeds in destroying the only planet in this vast universe where we KNOW life exists.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Revelation 14:1- And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
The Logic
It never ceases to amaze me that so many fundamentalists think that several groups of people are going to hell yet they never fail to assume that they are among the very limited group of men going to heaven. It clearly states in their mythology that of the 7 billion people currently inhabiting the Earth, only 144,000 virgin males are going to heaven where they will sing all the time and follow a lamb around (sounds like fun?... not to me but whatever floats your boat). And any man who has ever touched a woman is not eligible for "eternal bliss". The 144,000 dudes entering the "kingdom" are all virgins. I suspect the guys who wrote the "fabulous work of fiction" were rather homely boys who never got a date in high school.
I also encounter female fundies frequently who go on and on about gender roles and how they are so devoted to god/Jesus. But not a single one of them seems to acknowledge that they don't have a "hope in hell" (pardon the expression) of entering the pearly gates. First and foremost, they are of the wrong gender (according to the pagan book of misogynistic fables commonly referred to as “the bible”). It is so very clear in "Revelation" that heaven is an exclusive male club. And we hear in the letters of Paul (who I am convinced was, himself, a closeted homosexual) so often that he really did not care for women at all. They were to be barely seen and not heard at all (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) and be forever obedient to their husbands who were free to abuse their wives and daughters at will. I find myself particularly thrilled (not) that the idea of selling one's "daughters" into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) is a very acceptable practice in the, what I like to call, book of hatred (the bible). How any woman can actually bring herself to "believe" in this obviously sexist nonsense is beyond me. Several people in her life must have had a great deal of success in brainwashing her into believing these ridiculous “morales”.
There is a great deal of anthropological evidence to suggest that early civilizations were matriarchal. Women were revered in primitive cultures as they were "the givers of life". Women carried and bore children and men felt quite useless "back in the day". Unfortunately, human males are larger and physically stronger than females. This is likely because males needed to be the hunters/providers of food and lodging while females cared for the young and so evolution (natural selection to be specific) took care of the larger, stronger and faster physical aspects of male humans. As time went on, it is quite likely that men became jealous of the important roles of women and so developed "religions" where males were superior and females were to be owned (property) and obedient. This is how males elevated their status in societies. Because these ancient societies were superstitious and knew nothing of physics, chemistry and biology, they were quick to believe that a "god" had communicated with a particularly charismatic male member of the tribe. Religions were born and as different tribes wanted superior status to other tribes, new religions were born which were “the only true religion and only true god”. What a load of crap.
It is very likely there is no god – no prime mover, no force of the heavens and earth, no divine daddy in the sky. It is phenomenally unlikely that there is a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. In fact, I can say with confidence that such a being does not exist. I could be wrong, but I truly doubt it. I believe our existence is a natural one. We are here simply because of physical, chemical and biological events that occurred over billions of years. I believe we evolved to be loving and caring simply as an insurance that our species would continue on our tiny planet in the universe for as long as it is able to. Nothing in nature is perfect – NOTHING. Humans are capable of great altruism and incredible evil. It is the altruism that ensures the survival of our species and this is the reason I think we should be good to each other.
Religious beliefs that promote hatred of large groups of people are detrimental to the progress of humanity and life on Earth. It’s time we all started caring for each other and the environment before superstitious nonsense succeeds in destroying the only planet in this vast universe where we KNOW life exists.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Standing Tall for Atheism
I was struck by something this evening that I haven't thought a great deal about. I was struck by another sneaky lie by the theists (I like Hitchens' term for them). Picture the school child who has done something wrong and knows they've done something wrong. Quite often the guilty party will point a finger at another child and say, "But he did this awful thing..." it takes focus away from the guilty party and focuses it on a child that, perhaps, has done nothing. This is what the theists have been doing for quite some time and have done particularly well this week. This notion hit me as I was watching a video of Christopher Hitchens. He had been on a TV program with a particularly snotty host (Joe Scarborough - MSNBC of all places but he is Republican) who refused to let him answer the questions he'd been asked because Joe is clearly a Deluded-American. This in itself makes him a bad journalist (because journalism is never supposed to be about what the interviewer believes) but I digress. Hitchens was invited and Joe was rude to him. In any event, watching Christopher Hitchens throughout the years gave me a particular respect for him. He never backed down from a fight. He didn't allow anybody to get away with anything. His idea was that just because someone had "faith" didn't automatically entitle them to respect. He also wouldn't allow these people to disrespect him because he was rational (an atheist). He eventually made Joe look like an idiot and rightly so.
My "lightbulb" moment happened. All week (and for years actually) American theists have been falsely claiming a war on Christianity, when, in fact, there is no such war. It's like the school kid above. The war is on atheism! But they are pointing their fingers at us and whoosh... the attention is suddenly on atheists. We are supposedly the bad ones attacking religion when they are the ones attacking our constitutional right to NOT be bombarded with irrational nonsense 24/7.
Richard Dawkins is brilliant but he is soft spoken and is a target for religious bullies for this reason. He reads more before breakfast than the religious idiots, he argued with this week, read in a year. The study that was done by Dawkins was a questionnaire that clearly pointed out that most people who call themselves Christian on the census, know virtually nothing about Christianity. I'm an atheist and I know more about what is in the bible than most Christians. So the archbishop (or whoever the hell the bully was) asked him, totally off guard what the entire (lengthy) title was of Darwin's book. He stumbled with his words because it caught him off guard and after the 13 year old school girl giggles passed from the obviously biased room, some moron claimed Dawkins didn't know the title of his "bible".
Well, first of all, bullies at large, atheists don't have a bible. Educated people read lots of books (not just one that they base EVERYTHING on) and so it's very likely that one might momentarily forget a lengthy book title. One thing I am certain of, is that Dawkins has read the content of 'The Origin of Species' (and I can't remember the full title either) and knows what's in it and has studied plenty of other books on biology and has authored a few himself. I quite often have to look up the title of a book I've read or sometimes even an author's name because I read a lot! And NOTHING I read is my "bible" because I have no bible. The books in the bible have longer titles too but we all call them by their short names.
Then the moronic Janet Daley, author of the Telegraph article claimed Dawkins couldn't answer her about why it's wrong to hurt people. She's lying. Even I know the "evidence" for that "belief" is in ours brains, where there is a "survival of the species" mechanism which causes us to feel empathy for others. We have human emotions that come from the brain which evolved in us to protect our young and protect our tribe members from predators. Dawkins is much smarter than I am and would have given that answer had that actually been the question asked.
Furthermore, as Dailey said in her lame defense of her position, asking "why" is human nature. We're intelligent, curious animals. But just because we are curious and want to know "why" doesn't mean we should believe nonsense made up by other humans. It also doesn't mean there is actually an answer to that question. Why are lilies so beautiful? Because they are a happy accident of nature. I don't know why flowers are so pretty and neither does anyone else. It's been argued repeatedly that the universe is so magnificent and everything functions as if by design. There must be a designer. It can't all be accidental. My answer is "yes it can". There is no reason why it can't. It all just happened. Why is that so hard for humans to accept. It makes more sense than a magic space daddy that was made up by flat Earth desert dwellers.
So back off theists! The war is on those of us who use our brains for thinking and not for "blind faith". There is no war on Christianity. There is a war on atheism - rational thinkers!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
My "lightbulb" moment happened. All week (and for years actually) American theists have been falsely claiming a war on Christianity, when, in fact, there is no such war. It's like the school kid above. The war is on atheism! But they are pointing their fingers at us and whoosh... the attention is suddenly on atheists. We are supposedly the bad ones attacking religion when they are the ones attacking our constitutional right to NOT be bombarded with irrational nonsense 24/7.
Richard Dawkins is brilliant but he is soft spoken and is a target for religious bullies for this reason. He reads more before breakfast than the religious idiots, he argued with this week, read in a year. The study that was done by Dawkins was a questionnaire that clearly pointed out that most people who call themselves Christian on the census, know virtually nothing about Christianity. I'm an atheist and I know more about what is in the bible than most Christians. So the archbishop (or whoever the hell the bully was) asked him, totally off guard what the entire (lengthy) title was of Darwin's book. He stumbled with his words because it caught him off guard and after the 13 year old school girl giggles passed from the obviously biased room, some moron claimed Dawkins didn't know the title of his "bible".
Well, first of all, bullies at large, atheists don't have a bible. Educated people read lots of books (not just one that they base EVERYTHING on) and so it's very likely that one might momentarily forget a lengthy book title. One thing I am certain of, is that Dawkins has read the content of 'The Origin of Species' (and I can't remember the full title either) and knows what's in it and has studied plenty of other books on biology and has authored a few himself. I quite often have to look up the title of a book I've read or sometimes even an author's name because I read a lot! And NOTHING I read is my "bible" because I have no bible. The books in the bible have longer titles too but we all call them by their short names.
Then the moronic Janet Daley, author of the Telegraph article claimed Dawkins couldn't answer her about why it's wrong to hurt people. She's lying. Even I know the "evidence" for that "belief" is in ours brains, where there is a "survival of the species" mechanism which causes us to feel empathy for others. We have human emotions that come from the brain which evolved in us to protect our young and protect our tribe members from predators. Dawkins is much smarter than I am and would have given that answer had that actually been the question asked.
Furthermore, as Dailey said in her lame defense of her position, asking "why" is human nature. We're intelligent, curious animals. But just because we are curious and want to know "why" doesn't mean we should believe nonsense made up by other humans. It also doesn't mean there is actually an answer to that question. Why are lilies so beautiful? Because they are a happy accident of nature. I don't know why flowers are so pretty and neither does anyone else. It's been argued repeatedly that the universe is so magnificent and everything functions as if by design. There must be a designer. It can't all be accidental. My answer is "yes it can". There is no reason why it can't. It all just happened. Why is that so hard for humans to accept. It makes more sense than a magic space daddy that was made up by flat Earth desert dwellers.
So back off theists! The war is on those of us who use our brains for thinking and not for "blind faith". There is no war on Christianity. There is a war on atheism - rational thinkers!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Oh, Religion!
Fist of all, let's deal with the religious person's (let's call them RP's for typing efficiency from here on out) first "argument" in their defense of religion. It's one word - "faith". The dictionary defines it as a "strong belief in god or the doctrines of religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof". I agree with that definition and that is why "faith" is also my number one argument against religion. Why would a species who have evolved so far in science and engineering, ever believe ancient myths that were taught thousands of years ago before there even was science? Why would we believe stories that were told by people to explain their environment (that which could not be explained at the time)? Why would we believe that a supernatural omnipotent being "spoke" to the men who wrote those texts rather than the fact that it was their own, personal moral values being pushed on others? The moral compass of these men was based on bigotry - bigotry of homosexuals, bigotry of women, bigotry or other races, etc. so these men decided that they would tell everyone that God spoke to them or they had a dream (which very well could have been the case) that God spoke to them, when, in fact, it was their own thoughts or a mental condition such as schizophrenia, that actually came to them. And so the tales were eventually written down. Neighbours, with the same fears of the unknown, were told the tales and so began religion. And may I point out that every religion started in this manner. The point is, we now have science. We now know that magic is illusion, we now know that chemical problems in the brain cause some poor people to see things that are not there and hear voices. So why is faith, that pesky word that absolves us from thinking about the things we know to be true, an argument? How can not taking responsibility for our own lives be considered a good thing?
Secondly, why would this http://t.co/COEk6nWM insanely stupid argument in support of misogyny, be thought by its writter to be a convincing argument in favour of religion (belief in "God"). If God was real, if god was good, if god was all knowing and all seeing and if god, did, indeed create all things, one would assume that god, who knows everything, would have realized that the "culture" of the time was wrong. That women are sentient beings with absolutely equal RIGHTS as their male counterparts and therefore teach "His" people that the way they treated the women at that time period was brutally wrong, and therefore shell out a whole different set of punishments for those who raped women, didn't allow women to be community leaders, didn't allow women to own their own property and didn't allow women to control their own sexuality. Just because lameassed jealous men didn't trust their wives and so didn't want to feed another man's child is no excuse. Perhaps if those men didn't cheat on their wives they wouldn't have assumed their wives were doing the same thing. And perhaps if the women were allowed to choose their own husband, they would never have dreamed of cheating on the man they loved. You see, if God was real, he would have taught people these things 2000 - 6000 years ago.
He could have said to Abraham instead of "if you love me kill your own kid to prove it" something like "I created men and women to be sentient beings and therefore if a man does not treat his wife as he would like to be treated, it's an assault on me and same thing goes for a woman to a man". Thus ending the misogyny of the times.
You see if God was real, he would not threaten his "children" to believe in him or you'll burn in hell because if he was that great, he'd never have to threaten anyone. And if every human is a "child" of God, why would he pick favourites and tell the Jews in the first five books of the bible to go to non-Jew lands and butcher the men, women and children (yes even babies who couldn't possibly have done anything wrong - unless crying is a crime). Weren't those "non-Jews" God's children too? He even made them kill the damned livestock. What the hell did the animals do to piss off God? And why wouldn't they keep the livestock to feed their own families. Which reminds me, in the one case I recall where the conquering army did keep the livestock to feed themselves, God got completely pissed off and made them suffer big time. WHAT AN ASS!
So, as you can see, these arguments we atheists use are not the "insanely stupid" arguments douchebag above makes... the arguments he makes are insanely stupid for all of the reasons I just mentioned.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Secondly, why would this http://t.co/COEk6nWM insanely stupid argument in support of misogyny, be thought by its writter to be a convincing argument in favour of religion (belief in "God"). If God was real, if god was good, if god was all knowing and all seeing and if god, did, indeed create all things, one would assume that god, who knows everything, would have realized that the "culture" of the time was wrong. That women are sentient beings with absolutely equal RIGHTS as their male counterparts and therefore teach "His" people that the way they treated the women at that time period was brutally wrong, and therefore shell out a whole different set of punishments for those who raped women, didn't allow women to be community leaders, didn't allow women to own their own property and didn't allow women to control their own sexuality. Just because lameassed jealous men didn't trust their wives and so didn't want to feed another man's child is no excuse. Perhaps if those men didn't cheat on their wives they wouldn't have assumed their wives were doing the same thing. And perhaps if the women were allowed to choose their own husband, they would never have dreamed of cheating on the man they loved. You see, if God was real, he would have taught people these things 2000 - 6000 years ago.
He could have said to Abraham instead of "if you love me kill your own kid to prove it" something like "I created men and women to be sentient beings and therefore if a man does not treat his wife as he would like to be treated, it's an assault on me and same thing goes for a woman to a man". Thus ending the misogyny of the times.
You see if God was real, he would not threaten his "children" to believe in him or you'll burn in hell because if he was that great, he'd never have to threaten anyone. And if every human is a "child" of God, why would he pick favourites and tell the Jews in the first five books of the bible to go to non-Jew lands and butcher the men, women and children (yes even babies who couldn't possibly have done anything wrong - unless crying is a crime). Weren't those "non-Jews" God's children too? He even made them kill the damned livestock. What the hell did the animals do to piss off God? And why wouldn't they keep the livestock to feed their own families. Which reminds me, in the one case I recall where the conquering army did keep the livestock to feed themselves, God got completely pissed off and made them suffer big time. WHAT AN ASS!
So, as you can see, these arguments we atheists use are not the "insanely stupid" arguments douchebag above makes... the arguments he makes are insanely stupid for all of the reasons I just mentioned.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Our Corrupt Defense Minister
Why are we, as Canadians, not outraged and demanding the immediate resignation of defense minister, Peter MacKay? We, the taxpayers, should not be paying for a military helicopter to transport him on his personal fishing trips. Why is nothing being done? The media has even seemed to completely forget about this. He's a low life who tried to diminish military pensions, has sent our young people into battle in Afghanistan when that conflict has nothing to do with us and he's spending our money on pleasure trips. This is ridiculous. Canadians were loved all over the world as "peace keepers" and this jerk is ruining our image in the world. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS GUY PEOPLE! Where is our voice?
Friday, August 19, 2011
Scary Stuff
I was angry and frustrated and now, I’m beginning to get frightened.
It seems that every single one of the Republican primary runners is insane. They are religious fundamentalist fanatics who, clearly, care only about the ultra-wealthy. Those two concepts alone are polar opposites. The Jesus character that all of these people go on about, was a Socialist. He cared most for the poor and needy and overturned the tables of the “money changers” in the “market”. He was militant about economic inequality and expressed it over and over again.
It says a great deal about a society who demonizes the hard-working class and venerates greedy, wealthy oligarchs. Fox News pundits are openly biased, bigoted and racist. The comments you hear from them and their guests, literally make one's jaw drop. The latest was something Jon Stewart clearly outlined in a comic performance. The Fox News people were outraged that poor people (who make under $25,000 a year) actually own a refrigerator (correction 99.6% of them own a refrigerator) and they don’t pay taxes... Ooooo! Do they think we don’t notice that the ultra-rich don’t want to pay taxes on their private jets? They would rather the poorest people in the nation pay all of the taxes. Their buzz words are frequently spewed such as “successful”, “productive” and “job creators”. Are they completely loonie? Who, in their right mind, thinks that someone sitting in an office signing papers, or on the golf course in a “meeting” (wink, wink) works harder than a Latino in a restaurant washing dishes? These Republican crazy people should go back to grade school to learn what the definition of “hard work” and “productivity” is. They commonly fake outrage that the rich are picked on and the poor are a drain on society. Who the hell do they think did all the hard work that made the rich, rich? It certainly wasn’t the likes of Paris Hilton.
The fact is, 25%... that’s 1 in every 4 (for those of you who can’t count)... of Corporate Executives are psychopaths (“The Psychopath Test” by Jon Ronson). A psychopath, to summarize, is a selfish, self-centered, unempathetic, unfeeling person who is capable of extreme cruelty without a twinkle of remorse. 25%! And these are the people that Republicans support and praise. I probably wouldn’t be far from the truth to say that many Republicans are probably psychopaths themselves.
You have Rick Perry who is in a religious cult who want to take over the world (kind of like Al Qaida). You have Michelle Bachmann, who refuses to answer questions and has extremely bizarre ideas about life. You have Mitt Romney who believes in magic underwear. And the rest of the primary candidates are openly against 98% of the American population – I know this because they are so strongly FOR the ultra-wealthy 2% of the country.
Then there is President Obama who thought he was dealing with reasonable people. His hair has turned grey because he has had great difficulty accepting the fact that Republicans do NOT love their country... they love rich people. They literally hate average Americans and have said so over and over and over again. The Republican run House will never allow Obama to pass any meaningful legislation because that would make Obama successful and might get him re-elected and they’d rather see the country destroyed than to have a black Democrat re-elected. And even the Liberal media continually attacks the President even though it is so clear that there is nothing he can do against the “say “NO” to Obama” party. He could propose legislation to give Republicans EVERYTHING that they ever wanted and they would vote against it because it's him that proposed it.
And still, millions of Americans believe the Republican lies. They want to cut Medicare (so basically they want to kill the seniors), Medicaid (they want to kill poor people and children) and Social Security (again they really have it in for the elderly). I guess they really don’t think that seniors deserve to retire or have comfort in their old age, even though these are the people who worked for decades to build the country. Republicans are also misogynists. They are against abortions (even in cases of child rape) but at the same time they aren’t willing to help that same child with health care or raising the child. It’s a war against women. If men could have babies, there would be no discussion and abortion would be extremely common.
And last, but not least, they use religion to support their bigotry and racism. They hate homosexuals because some book (written and EDITED by homophobic men – human homophobic men) says (in a couple of sentences) that it’s OK to hate people who are different than you. The same book says it’s OK to have slaves (human beings whose race is different than their own). And yet, these same people are the types who rape little children.
When are average people going to wake up and call these fascists out on their actions? Just wondering?
If these people gain more power in the US, the thoughts of that are scary... some crazy lunatic is going to have nuclear arms within his/her reach. I'm just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)