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?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, November 12, 2012
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?"
Thursday, November 8, 2012
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.”
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
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'm not trying to make fun, but it is so weird to me.
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.
Friday, November 2, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)