Four quick points to clarify some common misconceptions and simple arguments. This is quick and down and dirty and will most likely require some edits. Nevertheless, here it is warts and all:
If I may, let me briefly discuss four brief points - each only a paragraph in length.
FIRST, atheists, by definition, don't make any claims about our existence. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. This is the opposite of making a claim. Atheists may or may not have data to back up their conclusion, but it is not the job of someone to backup their lack of belief. Atheism is a negative statement. It is the objective of the positive claimant to offer proof. There is absolutely zero proof of a deity. It is an enormous leap to say that lack of evidence of existence means that we were created. To simply say that we don't understand how a simple origin leads to a complex result is illogical. The same sort of logic would cause someone to reject that a redwood tree couldn't possibly be the result of a simple seed.
SECOND, Let me put forth an idea presented by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that has come to be known as "Russell's Teapot". This analogy was put forth by Russell in 1952 in an unpublished article:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
While it may be hard to understand or explain the origin of life on the planet, no greater merit should be offered to an unproven and unsupported theory. I'd go as far as to say it's dishonest.
THIRDLY, there is absolutely no coincidence in our current complexity. We see a great deal that is totally screwed up and far from any system. One simple example is the human eye. The human eye is terribly designed. The location of the veins in our eyes are equivalent to placing all the wires of a camera in front of and around the camera lens. It's the reason why we get eye diseases such as cataracts. The eyeball of the squid developed entirely independently from our own and is without these problems. The thing that it is vital to understand is that organisms of great simplicity went through millions of minute changes over time. Millions of years. It was not a simple change. Consider the earlier example of trees. If you were without prior knowledge of how trees grew and someone said that a bag of seeds could make a great forest, you'd conclude they were lying. You'd be certain of it, would you not? Now consider every living thing on earth, in all the differing climates and circumstances. Consider their changing over a million years. Does it at least seem remotely feasible? Would it be coincidence that things grew and change or simply the way things work?
FOURTH and finally, which seems more improbable:
1. Things starting out very simply growing little by little into complex things over millions of years.
or
2. One single thing that is so incredibly complex it outshines all the complexity on earth, so much so as to be able to actually design and create every living things on earth, all the planets and the stars and the entire universe.
Consider which of these two statements actually answers any question at all? Where did the great being from question two come from? If the earth and it's inhabitants require an understandable explanation, how on earth are we to ever understand the origin of the far greater and more complex entity?!! We're back where we started, but with a far more complicated question!
Okay, I'm done. Hopefully something I typed makes sense!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Shannon Spaulding, Full of Shit in Christ
Shannon Spaulding has just achieved her fifteen minutes of fame. This obviously intelligent and strong-willed young person did it by compromising her dignity and the rights of others. In her mind, however, that's just fine.
Shannon Spaulding is the valedictorian of Wolfson High School in Jacsonville, Florida. Her graduation speech included twenty minutes of proselytizing that included telling those in attendance that if they died with sin on their souls, they would "immediately be puled down to hell to pay the eternal price...". Isn't that inspirational? Nothing like good 'ole down home common sense talk to carry with you on your journey into the real world, eh?
Shannon feels she can's say she's sorry. "I can't say I'm sorry for the message I shared. I'm sorry if people were offended, but I still believe in what I said."
I wonder what she could have said if say, perhaps, a person of the Islamic faith stood up and heranged the audience for their beliefs. Do you suppose Shannon would have minded that her rights were violated. Would she sit on her hands simply accepting that it was this persons beliefs? If a Jewish student had stood up and denied Jesus as the messiah, would that have been okay with her? If a Wiccan had preached their beliefs, do you think she would be so tolerant of their differing views.
What it comes down to is that Shannon, who claimed to not "totally understand why it's such a big deal" is either completely undiserving of her valedictorian title and unprepared for the real world, completely deluted and self absorbed, or just plain full of shit. I'm going with the latter. I'd actually prefer that she's callous and inconsiderate than insipid and ignorant. I'll grant her that. I, however, will not give her a pass. Times up, we're at fifteen minutes.
Shannon Spaulding is the valedictorian of Wolfson High School in Jacsonville, Florida. Her graduation speech included twenty minutes of proselytizing that included telling those in attendance that if they died with sin on their souls, they would "immediately be puled down to hell to pay the eternal price...". Isn't that inspirational? Nothing like good 'ole down home common sense talk to carry with you on your journey into the real world, eh?
Shannon feels she can's say she's sorry. "I can't say I'm sorry for the message I shared. I'm sorry if people were offended, but I still believe in what I said."
I wonder what she could have said if say, perhaps, a person of the Islamic faith stood up and heranged the audience for their beliefs. Do you suppose Shannon would have minded that her rights were violated. Would she sit on her hands simply accepting that it was this persons beliefs? If a Jewish student had stood up and denied Jesus as the messiah, would that have been okay with her? If a Wiccan had preached their beliefs, do you think she would be so tolerant of their differing views.
What it comes down to is that Shannon, who claimed to not "totally understand why it's such a big deal" is either completely undiserving of her valedictorian title and unprepared for the real world, completely deluted and self absorbed, or just plain full of shit. I'm going with the latter. I'd actually prefer that she's callous and inconsiderate than insipid and ignorant. I'll grant her that. I, however, will not give her a pass. Times up, we're at fifteen minutes.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Immorality of Christianity and Homosexuality
Mathew 6 (New International Version)
15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Christians judge people. Clearly. They certainly judge the behaviors of others. They often 'cast the first stone'. Where it's a sin to covet thy neighbors wife -- sin even in the mind-- it's apparently okay to judge in the mind. So, thou shall not Kill or put a piece of flesh in a particular part of flesh of another person if that person is of a particular gender. That is an eternal no-no. It's a stupid and unsupported no-no. But as we know-know is way focused on the genitalia of we small insignificant lambs. This deity has a serious fixation psychosis. A 'fetish' as it were.
The arguments against homosexuality are inane and completely invented. For example, it's unclean to have anal sex. Well, it's unclean not to wash your hands. It can spread disease. How about, "it's icky and I'm not secure in my own masculinity, nor is my wife entirely secure in my masculinity so we both say it's icky. Back in the day we used to be bigots about black people, but since that's fallen out of favor, we've moved on to other things that scare us, but are more publicly acceptable."
There is no morality beyond that of religion that gives a damn about the gender of lovers. Causing unnecessary torment should not be the cause of something that is professed to be good.
In my own experience, there was no 'choice' I made. Perhaps some of those 'good 'ole boys' really struggled with their attraction to males. Maybe they didn't. I know from a very early age (I particularly remember finding a certain stirring of the loins during an episode of the 70's live-action Wonder Woman program) I had a hankering for the female physique. There was no pow-wow in my brain. There was no point when I said to myself, "Hmmm... Soft and bumpy or squared off and hard." Nope. I like the soft and bumpy shape of women long before I realized why I liked them. Long before I took an 'F' on that days math lesson because I was, um, shall we say 'incapable' of working the previous days homework problems on the board in front of the class because Suzy had worn that darn tube top again. Years later I stood before family and friends and vowed to love and honor my wife until the day I leave this life. I love my wife and the family we've created. I love her more deeply than I ever imagined I could love anyone. Far more than I love myself. Far more. Aye, but here's the rub, no one, no God, no man, nation, governing body or law would change that. I'd easily sacrifice my life in order to be with her. There is no other place for me. It's where I belong. If the love I feel for my wife is even remotely comparable to the love between any two people no matter their race, creed, gender or nationality, I feel it's my duty as a human to defend their right to be with that person as completely as they may. No matter what they do in their own time. With their own genitals. In their own home. In fact, I hope they do whatever they like as much as they like and in any way they like so as to make them happy and whole.
If God disagrees with that, then he's simply wrong.
But then he doesn't exist and it's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are the actual problem. It's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are so completely wrong. What could possibly more immoral than to tell two grown human being who and how to love?
15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Christians judge people. Clearly. They certainly judge the behaviors of others. They often 'cast the first stone'. Where it's a sin to covet thy neighbors wife -- sin even in the mind-- it's apparently okay to judge in the mind. So, thou shall not Kill or put a piece of flesh in a particular part of flesh of another person if that person is of a particular gender. That is an eternal no-no. It's a stupid and unsupported no-no. But as we know-know is way focused on the genitalia of we small insignificant lambs. This deity has a serious fixation psychosis. A 'fetish' as it were.
The arguments against homosexuality are inane and completely invented. For example, it's unclean to have anal sex. Well, it's unclean not to wash your hands. It can spread disease. How about, "it's icky and I'm not secure in my own masculinity, nor is my wife entirely secure in my masculinity so we both say it's icky. Back in the day we used to be bigots about black people, but since that's fallen out of favor, we've moved on to other things that scare us, but are more publicly acceptable."
There is no morality beyond that of religion that gives a damn about the gender of lovers. Causing unnecessary torment should not be the cause of something that is professed to be good.
In my own experience, there was no 'choice' I made. Perhaps some of those 'good 'ole boys' really struggled with their attraction to males. Maybe they didn't. I know from a very early age (I particularly remember finding a certain stirring of the loins during an episode of the 70's live-action Wonder Woman program) I had a hankering for the female physique. There was no pow-wow in my brain. There was no point when I said to myself, "Hmmm... Soft and bumpy or squared off and hard." Nope. I like the soft and bumpy shape of women long before I realized why I liked them. Long before I took an 'F' on that days math lesson because I was, um, shall we say 'incapable' of working the previous days homework problems on the board in front of the class because Suzy had worn that darn tube top again. Years later I stood before family and friends and vowed to love and honor my wife until the day I leave this life. I love my wife and the family we've created. I love her more deeply than I ever imagined I could love anyone. Far more than I love myself. Far more. Aye, but here's the rub, no one, no God, no man, nation, governing body or law would change that. I'd easily sacrifice my life in order to be with her. There is no other place for me. It's where I belong. If the love I feel for my wife is even remotely comparable to the love between any two people no matter their race, creed, gender or nationality, I feel it's my duty as a human to defend their right to be with that person as completely as they may. No matter what they do in their own time. With their own genitals. In their own home. In fact, I hope they do whatever they like as much as they like and in any way they like so as to make them happy and whole.
If God disagrees with that, then he's simply wrong.
But then he doesn't exist and it's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are the actual problem. It's just scared, ignorant and insecure people who are so completely wrong. What could possibly more immoral than to tell two grown human being who and how to love?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
