Poe's Law

Poe's Law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Is the following video real?  Or parody?

Education

So this is kind of awesome...

2 Peter 3:5 says "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

So there you go.  "Atheistic evolution" claims that "matter evolve from nothing."  Not only that, but scientists are all part of a conspiracy where they know the trust, but choose to deny it.

Newtown Part 2

Another point of view from a Christian minister:

Newtown Shooting

If you were dropping off your child at their school, and you saw a shady looking character with a couple guns walking around and starting to shoot at innocent children, what would you do?

It’s a tough question.  Would you duck and run for cover?  Would you attempt to tackle the guy?  I find hard to know how I’d react.  I like to think that I’d act heroically, but I also know there’s a good chance I’d just duck and run for cover.

Now, what if you somehow magically were granted knowledge that you wouldn’t get hurt in the incident.  Then what would you do?  I think it’s probably safe to say that we’d take out the gunman as soon as we possibly could.  Any decent person would, right?

What if you had absolute, airtight knowledge that this event was going to occur before it actually happened?  I think any decent person would call the police or otherwise get the authorities involved before it happened, right?  That’s a no-brainer.

If you accept that an omnipotent and omnipresent god exists and watches over us, then we must accept the fact that he ALLOWS these events to happen, while having the power to stop them.  I think this is referred to as “the problem of evil”.

On a very surface level, we could say “God had the power to stop this event, and he didn’t.  Therefore, God was complicit in the crime.”

This is a simplistic view, and there are some responses to this:

1)  We have free will.

I don’t buy this argument.  Every description of the Christian god that I’ve read compares him to Santa Claus.  He knows what we’re thinking, and whether we’ve been bad or good, and what is “in our hearts”, whatever that means.  He also, apparently, has the power to influence people and to make actual changes in the world.

So while we might have free will, God also supposedly has power and influence over us.

2)  Evil exists as a test or lesson to humanity

A few evangelicals have come out and blamed the shooting on our godless society.  Mike Huckabee said:

“And since we've ordered God out of our schools, and communities, the military and public conversations, you know we really shouldn't act so surprised ... when all hell breaks loose.”

James Dobson said:

“…but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us.  I think that’s what’s going on.”

So there it is.  Gays, abortions, and atheists make God angry, and therefore he allows innocent children to be slaughtered as a punishment.

Or this jackass:

The implication here is that God is spiteful for being kicked out of public schools, and therefore allowed the shooting to happen as a response.

Do people really think that?  I can’t see how anyone would want to worship a god who would do such a thing.  If God had a problem with gays or abortionists or atheists and did something SPECIFICALLY to punish those people, that would make a little more sense to me.  But allowing innocent children to die and putting their families through agony and torture as a result of the sins of someone else doesn’t make any sense to me.

But then again, punishing someone for the sins of someone else seems to be central to Christian dogma.

3)  “Part of a bigger plan”

Another possible response is basically “We don’t know why this happened, but we have faith that it must be part of a bigger plan.”  This, in my opinion, is just giving up any rational thinking and succumbing completely to faith.  Like me, they can’t comprehend how something could happen, and just have to assume that God is in control and things will work out ok in the end.

There is a final response, which is the “hands off” God, who created the universe and set it into motion and then let things progress how they may.  Mentally disturbed people do bad things.  Good people do good things.  People live and day and life happens as it may.  I submit that a “hands off” God is indistinguishable from God not existing at all.

As an atheist, how do I approach the shooting?  Obviously with horror and disgust.  So much so that I’m actively not following the story too closely as an act of informed ignorance.  Reading about the children who died, and looking at their little faces is painful to me, and I don’t believe that it will change my behavior or teach me anything I don’t already know.  I already love my daughter and tell her that every day.  I can’t possibly hug her more than I do.  I don’t think this shooting has changed my stance on guns, violence, religions, or school safety.  Looking at raw statistics, the number of people killed in mass slayings is far outnumbered by death by car accident, not wearing a bike helmet, and other poor decisions that are very preventable.

In the end, it just sucks. 

Coughing

If I designed people, I wouldn't put the mouth-hole and the breathing-hole in the same place.  Jeez.

Praying on Survivor

I’m a big fan of the game that is played on the TV show Survivor.  One thing that has been interesting in the past few seasons are some of the more religious people that have been on the show.  There was one lady in China who won a trip to go visit some sort of Buddhist monastery, but walked out of a “non-religious” ceremony that involved bowing.

Then, most recently, there was a big event that was going to change the course of the game.  Before the event, some players got together to pray.  They didn’t pray for anything specific to happen, and in fact one of them said that she was the not the kind of person to pray for her football team to win.  Instead, they just prayed to God that his will would be done. 

It struck me as so odd.  There they were, eyes clenched and holding hands, earnestly asking that whatever was going to happen, please let it happen.  I mean, if you pray for something specific to happen, that makes some sense to me.  “Please heal my grandmother, who is dying of cancer” or whatever.  But if you pray for anything and everything to happen the way that it would EVEN IF YOU DIDN’T PRAY, what’s the point?

It seemed to make them feel better, though.  And for the record, the plan they hatched (but didn't specificially pray would work) didn't work.  The guy they were hoping to blindside won the event and was safe from being voted out.  Perhaps if they'd just prayed a little harder.

This clip wasn't on the show, but references it:

I also heard about someone mentioning this, and did some Googling around.  There is a movement called “Pray Until Something Happens”, or PUSH.

From the top website:

The way to get real-life results in prayer is to seek God with an attitude that says, “No matter how long it takes, or whatever I have to do, I will not be denied”. This is not arrogance, it’s Godly hunger. It is not about pushing God, but about pushing yourself into God. This is not praying for the sake of praying. This is praying to see the hand of God move. This is desperate hungry praying. This is the type of prayer that gets answers.

So, if I want to get “real life results” about something, I should pray for/about it.  And if I don’t get an answer?  Keep praying, "no matter how long it takes".  Is that really good advice?  I wonder how long people actually keep this up before they either change the prayer to something more reasonable, or accept whatever reality is facing them, or just give up.

Perhaps I pray for some extra money, because I’m struggling to pay bills.  I pray earnestly every day.  Then one day I find a dime in the street.  That might not be the intent of my prayer, but I could see someone thinking it was the work of God and teaching some lesson in humility or something.

What if I prayed earnestly and constantly for the ability to fly?  Or for my amputated arm to grow back?  Is there really any reason why God couldn’t answer those prayers?

What if I prayed for someone’s cancer to go away, and they end up dying?  Did I not pray correctly or hard enough?  What if they end up living?  Would I then be stronger in a belief that prayer actually does something?

It kind of makes my head spin.  I just don’t get it.

Yoga in School

There's been a big hubbub recently about yoga being taught in local elementary schools.  I've found it fascinating how some parents have come out against it for fear of their children being indoctrinated into Hinduism.

What's I find really striking is how much I agree with them, if for different reasons.  I'm sensitive to any whiff of religion being taught as fact in the classroom.  That is a job for parents.

The people I've seen quoted in the news, however, are against it because they think their children are being "indoctrinated" into a "false religion".  In my mind, if you follow what I consider to be a false religion, the worse thing you are doing is deluding yourself.  In their mind, they are at risk for real eternal problems.

So what defines yoga?  Is sitting quietly in a room and stretching a bad thing?  What about paying attention to your own body?  What if you say "namaste"?  Where is the line for what is dangerous flirting with a religion and simple healthy living?

One comment I heard was that you should be spending your time with your thoughts on God.  And yoga teaches you to focus your energies inward, rather than outward.

My thoughts are a little muddled, but it's all so fascinating to me.

Bill O'Reilly has lost it...

This is unbelievable.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/28/bill-oreilly-christianity-is-not-a-religion-its-a-philosophy/



Christianity is not a religion, it's a philosophy.

WHAT?!

When I saw the headline, I thought perhaps he mispoke, or it was taking some quote out of context or something.  But he states very clearly, multiple times and directly, that it is a FACT that Christianity is not a religion, it's a philosophy.

What am I missing with this?  How can that possibly make any sense?

Small World

The Bible says that somewhere around 4500 years ago, there were eight people on the earth.

Eight.

And from those eight people, we got all the ancient and modern civilizations that we have today, with all their rich cultures, traditions, and even religions.

Let that sink in.  Ancient Greece and Roman civilization.  China and Japan, which have histories dating back thousands of years (actually even before the flood (oops!)).  Vikings.  Africa.  Aztecs.

The Origins of the Universe

Many (perhaps most) arguments and debates I hear begin with "Where did the universe come from?"

Is that really the best place to start?  Isn't God more relevant in today's world?  Why not miracles?  The power of prayer?  Faith healing?  The human condition and God's affect on the world today?  The veracity of the Bible?

If God exists and has a manifestation in this modern day, then convince me of that.  But leading with "Well, the universe must have come from somewhere..." strikes me as starting on shaky ground.

It's all a big argument from ignorance:  "We don't know where the universe came from, so let's label that unknown thing 'God', and start from there."

It assumes that the universe came from somewhere.  Why is this a valid assumption?  If you're going to base an argument that begins with "The universe was created, therefore..." you first need to demonstrate that the premise is indeed true.

I was recently on an airplane, and the lady next to me crossed herself as the plane was taking off, as well as after it landed.  Did that help reduce the chances that something bad would happen to the plane?  I didn't cross myself.  Did that have an effect?  If everyone on every plane ever crossed themselves before and after, would we have fewer plane crashes?

These are much more interesting and potential convincing discussions to me than "Well, were do YOU think the universe came from?"

Belief With your Heart

I once spoke with someone from India.  In the course of a conversation, I learned that there is a belief in India that if you kill a cobra, its mate will seek revenge and kill you.  This struck me as a fun little folks-y tale.

The next day, I was thinking more about this, and asked her “Do people actually believe that?”  She confirmed that yes, people do indeed believe that.  I asked if she believed that, and she kind of hemmed and hawed.  Clearly, she knew it sounded ridiculous, but part of her did think it was true.

I said “I didn’t think that snakes have the kind of capacity for emotion and rational thought that is necessary for revenge.  Is that possible?”

She responded “Well, there are some things you believe with your head, and something things you believe with your heart.”

I believe this is what you might call “cognitive dissonance”.  In this example, we are presented two facts that conflict with each other:

1)  Cobras seek revenge on the killer of their mates.  This is a folk-tale that is taught to children as factual information.

2)  Cobras don’t have the brainpower or emotional IQ necessary to exact revenge.

Is #2 actually true?  I guess I don’t really know for sure.  But I think we all collectively agree that if we pissed of a snake out in a field somewhere and ran away, we wouldn’t be afraid of it following us to our homes.  Certainly, this is something we could test and demonstrate.

So what do we do if we have two conflicting concepts in our minds?  We rationalize, and make up something to smooth the gap.  In this case, we believe one thing with our heads and one thing with our “hearts”.  I didn’t ask what that meant, exactly.

We are constantly presented with real, observable truths about the world we live in.  On the other hand, we have stories that were taught to us as children which we’ve accepted as factually true that conflict with what we see.  But rather than give up those notions which are illogical, irrational, and unable to be proven, we just kind of wrap them up and call it “faith.”

Prayer requests...

What is the point of a prayer request?

Are some people better at praying than others?  Or if more people pray for something, does that have more of an effect?

Or is it strictly a Catholic thing?  I'm not too clear on the differences between Catholics and Protestants, but I think my understanding is that Catholics need to route their spiritual matters through their priest.  That is, they can confess their sins directly through God, but instead need to go through the church itself.

If that's the case, then maybe it makes some sense that Catholics can't directly pray themselves...?  But that can't be right, can it?

I am confuse.

I did some searching and found this page.

It pretty much blew my mind.  Here's an example:

I ask that the Lord Jesus would grant me a decent-paying job (I have one specifically in mind at Smucker's here in Orrville, OH) to be able to properly support all of us (we have a 15-year old daughter). I also ask for healing for my wife (Denise is her name). I'm asking that the Lord Jesus would push away the enemy from her dreams and that HE would speak to her in them. I'm asking for a restored tolerance in my heart and mind as well. Give me back my household, filthy devils, in Jesus' name!!!

It's the little details that are so interesting to me.  Like the naming of the specific job, and the reminder of his wife's name.  As if the all-powerful God he's praying to doesn't know these things?!

I'm not trying to make fun, but it is so weird to me.

Evolution or Design?

Look at this guy.  He's gorgeous!  I noticed him on my back windshield as I was driving to work this morning.  He was hanging on for dear life, but somehow made it.

When I was able to check him out close up, I was stunned at the level of detail of his wings.  It looks so much like a leaf, right down to the little veins.  Absolutely amazing.

So how did this species come to look the way that it does?  This particular bug had parents, and those parents had parents, and onwards back through time.  This much is universally agreed upon, I think.

I see only two options:

1)  This species is descended from ancestors.  These ancestors looked different than this current species.  The ones that happened to be born with variations that made it look more like a leaf happened to be more successful at reproducing.  Over a long period of time, and repetitive selective pressure by predators, we now have this bug that looks very much like a leaf.  Other offspring from the same ancestor may have developed other variations, and over time evolved into different cousin-species.  If this is true, then we might predict that the DNA of this bug and other bugs would be very similar, and with enough samples, we could even come up with a little family tree of who is related to whom and how.

Something like this:

Let’s review some facts.  There is variation within species.  Children are not exact duplicates of parents.  Each new generation can introduce tiny little minor variations.  This is observable and reproducible and predictable.

Another fact is that the way something looks or behaves has an effect on how well it can live long enough to reproduce.

Another fact is that genetic information is passed from parent to child.

Isn’t that’s all that’s needed to explain how a bug can change over time to look like a leaf?

The only other option, if this species did NOT evolve gradually over time from something different, is that it has remained constant.  I don’t think there’s another choice.  Either this guy’s distant ancestors looked exactly the same, or it was different.

If it was exactly the same, then it’s not related to its various cousins like in the picture above.  All those lines should be straight and parallel, and never touch.  Grasshoppers and crickets are not cousins, descended from a common ancestor.  They are wholly distinct, and always have been.  I believe this is the creationist view.  Animals do not evolve.  Parents of a kind of thing give birth to children that are the same thing, and that repeats over and over.

If this is the case, then I think that means that we should find all kinds of animals in all the various strata of the earth’s layers.  If a horse has always been a horse, then horses and dinosaurs should have existed at the same time.  Right?  Same with all modern species.  If a rabbit has always been a rabbit, then we should find rabbits in any rock, no matter how old it is.  I’m wracking my brain to find some other way it could happen.  If rabbits only ever gave birth to rabbits, and rabbits ancient ancestors looked exactly the same as modern rabbits, then it must be rabbits all the way back.

To put it more strongly:  If a mammalian fossil was found in rocks that were older than a certain age, that would absolutely flip the theory of evolution on its head.  It would be Nobel-prize winning stuff, and certainly go down in history as a historic discovery. 

But has never, ever happened.

What am I missing? 

God and the Election

From "The Atheist Experience" blog:

God lost this election… repeatedly.  In the Republican primaries, three candidates — Perry, Bachmann, and Cain — all stated that God wanted them to run for president.  None of them even made it past the first few rounds.  Romney said no such thing; nevertheless, 74% of Evangelical Christians got over their revulsion for Mormonism and stated their intention to vote for Romney.  Lou Engle, a self-styled prophet, let us know that God was DEMANDING that we vote for Romney: “I sensed the Lord saying, Will you stand with Me in my covenantal faithfulness? Will you stand for my ancient covenant with My people? A deep abiding ‘yes’ began to conquer my arguments…”  But ya know, even the full force of the Almighty’s endorsement does jack squat for a the candidate, apparently.

Bible Contradictions...

I actually spent some time pausing the video and looking some of these up.  Good stuff.

I suppose the counter might be that these are all minor points and shouldn't get in the way of the main point of the story, but it makes for easy pickings.

From in an LDS Pamphlet...

"There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it.  They are just "that way" and can only yield to those desires.  That is a malicious and destructive lie.  While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil.  no one is locked into that kind of life.  From our premortal life we were directed into a physical body.  There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits   Boys are to become men -- masculine, manly men -- ultimately to become husbands and fathers.  No one is predestined to a perverted use of these powers."

(Source)

On the one hand, we have legions of gays and lesbians who claim that they didn't choose their sexuality in exactly the same way that I didn't choose my own.  Are they lying to me?  Are they actually heterosexual, or confused, and want to be gay by choice?

And on the other hand, we have an official church document saying that those people are liars.  Or, at best, they think they're telling the truth, but have themselves been misled by someone?

I'm inclined to believe the former.  In my own life, I've observed the following:

Masculine males who are attracted to women.
Feminine males who are attracted to women.

Masculine males who are attracted to men.
Feminine males who are attracted to men.

Throw gender identity on top of that, and you've got men who feel inside that they should have been born as women, and vice versa.  I can't believe that these folks, some of whom are driven to suicide, are lying to me.

The working conclusion that I've come to is that physical gender, perceived gender identification, and sexual orientation are distinct biological processes.  In most cases, they match up (men act masculine and desire women, and vice versa).  But some people are born with different switches, and it leads to all the various combinations.  Or, in some cases, early life trauma can mess up natural sexual development.  And they aren't binary switches, either.  There's all kinds of shades of gray in the middle.

The pamphlet asserts that the notion that "people are born with an attraction to their own kind, and nothing they can do about it" is a falsehood, and that they can only yield to those desires is "malicious and destructive lie".

It takes some careful reading to parse this.  Is the lie that people are born a certain way?  Or is the lie that there is nothing they can do about it?  From all the testimony I've heard, I can't come to any other conclusion other than people are born that way.  But I agree (technically) that they aren't "forced" to yield do those desires.  They could attempt to choose a straight lifestyle, or remain celibate, I guess.

Coincidentally, this quote is taken from a pamphlet about masturbation.  I'll leave that subject for a different time, but the pamphlet is specifically intended for young men, and basically talks using their little factories and the product produced for martial purpose.

I wonder what the view is on female masturbation?  Certainly nothing is physically lost when a young woman masturbations (in the same way that semen is for men).  So is it a problem?  I'll wait until I get home from work to google that one... :)

Finally, there is the implicit linking of masturbation and homosexuality.  This not only doesn't make sense to me, but I can't imagine there is any actual evidence that justifies even the lightest correlation between the two.  Maybe the church elders know something I don't.

The Morality of Atheists

Theist apologists seem to have this view that theists have no morals.  Since we don’t believe in God, and since God was the one who gave us our morality, then we’re simply free to do whatever we please.  If I feel like raping or murdering someone, and since I don’t have any fear of divine punishment, what’s stopping me from doing that?

There are a couple angles to this, and I’m not sure which one is intended.

On the one hand, the argument could be made that God indeed granted us our moral compass, and the fact that we (as a society) don’t go around raping and killing each other is evidence that we have some ingrained sense of right and wrong.  This is an idea that I can get behind.  I have done things that were “wrong”, and I have felt guilt.  I’d argue, though, that the source of that sense of right and wrong isn’t divine.  I think it’s much more likely that it’s the result of individual people learning how to behave in their respective society, as well as a species-wide evolution of acceptable behavior.

What about feral children?  I think there’s some evidence that humans who are raised by animals (see Oxana Malaya) take on the qualities of those animals.  Isn’t that an indication that we learn what is acceptable behavior, at least to some degree, from what we see around us?  And doesn’t it make sense that certain qualities could be selected for and selected against that have led us to where we are now?

But on the other hand, theists really seem to believe, in spite of all available evidence, that atheists are evil and sinful and purposely “turn their backs” to God (which implies some level of belief) so they can continue living in their sinful ways.  I’m not sure who they’re describing when they use those words, though.  Either you believe in God or you don’t, but I’m not sure how many people believe in God AND reject him.  Satanists, perhaps?  I’m not sure.

Anyways, Ray Comfort said it best himself:  “I’d be in jail if I wasn’t a Christian.”

My jaw dropped when I heard this.  What an astonishing thing to say!  If I understand him correctly, he’s saying that the only thing holding him back from breaking the law is fear of God.  In my mind, that makes him a Bad Person.

I don’t believe any gods exist, yet I’m not in jail.  You know why?  Because I have a rational and reasonable understanding of how my actions affect other people.  I understand that my right to swing my arms ends where another person’s nose begins.  I understand that there are consequences to my actions. 

So what stops me from stealing something that I want from a store?  A few things.  First, I understand and agree to live in a society that has rules.  Second, I understand and agree with the underlying reason those rules exist.  And finally, I want to raise a child and set a good example of what it means to be a good person.  I didn’t understand these things as a child, and in fact as a child I acted in ways contrary to this.  I think most kids do.

More Evolution

Behind Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind is one of my favorite apologists.  He makes it all sound so easy, and has a very smooth, comforting, easy way of discussing very difficult subjects.  Mostly he does this by misrepresentation and outright lies, unfortunately, but he's still fun to listen to. In one of this talks, he showed a photograph that was clearly a family portrait with his wife and two kids.  "Now, that's not my wife", he said, and after a comedic pause, he continues "that's just a picture of her."  That's funny! Anyways, I thought this was a fascinating video that breaks down Hovind's definition of "kinds" of animals and their place in evolution.  Really well done.

Some Thoughts on Evolution

Evolution is kind of a weird third party to the whole religion/atheism thing. One can be a theist and still “believe in” evolution. One can be an atheist and still think that evolution doesn’t pass muster.

So what does evolution mean? I think a lot of people are muddled.

My understanding is that evolution means “change over time”. When we say that a species has evolved, it means that species, as a whole, is different than it used to be at some point in the past.

This should be so flatly obvious that I have a hard time imagining anyone would disagree with it. This is the basis for the selective breeding that we’ve done on farm animals, thoroughbred horses, orchids, and show dogs for centuries. If you want to change the shape of the nose of a particular breed of dog, you simply mate pairs that have the noses you like, and pick the puppies from the litter that are closest to what you want. Then mate them with others. After a few generations, you’ll have a dog with different shaped nose.

But people who don’t accept evolution seem to miss some fundamental point. They say “Yeah, I agree with that, but I’ve never seen a dog give birth to a duck.” They say this as if they actually think that that’s what evolution would predict: that in a single generation a parent would give birth to a wholly different kind of animal.

Or they talk about transitional forms. They say “if an animal evolved from one kind to another, then we should see some hybrid mixture somewhere in the middle.” I’m not sure how they can say this with a straight face, but they do. It’s a totally fallacious challenge, because anything you ever show them, they can just respond “that’s not a transitional form… that’s just an extinct species from Creation.”

So there are two halves to the picture. In very short order, we can show that species of animals can change in just a few generations. There have been experiments with fish that have been stocked into different streams with varying degrees of predators. The fish that were put into streams with bigger fish that would eat them changed color over some generations, turning dull and brown and camouflaged. The natural variation in coloration over generations favored these kinds of fish. The fish that were put in streams with few or no predators turned more brightly colored. In this case, flashy colors helped attract mates, and that trait was selected.

Or these California salamanders.


Creationists readily accept these changes, I think. What they just can’t seem to grasp is that the accumulation of these changes over a long period of time can add up to substantial changes.

In this post, the first words were one color. Now they are another color. Can you find the exact word that is half red and half blue? Of course not. But you must admit that there has been drastic change over the course of this post.

I’m running out of steam. Hopefully this makes some sense.