Ruminations

Does Morality Require God?

2011-05-29T21:25:00.006-04:00

I believe the basis for my value system is really the same as everyone's basis. It is in our natural capacity for careful thought and the application of logic and reason mixed with empathy and compassion. This develops our behaviors (myself, rather imperfectly, I may add!) through those things that are an innate part of our natures. Over time, we have each learned a certain level (some more than others, of course!) of emotional, psychological, and intellectual maturity that requires no supervision from an authority figure because we have freely thought through and have independently chosen to take direct responsibility for and authority over our own behavior and actions. I believe most of us do the exact same thing, including the most religious of us. Some just give a larger share of the credit to religion, which I believe is generally fine, really.

My question: Do some of us behave well, even while no one is watching?

All of our moral compasses are floating, hence why so many Bible passages are outdated and at times just plain repulsive towards today's society. I believe much of the Old Testament shows God teaching his chosen people like they only had the moral compasses of 4 year-olds -- lots of reward/punishment. When I read the Old Testament, the message comes through clearly that God loves his chosen people, he doesn't much value anybody else, and that his chosen people would be totally, morally bankrupt if not for his provision of the commandments and the law which he provides out of love for his creation.

My questions: Do some of us behave well, even when there is no direct, immediate benefit to our individual selves? Do we all require the fear of judgement or punishment for disobedience?

In my opinion, a person who openly works at applying their own natural moral capacities (and doing so with more sensitivity and greater compassion over time) is far more worthy of my trust and far more ethically sound and mature than one who behaves well only because someone commanded them. It's what we'd expect from our children as they are growing into young adults, isn't it? Now, I don't doubt some adults believe they get their current moral compasses completely from an outdated religious rule book. I don't doubt that some adults actually can live like the Old Testament (see the government of Iran or people who want Sharia law in the west). I just doubt that we all must.

+A

You Still Here?

2011-05-22T15:19:00.001-04:00

If you're reading this, then I assume we all made it through last night's rapture safe and sound!

All kidding aside, I just feel that this is such a sad day for those people who truly defined their lives and believed in what Camping was preaching. In some sense, even for Camping. I'd be surprised if he truly didn't believe it also, as he did provide a date for obvious failiure of his interpretation of prophecy... something a true con-artist would be ill-advised to do. Sadly, there will be some greatly disheartened people who may be terribly confused about what didn't happen.

Alexander Hamilton said, "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything," and could be interpreted as a call for conventional religious belief and tradition as a regulating valve or stabilizer of society. Perhaps it is all too true for a growing segment of our population today as more and more people question their conventional belief systems. Some, invariably fall into the hands of delusional and parasitic preachers who tell them theirs is the "only path", to sell their possessions, eliminate unhealthy family ties, convert all unsaved believers, or just simply to not invest in the ecology of the planet. But this is one place where, I believe, mainstream religion still fails. Although it doesn't encourage belief directly in these extremes, typically using the end-of-days for a reason to "be better people today", it sets us up to trust those who use religious authority and revelation as means of right leadership. It puts us in the position to be duped. And in time, as we rightly question our traditional value systems and belief structure of our parents, some people sadly will search for "other gods" or "magic cures" to help them along. Some are really born followers.

There are also, the "mid-stream funde's", who are neither still following "conventional religion", nor going to the extremes Camping is advocating. I also feel pity for them, those who expect the end-of-days to unfold within the next few generations and live their lives differently because of it. It's my personal belief that it is irresponsible and selfish for someone to write these sorts of disparaging predictions in any book -- why share your bad dreams or delusions with the rest of humanity and call it God's will?

Regarding the end-of-days, I think its just best to let tomorrow take care of itself. Regardless of which, if any, religion you are born into, I'm somewhat hopeful that we all share in that feeling.

+A

The Rapture

2011-05-20T23:54:00.004-04:00

At half-past-11, here's my tongue-in-cheek attempt to inform all ye good citizens of the world to stay alert tomorrow for flying corpses being called into the sky by their saviour. My advice, be especially careful while driving to also watch out for any liberated speeding automobiles. In fact, maybe it's just better to not go out at all, open a cold one, and hang at the old homestead chilling with the live countdown being televised on FOX or CBN... just perhaps you'll be so lucky to wake up Sunday morning and finally have that funde tract-leaver next door move out. Here's to hoping he really was correct when he kept insisting he was a true believer, and he isn't just at morning service like last Sunday.

Indeed, everyone needs a little levity (pun intended?), not just Xtians... but Camping is really a doodah, pardon my french. I'm just a little surprised Robertson hasn't gotten in on this one -- maybe he's still busy back-calculating the age of the earth from the genealogy from Adam to Jesus from Luke's gospel while riding a dinosaur in his new 70,000 square foot creationist museum? From what I read, Camping's 1994 prediction was a simple "miscalculation". Wonder what his plan B strategy is this time? It must be better than his followers', that's for sure. Seriously, where do they get this stuff? Oh, yeah... the Bible. You'd think, if it truly was God's word, He'd make it a whole lot harder to misinterpret, and even throw in something cool, like a reference to Quantum Electro-Dynamics or Relativity.

Well, either way, God bless and best of luck to you all!

+A

The Balance and Humility of Science

2011-04-19T17:16:00.011-04:00

Science is often built up by the balance of observation and hypothesis, the empirical and the insightful, measurable facts and intuitive awareness. This can come in the purest methods of observation followed by trying to concoct a theory, or a theory followed by trying to fit observation. Usually it is a mixture of both, and is not often performed solo in a vacuum. Rather advances are often a result of a collaboration of multiple researchers, all pulling in several directions, but not necessarily simultaneously. This zigzag pattern of science is what helps define it as non-dogmatic, and not dependent solely on pure thought or insight as the Greeks would have had it. Beauty and harmony, while often the soul of the mathematician, the musician or the mystic has not been the core of successful science.

Occasionally the scientist must move away from elegance to observable fact, and occasionally away from accurately matching observation toward pursuit of a new and appealing idea, wherever the appeal may lie, no matter how silly and "unscientific" it appears to others. It is in this balance we are helping create a better world.

It is through our failed attempts, and reworking of them that success is born. Sadly, as history (including scientific) is written by the winners, a common criticism of science is that it is self-serving and overly dogmatic and proud. And scientific research does little to dispel this belief. Often, as was started with Newton, the presentation of ideas is performed as if the scientist was fortunate enough to be handed the laws of nature as divine rules, head held high, demonstrating often only their success. Not often are the limits of contradictions or alternate theories expounded upon, and for rightful reason -- his peers will. Science is built on peer review, and falsifiable theory.

Science is humble in general, no matter how much the individual human researcher can have the tendency to be self-serving and boastful. Science is one of the rare institutions which helps mitigate this.

Yes, science only approximates reality.
Yes, science is always rewriting itself.
Yes, science can be quite analytic in nature, and much of what can be appreciated in reality is not... or is even diametrically opposite of it.
All, thankfully so.

Einstein asked, "How can it be that mathematics being a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" Well, to quote Gershwin, "It Ain't Necessarily So"!

+A

All is Tentative

2011-04-18T22:47:00.004-04:00

I thought this to be a nicely stated quote by Louis Pasteur:

"Science advances through tentative answers to a series of more and more subtle questions which reach deeper and deeper into the essence of natural phenomena."

+A

One Simple Phrase

2011-03-27T20:27:00.007-04:00

Here is a little quote-mining... and is from Hitchens, as quoted by Sam Harris.

"Credit goes to Christopher Hitchens for distilling, in a single phrase, a principle of discourse that could well arrest our slide into the abyss: 'What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.' "

+A

The Nobility of Japanese Society

2011-03-15T21:24:00.007-04:00

Below are some comments from around the internet of the nobility of Japanese culture and society, which is evident during this time of crisis. Mind you, this is a culture where a strong percentage of people (80 to 90 percent?) are Buddhist, and thus atheist. Yes, it isn't "the perfect culture"... nor is there one. As we lend aid to Japan in dollars and physical support, wouldn't it be ironic if they were really the ones lending us aid to help us understand how to be good to one another for a change? Perhaps the world will open its eyes to this beauty and learn from it.

"If you want to see what civilized people act like in times of calamity, look no further than Japan. I wonder how many other cultures would be able to say the same thing if that terrible tragedy had happened to them. Imagine for a second if this happened in New York .....the chaos looting murder and craziness would be totally out of control. The Japanese have an amazing CULTURE we should all be watching and learning as they deal with this tragedy!!!!!"

"I find it amazing how orderly the Japanese people are in facing this catastrophe. They aren't finger pointing, yelling for others to take care of them, looting, or waiting for handouts. They are tending to the business at hand and taking care of EACH OTHER. I am so more likely to contribute to them than to those sitting on their rumps, stealing and screaming for OTHERS to do something."

"Of course there was no looting in Japan. You will also find the survivors actually cleaning up after this big mess. Unlike New Orleans where you still find trash in front of many yards of homes that haven't been touched. They're still waiting for me to come by and pick it up for them. Come to think of it... I never saw Japanese Americans looting during Katrina."

"The Japanese people are raised to have the most respect for their fellow man. They are taught that saving face is very important. You wont catch then stealing and looting because they know that whatever you do there is a price to pay and they wouldnt think of stealing from their fellow man."

"I am a proud America who was once stationed in Japan. Despite my love for USA, in all objectivity, Americans have become terribly selfish and disrespectful of one another.."

"There may be nothing to loot, but they stand in line waiting patiently, quietly for food, anything. They are not blaming anyone, and are not expecting anything. That is what makes the difference."

This is starting to be noticed, even by the media. If you watch news broadcasts, from the left of center, and the right of center, the American reporter on assignment in Japan is trying their best to explain, through their surprise, the beauty in the Japanese people clear during this time. The person at the news desk, somewhere in America, is just so clearly dumbfounded and tripping over their own deeply opinionated American words, jumping to already misdirected conclusions and sharing it with their viewers. For most Americans, you'll never look at yourself from outside in this way. But if you can, you'll see in general how transparent we are. If only we could learn from this.

+A

Unjust World

2011-03-12T13:52:00.003-05:00

On the news today, a Facebook wall-post was read in which a survivor from the Japan quake commented in the aftermath for comfort, "God is in control of all things." Now, I don't fault him personally for making such a dubious statement; he was just through hell, living in Sendai itself and now dealing with the massive aid effort. But I am certain this comment shows just how broken and twisted the religious mind is.

Certainly if God is all-powerful, he must have the ability to be in control of all things, but why attribute only those who survived to God? Where was God for those who have died and suffered unjustly through this ummmm... ACT of GOD? If one attributes only one's good fortunes to God, we are either in denial, blind, simple, or just plain too stupid. And only an evil asshole would purposefully create a world where his loved, conscious inhabitants suffer and die unjustly at the whims of nature and at the hands of the laws he set forth.

We live in a beautiful, yet cruel and unjust world. Let's learn to accept it without turning to God in the process.

+A

All The News Fit To...

2010-12-26T19:04:00.004-05:00

Recently, the University of Maryland conducted a survey on the impact of the new business on good citizenship.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/12/22/university-study-fox-viewers-more-misinformed

What they found, not surprisingly is that those who watched Fox News regularly were most misinformed about the issues:

MSNBC took some hits, but it was the daily viewers of Fox News who were significantly more misinformed about healthcare, climate change, and Barack Obama. They were 14 points more likely to mistakenly believe that "the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts," and 13 points more likely to erroneously believe that "the auto bailout only occurred under Obama," and 12 points more likely to hold the incorrect belief that "when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it." By 30 points, they mistakenly believed that "most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring."

And of course, they were 31 percent more likely to believe the Birther whopper that "it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States."

It was not a matter of partisan self-selection. Democrats who watched Fox, as well as Republicans, came away misled and misinformed.

While I was at the gym one evening, I was watching The Factor, and I distinctly remember O'Reilly saying how popular FOX is in America (over all other cable news outlets). What he didn't want to mention is that it is very possible to be popular AND promoting misinformation at the same time. In fact, it's their business.

My Mom, one sister, and her husband all generally have nothing original to say on most world-topics. Summed up by someone in my community:

They simply repeat, almost verbatim, what was / is stated on FOX. It's boring and a worry. True there are many forms of trash media, on both sides, left and right, but there is a general theme with all of FOX programming that I find insulting. It's "dumbed down", and repetition is definitely in there along with the use of voice/tone as a means to captivate the already scared and angry.

Personally, I would never argue that FOX is FAUX or always wrong, but many viewers of FOX that I know, are almost always only viewers and quoters of FOX only. In my opinion, no single news program / channel provides the only news one should absorb. Personally, I find it quite helpful to watch FOX, as well as other networks, and if that contributes to them being "the most popular" then I guess it does. That's fine with me.

But, in my opinion watching only FOX is like eating only chicken, or drinking only coffee... or reading only the bible. To get a balanced view of any topic (or a balanced diet), you are one who is personally responsible for what you put into your brain (and body).

+A

The Deciding Path

2010-12-13T23:15:00.004-05:00

coming from a family and a place of belief
is largely different from coming from a place of non-belief.
i speak on this from experience -- a catholic at birth.
and a born again christian from 17 on...
i mean after even my revival and jubilation
it all came down to what rationalization
i could make exist for all the silly things i believed in?
and how could they gel with reality
which we live everyday.
it just doesn't make sense anymore.

couple that with the realization
that you could just have easily been born
a hindu, a jew, a muslim, a buddhist.
the luck of the draw.
and the thought, that if we did have souls,
and we were all in a queue, so to speak...
the queue of souls...
and my mom and dad sneezed at that fatal moment,
i'd be born (if at all) in some other part of the world,
being raised by some other parents,
and told that i belong to the right religion,
but that religion being some other religion.

and if reincarnation were true
(why not people?
you think a wandering jew had all the truth??)
then perhaps i have already been a member
of so many varieties of religions
over the course of my life-rebirth cycles.

so if i was going to let
the preposterousness of christianity in,
why not others?
who says that christianity has the corner on the market?

and then living in japan...
a place where christian thought IS truly a minority...
and i saw how good life can be,
how good a society can be,
WITHOUT god.
so morality didn't depend on god,
and what i was told by my parents was,
in the end, quite random.

and then like the hand of god reaching down
islamic jihadists drove all these points home
and literally beheaded religion as it stood there
already awaiting its death
but god was in the headlights
and how could i,
the predetermined and sanctified christian
now speak of self-evident "purpose"
and everything working for the good
for those who love god and are called...
when it appeared god killed himself that day
and it either was in his plan to teach me
that i no longer needed him
or perhaps, he never did exist
and i just saw purpose where i wanted to see it
and suddenly, i no longer needed
in fact, i loathed him
if he was behind these acts
if anyone who was behind these acts
called themselves the true believers in god
if he would allow such petty arguments
to remain unchecked
year after year,
decade after decade,
century after century.

but from what i hear,
he is omnipotent
and benevolent
and yet i also hear there is only one way
this infinite being out of time
can teach his creation how to value his presence
and that is by his absence.
so what else can we conclude
except there is no god.
and if that is what it took
for me to one day value his presence
then so be it.

and if there is one thing i can call my own,
it is me.
and i won't sell it for anyone
for any truth.
and so if god did exist,
why should he care
what philosophical position i took
and just what i thought about his existence?
so i made my decision
and diverted by the hand of humanity
to see that the road
that i start to walk on tomorrow
is the same road that i have always walked on
and that is my path.

+A

I Suffer, Therefore I AM

2010-12-12T16:24:00.006-05:00

The following is quoted from a believer in my hometown:

"The thing that always confused me is people blame God for everything, but yet if He did step in and eliminate all the bad in the world, that would mean He would literally have to control all of mankind. He could do this, but then we would be nothing more than robots doing everything the master commanded them to do. God has allowed man to have free will, this world is the direct result of that free will."

The most common excuse for human suffering in the face of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god is that it is a necessary consequence of human free will, without which we'd all be robots (see above post on this). The three responses to that which I believe completely lay it to waste are:*

1. Human free will does not cause natural disasters.

2. If human suffering is a natural effect of free will, then heaven must either have no free will or have human suffering, either of which would defeat the alleged point of heaven. If heaven can have free will and no suffering, that is an admission that they are not mutually exclusive.

3. The fates do not discriminate based on human choices or beliefs. Good things happen to bad people. Bad things happen to good people. At equal rates of occurence, without prejudice or reason.

The only other alternatives are a malicious god, a negligent god, or you know, no god at all.

I for one would feel better if you'd be honest with yourself, and others, and just say, "I choose to believe in god, despite the lack of evidence around me." At least then you aren't misleading others with flawed logic, and your predetermined convictions of what makes you happiest and comfortable.

Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones.
Why does it happen? Because it happens. Roll the bones. -- Rush

Really, some questions just aren't valid or purposeful.

+A

*[Big thank-yous go out to a friend who helped word two out of three of these reasons. Cheers!]

A Thoughtful Response to Mr. Ben Stein's Confession

2010-11-20T17:55:00.006-05:00

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary. Unfortunately, Christian zealots have hi-jacked Ben's original commentary, and a modified version of it is floating around cyberspace. I posted the modified version in the comments for everyone to see what lengths zealots will go to, when faced with fear, and I post my reply to Mr. Ben Stein below. I urge you to read it.

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

My confession (in response to Ben Stein):

I am an atheist. I was raised Catholic, and from what I suspect, my Catholic heritage runs many generations into the distant past. Perhaps an adoption or foster home changed the overall path here and there, but let's say I was raised Christian, and I believed strongly in Christ, the power in his sacrifice on the cross, and in Christmas. I too, am not bothered even a little bit when people call those beautiful, lit up, bejeweled trees "Christmas trees"... I don't feel threatened... I don't feel discriminated against... That's what they are, "Christmas trees". Heck, once every year, I even HAVE one.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me (or "Happy Hanukkah" for that matter). I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to ship me off to atheist Europe. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. Perhaps it is odd for people who believe in God to understand, but atheists quite enjoy this winter holiday season! So, I hope Christians and Jews aren't bothered or offended either, if I do not know their religion in advance, and happen to just utter "Happy Holidays!" when greeting them during this time of year. But it appears Mr. Ben Stein is. And from what I notice, some percentage of Christians are also.

It doesn't bother me a bit when a nativity scene or Menorah is exclusively displayed in public, on private property, and it doesn't bother me when believers in God pray in a public place for all to see (saying grace, or the scoring of a touchdown, etc). It is their right. And I expect it shouldn't bother believers in God when atheists place their own holiday displays in their windows, or they do not partake in a prayer to a non-existant god, when all around them are. It is their right as citizens of this country. And I don't expect that believers in God should be bothered a bit when in a public place, owned by a public institution, all beliefs are equally displayed during the holiday season. But it appears Mr. Ben Stein is. And from what I notice, some percentage of Christians are also.

I don't like getting pushed around (and even being part of an unelectable minority) for being an atheist, and I don't think Muslims, Christians or Jews like getting pushed around for being Muslims, Christians or Jews. Thanks to Mr. Ben Stein, I also now think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. But I have an idea where that concept came from: fear. Fear that beliefs will be questioned (and reevaluated), if children are exposed to the use of free thought, and their "god given" ability to reason. Fear that society will become amoral without belief in God. But, I confess, I also have a fear. It is a fear that god-fearing people are only acting moral BECAUSE of their belief in God -- the omnipresent policeman, and once their policeman evaporates, they too will revel in debauchery and sin. It is the precise reason why I don't want to "evangelize" believers into a superstition-free existence. Perhaps they are truly best off with their rabbits feet, crosses and crucifixes. But I'm not. And it doesn't matter one bit if you understand this. But it is important that you respect my right to talk about it and act on it without being offended for you or your children.

The use of a "straw-man atheist" argument who is "anti-Christians" and "anti-Christmas" still sells to the majority in this wonderful and great country -- so Mr. Ben Stein uses it. Sad. It was meant to appeal to the Christian majority, and it does. In fact, it helps to transform them into believing they are a minority. Christians (and people who believe in God) in America, are the only known majority that actively feels it is oppressed and pushed around! Amazing. Spectacularly amazing!

I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly non-atheist country. But alas, I need to go now, and start my constant sinning, so the fundamentalist "God of Graham, Falwell and Robertson" can have even greater reasons to not protect this country, and all of humanity from more natural disasters.

Peace.

+A

Evolution Evidence Primer

2010-11-09T22:47:00.008-05:00

It often amazes me that evolutionary theory comes up against such a strong response in this country, and continues to be misunderstood to the general public. Below is a brief overview of evidence already found in confirmation of evolutionary theory. They are compiled from the following books, along with some general sorting and exposition by myself:
"Why Evolution Is True", Jerry Coyne
"Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters", Don Prothero
"The Counter-Creationism Handbook", Mark Isaak

First, it is important to note that the word "theory", in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanations for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). If "only a theory" were a valid objection, creationists (and intelligent design proponents) would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease. None of these theories are "proven" either, as proof is never possible through observation and evidence acquired through our senses. No matter what theory is used to understand evolution, the fact of evolution remains true -- in much the same way that fact of gravity exists no matter which theory we understand it by: Newton's theory of gravity, or the more accurate Einstein's Relativity. Darwin's theory of evolution (and more recent modifications of some nuances) is no less valid than any of these other theories. Evolution is true and it is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. Contrary to creationist propaganda, it is not a theory in crisis. There is an enormous body of evidence in support of it, which continues to grow. The following are points of reference to those who wish to dig deeper:

LIFE'S FUNDAMENTAL UNITY
All life shows fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Sudden creation wouldn't need to.

NESTED HIERARCHY OF SPECIES
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. Sudden creation wouldn't conform to this.

COMMONALITY IN TRAIT RELATIONSHIPS
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

FOSSIL HIERARCHY AND TRANSITIONAL FORMS
Fossils fit in the same tree of life. We also find clear cases of transitional forms in the fossil record (more every year), despite the natural expected spottiness of the fossil record. We see examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have close common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians. These transitional forms occur in layers of rock that date to the time when the groups are supposed to have diverged.

FOSSIL DATES AND EXPECTED CHARACTERISTICS
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation (which includes intelligent design). We see clear evidence of evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest and oldest layers of rock contain the fossils of more primitive species. Fossils become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. We see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing adaptation.

EXTINCT SPECIES
Easily over 90% of species that ever existed are now extinct. This supports evolution, and leaves creationism with an unanswerable question... Why? Perhaps the creator just put them there to fool those easily duped scientists!?

VARIATION WITHIN SPECIES
We see that species show genetic variation for many traits (otherwise there would be no possibility of evolution happening).

SIMILARITY OF SPECIES (DNA, STRUCTURES, HISTORY)
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently in the environment, and the fossil record. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structures despite their different functions. The same principle applies on a molecular level in the DNA. Since being able to easily sequence DNA, we've learned that the more structures shared between species, more DNA is as well. Although humans share a large percentage of their genes with a fruit fly (about 70 percent). Humans share about 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees and bonobos.

VESTIGAL TRAITS
Many species show vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight (Ostrich, Kiwi), sometimes even co-opted for new uses (Penguins). We only see vestigal characters consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories. Sudden creation wouldn't conform to this.

ATAVISTIC FORMS
Atavisms are seen. These are the reappearance of a character present *occasionally* in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors (legs of whales, outer toes on horses, human tails). We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories. Sudden creation wouldn't conform to this.

EMBRYOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution (snake hind limbs, human lanugo, human left recurrent laryngeal nerve, human yolk sac).

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. Marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift (which is observed daily). Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. This consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included. Continental islands show an obvious consistency with their neighboring continents, while oceanic (volcanic) islands generally only harbor species that could have traveled there across water (insects, birds, occasional reptiles). A sudden creation (by a creator) wouldn't bias only oceanic islands in this manner, and wouldn't have to conform to plate techtonics. Note, when introduced to oceanic islands my humans, these continental island species thrive.

INDEPENDENTLY EVOLVING FUNCTION
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. Wings of bats, birds, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. This again applies at the molecular level also.

IMPERFECT DESIGN
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. The human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptable to choking. The human intestines, and lower back, are optimized for our ancestors who walked on four legs. The prostate is prone to choke off urination. The human testes have to descend in the embryo from inside the abdomen where our ancestors had them. Imperfection is the mark of evolution, not of conscious design. We are able to find cases of imperfect adaption, where evolution has not been able to achieve the same degree of optimality as would a creator specifically because evolution has only the past to work from as a starting point -- there is no "designing from scratch". Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. Much DNA is non-functional, or even decayed due to lack of use. See the icefish DNA for hemoglobin and eyes vs. their adaptation for antifreeze in their "bloodless" blood.

VERIFICATION OF COSMOLOGICAL HISTORY
Fossils also show changes to the earth over cosmological time, for example the amount of days per year recorded within corals some 380 million years ago.

DNA PRESERVES EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY
DNA has preserved an incredible record of evolutionary history, the likes of which we are just starting to uncover. Thus far, it has only confirmed evolutionary theory.

NON-FUNCTIONAL DNA
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.

SPECIATION OBSERVED
Speciation has been observed within the fossil record (Planktonic Radiolarian, Theropods to Birds, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus) and within the laboratory (Bacteria, Fruit Flies).

EVIDENCE OF NATURAL SELECTION IN WILD
We see natural selection acting in the wild.

RATES OF CHANGE VS. DISTANCE OF COMMON DESCENT
The day to day aspects of evolution -- namely heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

CONSISTENCY ACROSS ALL EVIDENCE
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent with each other. They all point to the same big picture.

+A

Blaming the Improbable Explanation

2010-11-07T15:32:00.008-05:00

I've heard from believers that they are sick of hearing non-believers BLAME god for everything.

It's quite an interesting comment, really, because non-believers generally do not blame god for anything. Isn't it obvious that there's no god to blame? Most non-believers try to understand how the world works using our senses coupled with our ability to reason. We try to search for answers to life's questions by understanding their natural causes and hopefully end up finding an explanation for a given phenomena. In essence, "it is what it is".

We don't usually encourage our brains to first search for a supernatural reason for anything. This also extends to even those items which science doesn't currently have answers for. Speculation is all nice, and open inquiry should be encouraged. But do we live life as if supernatural explanations were probable? Of course, no. There is a large range of hypotheses and ideas, some verifiable, and others ummmm... certifiable (if you catch my drift). Just because you can think something doesn't give it any weight or significance, although sometimes, yes, it is quite fun to think these things. Perhaps we even have some evolutionary history which predisposes us to these thoughts.

Personally, I am quite grateful for my existence -- in the lottery of life, there are so many ways each of us could not exist, that life itself is precious. Logically, the only people who could blame a god, are believers in that god. To stop believing in a god because you blame him is usually a character trait of emotional believers when some ill befalls them. If any non-believers say things which make you think they "blame god", they are often using this line of thought to show how the current evidence in the world around us doesn't support claims of a personal, loving god.

To be damn honest, most believers will forgive god for ANYTHING, and say "he works in mysterious ways". Mysterious? Well, there's nothing mysterious about being a damn asshole. A world created supposedly for the sake of man, full of items where man is not the cause, and yet often takes the consequences (tornados, hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, earth bound asteroids, cancer, AIDS, etc.) certainly supports either "god is an asshole" theory, or "god doesn't exist" theory. In short, if believers can say "thank god" for their good fortunes, why should they be obliviously dishonest with their very own god when catastrophic "acts of god" occur? Or do we look as these items like a frightened caveman, claiming that the angry god brought the lightning and the thunder because of our sinfulness?

I used to see god in EVERYTHING... behind every red traffic light, protecting me from the accident around the corner which is going to happen, listening to my every heartbeat, and answering every prayer. To me, he was hidden in all the gaps of science, and I often wondered, "If our understanding of the universe is true, where would god need to be? Either he turned on all the machines and let them run (deistic), or he was constantly touching gears and cogs when we weren't observing, undetectable to all of us."

Well, using god to explain how things are is NOT an explanation at all -- and it is the primary failure of religion, and ourselves, for allowing it a place as a possible valid explanation for how things are. It never explains anything. It only pushes the question up one level into the "holy" supernatural realm where man dare not ask these questions of god. Scared yet?

The religious mind which is educated in science will have to either live in denial, or come to the disquiting reality that god as explanation has failed, and is being pushed back into only the gaps in our knowledge -- he's been for centuries. And if god is relegated only to be explanations for the items we currently don't understand, then certainly his domain will continue to disappear around him, until at last he is the god of nothing at all. If I still believed in a god now, this certainly isn't the kind I'd want to believe in. Of course, it's your choice.

+A

Willful Ignorance

2010-10-01T22:40:00.006-04:00

In a survey published this month by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life aimed to test a broad range of religious knowledge, composed of 32 questions, including understanding of the Bible, core teachings of different faiths and major figures in religious history, atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers. Jews and Mormons followed closely with 20 accurate responses. And not so surprisingly, Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15. What does one make of this?

From my point of view, the path to non-belief is largely through open-minded, non-biased education. This path often is a twisted road of worth where the thinker weaves their way through a multitude of philosophies, theologies, and superstitions, often on their own (self-study), trying on each one of them like an outfit, looking in the mirror once, or several times -- perhaps even living with these clothes for a period of time (and no doubt occasionally identifying with the faith-convert into christianity or buddhism), but ultimately discarding their daily use. But since the non-believer's very own identity relies on the path they have taken to get to this point, their understanding of the world can be quite precious to them. The walk is worth the effort. The examined life is worth living. Therefore, ironically, the path to non-belief is very often through phases of varied, sincerely held, disparate beliefs.

The path into faith in a belief, either through your family/cultural traditions and upbringing initiated at birth, or for many converts into a given faith is largely through conditioning or an emotional conversion experience. Many followers across varied faiths indeed, by the very definition of being "followers", lead unexamined lives full of unexamined beliefs, often not just in reference to other's beliefs, but many times their own. The unexamined life is comforting, and can be filled with a strong sense of purpose or zeal, and a surprise why everyone in the world isn't what they are. The holder of such beliefs often boasts that they indeed do live an examined life with examined beliefs, but often if and when the mind operates at all on the philosophical plane, it is only in a justification-role of why such beliefs are held, and self-reinforces itself to maintain such beliefs for life's own stability. Often what the believer wants to know of different faiths is what their own faith teaches of them, again, for their own safety and preservation of their own faith.

The day that superstitious and supernatural non-explanations fail to be taught as a possible answer to life's questions of purpose is the day the human race becomes free from our past knee-jerk reaction for purpose out of fear. This need not remove anything else of value from one's life. Although it is possible and common today for ex-believers to experience a loss or uneasiness in deconversion. Some of this is due to the mind being conditioned initially to see a supernatural deity as the only way we can be moral. This is untrue, and one need only ask where the morality of the atheist comes from to see this. The valuable items which some have mentioned as reasons for one seeking belief through faith such as "happiness in life", "purpose in life", "morally raising children", and "elimination of unhealthy fear and worry" are all still quite possible to have without turning towards superstitious and supernatural non-explanations. At some point, the believer, noting that a majority of these beliefs were only a magic trick created to comfort, entertain, and provide purpose, may consciously or unconsciously decide to break free.

It is possible, that is all I say. One can easily leave behind the things of a child. Should one? Well that is each our individual choice. My only point, is that the survey performed shows the following to be true: an atheist does indeed find their path through a much deeper examination than a stagnant (yet happy!) believer, no matter what religion. It all comes down to your values and what you'd like your children to value -- education, or willful ignorance.

Or perhaps we should now call it "faithful ignorance"?

+A

Banning is Obscene

2010-09-26T23:59:00.007-04:00

I'll never know why this is... but it is clear that many parents want their child to be raised in a bubble of their choosing, never to be influenced by the world around them. I get the feeling more and more that this stems from the influence of Christianity within our societal and cultural norms. The concept of 'the world is bad!' comes directly from Paul's letters to the early Christian churches. In reality, this bubble hurts our children, and our next generation. In turn, it hurts ourselves. It is a recipe for perpetual ignorance. Not altogether bad when living life expecting the return of Jesus in your lifetime, but... are we joking?

As a parent, I will say it once: There is NEVER a time to ban books (or for that matter to burn books). If anyone wants to ban books and specific ideas from society by starting with their children, I only ask them to think back to the 1950's, and consider displacing their child to that time, to be raised then and there. Consider their relationships, and their xenophobia. Consider their ethnocentrism and prejudice. What would make any of us ever want to go back?

Sadly, the word morality in our culture is commonly used in a certain context to describe the loss of puritan values in the recent years, almost as a downfall of man into the pit of sin and "human-ness". A lot of this originates in the sickening and morally bankrupt concept of "original sin" which is still taught to our children in Sunday-school and the like. But to be born human is not a sin. To be close-minded is. We are here, not to live like yesterday's generations, but to live anew each and every day. Education is key. And without new ideas, we fail. In fact, by your chosing to be offended in a given situation (either for yourself or your children) is an example of what we as a culture need to work (and are working) through.

When I was 5, I was playing guitar and singing Simon and Garfunkel's "The Boxer". No I didn't understand what "whores on 7th avenue" were... and who cares really?

Yes. Age-appropriateness is a sensibility which varies according to our specific cultural landscape. To be sure, over the course of the last 60 years, it is a landscape which has been getting more level and open, in that children are much more exposed to a greater variety of cultural influences earlier in their lives than ever. Part of this is within books, yes. But a great deal of it is through other media, TV, music, video games, peer influence, and even through the actions of their parents (many not even noticed by the parents themselves). Children do not exist in a vacuum, and they need to absorb what is presented to them for their own good, and ultimately their own survival. Restricting or banning media or material is not the answer.

Steering children towards or away from appropriate books works QUITE well, and is a proper response towards helping children interact with their world around them. What is proper (or helpful for learning) for one child at an age, may not be for another at that same age. We need parents and educators who participate in guiding children and provide structure to their environment. Not altogether by restricting the whole lot of them. Unfortunately, it does require a group of educated parents, teachers and educators though, that wish to engage children all throughout their lives as individuals (and in that, some opposition presents itself). The problem that many people have with this, is that it takes WORK. The ills our society currently has, is so much less due to "exposure" than it is to lack of engagement (communication, interest, time-spent, understanding). We are lazy.

I quote a well-versed Yahoo! user:

Instead of complaining that an assigned book doesn't share your values, how about doing what the teachers do? Discuss the book as your child is reading it. Analyze the story and ask questions about what the author is trying to say. Try to see the story from different points of view. It's not going to "hurt" your values to question why you hold them. Trying to shelter a child from knowledge because it offends your religious sensibilities makes me question the value of that religion. They will meet many people in this world who do not view the world the same as their parents.

Those who want to ban or prohibit are usually those who fail to provide their own children with one-on-one attention and engagement, enough to discuss and be a guide to their world around them. Children love guidance and help. Even teens. We, as a society, fail at engaging our children. Banning isn't the answer. Education and guidance is. The world is not something to protect our children from. It is something to prepare our children for.

Engage your children. Interact with new ideas yourself. Lead by example. Everyday. If you fail in this manner, how can we hope for our children to mold their future? Tomorrow is unwritten. Let it be as thus.

+A

The Imperfect Wisdom of History

2010-09-25T21:05:00.018-04:00

"Why are we still so divided on the subject of religion in the 21st century? We need to learn to live together regardless of our personal beliefs. It is not a question of intelligence to say there is a God or not, and we cannot prove that it doesn't exist, but let's realize that neither has it been proven to that there is. While in some ways the bible is a good historical document that can say much about the times of the writers, it in no way proves the existence of God. For the record, I do believe that Jesus existed and that he was a noteworthy figure of some extent. Many think he was an exceptionally good person. To believe he was the son of God and he arose from the dead is a leap of pure faith that I can find no rational basis for. This doesn't make me the enemy of Christians or any other faith, it merely says that I prefer to question what some would have me blindly accept as fact. The ability and desire to do so is what makes us human. We should learn to love and accept one another based on individual merit." -- Paraphrased from a Yahoo! user's comment

Not so surprisingly, this rational point of view brought the funde's out of the woodwork, which included the following:

"Why do you believe Jesus was an exceptionally good person? The only early sources that claim that he was a good person were from the people who believed he was God. Why believe them about one thing and not the other? The man was an executed criminal. As C.S. Lewis puts it, Jesus can only be 1 of 3 things: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord."

One can take the moral teachings of value from any system and all systems as one wishes and choose to accept the superstitious dogma on the basis of faith, or not. It is clearly a personal choice. Moreover, we all choose what man made wisdom we will accept, either through evidence and demonstration, through authority (and faith in those authorities), or through direct revelation (faith in the immediacy of our sensing something supernatural occuring to ourselves).

C.S. Lewis' logic was always flawed and he routinely and regularly supplied mulitple choice answers to his readers (mostly questioning christians who wanted some sort of logic to back up their faith) to choose from which excluded all options. It doesn't take too much of an open mind to realize the "Lord, Lunatic, Liar" tryptic is incomplete, once we see that all we know of this man called Jesus is what is written of him (as Jesus was illiterate), not by those who personally knew him, but rather those who had their own cultural leanings and personal motives several decades (at the best) on after his death.

Moreover, what is written has been orally transmitted and rewritten so that even the sources which can be pieced together from cross-referencing the 4 canonical gospels and Acts are hazy and piecemeal. The book of Q is what comes to mind here -- and there is very little "divinity" asserted within it. It bears resemblance to the Gospel of Thomas, a sayings gospel which was found in the Gnostic literature at Nag Hammadi -- a gospel which EVERY Christian should read. If one wishes to learn about history, we learn to listen to the common folk, as what was provided at NH, and we learn to be critical of a council who had more reasons to doctor canonical documents than to preserve them as they were. In essence, C.S. Lewis forgets that we are not here to judge Jesus, but we are here to judge his biographers first and foremost. And in doing so, we need to add to the possiblity that which we would add to any current biographer of any current person of interest: the man is Human, with his own leanings and bias. So the choices are not only LLL, but rather now LLLH.

To Lewis' defence, he wrote this in a simpler, more conservative world, where less was known about Jesus' times than is now known today. We are able now, more than ever, to see Jesus' world clearer and without our own cultural biases. This has occured through the study of not just the canonical books of the bible but the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Gnostic literature (at Nag Hammadi), and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are just being released to the public in forms where study is possible. For you to claim that only the canonical books of the bible (which were assembled by a power-hungry set of males at Nicaea hundreds of years after Jesus was dead) hold the sole correct testimony, and that we need to listen to no other, is ignorant -- especially when those books aren't self-consistent. And only when you can see that you, as a Christian, would hold a Muslim, a Mormon or a Hindu to the EXACT same level of scrutiny as any non-Christian would hold you, you too will finally see.

My advice is to be open to all forms of imperfect evidence around you, as you and I both play detective. All of these historical documents were from the hands of fellow humans, and each can give you a glimpse into another world, time, life. You would ask a forensic professional of today to do the same if someone close to you died unexpectedly, and all those involved were claiming miracles. Why do you suspect that we don't hold the past to the same level of critical analysis and expectations as we would those who we meet on the street everyday in today's world? Why is it, that it is more believable that Jesus' mother was a virgin at birth, whereas when a young Jewish girl of today gives birth testifying she is, we'd all know she is a liar?

Good luck on your journey.

+A

The Threat of Love, The Respect of Fear

2010-09-19T22:11:00.004-04:00

Again, Yahoo! news comments strike again. Such inspiration!!

"Well all you non-believers go ahead and think what you want. I'd hate to be you on judgement day. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord to his liking."

Riiiiight... We should fear god, right? Because he will punish us. That's why we should believe in him... Don't you find that a little sad? To only be able to get love from your creation when threatening them with punishment? What would we call a human parent who does this? Abusive. A bully. And don't think Jesus' did any better. If you don't philosophically believe in him, then you will be thrown in the eternal pit of fire. ScArY god you got there. Enjoy him! I once did.

If Jesus ever existed, and could look back on this world, he'd come back and apologize for a large part of his followers. And then perhaps if he was interested in an honest testimony, he'd let us all know what really happened. You know, if he actually cared what we believed in.

If he cared...

...and if the soul exists, and anyone could "come back".

...and if he is god.

or even if there is a god.

A lot of "if's" there.

+A

You Will Miss Much Good

2010-09-05T16:23:00.006-04:00

I came upon this quote while reading a little about Islam and the debate over the mosque near ground zero. I thought it was quite a remarkable quote, not only that it originated from inside of Islam, albeit the 13th century, but because of the advanced level of humanism implicit within it. It is a quotation from the Sufi philosopher Ibn Arabi. He stated:

"Do not praise your own faith exclusively, so that you disbelieve all the rest. If you do this, you will miss much good ~ nay, you will miss the whole truth of the matter. God the omniscient and omnipresent cannot be confined to any one creed for he says in the Koran "Wheresoever ye turn, there is the face of Allah." Everybody praises what he knows. His god is his own creature and in praising it, he praises himself, which he would not do if he were just. His dislike is based on ignorance."

As I first read this quote, I immediately felt connected to Ibn Arabi, since we are both of a similar mind in respecting that from all thought, not just one's own, the possibility of truth arises, and that from holding this non-exclusivist mentality, one's life (and all of humanity) is enriched.

After some thought, I found that it was this exact idea which led me on the path to become an atheist. It may not be the same for all, to be sure. But in my mind, it is only in seeing all human thought (is there any other kind?) as something to learn from, specifically in identifying all of its imperfections and inconsistencies, that brings us to accept that they all have some truth within, but they all can't be true about everything. Perhaps it is what Arabi means when he states "the whole truth of the matter"?

It is sad that the single-minded also believe that theirs is a faith in god, using god's words, and that it was not created by man. In reality, it is not a belief in god, but rather a belief in man -- just a single exclusivist, non-humanistic, belief called Christianity or Islam. As Hegel said, this god (just as the greek gods did) will be forced into the past by the progress of time and the changing minds of humanity -- the geist.

If there are no more worshipers, then their god ceases to exist. In essence, there is no more god. As Nietzsche wrote, "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." It was a little too early at that point... but he will come.

All knowledge is of human origin. The evidence is all around you, currently! It is within all the "sacred" texts, in our history, in the evolving biosphere, in our geology, in our solar system, in our galaxy, and in the universe itself. We all just need to look.

At the very least, if most Muslims and Christians held this to be true, it would be a far more pleasant world in which to live.

+A

My God

2010-08-30T23:34:00.011-04:00

by Ian Anderson (from Jethro Tull), 1971

v/r 1:
People, what have you done?
Locked Him in His golden cage!
Made Him bend to your religion
And resurrected from the grave...
He is the God of nothing
If that's all that you can see.
You are the God of everything,
He's inside you and me.

[Here, Ian Anderson is the clearest in his Deistic position. He states, "God exists, but you reduce him to only what you can see -- being just as yourself." Check out the song, "Wind Up" from the same release.]
v/r 2:
So lean upon Him gently
And don't call on him to save
you from your social graces,
and the sins you used to waive.
The bloody Church of England,
in chains of history,
requests your earthly presence
at the vicarage for tea.

[Here, Anderson paints two forms of human pettiness -- the overly-religious leaning upon God for saving them from their petty concerns, and the church itself being riddled within by their own petty customs.]
v/r 3:
And the graven image you-know-who,
with his plastic crucifix, (He's got him fixed!)
Confuses me as to who and where and why,
as to how he gets his kicks.
Confessing to the endless sin,
the endless whining sounds.
You'll be praying 'til next Thursday,
to all the Gods that you can count.

[Now, he furthers his claims on the corruption of the clergy, displayed by a "plastic crucifix" (lack of strength or true mettle?) and the suspicion for how sexually they can get off, foced to be celibate. He lastly criticizes the followers once again (or maybe the clergy?) by mocking their whining confessions, never ending... how can we really take them seriously? and claiming that they are really meaningless in God's eyes.]
---

While Anderson has critiqued his own work on the Aqualung album as generally sophomoric and "with a single brush stroke", many still agree on it's legendary status. I am one. Some things are more readily apparent using the vitality of youth to see clearly. This is one. Yes, his lyrics in this case are more than a little bit wandering in subject matter... but it is easily forgiven when one hears with such weary distain that he delivers them.

"He's not the kind (of god) that you have to wind up on Sundays..." Indeed.

+A

How to Survive the Revival?

2010-08-28T21:24:00.005-04:00

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin held some sort of tea party march on Washington, Saturday, August 28th, 2010 to bring "god back to America" or "turn America back to god". But as one quotable Yahoo user noted:

"If we turn back to "god", which god shall it be?

A full 22% of Americans are not Christians. Are their gods excluded form Beck's America? If so, will they be granted immunity from all Christian laws and taxes under the First Amendment, or will they be forced to convert under the threat of the American Inquisition?

Among the Christians we have the Catholics and Protestants. We all know how well they get along and agree about religion. They fought how many wars in Europe over this question...? Maybe Beck should take a trip to Northern Ireland after the rally.

Are we going to say that we are a Protestant Nation? If so, there are over 22,000 Protestant sects in America. Most compete with each other. Which one will be the American Religion?

In the end, why can't we NOT be a secular democracy who does not allow religion into our government but allows everyone to believe as they wish, including not believing at all? It has worked amazingly well for over 200 years doing so."

Well said. I will say though, that now is NOT the time to put your head under a rock and just let these yahoos try to overtake our government. Some say we have nothing to fear. I prefer to keep them in plain sight. And I think I'll just leave it at that.

+A

Lies in the Sand

2010-08-24T00:06:00.001-04:00

There's a man who says there is a light in the sky
All my friends say he's telling a lie
But he speaks with such passion that I have to think about.

And his hands, well they tremble as he points it out
But I can't see what it's all about
And the voices of many are singing along it seems.

Is it all something new? And will I see it too?
Or is this just continuing man?
Throughout all history claiming they all can see
But the evidence falters just short of my hand...
And there are lies in the sand.

There's a man, who says he was a Satanic Beast
And the many were there at his feet
And he scared all the people, cause he just what we want.

There are things that will surely seem as they are not
And I might not know all that I've got
But the bluffing is easy, and I haven't seen your hand.

-- "Lies in the Sand (The Ballad of...)", King's X

+A

Job References

2010-08-23T23:10:00.017-04:00

The book of Job differs in character from the rest of the Old Testament.

In Job, Satan (who is never mentioned using this name in the OT elsewhere) is not yet the devil's personal name, as in later Judeo-Christian works and oddly, he appears as a member of a "divine council" who observes human activity, with the purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, as it were, a celestial "prosecutor". Interesting position for someone "cast out" of heaven and tempting Eve in Genesis!

Also, there isn't one iota of human treachery and murder within the book (unlike all the other OT books), and like Abenezra, Spinoza, and Paine commented, I can also see a core of this book originating before the Jews ever got their hands on it. Some of the book even shows evidence of production from a mind cultivated in science, which, as Paine comments in "The Age of Reason", "the Jews, so far from being famous for, were very ignorant of. The allusions to objects of natural philosophy are frequent and strong, and are of a different cast to any thing in the books know to be Hebrew." Quoting from Job 38:31-33,

"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades?
Can you loose the cords of Orion?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons?
or lead out the Bear with its cubs?
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God's dominion over the earth?"

Christians would do well to learn the lesson of these words, before they go preaching unto all the world about their "light". This wisdom within this book is HUMAN wisdom (as is any wisdom in any written word), drawn from observation of the world around us, as humanity tries to come to terms with celestial justice (or what appears as a lack thereof).

To further this point, quoting from the band King's X, from their song "Pleiades",

"When I look up at the stars at night
what could I find beyond the light?
A hundred million worlds that we ignore
Who can restrain Pleiades
or know the laws of heavenly's?
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE BEEN WRONG BEFORE?"

Ptolemy, Giordano Bruno, Galileo (to whom the Catholic Church just issued a "formal apology" in 2000), and more "recently" Darwin amongst others all hold claim to truths and ideas which were formally rejected as heretical. Nearly all Christians as a whole are taught falsely by their authorities to see "human" knowledge as a lie and contrary (or just plain foolishness) to god's "wisdom". Why? It isn't for any other reason than their authorites (including the belief in the bible) would slowly be seen as not having the answers, or at least not the truth, which an inerrnt word of god should have.

Slowly, the truth will out, and Christianity will be laid to rest as incapable of doing what it claims is one of its jobs, describing the world around us.

+A

Gnosis (γνῶσις)

2010-08-14T22:51:00.005-04:00

One of the biggest problems with revealed religion, and fundamentalist interpretations of it, is that it assumes at the onset that anything that humanity can come up with on its own (without god) is at once suspect and flawed, and needs to be proven right by the will of god (usually in the form of some scriptural passages).

This is a dangerous principle to have hanging around your neck, first, since it presumes an inability of mankind to sucessfully navigate the waters of survival and it may become a detriment to our survival (or cause of our extinction). The truth is, mankind has been around for far longer than any of these myths (christianity being one), and there will be a time when the christian myth will be let go, en masse. In fact, we may already be in the starting phase of this process.

Second, this need for revelation (or hearsay of revelation as is in the bible) focuses the worst of mankind's thoughts on every other belief system, in fact, creating a sort of "spiritual warfare" and casting all other spritual system as "of the devil" or other such garbage. Christianity is by far a large offender on this front, islam also, of course (how many christians believe buddhists unintentionally worship satan?)... but other religions aren't quite immune to this sort of "us and them" mentality either.

Dogma, religious or not, will always enslave mankind if left unquestioned, and we all have a personal responsibility to take the first step away from literal and unwaivering interpretations of humanity's sacred texts.

In christianity alone, one MUST openly inquire into the Gnostic texts found at Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocrypha. Moreso, one needs to read these books, and the bible (old and new testament) completely and critically before ever thinking of accepting the christian myth as real. Trust in the knowledge and evidence around you. It was all written by men, imperfect as we are. To openly acknowledge this is your first step on a path rich with wonder, understanding, and the wisdom of insecurity.

Once we think we know everything (or a single set of books and a direct prayer-line to god), we have allowed ourselves to stop thinking. The scripture can do it all for us, right?

+A

RU4 YHWH?

2010-08-03T00:35:00.008-04:00

(subtitled: Eden Was No Picnic)

Isn't it obvious that an omnipotent and omniscient god must be completely responsible for his own creation, and never surprised at how his creation acts or will act at some future point?

Turning to the book of genesis then, it seems god has reliquished his omnipotence and omniscience even just within the garden. How else could one even comprehend punishment of adam, eve, and the serpent, when it was god who made them as they were, placed them all in the garden with a tree of knowledge no less! I'll say it doesn't take an omniscient god to see that this combination will ultimately lead to humanity's "fall". I'd say a 6th grader would be able to figure that out. Ever leave a cookie jar unattended in a kitchen? Bleh! Silliness!!!

Add to the fact that god seems somewhat taken aback upon "return" and WALKING in the garden (isn't he everywhere?) to notice adam and eve "clothed". I mean, really. How much of a mystery is all this, then? To punish his own creation for their acting in the exact capacity as they have been created by an all-knowing, all-seeing deity, one MUST therefore acknowledge that god is unjust, and call it a day.

So let's see... within just the first 3 chapters of genesis, the bible reveals (no pun intended!) itself to be either a flawed document written by men for the needs of tribal control, or god's word where "god" is an unjust, unomniscient and unomnipotent deity. What a wonderful choice!

Maybe paul, as he helped create the christianity we all know and love, should have just thrown away the old testament when he had the chance, and started with the myth of god's insemination of mary... you know, so much for Isaiah 53:4,5...
"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet
we considered him stricken by god, smitten by him and afflicted. But he
was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities. The
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds, we are
healed."

It is quite likely that paul saw great value in having his fable fulfill at least some of the lesser prophets' quotes from the OT, and quickly ignored the inconsistencies in the OT (perhaps didn't even notice them), even obvious from genesis. Of course, even the NT is flawed and ripe with inconsistencies. Well, no one can really predict how christianity would have taken off if paul started from scratch and not built upon the hebrew legends, but I'd say nowadays, the whole thing may have held a little more water.

But it is written in Romans 9:32f, that in Zion is a stumbling stone specifically for those who look for works, signs or wisdom (oh ye of little faith!), and in Romans 10:14-21 (coming from the OT in Deuteronomy 32:21 and Isaiah 65:1,2), it states that he will make you angry with a "senseless nation" (giving the gift of christ's redemption to the gentiles). Oh goodie! Now i'm supposed to be confused AND angry. I'll try lord... I'll try. LOL.

After this... I'm just too tired to even start to get into "YHWH" vs. "Elohim". Like I seem to wonder more often now than ever... Who really cares? Well, except those who only want to engage scripture and certainly don't bother often to engage their brain, "god given" as it were.

+A

Prayer & The Plan

2010-07-31T22:40:00.009-04:00

I've had christians deny to my face that god wasn't to blame for allowing 9/11, world hunger, the holocaust, or even causing natural disasters like Mt. Saint Hellens, Katrina or devastating tsunamis (or in their funny mythology allowing the serpent to tempt eve -- ha ha!), but he could take time out of his busy schedule to present her with the gift of having children, curing cancer, have your favorite team win in a football game, (insert your favorite prayer here), etc.

From my perspective, that belief sounds pretty self-centered. And isn't that what it all is? Christianity is just a self-centered human need fulfilled, all under the guise of being "holy". And this is why it precisely attracts, and holds onto the type of people that it does.

To quote George Carlin:

"...but what about the Divine Plan? Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long
time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a
good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the
Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for
something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do
you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little
arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down
shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up your Plan?

"And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your
prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be
Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to
anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste
of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His
Will?"

But hey, just because having faith in jesus feels good, or is comforting, doesn't mean it is true. And that is all I'm saying. It is ill-advised to place all of your hope in something which is only comforting, but doesn't align with what we know of the world around us through humanity's very own observations. It can also be downright dangerous.

Sure, maybe some people need this type of flawed thinking in order to be happy in their life and survive. Personally, I'm glad I don't. And I'm so glad I live in a country where we aren't told what we must believe to be true citizens.

+A

Freedom From the Known

2010-07-24T08:27:00.002-04:00

"Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare - something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state - something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.

"Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolt, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond it?

"And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith - faith in a saviour or an ideal - and faith invariably breeds violence.

"In this constant battle which we call living, we try to set a code of conduct according to the society in which we are brought up, whether it be a Communist society or a so-called free society; we accept a standard of behaviour as part of our tradition as Hindus or Muslims or Christians or whatever we happen to be. We look to someone to tell us what is right or wrong behaviour, what is right or wrong thought, and in following this pattern our conduct and our thinking become mechanical, our responses automatic. We can observe this very easily in ourselves.

"For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our saints. We say, 'Tell me all about it - what lies beyond the hills and the mountains and the earth?' and we are satisfied with their descriptions, which means that we live on words and our life is shallow and empty. We are secondhand people. We have lived on what we have been told, either guided by our inclinations, our tendencies, or compelled to accept by circumstances and environment. We are the result of all kinds of influences and there is nothing new in us, nothing that we have discovered for ourselves; nothing original, pristine, clear.

"Throughout theological history we have been assured by religious leaders that if we perform certain rituals, repeat certain prayers or mantras, conform to certain patterns, suppress our desires, control our thoughts, sublimate our passions, limit our appetites and refrain from sexual indulgence, we shall, after sufficient torture of the mind and body, find something beyond this little life. And that is what millions of so-called religious people have done through the ages, either in isolation, going off into the desert or into the mountains or a cave or wandering from village to village with a begging bowl, or, in a group, joining a monastery, forcing their minds to conform to an established pattern. But a tortured mind, a broken mind, a mind which wants to escape from all turmoil, which has denied the outer world and been made dull through discipline and conformity - such a mind, however long it seeks, will find only according to its own distortion."

- Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

+A

Evangelism 101

2010-07-24T08:04:00.003-04:00

"When you are at your wits end, you'll find god lives there."

I think that says it all, doesn't it?

+A

The Burqa Under Fire

2010-07-23T12:36:00.009-04:00

So let's all respects women's right to choose.

"All women should be free to dress how they want to!"

Well, right?
Sadly, in some cases, this equates to the following conclusions:

"It's their choice, if they want to suffer from severe vitamin D deficiency?"
"Babies born with rickets? What? Is this bad?"

1. The burqa is a manifistation of a primitive culture, and primitive mindset. This is not a issue of religious freedom. The wearing of this garment is disingenuously sold within Islam as a way to remove social prejudice from women's beauty, but the truth is that the burqa ligitimizes rape, and allows men the right to not take responsibility for their own sexual urges. Recently an Islamic cleric preached that the burqa should only show one eye, because showing both is too sexually provocative? You think I'm joking, but I'm not.

2. Even more important to our society is the security threat posed by the burqa. No one should be allowed to attend university, attend court, or go to any government agency, fly on an airline, even take public transportation while wearing one. It is, plain and simple, a disguise. For no other reason would it EVER be tolerated in the western world, and yet for Islam, some people still consider it. Nice.

Stop radical Islam's oppression of women! Don't actively condone the oppression of women under the guise of religious freedom and religious tolerance. It is time to ban the Burqa/Niqab!

If we were an honest society about Islam, we'd be a more healthy society. And although I wasn't expecting to say this at anytime in the near future... CHEERS to Syria*.

*Syria passed a law recently which bans the burqa from being worn at all university campuses, and refuses admission into programs to women who wear it.

+A

No Mosque at Ground-Zero

2010-07-20T23:58:00.011-04:00

Bloomberg has come out firmly in support of the plan (of a Mosque at ground-zero) stating, "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness." Yes, Mayor Bloomberg, we do stand for tolerance, but you'd be smart to recognize that Islam does not. The one thing this country needs to understand is that we have no obligation to tolerate intolerance and oppression.

Bloomberg is a coward, taking the bait from the Christian-right, and responding to an issue which is, sadly, our own creation in our ignorance as US citizens. True, our goverment does not endorse any one religion to be "ours" as Americans. Non-Islamic citizens of America should already understand this, and it is shameful that they do not. What would the founding fathers think?

But while the US has a secular constitution, and is a secular government, using this fact as a reason for not stopping this outrage is ignorance fueled by blind multi-culturalism run amok. It is shameful how Bloomberg has back-pedeled so far in the opposite direction of the Christian-right, as to allow Islam a right that it does not deserve.

Removing religion from this issue, I ask the following. If country XYZ openly attacked us on US soil, killed civilians in the process, openly admitted to this attack as "caused by US policy" in their region, would we all feel so "tolerant and open" as to allow the building of an XYZ mega-civic center/museum/embassy at the very location of the attack where so many civilians lost their lives? The answer is a RESOUNDING NO!

The fact that the center will also open on the anniversary of 9/11, is a clear message from imam Feisal Abdul Rauf that this mosque is a political statement, loud and clear, in as much the Burqa is a political statement of intolerance of our freedoms here in the west. As US citizens, we MUST ban together to stop Islam and Sharia law from infiltrating our society, as they play us by appealing to our "tolerance" and it needs to start with this mosque. Let's learn a lesson from Europe, as they are even now getting inundated with Muslim ghettos, ripe with Sharia.

I don't do hate. This message isn't hateful. It is a call to awareness, and although I don't usually agree with Palin and her politics, she is correct here in twittering the following this past Sunday:

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing,"

Healing will only be done through respect. That is, respect from Islam towards the west.

And by all means, in return, let's indeed be tolerant US citizens, and allow them their right to help "rebuild Manhattan" somewhere a little further away from ground-zero. Now, if only Muslim-Americans would have the moral courage themselves to inwardly reflect upon, and OPENLY CRITICIZE ISLAM and what is currently wrong with it, perhaps we the in west would have a better opinion of it. Nothing is untouchable. Not even Islam. It's time more Muslims come to accept this.

Separating Diamonds from the Dunghill

2010-07-15T23:14:00.012-04:00

I'd advise anyone with an internet connection (hint, hint) or a local book retailer nearby to check out the Jefferson Bible. Yes, from THE Thomas Jefferson. Never heard of it you say? Oh, shame, shame!

Jefferson frustrated by the christian bible, concluded that early christians, interested in promoting christianity to the romans, liberally salted the teachings of jesus with the philosophy of the pagan mythologies (god mating with human, miracles, etc), only to make it more pallatable, and in doing so created a perverse hybrid doctrine which the world came to know as christinsanity. Oops. Did I say that? I meant christianity. Erm, sorry!

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

The result of Jefferson's work on this matter, between 1804, and 1820, is the Jefferson Bible. Within, jesus is a great moral teacher who set out without pretensions of divinity.

----

Q1: So you mean, erm... Jefferson WASN'T a CHRISTIAN!?

No, not in the conventional sense now-a-days, and certainly not in the southern baptist, pentecostal and fundamentalist sense.

Q2: Well, I'm confused... wasn't America founded as a christian nation?

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Q3: Why did Jefferson have such a problem with good 'ol christianity anyways?

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
--Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Q4: Well, don't we need god to be good moral United States citizens?

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Q5: How could Jefferson see jesus the man as a great teacher, and not the son of god, and part of the holy trinity? Doesn't everyone who believes in god believe this?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

B R A V O Mr. Jefferson. B R A V O !!

+A

True Revelation

2010-07-14T15:00:00.013-04:00

One only needs to perform some quick bible verse Google searches to identify the plague of literal scriptural interpretation sweeping over our great nation, and if one includes islam and the koran in this, over our great planet. "Our great planet"... not a term often heard.

And let's be clear, the problem isn't islam per say. The problem is the dogmatic following of literal scriptural interpretation of supposed revealed knowledge which organized religion tends to favor or even find its identity within. It is all too easy for us to look outside one's own culture, religion and nation for the problems we face, pointing towards wahabi islam only. But a truly mature and free mind will not only look without, but MUST look within for the same dynamics seen externally. To be honest with ourselves, we MUST face the fact that through our own following of scriptural certainties of revealed truth, we are only fanning the islamic fires which feed on the same underlying fuel.

Quoting one of America's founding fathers, Thomas Paine, from his essay "On Reason" (1795) regarding the only true revelation (and thus the only one deserving belief):

"THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

"Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. The idea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, the glad tidings to all nations, from one end of the earth unto the other, is consistent only with the ignorance of those who know nothing of the extent of the world...

"It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be surpressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."

This is the god of Spinoza, and of Einstein -- wrapped up ONLY within the utter grandeur of the universe and the world around us. And it is a valid way to rid ourselves of the "authority, the tyranny, of another to twist our minds and our way of life." (J. Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known)

+A

Open Inquiry

2010-07-11T22:42:00.026-04:00

OK. I really like open inquiry. I guess that is pretty clear while reading most of this blog. How the accumlated experiences of humanity affect our views of reality is a fascinating thing for me. And nothing is off the table, because I have found through my experience, and the experiences of those around me, that more often than not, growth produces flowers (quaint, eh?). It is part of nature, which we are a product of. Our brains produce flowers of thought, and thought is a form of art. Thought doesn't need to be always characterized as "true" or "false", but it may very well be so. But to safeguard humanity's collective freedom of thought, we must do all we can to not silence the voices of the "insane", who seem to at best generate tomorrow's fiction, and at worst create tomorrow's cults. Thought is art. Thought needs pure imaginative insanity to grow. With nothing to sift through, we cannot find truth. Neither about how we find our happiness and our place in the world, nor about how the universe is, and world around us and within us works.

With that in mind, I post and respond to two separate questions which I was asked recently. They both fall under the banner of open inquiry. They are valid questions, and I highly respect the minds of those who ask such things. That they all don't have the answers, is pure poetry to me.

1. What if we exist BECAUSE of faith?

Invariably those that ask this question are usually asking it to further YOUR inquiry into THEIR religion, and in America, it is usually christianity. This is indeed a viable question, but it is as viable as the following questions.

"What if we exist because of our past life karmic debt that we still need to pay during this life, and our desire to live once again, in pleasure and pain and not distance ourself by the buddha's middle path?"

"What if we exist because an alien race did experiments and seeded our world with life?"

"What if we exist because of a shared dream we all are dreaming together, thus creating a stable and consistent experience for each of us?"

All my point is with my examples above is that there is no reason to specifically quote jesus, anymore than mohammad, anymore than joseph smith or carlos castaneda. And there is certainly no reason to live one's life any different because by chance you just happened to be raised by parents or in a society which held this belief more dearly than any other faith generated by humans. So what if jesus was right? So what if shiva was right? So what if odin was right? The list goes on and on...

Jesus is but one card in a deck of tens of thousands. Why focus all of your attention there, or see his biblical claim of divinity as more valid or greater than any other? As Richard Dawkins states, "[Every single person] is an atheist when it comes to the countless gods that humanity has ever believed in... Some of us just go one god further."

Last point... sure some questions are just invalid, or just plain meaningless, but just because a question is viable or worth asking for investigation into our humanity and needs, it doesn't mean all answers regarding this question are equally valid.

2. What are we made from?

As science shows us, we are made of the very fabric of past stars. We are certainly nothing less, and there is no reason to believe we are made of something more. Indeed, one day we will return from whence we came (this time to our own sun). It is a glorious thought. Glorious!

+A

The Burden of Proof

2010-07-03T06:59:00.000-04:00

First, apples to apples. The burden of proof required from a christian regarding the existence of a god is equivalent to the burden of proof a christian would require from a hindu regarding the existence of their gods. Nothing less, nothing more. It is also equivalent to the burden of proof required from anyone regarding belief in any random being (no offence to your specific judaic god, of course) they claim is outside of nature, or any random natural being outside of the observable world as we know it (little green men, pixies, gnomes, etc).

Second, proof? Nothing can be proved beyond all doubt, but the existence of things can be shown to be likely beyond all reasonable doubt. If experience has shown, through consistent repeated observation across multiple sources, that something exists, then the likelihood that this thing exists increases. At some level, collectively, to produce a self-narrative or a stable society, there is a cut-off where we say the proof was provided. You can see this in children as they grow and lose their night-time ghosts, or when they experience something extraordinary for the first time. "Extraordinary" things are items or occurences which initially seem quite outside our expected experience of the natural world. And so, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, otherwise we should all expect that others will not treat our claim as equally likely as something we have evidence for.

Third, the existence of love. Love is an emotion in much the same way that devotion, gratitude, hope, faith, caring is. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is usually related (but not always) to a reciprocal relationship between two beings where some level of personal sacrifice or vulnerability exists. At this point in humanity's existence, we have ample evidence of the existence of emotions and how they work within brain chemistry. Now, we understand the reasons why a rock doesn't feel or act out of love. And while it is true that we have not always had the chemical proof of the existence of emotions (say, 200 years ago), we have had our collective experiences as a species regarding other people's behaviors in relation to our own -- not nearly as conclusive as a brain-scan, but good enough for this time in humanity's existence.

Fourth, faith? No one is saying the emotion of faith doesn't exist, or is always bad, or is always unnecessary. Faith is an emotion that exists, and has healthy uses, but it also misfires often. In the case of your life parter, faith is good and necessary to develop a meaningful, long term, stable relationship. If you always required some level of ample evidence from your partner across all topics, life would be unlivable. But let's not go overboard and claim you never need evidence or lose faith in your wife. But now, let's just say your wife was invisible, and no one ever saw her, but you CLAIMED that she existed and lived in your house with you every day, CURRENTLY! Well, having faith in that is a delusion, and perhaps even a serious mental condition. I'm certain even a christian, a hindu, or a muslim can agree with that.

Fifth, defintion. If god is only your word for the emotion of love (or even for some, the grandeur of the universe), then I don't think anyone would have any specific problems with your belief in that sort of "god". Just as if my word for potatoes was unicorns. But then, it needs to be defined up front that although I believe unicorns exist, they are only just my name for potatoes, or the whole thing comes crashing down. But then again, wouldn't these words slowly fail to have any specific meaning?

Lastly... whew! I am not certain, but I suspect when one comments that a believer has the burden of proof, no one is actually ASKING the believer for proof this very instant. The more you live in this world, the more you gather the required data points to come to a consistent expectation that believers in any and all gods don't have any proof. In fact, the very reason a believer cultivates faith is all the proof one needs of this.

+A

An Open Letter to A Christian

2010-07-02T01:24:00.003-04:00

Dear Christian,

It sounds to me that you're honestly a good person with a caring heart, but it seems to me that you're seeking the cheap and easy answers to your questions of life. My advice, don't be fooled... or rather... don't continue to be fooled. In today's world, fundamentalism is on the rise, and this is precisely because it offers us the simplest, black and white answers or interpretations of reality and methods for living.

These questions are for you and only you to answer to and for yourself, and are asked with love from one human to another...

1. If you were fooled, how would you go about finding out? Would it be with the very book you were fooled with in the first place? And if all other sources point at every other angle than the path preached in the bible, why wouldn't you be open minded enough to at least listen and question your own path?

2. Is your faith so right and are you so blessed that you have all the answers for everyone? I've seen what accepting christ does to people (I see it every day, and lived it for quite some time), and it isn't a state of grace... it is just an act of will and only at best a state of personal choice.

3. Jesus stated that any one of his believers could perform the same miracles as he did, if only they had enough faith. Have you or any christians you know taken a few loaves and fishes to a famine area and fed a multitude with it? I mean, there are enough starving multitudes in the world... and even jesus wasn't above doing this to gain a few converts and "thus seeing, believed". Or must everyone in the 21st century "walk by faith and not by sight" (2Cor 5:7) and thus live without using their god given capacities of reason and logic?

4. If I wanted to fool you, aren't the words, "your wisdom is foolishness unto god, and god's wisdom is foolishness unto you" (1Cor 1:18-2:5, 1Cor 3:18-20) just the perfect starting point?

There is an appointed time for everything (Ecc 3:1), and this includes waking up to the world as it is, and not as you wish it to be. I hope deeply that you will one day recognize how blinded by faith you are, and you will be made to see, being born-again out of christ and into the world as it is. As i've said, it isn't easy to accept, but once you do, you won't want to go back to the darkness where a jealous petty god resides in our collective imagninations.

The bible was right on one thing, once you deny the holy spirit, you will never go back... there just isn't any need for it, once leaving childish beliefs behind and maturing into the world as it is. The specific bible verse "one upping" jesus' sacrifice and telling christians that denying the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin (Mt 12:32, Mk 3:29, Lk 12:10) is where the heart of the christian faith lies... in fear. Without it, and the guilt that comes from believing ourselves as unclean and unworthy of god, the faith would fall like a house of cards.

Lastly, if god exists, he most certainly wouldn't punish us eternally for the simple state of mind we hold and the beliefs we keep as our own for our own survival here on earth.

There is so much more to go into, but I will leave it at this.

All the best for you and your families... and please remember, it is only in our ability to admit we do not have all the answers to everything that we can begin to become responsible people, communities and one humanity.

Your friend forever out of christ,

+A

The Creation Quandry

2010-06-24T19:26:00.000-04:00

so i was out to lunch with my coworkers, when a senior level executive in administration stated (mostly directed at me), "isn't it wonderful how god has made the world so that _______ _______ _______ ..." fill in the blanks yourself. i'm sure you've heard this implicit way to bring god into any secular environment, from the classroom to the workplace. well, i chose to keep my answer to myself, preferring not to rub this man the wrong way... but had i felt i had the opportunity to speak freely, my answer would be as follows.

"sure, what you say is a lovely thought and all but it seems kind of arbitrary to attribute or associate this with god. there are plenty more things in the universe and the world we experience everyday around us which are not so reassuring and so lovely towards humanity and our place in the world. one need only see the suffering due to natural disasters on this planet to come to the conclusion that the world around us isn't "lovingly created" at all. it is illogical and insensitive to attribute only the good things to god. while attributing only those items which we currently do not understand is an open admission for the endorsement of ignorance: "let's not understand the natural causes for this... let's just throw up our hands and praise god!"

"although i'm sure there are reasons to believe, perhaps a cultural one, or a need for reassurance or comfort... a 'need to believe', i've had that at one point. i've went 'into it', and found the two-dimensional man-made product for what passes itself off as god in churches and spiritual institutions. and i found i quite don't need it. if there was a god, it would be far, far more majestic than anything in the imagination-less desert dogmas, and more wonder would be found in it than in the universe which we see around us every day. and i'm quite sure that if there was a god, he wouldn't want to have anything to do with these institutions, as he'd be as grand as countless supernovae, as full of variety as the countless evolved and extinct species on the earth, and part of the very fabric of the universe that quantum mechanics does a near-exact time at describing. from my understanding, the churches and mosques don't have any room for these topics.

"lastly, i don't quite understand why a god who could produce such grandness would implicitly have to be so petty as to be jealous if we do not believe in him. the fact that he also punishes us for eternity for it clearly is evidence of where this god came from... our own image of ourselves. if god exists, he doesn't care if we believe in him. if he can claim that his acts are above judgement or reason (see the book of job), then our beliefs are also."

yeah, so admittedly, it's a bit of a rant, and just a might long-winded, eh? but i promise he'd have the ability to talk between the paragraphs! haa haa!

+A

Brian Eno on Perspective

2010-06-22T22:44:00.000-04:00

'i remember the first day i arrived in new york
not actually not the very first time i arrived but
the first time i feel i felt i saw new york
on that day i saw it as a great sort of city of hope
and a kind of optimistic chaos
and it was that way of looking at it
that became "mistaken memories"

i had a place on the thirteenth floor
and looking out of my window
i'd just see the tops of all the buildings
all those beautiful castle tops
and i thought "i'm sure people building this
were also feeling that they were making
a big impression in this brand-new culture"

i more and more feel america has been
a thrilling vibrant medieval culture
medieval for me means somewhere where
things are being worked out
where cultures have crossed
and are crashing together
and hybrids are constantly being thrown up
europeans are so ready to shoot it down
because it's so easy to see
all the bad sides of america
the world awash with coca-cola

i felt people's concept of what's real is
almost always that which is most convenient
for them to believe at the time
and the convenient picture of new york
at that time was of a street city
a city where you kept your vision down
what i did on that spring day
and what i did in "mistaken memories"
was i looked up and i saw this beautiful
city against a huge sky
it's a different picture altogether
as soon as you let the sky into the picture
the city is not so overwhelming anymore
there's space in there as well'

Brian Eno
from "Imaginary Landscapes"
released on VHS 1998

You Are the Truth in Every Moment

2010-06-22T00:04:00.001-04:00

although reality is observable, what is observable isn't always reality. as our senses often fool us, just being personally open to observing doesn't help us as individuals understand the innermost workings of the universe which we are a part of.(1) being open to observing as individuals helps us to understand the innermost workings of ourselves. a by-product of this is being "at peace" -- of leaving behind what is useless to us and being able to identify our true natures, and the nature of the truth.

don't be fooled into thinking that truth must not be observable to be truth. this is the lie we hear every moment from our spiritual teachers, from our mystics and from our religions. this is the lie that undoubtably you were raised within. faith.

truth is life, not what one hears about life. you are the truth. every instant. observe it. see it (you) for what it is. not by what others tell you about it. not by the thoughts which you've catalogued and maintained in order to give yourself a self, an identity. leave your identity at the instant, and move into what is. be faithless.

do not live on the words of another. do not be a second-hand person. do not accept spiritual slavery. mental slavery.

observation without exerting influence can help us learn how to act with purpose and intent, and not react out of some other action outside ourself which we observe or take within. if we can give pause, not to thought, not to what is old, we can live each moment like it is, new, like we have died to our last moment, and leave behind the conditioning of our competitive lives.

but do not do this to find fulfillment. that is a lie. that is an end, a goal, and upon achieving this goal, what are we to do with ourselves then? reach for the next goal, indeed. no... do it to be free, and in turn you will give the greatest gift to the world you can. to be new every momement. to not be so quick to judge. to be open to every instant of time. to be timeless.

we can learn this by true meditation, awareness, whether in waking life, or in dreams. specifically dreams offer us the ability, if one is aware one is dreaming (lucid), of working on our reactive behaviors which we are reinforcing daily. tonight's dreams may be able, if you are willing and open, to teach you how to be as new every moment as every part of nature you see around you.

for humanity, let's take this one little step, and shed our conditioning, our religion, our saints, our sins, our notions of what is, to truly observe as a child. krishnamurti called for just this. lennon called for just this. it is soon time that we all should call for just this.

"imagine all the people,
living life in peace...
you may say i'm a dreamer,
but i'm not the only one.
someday you'll join us,
and the world could live as one."

(1) science is our tool, as humans, to help provide a structure to build a collective understanding of our natural observable universe.

+A

Play Those Ethics, One 'Mo' Time...

2010-06-15T23:21:00.003-04:00

the next three paragraphs are paraphrased and somewhat fleshed out (by me) from an anonymous online comment to a news story. the quotes are only to demark the paragraphs. it is, for the most part, attributable to many sources, amongst them Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Pat Condell... but IMO, said nearly the best here.

"if a person needs to be told what is moral/ethical, or if that person requires a "commandment" and the fear of judgment or punishment for disobedience in order to be compelled to be moral/ethical then at heart they are not. in admitting they follow a set of commandments as their moral compass they also admit that without it they would likely be morally bankrupt (murderers, thieves, liars, etc) and morally lost, as if all possible choices for a given proposition were ethically the same, and humanity was blind without god to provide.

"those that behave morally/ethically without being "commanded" or compelled in any way behave that way because they have chosen to use their natural capacity for careful thought and the application of logic and reason mixed with empathy and compassion to develop their behavior through those things that are an innate part of their nature. in other words, they have evolved an emotional, psychological and intellectual maturity that requires no supervision from a dictatorial authority figure because they have freely thought through and have chosen to take direct responsibility for and authority over their own behavior and actions.

"for me that kind of person, as opposed to the former, is far more worthy of my trust and far more ethically sound and mature." [if you look, you'll see that we would demand it from our very own children as they grow through their teenage years and into adulthood. if all they ever do is hold onto a series of "mom/dad would kill me for this" later in life, they remain ethically feeble and quite like how ethics remains in the religious mindset.]

a last point i'd make is some religious apologetists will retreat further into a "god of the gaps" or details (C.S. Lewis does this very thing in Mere Christianity) stating that it is that exact "natural capacity" which testifies to the existence of god -- everyone is "born" with the same sense of fair-play no matter what culture. what Lewis fails to let his readers in on is that natural capacities are capable of being produced naturally. you'd expect an ex-atheist to at least have heard of evolution and natural selection, right? maybe he just preferred the god-answer. although it is intellectually dishonest, it just could supply the elevated level of false dignity that too many humans expect to produce a content life, and which comes easily from belief in a supernatural, personal god.

funny world we live in, eh? or is it just more fun when christians try slight of hand to tell other christians how substantiated their beliefs "really" are. *shakes head* they should just go back to the bible to justify their beliefs. from what i hear, it's all in there.

+A

Morals from Religion? I Hope Not...

2010-06-13T23:40:00.002-04:00

so here we are in bible class...

and as all good atheists, we should know that in genesis 18, the story of sodom and gomorrah, more questions are raised than answered, with respect to god's omniscience and righteousness.

first, why did god need to "go down" to invesigate the sins of sodom and gomorrah (verses 20-21)? isn't this the act of a non-omniscient god? maybe it is time for christians to read the bible CRITICALLY for a change? or read it at all?

second, abraham pleads with god to spare the city of sodom for the sake of a few good people who just happen to dwell there. first working god down to 50, then 45, ultimately to 10 innocents, abraham now satisfied. on the positive, abraham is concerned not about tribalism, but about innocence. a rare-find in the bible. this is almost late-20th century thinking... he even takes a risk, for his own life, to teach god about what a proper moral judgement is -- not punishing all men, innocent included. but why should, or rather, how COULD a man teach god about what a rational moral judgement truly is and is not? if one is biblically minded, this passage then teaches clearly that while many may justify their morals by religion, they certainly don't get them from god himself.

maybe abraham should be our humanist mascot then? giving god a lesson in ethics at extreme peril. almost a humanist, i'd say, right? well... let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

ok. moving quickly to genesis 22 where abraham was commanded by god to sacrifice (ummm... kill?) his own son. specifically verses 9 and 10 are most chilling:

"[v. 9] And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. [v. 10] And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son."

on this, Susan Neiman at the beyond belief conference held in 2006 commented that Kant's view was that "...Abraham should have reflected and considered that whoever could ask him to do that CAN'T be god." to hammer home the point... on a recent episode of "Family Guy", abraham's son, after nearly being sacrificed finding out it was just god's bluff, commented, "what the *uck was that??" to his father, still holding the knife.

enough said. i guess abraham isn't our poster-boy after all? well, let's chalk that one up to biblical inconsistency. but although fantasy-fiction can be fun, perhaps not so here. see, for believers, the moral of this story usually revolves around a proper willingness to sacrifice what is most dear to follow god. for the 21st century, let's just say on the record, that if you think you hear voices... seek help of a medical professional, BEFORE being asked to sacrifice your son.

to quote Neiman once again:
"Any ethics that needs religion is bad ethics. And any religion that tries to do so is bad religion... If you view religion as necessary for ethics, you've reduced us to the ethical level of 4 year olds."

so true.

+A

Modestly Mousing Around...

2010-05-25T19:53:00.002-04:00

Well I ain't sure but I been told
He's baking cakes inside our souls

It takes a long time but god dies too
But not before he'll stick it to you.

--"I Came As A Rat", Modest Mouse

+A

May 20th - Everybody Draw Mohammad Day

2010-05-22T20:40:00.002-04:00

An opinion on 'everybody draw mohammad' day as published by yahoo news: 'Everybody Draw Mohammad Day': What's a Muslim-American to think? as written by Husna Haq.

this article misses the point entirely.

it is amazing to me that most muslims aren't really interested in knowing why their religion isn't held in high regard in the western world, while expecting respect and the right to not be offended by other's thoughts, words and pictures. even more, it is appalling that the majority of the muslim world is silent about how certain members and even leaders of their faith act, encouraging violence against non-muslims and justifying it with a singluar interpretation of a few verses within the koran.

yes, percentage-wise, violent muslims are a minority, compared to the overall muslim population. but then why haven't the majority of muslims mustered the "moral courage" (reformist Irshad Manji's words) and outwardly and openly denounced these acts of violence which were and are committed in the name of their faith? it seems most of the muslim world and especially the american muslim world, is either being coerced into silence by fear, or quite possibly the "moderates" within islam aren't all that against what the radicals have done thus far. what islam needs now is a very immediate period of inward reflection to determine what it wants to stand for within the world and how to EARN the respect it so demands.

no one has the right to live their life without being offended. it is not a birthright. if miss husna haq wants to be a good american muslim, first and foremost, she would be standing firm during and well after may 20th stating quite loudly and strongly, "i might not agree with what you have to say, but i will defend your right to say it!" all the while encouraging other muslims to do the same. rather, all we get is polite politically correct discourse about how islam need to be appeased at this point, and most certainly not offended. what we need now is less respect for islam, and more respect for our own values, our constitution and our bill of rights. it is precisely these items which allow for any and all people, of all races and creeds to find their place within our western societies peacefully.

what's an american muslim to think... indeed.

+A

The Ratz Are Everywhere

2010-05-16T21:13:00.001-04:00

this really makes me sick -- the raping of children, the systematic protection of said rapists by the organization who's rediculous rules of enforced celibacy enabled the situation in the first place. add to this the shameful relocation of priests, the "hush" orders the victims were made to sign, the lack of "defrocking" (or rather the burying of pedofiles with full priestly honors), the many countries where this has occurred and still occurs, and the cover-up which leads directly to ratzinger... *vomit*

on another level, this does make me mildly hopeful -- an organization, which seems to pride itself on being the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" or the "one true church of christ" is showing what a bastard it is (and has been), in full sight, for all to see. moreover, it is showing just how ill-advised it is to pollute the moldable minds of your children with these poisonous fairy-tales (baptism anyone?), and to entrust their minds (and bodies) to these organizations. i suppose we will need more of these "moral institutions" to show us just how amoral they can be, before we start to act on it. i only hope it is more due to their irrelevance in time, rather than more disgraceful crimes on children, covered up with sickening defense strategies.

what saddens me the most is that not one elected official cares more about the children than about offending their catholic/christian constituency. won't even one attorney general speak up about this on record? through their silence, they are complicit with the church on this one, and should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

let's hope when the "ratz-man" gets off the plane, once on british or american soil, we can cuff him like the criminal he is. well, at least we can all go to bed tonight with the full realization that the catholic church, and the christian god, will one day be as zeus or odin is today -- quite dead. and that, dear friends "in christ", is something you can definitely have faith in.

+A

The Collective Imagination

2010-04-25T15:43:00.001-04:00

"The collective imagination of humanity is stronger than its gods." -- God's Funeral, A.N. Wilson in speaking of the view of history of Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831). He goes on to add from Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of World History the following quote:

' And thus Zeus, who set limits to the depredations of time and suspended its constant flux, has no sooner established something inherently enduring than he was himself devoured along with his own empire.'

In this fact, and for this fact alone, Hegel was a visionary in helping others see god as a subjective reality, accepting that even the protestant god would one day be seen as no more than a part of the european collective imaginations, and their time and place.

To quote Wilson again, "The god of Hegel is the prevailing mood, and the prevailing mood is god." So indeed... god didn't create man, but in fact man created god.

+A

Never Let Go

2010-03-04T23:46:00.002-05:00

just another inspired thought... about the latest form of christinsanity... the preachers of armageddon / rapture. while by far, our species' residence on this earth is uncertain, and at some point quite possibly set for doom, there is no need to invoke a religious connection. i feel rather strongly (similar to E.O. Wilson), that it is downright irresponsible and disgusting to even comprehend people looking forward to such a time, when they believe our god-given stewardship "over" nature is futile, and our existence on a pretermined course of destruction. what worse way could we possibly imagine to give up all hope for earth's (and our) ecology and our dear planet's ecosystems? in this vein, i place a lyric here by an underrated prog band, Camel. peace.

Never Let Go - Camel

Crazy preachers of our doom
Telling us there is no room.
Not enough for all mankind
And the seas of time are running dry.
Don't they know it's a lie...

Man is born with the will to survive,
He'll not take no for an answer.
He will get by, somehow he'll try,
He won't take no, never let go, no...

I hear them talk about Kingdom Come,
I hear them discuss Armageddon...
They say the hour is getting late,
But I can still hear someone say,
This is not the way...

Man is born with the will to survive,
He'll not take no for an answer.
He will get by, somehow he'll try,
He won't take no, never let go, no...

+A

Science and Creationism

2009-12-29T00:23:00.001-05:00

this lengthy quote below is the conclusion of "Science and Creationism" published by the National Academy of Sciences. you can download a pdf for free, or read the entire title online at their website at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024#toc

---

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes."

---

i post the entire conclusion here on the blog, because i feel it is impossible to add or subtract from these words with regards to the scientific community's opinion on the topic of creationism. what has continued to be upheld in the courts will continue to be upheld. for a detailed account of the 2004 Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District trial, i'd urge all to read Edward Hume's excellent account of this critical issue within his book "Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul".

+A

(EDIT 7/12/10: To view the Einstein part of this discussion, please read the comments.)

So Just HOW Long???

2009-12-27T00:15:00.003-05:00

the orbit our star, the sun
completes approximately one revolution
about the center of the milky way galaxy
every 250 million years

since the earth has existed
for 5 billion years thus far
and is expected to exist
for another 5 to 7 billion years hence
we are nearly in the middle
of this great planetary drama

so measuring in sun-revolutions (SR)
about the center of the milky way
the earth is 20 SR old
and will exist another 20 to 28 SR
into the future
when the sun will become a red giant
and swallow the earth into a great fireball
just prior to the milky way
merging with the andromeda galaxy

so approximately:

the origin of life . . . . . .16.0 . . . SR ago
the start of single cell life. 6.0 . . . SR ago
the start of plants. . . . . . 5.0 . . . SR ago
the start of protozoa. . . . . 3.5 . . . SR ago
the start of flatworms . . . . 2.5 . . . SR ago
the start of dinosaurs . . . . 1.0 . . . SR ago
dinosaurs ended. . . . . . . . 0.25. . . SR ago
our common ancestor w/chimp. . 0.02. . . SR ago
homo sapiens began . . . . . . 0.0008. . SR ago
neanderthals ended . . . . . . 0.00012 . SR ago
the last ice age ended . . . . 0.00004 . SR ago
the agricultural revolution. . 0.00004 . SR ago
our current calendar began . . 0.000008. SR ago
the enlightenment. . . . . . . 0.0000016 SR ago
the industrial revolution. . . 0.0000008 SR ago

now isn't it just a bit foolish to think
that a certain desert preacher
is soon to return
signaling the end of the world???

just how important do we really think we are?

the truth of the matter
is that the earth will exist
far beyond any end
that will come to us
and if such a thing can be said
"it" (including all the ecosystems)
will exist more "happily"
without us

here's to us.
cheers.

+A

the dinos lasted 0.75 SR... a mere 160 million years!
the last 7.2 degrees of 1 SR consists of the chimp and our lineages diverging... a whole 5 million years!
the last 0.3 degrees of 1 SR is the time homo sapiens have been around... a whole 200,000 years!

Neither Gods Nor Beasts

2009-12-26T00:54:00.000-05:00

"What protects science from being rejected as a valid means of interpreting the universe is NOT its perfection and self-consistency, but its ability to admit that IT CAN BE WRONG, that its results MUST be verified by others who repeat it, and that its predictions can be tested by others." -- Elof Axel Carlson, Neither Gods Nor Beasts: How Science Is Changing Who We Think We Are [emphasis mine]

it is very important to see why Carlson is so careful in his wording here. science was never meant to be taken as a complete and perfect explanation of the universe. humans throughout history sadly have often preferred (and in turn slept better) having a complete (and possibly comforting) incorrect explanation provided by their authorities, than an incomplete and falsifiable (but best possible) explanation provided by their fellow man.

the authority-ravaged mind of the religious are quick to point out that science does not have 'all the answers', and until then they are 'throwing in' with jesus, or krishna, or allah, or yahweh, or whatever god we just happen to be brought up under by the sheerest chance of to whom we are born in what time and place. but it should be clear that this misses the whole point.

in the new century, we will find our own way as a responsible species only by first removing the conditioning that our cultures, nations, and most importantly our religions have indoctrinated us with over the course of the evolution of our conscious minds. in the light of free thought, one can truly see that god only created humanity after we created him. religion has only ever been a human endeavor. and as such, it is as fallable as any other. a quick glance at the fruits which religion has borne should confirm this.

human endeavors, including any and all religions, need to admit that they do not have all the answers to be of any worth to us as we move forward as a species. dogma has always and will always enslave and bring the individual back to a blinded state of living on other people's words as a second-hand human. we must embrace our lack of perfection in all endeavors to gain our best understanding of ourselves and our place within the universe. only then will we have a chance of harnessing the powers around us with the responsibility necessary for the earth and the majority of its species, ensuring the health of the ecology of the human species as well.

+A

Emancipate

2009-12-25T02:40:00.000-05:00

we must still hold hope
when even a religious mind
can produce a free thought

"emancipate yourself from mental slavery
none but ourselves can free our minds"
-- bob marley, redemption song

+A