Eyebrow Ascendant

Christianity Is Unethical

2010-04-20T08:20:00.004-07:00

Many of my problems with Christianity are inherent to the religion, and not a reflection of the actions of its followers.

I have a problem with the concept that disobedience to any entity, no matter which specific entity it is, must always necessarily constitute a sin. There is nothing wrong with seeking knowledge, but Genesis tells us it is wrong when God says so. Sometimes the noblest act is defiance of a powerful authority, rather than submission.

I have a problem with the tendency of all gods in all religions to draw a line in the sand and state, "Beyond here, no mortal shall trespass." This is illustrated in the story of the Tower of Babel, wherein God reminds the puny mortals of their role as his inferiors. This is the sort of thing that retards scientific progress, such as stem cell research or cloning, or causes people to fight back against it, such as the HPV vaccine, based on the apparent assumption that some problems are just not meant to be solved.

I have a problem with the scapegoating found throughout all Christianity, from the original sin passed down to me because a snake convinced a rib woman to eat a fruit, to Jesus being sacrificed for the times I've lied, to God's specification in the Third Commandment that he will punish your great-grandchildren if you reject him. My "sins" are my own, I don't want anyone else taking that responsibility from me, and I refuse responsibility for anyone else's sins.

I have a problem with the concept of infinite punishment for finite crimes. There is no crime I can imagine that warrants eternal torture. When lack of belief, or belief in another god, is held as one of the crimes most obviously deserving this punishment, it is illustrative of a flaw in the system. Even under the interpretation of Hell as simple separation from God (which, in my experience, hasn't been so bad), the suggestion that there can be no redemption after death for disbelief in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence is fundamentally unethical.

I have a problem with the free pass given to God for atrocities either committed or commanded. The mass murder of children is never justified - certainly not because their Pharoah refused God's authority. This kind of story encourages a tolerance for "collateral damage" that should be obviously vile. The many justifications trotted out by apologists for these crimes are insufficient defense, and I would be happy to debate the specifics with anyone who cares to challenge this assertion.

I have a problem with lauding unthinking obedience to any authority figure as a virtue. Abraham nearly sacrificed his son on God's word. The only thing that separates him from the many "God told me to do it" convicts we see murdering their children, or innocent bystanders, or whoever, is that God stopped him at the last second. But what if the word never came? No, the correct answer was, "No, Lord, I will not murder my son for you. And if this disobedience invokes your wrath, then let it be on my head alone." Unquestioning obedience to orders is not a virtue; it is a short route to atrocity.

I have a problem with human sacrifice. If you buy into the apologetics that she wasn't sacrificed, but only delivered into the clergy for the rest of her life (I don't), I have a problem with the assumption that uninvolved parties are obligated to someone else's agreement with God.

I have a serious, serious problem with teaching that the end of the world is soon, unavoidable, and generally a good thing. Modern technology has brought the ability to end the world closer to the reach of vastly more people than ever before. All it requires, today, is a fanatic with access to the right buttons. The availability of those buttons is likely to only increase - the world's populace simply [i]must[/i] learn that the apocalypse is to be averted, not sought. This is why the USA is trying so hard to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. And yes, it's a Christian problem, too.

I have a problem with the concept that being human is inherently bad - so bad that we deserve to die just because of the fact that we were born human. This is a central concept to all Christianity. The reason Jesus had to be killed was to save us from a horrible fate that we entirely deserve. It is because God is "just" that he could not simply forgive these apparent failings, and required a blood sacrifice to appease him. This is how cults behave - they tell you that you are worthless, that you deserve only pity at best, but then they "save" you. This is manipulative. This is evil. And it's a core part of Christianity.

I could go on. Do I lay these failings at the feet of Christians? Not usually, no. Most Christians/Jews I know tend to gloss over these and other problems with their scripture. Most Christians seem to agree that the Ten Commandments form the foundation of American law and tradition, despite the fact that the First and Second Commandments are in direct violation of the First Amendment.

It sounds great to say that religions basically just teach you to be good to other people, but only by ignoring the vast majority of any given religion's scriptures could you come to that conclusion. Humanism, however, does actually teach you to be good to other people, and nothing more. This has nothing to do with why I believe religions are not true, but it does address some of the reasons I'm glad that they aren't true. I am not one of those who wishes he could believe, or who believes religion is just a set of stories that help us be more moral. The Bible teaches submission, either to God, fate, or ignorance. I reject it, thoroughly.

You'll Understand When You're Older

2010-04-01T20:42:00.005-07:00

Quite some time ago, an acquaintance of mine, who is not a theist but was taking their side in this argument, came the closest I've seen to solving the problem of evil.

He suggested to me that, from God's perspective, the apparent tragedies endured by people are insignificant. Essentially, in a very Buddhist way, that our suffering is illusory and, once the test is passed, we would be let in on this secret. He drew a comparison to a parent refusing a child a simple treat, having the child's long-term health in mind. The child may scream and cry and view the denial of what seems a perfectly reasonable request as an act of great injustice. When the child becomes an adult, however, he or she will see that the cookie was minor and it was really in his or her best interest not to eat it.

This, in some sense, does equate unthinkable atrocities with the simple greed of a child, but I don't think that's invalid given the context. The entirety of our experience of the material may very well seem trivial from the perspective of the immaterial (or transcendent, which is probably the word theists would prefer to use).

The problem of evil, as I'm sure you know, is that God either allows suffering or is powerless to stop it. If he allows it, he's not that good. If he's powerless to stop it, he's not God. This, of course, assumes an omnipotent god.

This response partially grants the first point - that God allows the evil - but it follows with a caveat that it's not really "evil," which makes it somewhat more compelling than the usual Problem of Evil responses (which invariably grant either the first or the second conclusion, but those making the responses never seem to realize that).

It is, however, an invalid response. At the very least, it demonstrates a God who is without any consistent standard or message. The foundation of this argument rests on the assumption that the material is trivial, and the transcendent is vastly more significant. Childhood versus adulthood - the minutiae of childhood seems laughably simple compared to the challenges and, indeed, the consequences of adulthood.

However, while expecting us to be aware of the transitory and trivial nature of the material, God also assigns incredible importance to our actions in the material world. Our entire transcendent existence is predicated on the method with which we conduct ourselves in the material. The punishment for indulging those supposedly trivial urges is eternal torture. Even the most generous interpretation of Hell (i.e. separation from God, or annihilation) would seem to be extreme reactions to these behaviors.

To carry on the metaphor - the child demands a cookie. The adult refuses. The child whines and screams and, when the adult isn't watching, steals and eats the cookie. The adult, in response, sends the child to prison for the remainder of his or her existence. The more generous adult ceases all contact with the child; completely cuts the child off. When the child has grown to adulthood, presumably he or she regrets eating the cookie - but it is simply too late. There is no repairing the harm done. The individual simply should have known better when it was a child, and now it must endure the consequences. There can be no reparation.

Either the material matters, or it does not. If it does, then God still either permits or is unable to prevent suffering. If it does not, then morality is an illusion, and "Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law.

Deconversion Part 4

2010-01-19T07:48:00.000-07:00

Continued:

Even though I was feeling decent about myself by the time Nikki and I broke up, I still found myself in a somewhat precarious position as far as the future was concerned. At that time, I had a shit job. Like the kind that doesn't require you to graduate high school to get. My degree turned out to be only slightly better than useless. It was a video game design degree that I ended up getting because I, as a very young person who had found his "soul mate," followed Samantha to her college of choice and selected a program that interested me somewhat. I liked video games. Still do. It wasn't until I was just about done with the degree that I realized I was not cut out for the business of making video games. Also, I specialized in writing for games which, as it turns out, isn't so much a job that people get paid to do. At least, not very often. And those who do generally have a few published novels.

Anyway, I began to fear I'd be trapped in my horrible little failure-job forever. When you go through something like that, you get philosophical. Well, maybe you don't. I get philosophical. The job, which, by the way, was delivering pizzas, required me to be in my car for long stretches of time doing nothing in particular. Just driving around. So I started listening to a lot of audiobooks and, eventually, podcasts.

This is, I'm sad to say, where the skeptic you know today was born. It must be anti-climactic, but the fact is that I considered myself a de facto atheist before Nikki and I broke up, and I read [i]The God Delusion[/i] and became a much stronger atheist. [i]The God Delusion[/i] didn't go far enough for me, though, so I moved on to the other Horsemen, and then into the podcasting world with The Non-Prophets, Point of Inquiry, Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Skeptoid. Very quickly, I learned how logic works. I learned the fallacies. I learned the science behind the claims. Over time, I picked up more sophisticated podcasts, delving further into philosophical and theological questions: The Atheist Experience (by the same people as Non-Prophets, but it's a call-in show that tends to lead to some pretty esoteric topics), Apologia (debates being theists and atheists on dozens of specifics topics that each worldview might inform), and, most recently, Reasonable Doubts (a very sophisticated exercise in the psychology of belief, counter-apologetics, and Biblical fact-checking, while still being entertaining). I jumped into classics, like Russell, Hume and Lucretius.

So there's my secret laid bare. I'm no genius. I figured out the problem of evil for myself in high school, but wouldn't have known what to do with the Transcendental Argument even today without the aid of the giants who came before me, and the giants who came before them. I listened to both sides and picked what I perceive as the winner. Religion has done me no great harm, but I think it is harmful. I remember the fear I had when I thought God would kill me as a child, or the distant but present worry of Hell until I finally dismissed that notion in college.

There will be those who claim that my heart's always been closed to God, but to make that claim is to suggest something very insidious about God. When I was a child, I sincerely believed. I wanted God and Jesus to be real. But every time I prayed, I always knew I was talking to myself. There was no other voice. I was given no revelation, no experience, nothing beyond what I forced on my own. My entire experience with Christianity could be reasonably compared to my experience accepting Jesus into my heart - I imagined it happening, and I knew at the time I was imagining it, but assumed that this utter lack of communication on God's part was how it was supposed to be. After all, the adults all seem to believe it. They're always right.

But to make the claim that I never opened my heart to God is to claim not only that God elected not to reveal himself to me in any way that I would describe (even at the age of seven) as meaningful, but that he specifically made me (or allowed me to be made) in such a way that I would be closed to him, and thus condemned to Hell, from birth.

I have no doubt that the shallowness I experienced of sitting in silence and having a conversation with my own inner monologue, combined with the clear assumption of belief on the part of, as far as I could see, every person in my immediate environment, led to me questioning even in elementary school. If God existed, and had responded in any way that could be construed as even slightly inspirational, I expect I would be a very different person today. I would never have questioned its existence.

But I can't say I learned nothing from prayer and seeking God. The silence of all but my own inner monologue taught me that, within my own head, I am truly, utterly alone. And when I leave the company of others, there is nothing that comes with me. Solitude is a fact of life. And it does offer its own peace.

The most spiritual (though I hate that word) experiences of my life have been spent in contemplation of solitude and insignificance. When the Sun goes down, go outside and stare into the night sky for an hour.

Deconversion Part 3

2010-01-19T07:47:00.000-07:00

Continued:

I was in high school and quickly learned the art of taking myself [i]very[/i] seriously. This is also where I made friends with Mike, who was the first up-front atheist I'd met. Until that, I don't think I'd ever considered that some people might not believe in God.

It didn't bother me that he didn't, but the first arguments he threw at me were dumb. The "can he make a rock so big" variety. I didn't have trouble dismissing those.

At this age I had also become a fanatical devotee of The Smashing Pumpkins. I enjoyed reading the lyrics, trying to piece together the song meanings. Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness became my Bible.

It was through Billy Corgan's friendship with Marilyn Manson that I eventually came to listen to him, which spurred me on to more alternative reading. Sometime in this period, I started calling myself an agnostic. I read The Satanic Bible (too credulous, at that age, to question how honest LaVey was being about his own life), had many (many) "deep" conversations with friends on the subject, and eventually started calling myself an atheist.

High School is also when a complete stranger and several of his friends cornered me in the hallway and demanded to know what I had against Jesus. Until that point, I didn't realize that I had anything against Jesus, and I didn't know how they knew I did.

This was also my first attempt to really read the Bible. I didn't make it through the Old Testament. I couldn't understand why foreskin was so important.

Though high school was the longest four years of my life, in the context of this story it just came and went and there aren't many details to share. College was where I started being honest.

It had to be Philosophy 101, of course, that challenged me. I was calling myself an atheist, and had talked about why with friends, but they weren't knowledgeable enough to really challenge me, nor was I familiar enough with the workings of logic to understand the flaws in my arguments. Go public education.

I did really well in Philosophy. While my understanding was rudimentary, I was interested in the subject and had explored it at least a little. That put me miles ahead of everyone else in the class. I was going to be a philosophy major (until a counselor convinced me that there are no jobs for philosophers - thanks a lot for that one, asshole. How about if I'd gone into Law after that? But I digress.)

I liked the class. It exposed people's hidden assumptions and bigotries. I also met Samantha there, who I somehow got the courage to ask out, and who I'd spend the next five years of my life with. (Side advice: Don't spend all of college dating one person. There's a very good chance it won't work out, and you learn a lot of important lessons about socializing with the opposite sex in college that you don't get in high school. Thus, I remain single, having dated one girl since Samantha and I split. She married a guy about twelve to fourteen years older than her and moved to England with him. Didn't see that one coming.)

Regarding bigotries, my favorite moment was when a guy, who I'd spoken with and knew was a decent guy, made the following statement: "I just think it matters that they're good people, not that they're Christian *gestures to himself*, Jewish *gestures to the girl who had discussed her Judaism*, or even in a cult *gestures to Samantha and I*."

My teacher, Leonard O'Brian, convinced me to start calling myself agnostic again with two arguments combined. First, the transcendental argument, which essentially proves that an omnipotent god would not have to be bound by logical possibilities. Logical contradictions and disproofs are not an obstacle for omnipotence.

Second, and I haven't heard this one since, he questioned whether God might best be expressed in metaphor, rather than logically. I wrote an essay in response to this, essentially arguing that this may be the case, but it effectively makes the concept of God unintelligible in any real sense. It's impossible to discern any attributes or motivations of a metaphorical god, even if it does exist. That's when it clicked. Oh. That sounds an awful lot like agnosticism.

So I was an agnostic for the rest of college. When Samantha left me for the older guy, after college, I went through a pretty severe depression. I'd built all my expectations for the future around her - again, stupid move. I made an effort to get out of it, looked at myself objectively and decided I wouldn't want to be with me either, and resolved to do something about it. Thus began my effort to improve myself physically, mentally, and professionally. Physical came first, and I went from 140lbs to 165lbs over the span of about a year - the gain all being muscle. I'm not bragging; it's all gone now.

The mental improvement ended up being placed on hold because Nikki essentially dropped out of thin air and into my lap. She went to college with me, wanted to go out with me but couldn't because of Samantha, found out we broke up, and found me with Google. I had more superficially in common with her than any other girl I've ever dated, and I never really felt passionate about her. She was fun, I liked her, but that was about as far as it went on my side. We eventually did break up, because she recognized I just wasn't getting there, and she was. Smart girl.

Her mom owned a metaphysical book store, so I got to see all kinds of ridiculous New Age crap with her. It was with her that I first heard of and watched The Secret. This film, I think, reminded me that I needed to get smarter. Shortly before Nikki and I broke up, I started reading again.

Deconversion, Part 2

2010-01-14T19:20:00.004-07:00

I was mostly done with the third grade by the time we moved to Arizona, and I was to switch schools at the start of the fourth grade, so I didn't really make any friendships until then.

Franklin AuYeung was my first really close friend. I don't remember exactly how we got to know each other in the first place, but we were best buds for quite some time. In California I had a lot of friends I valued equally, but Franklin and I understood each other very well and got along famously.

It's his presence that led me to think of myself as a "smart kid," which is the social identity that made me who I am today. Franklin was very much a stereotype. His parents had moved to the USA from China, he was an overachiever (always, always straight As, great at piano, the whole Asian-kid routine), he even wore glasses. At that age, glasses always meant smart kid. Or nerd. Same thing.

He was Buddhist in the same sense that I was Christian - when people asked, that's what he knew to say. But, like me, he took a personal, unguided interest in the subject of God. He and I would talk about it often, philosophizing at a level slightly above what people would expect of our age, but not by much. We were, after all, smart kids. Smart. But kids. We never questioned whether or not God existed, but we tried to figure out how to get to know it better.

Organized religion wasn't for either of us. After Sparky's, I'd been to a few church events and they were always dreadful. When I was trying to learn about God, it had to feel like something between solving a puzzle and exploring new ideas. Church was just people telling me the rules. Even at that age, with all my interest in the subject, I never wanted to have to deal with church.

This was the stage where I really learned to ask questions, and think creatively. I credit Franklin with all that. We remained close friends from fourth grade until high school, where we each ended up going to different schools. We would call each other and chat every once in a while, but we essentially lost touch.

On February 23, 1998, I was watching the local news with my family and learned that Franklin was killed in a car crash that day. He was the sole fatality.

How I Got Here

2010-01-12T21:34:00.002-07:00

You'd almost think I'd lost interest in the subject, but I haven't. I am, however, recognizing my own limitations on this subject (or subjects since, after all, I tried my hand at scientific skepticism with this blog as well), recognizing that I'm rephrasing and repeating arguments that have already been made in many forms over hundreds of years. There's nothing wrong with that, I made an effort to provide a unique perspective or twist on those arguments, but there are people who've done it all before, and better.

That's not to say that I have nothing to contribute, though. I do have a plan. But that's only in my head, and I won't go into it here. Not while it's so undeveloped, anyway.

But in the mean time, I thought I'd share my "deconversion" story.

I put deconversion in quotes because, though I was raised Christian on paper, it was about a half-step away from a secular upbringing. God was mentioned, so were angels, I think Jesus was at some points, but mostly it wasn't our problem.

My first memory of God was a nightmare I had when I was about five, maybe younger. Memories from that age are always fuzzy and confused, but I remember certain details of this dream pretty clearly. It took place in a black void which somehow had a solid, but invisible, floor. My mom was sadly playing piano, and I approached and asked what was wrong. She told me that God was going to kill me. My mom never lied to me, so this scared me out of my wits. God himself showed up and told me it was true. He looked a lot like George Washington, including the tricorner hat.

He always had that hat. Most people's default image of God is a guy in a white robe with a beard, but mine wears a navy blue tricorner hat.

Anyway.

God told me that I could spend a few moments with my mom, but there would be three chimes. On the third chime, my throat would swell up and I would die. The first chime rang, then the second, then I woke up. Opening my eyes, I heard the third chime. I specifically remember that one coming after I woke up, because that's what scared me so much.

I ran to my parents, I don't remember crying but I probably was, telling them about my nightmare and how the third chime rang after I already woke up. They told me it was probably Ethel, a sweet old lady who lived next door and whose house my bedroom window faced, watching Wheel of Fortune loudly. I did my best to believe that, but even now it seems unlikely. My parents were, presumably, unaware that hallucinations are extremely common in the half-waking state immediately following a nightmare like that. Part of your brain is still pursuing the dream, and it doesn't know how to differentiate. Maybe they did know that and just didn't know how to explain it to a five-year-old.

Apart from that, God didn't really come up in any significant way until the second grade. My dad's mom was (and is) a devout Christian, so I'm sure she talked about it with me at times, but it was certainly never any fire and brimstone or even any guilt talk. It would have been all about God's love.

In second grade, though, I met Danny Olson. As is so easy at that age, we became friends. I liked Danny, I liked going over to his house. We played Contra together, and his mom would enter in the cheat code (up, down, up, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, select, start) at the beginning for us so we could get infinite lives or whatever it was. Funny how I remember the code but not its effect.

Danny's family always prayed before eating. My family never did, so it felt a little awkward, but I got used to it after the first or second time. One day, Danny showed me this awesome sash he got from a club he was in. It had three crowns sewn in: one bronze, one silver, one gold. The bronze was full of gems, and the silver was half-full, while the gold was empty. He got all this awesome stuff at a club he attended called Sparky's. I don't remember if I asked my parents (or if the Olson parents did) before going, but I went to a Sparky's meeting with Danny and his family on a trial run.

Oh man, it was awesome. Or rad, as I probably would have said at that age. They gave us cookies, and juice, and we played some game I don't really remember today but it seems kind of like wiffle ball in my memory. I just remember it was a blast.

So I convinced my parents to sign my up, and every week I went to Sparky's. This, however, was bullshit. I'd show up, we'd sit in a circle and hold hands in the area where last time we played wiffle ball (or whatever). No wiffle ball tonight, though. We're going to break into teams and play something else!

"Breaking into teams" meant separating the bronze, silver, and gold crown kids. "Something else" meant reading stories from the Bible and being quizzed on them. This... did not seem like what I signed up for. But whatever, it's easy, maybe there'll be wiffle ball next time. And I did get the sash with all the crowns, and they even gave me a gem that first night... so maybe it wasn't so bad.

I have very few specific memories of the rest of my time at Sparky's, because it mostly runs together into a sea of quizzes on parables. Something about a man who build his house on sand. I remember not doing very well on my gem collection, mostly just getting gems for showing up each week.

There was one talk at the beginning of one week where they made a big deal out of accepting Jesus into your heart. I sort of thought everyone had already done that, I didn't realize I had to specifically tell Jesus I was Christian. So sometime that week, while I was in bed, I closed my eyes and thought to myself (or to Jesus, I suppose), "Jesus, I accept you into my heart." And after sitting around for a couple minutes thinking, "Is that it?" I decided that I had to imagine Jesus answering, so I imagined Jesus entering my heart. The next week, I mentioned to someone, probably Danny's mom or dad, that I had accepted Jesus into my heart and he or she told the group leader who made a big deal out of it. I still didn't really get why it was such a big deal.

Eventually I moved up to the silver crown, but I must've quit or Sparky's was over with the school year or something like that because I stopped there. Or maybe my parents told me Sparky's was ending because they wanted to pull me out.

I have no memory of this, but my mom told me how I acted while I was in Sparky's. I'd frequently just launch into God/Jesus-talk, telling people about some of the stuff I heard was in the Bible. Even my grandma was worried about me. I never sensed it at that age, though, and considered myself Christian for quite some time to come.

We moved from California to Arizona while I was in the third grade. I'll pick this up there in my next post.

Special Pleading

2009-07-05T10:16:00.002-07:00

I was listening to some people debate the merits and faults of the Cosmological Argument for God when I noticed another common thread running through many apologetics' favorite arguments.

The Cosmological Argument is the First Cause argument. Essentially:
1) Everything has to have a cause.
2) There must have been a first cause.
3) That first cause, we call God.

Setting aside the fact that, even granting all these premises, you can't then derive any information about that god from this argument, this argument is self-refuting.

Thomas Aquinas phrased this argument a few different ways and called them all different arguments. But, really, they're all just iterations of the Cosmological Argument.

Below, I'm posting a section of the Transcendental Argument for God from CARM.org, but not the entire thing because it's very lengthy.

Their own summary goes like this:

Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

The first half can be summarized as, "Yes, if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, it does indeed make a sound." I agree with that. Sounds are not defined by whether or not they are heard, they are defined by sound waves. All our experience shows that a tree falling creates sound waves.

You might feel a bit of a logical hiccup once you get toward the end of this summary, though. There are a number of them, but this particular hiccup becomes more obvious in the expanded version.

Number 2, Section C: Something cannot bring itself into existence. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.

Here's where we get to the point.

Many theological arguments are structured as follows:
1) This rule exists, applies to everything, and cannot be broken.
2) Something must have broken this rule, because it's difficult to conceive another way the universe could come to be.
3) It must have been God.

That's called special pleading. God is exempt from whatever rule it is that they put forward, because he's God. Why is it God that's exempt, and not, say, the universe? Which god is the one that's exempt - Ymir? Nox? Yahweh? Brahman? How do we know such an entity thinks marriage is between a man and a woman? Why did it create cancer?

These can all essentially be broken down to, "Who designed the designer?" Once you ask that question, the special pleading is revealed for what it is, and their efforts to arbitrarily assign a sort of "stopping point" to the logical regression comes to a screeching halt.

There's a decent chance my next post will deal more with the Transcendental Argument. I apologize for that. It's complicated, confusing, and very weird. That, in my opinion, is precisely why some people find it so convincing. It's a logical magic trick.

Newsweek Nails It

2009-06-29T19:14:00.002-07:00

Had a bit of a crazy month, but I'll post something new soon. Until then, check out this article released somewhat recently by Newsweek, finally bringing the skeptical perspective on Oprah to the mainstream:
Why Health Advice on 'Oprah' Could Make You Sick

Evolution and Creation

2009-06-03T19:13:00.002-07:00

God is omniscient. This is a defining characteristic of most gods. For the purposes of this argument, I'm dealing with those gods.

My uncle is a dentist. About once a year, he performs a procedure on a blowfish. A local restaurant owner has a pet blowfish that he considers the mascot for the restaurant. A blowfish's fangs grow over time, as they trim them down by chewing on coral. This blowfish, however, has nothing on which to chew. Thus, he nearly starved to death because his fangs grew so large that he couldn't fit food into his mouth. My uncle saved his life by becoming the first dentist to perform this procedure. And now he does it yearly, because the fangs keep growing back. It's difficult (for everyone) and dangerous (for the fish).

This is evolution in action. It's short-sighted. Evolution sees (figuratively) a niche, or a problem, or a weakness, and it latches onto the first solution that comes along. That solution works fine under the current circumstances, but evolution doesn't know enough to plan for the future. It doesn't consider that circumstances change. It just react to current circumstances. If those circumstances last long enough, you get some really weird stuff. If they change, species go extinct.

We can see examples of short-sighted biological developments all over the world. Moths fly into flames because they use light from the moon and stars to navigate. They didn't expect that we might find a way to have light while it's dark, and they certainly didn't expect that light would kill them. Fortunately (or not), there are plenty of moths and their population can withstand the fairly modest number of candle-related casualties they now suffer.

Being prone to addiction is a biological condition. Some have suggested that it might even be a desirable trait on some levels, as addicts have proven time and again to be extremely resilient when it comes to survival (as far as natural selection is concerned anyway - it doesn't care if you live to 80, just as long as you have babies before you go). Striving to satisfy that craving provides motivation to a creature, whatever that craving is. That creature will go to almost any lengths to get what it wants, and that resolution helps them survive until they get it. The consequences of addiction are largely unimportant to evolution. Lost your job? Died at 30? Got thrown in jail? Killed someone? As long as you had kids, and there's a good chance you did, natural selection is happy with its choice.

Flawed biology simply doesn't make sense for an omniscient god. Why would you build things with such remarkably crippling flaws when you can clearly see the problems that will arise? How can an omniscient being be so short-sighted? Why build things with a predisposition to suffer and fail?

Nature has an obvious bottom-up design. It is complicated, convoluted, and confusing- a complete clusterfuck. The course of its progression makes your average MMORPG's design look positively prescient. (Boom! Take that, MMORPGs!) It is short-sighted and flawed, but beautifully so. It could not more clearly resemble the rule of chaos- undirected and free. It lacks intent or direction, or any other stain that would have been left by a thoughtful creator.

The Thing About Chaos...

2009-05-25T21:52:00.004-07:00

It's fair.

The Dark Knight almost certainly didn't intend to be taken this way, but I found it to be a very humanist-friendly film.

Here we watch a battle between two men who both believe that only Man can decide if the world flourishes or burns. One believes that Man can rise above his chaotic, violent instincts, the other doesn't.

The Joker is an excellent portrayal of the mentality some theists expect to see of atheists. "There is no God, thus, there is no purpose, thus, everything is permitted." He does more than accept and cope with the chaos of the world, he revels in it. More than that, he does everything he can to enhance it so that everyone else will see it and be unable to deny it. No one freaks out if everything goes according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying.

Batman, on the other hand, understands the chaos of the world and has taken it upon himself to help the world cope. He knows his battle can never be won. To paraphrase a prolific comic book writer, Warren Ellis, "The world can neither be perfect or doomed, but it can be better." He understands evil will always return and wreak havoc on the innocent, but we can make incremental progress. We can stubbornly continue to rebuild the sand castle, knowing that the tide of chaos will eventually roll back and smash it to bits. Most, importantly, only we can rebuild that sand castle. Batman is the epitome of one person standing up and deciding to take responsibility, rather than waiting for someone (or something) else to handle it for him. Batman is action, as opposed to prayer.

One man is trying to make the world better, the other is trying to make the world worse. The point is that they both know the choice is theirs. The world is ours to do with as we see fit, and as our natures dictate. There is no cosmic authority to watch over us and decide the results of our actions - they're in our hands.

When we glimpse the pain that chance can inflict on us, will our minds snap like Harvey Dent's? Or will we rise above our anger and put our experience to use, like Bruce Wayne?

When chaos appears, will we devour each other like the gangsters who made a deal with the Joker? Or can we maintain our faith in our fellow men and work to overcome it, like the people trapped in the wired boats?

This was part two of supervillains and religion.

Stockholm

2009-05-25T21:27:00.003-07:00

I apologize for the huge gap between posts of late. I'm a very reactive person. When I'm in an environment conducive to atheological reasoning (such as at my last job, where I'd openly talk about it with co-workers, and I'd spend most of my time driving around and listening to books or podcasts on the subject), I have a lot of inspiration to write. Subjects come up and I want to address them. New job doesn't really have that same environment. I can't listen to books or podcasts because the job requires me to focus mentally, so they'd just be background noise. I do like the new job, but it's definitely making my "free-time writing" suffer.

That said, I've had a few experiences worth noting. Foremost in my memory are the instances of selective praise. We've all heard it before, and it feels weak to discuss it again, but it's so common I think it's worth touching on.

A horrific scenario occurred in the family of one of my colleagues in another office. Her 4-year-old daughter developed a malignant brain tumor. I became aware of this when I received the company-wide email from her, explaining the story so far. Her daughter was to go in for surgery on the next day. She asked for our prayers.

Setting aside the fact that prayer can cause harm in such a situation, I didn't think much of it. A religious person is speaking religiously, hardly news.

What irritated me was a few days later, after the surgery, when she announced its smashing success. I was glad to hear her daughter was going to be alright, but rather confused that she gave all the credit for the effective surgery to God and prayer, and none to the doctors who were actually there, doing the work. Those doctors who spent their lives training so they might help people in just such a way - yeah, those guys.

It raised the obvious question - why did God feel it appropriate to give a brain tumor to a 4-year-old in the first place? Why, after the surgery, did he allow malignant, microscopic cells to remain? Why did he allow her to faint and smack her head on the sink faucet, prompting another trip to the hospital? Where's the gain in all this? Is it so the company can come together as a community, hoping the little girl gets better? Isn't that just sick? By that very reasoning, a kidnapper is committing a morally laudable act by providing a community with the hope that its children will be returned safely.

We're right back to the problem of evil and the question of motivation I addressed in my last post. Causing pain to get a reaction isn't accepted by society (except for the Bush administration, apparently), why do we accept it of God? Are we victims of Stockholm Syndrome on a cosmic scale? Why do we cling so strongly to the idea of a Creator that we will make excuses for the evil he created? For being guided by a benevolent being with a plan, the world certainly appears awfully chaotic and unfair.

The girl is still in poor shape. They're asking for more prayers. I hope they're not telling her about them, I imagine she's frightened enough without knowing that dozens of people think only a miracle will save her.

Fear Tactics

2009-04-04T22:23:00.002-07:00

Check out what just showed up in the mail.

Death. It is one thing we all have in common. It is something that we can't escape. For some people, this is a frightening thought. For many, what you see is all that is, which means that death wins - it has the final word. The story of Easter claims that death does not win. The story of Easter and the story of Jesus declares that in some strange, yet profound reversal, life wins.

And it goes from there in the same William Wallace-esque "Few of us ever ask if we've ever truly lived" kind of stuff we're used to hearing from that crowd.

But just wow. Not even trying to hide it. Thing is, death isn't an entity. It's a fact. That's like saying that, because we all can't fly around like Superman, gravity wins.

Fact is, I don't stress about death. When it comes, it comes. If I die tonight, I hope it's as painless as possible. If I die in seventy years, I hope it's as painless as possible. That's really all I ask. I'm in no rush to die, but being afraid of it just because it really is the end is just silly. Hell, if it wasn't the end, there'd be more to fear. The thing about death is that when it's over, it's over. The afterlife can keep on screwing with you, though.

Also, who says "what you see is all that is"? Talk about your straw men. Even the most rudimentary understanding of science or art can show you that this is plainly untrue, even for the most hardcore materialist.

I hope they keep sending these things to me. I'm betting the next one starts off with, "YOU HAVE CANCER."

Supervillains and Religion

2009-04-04T09:54:00.002-07:00

It is, without doubt, because I am a nerd that I often find comic book parallels for theistic and apologetic arguments. I'm going to address one of them today.

The problem of evil was first (as far as we know) articulated by Epicurus around three hundred years before the Common Era. It's a rather simple argument and, while it doesn't disprove the existence of any gods, it rather handily disproves the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god. That's what Epicurus wanted to do, after all; he simply thought the gods (plural) were removed and uninterested in humanity.

It goes like this:

There is evil in the world.

Does God not want to prevent that evil? Then he is not benevolent.

Is God unable to prevent that evil? Then he is not omnipotent.

If he is both benevolent and omnipotent, then why is there evil?

That's sort of the David Hume version. There exist numerous responses to this, all of which fail to understand the meaning of the words "omnipotent" or "benevolent." I'm going to address one that fails on the latter.

Saint Irenaeus and others have said that evil is a necessary part of spiritual growth. After all, if we had no hardship to endure, we would have nothing to build our characters. There is no courage without fear, for instance. On some level, this misunderstands the nature of omnipotence; simply because we cannot conceive of something does not mean that it could not be so. Indeed, if God is omnipotent, exactly the opposite. He must be able to accomplish the logically impossible, or there are limits to his power.

However, setting that aside, let's grant the premise that evil must exist for spiritual growth. Is it worth it? Is that moral?

Zoom is an enemy of the Flash in DC Comics, who, like many well-constructed villains, follows a different moral code. He thinks he does what he does for the greater good, while the rest of us view his actions as obviously and horribly evil. He attempted to murder the Flash's pregnant wife, and succeeded in causing a miscarriage of their twin children. He has been responsible for numerous tragedies in the lives of many heroes, all with the goal of making better heroes. The element of personal tragedy that marks so many heroes, Zoom reasons, is what makes them sympathetic to the suffering of others. This is why they risk so much to help people. Thus, inflicting evil on an individual builds his or her character.

Sound familiar? Strange, isn't it, how a defense of God's motivations so easily translates into the motivations of a supervillain. That's not a benevolent god, that's a sociopath.

Let's Get Angry

2009-03-31T18:50:00.004-07:00

Story here.

I read about this about a year ago. While this example is particularly horrific, it's nothing all that new - some horrible cult (this one happens to count a very low percentage of the world's population among its members, so the rest of the world is calling it a "cult" as well, instead of a respectable institution) murders a child for its religious beliefs.

Usually you see this with faith healing types. Medicine and treatment are withheld, the kid dies, the parents say, "Not our fault!" and the rest of the world says, "Yes it is!" and to jail they go.

Frequently, those same parents will try to claim religious freedom in their defense. Of course, as noted by Judge Vincent Howard in just such a case, "The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct."

Here, however, we see a court playing into the delusions of the murderers.

A Maryland woman involved with a group described as a religious cult pleaded guilty in the starvation death of her son, but insisted that the charges be dropped when he is resurrected.

Bold mine. That's her plea agreement. They agreed to that.

Let's think about the message that sends to anyone watching - it's not okay to kill your child in God's name if you're wrong, but if your beliefs turn out to be right then we'll accommodate you.

The problem with that is simple. There's are some people on this planet who are absolutely convinced, 100%, that they are right. I call them "everyone." This does absolutely nothing to deter such murders in the future. If anything, from the perspective of the people who really, truly believe that it's really going to work this time, this is a stamp of approval.

Do you really believe what you say you believe? Then what are you worried about? Starve your child to death if he doesn't say "amen" before or after a meal. God wants you to, and the courts will back you up. But only if you really think you're right. Only if you believe with all your heart. Only if you know for sure that God's on your side.

Also, if it turns out that your neighbor's dog really did make you go on a killing spree, we'll set you free and arrest the dog. So, you know, make sure that dog's telling the truth.

What really happened here is likely one of two scenarios:

1) The prosecutors agreed to throw this clause in because they thought they'd get something useful out of the bargain. They figure no harm, no foul, and this way more bad people go to jail. To some extent, they're right. We do want all of the people responsible thrown in jail for as long as possible, but I don't know that we can call legitimizing a claim like this "no harm."

2) The prosecutors feared that they might lose their conviction on the grounds of religious belief. After all, it's difficult to prove that resurrection will never happen. A lot of the people in the jury probably believe it happened at least once. Isn't the defendant entitled to her belief that it was going to happen to her? The answer, of course, is "Yes, but she's not entitled to act on it." It's the difference between thinking dozens of people deserve to die and actually killing them. But they feared a stupid jury, and decided to compromise, setting a disturbing example for the future, so they could sidestep that possibility.

Good thing we don't rely on court decisions for precedent or anything.

Grasping For Meaning

2009-03-15T17:18:00.004-07:00

Thomas Aquinas suggested that a proof for God's existence was the absurdity of infinite regression. Everything has a cause, but at some point there had to be a first cause. His way out of this was to assign that first cause the name "God".

Atheists have since contended that this only dodges the question. Even if we agree to call the first cause "God" we have failed to demonstrate any characteristics of that first cause. We can't even know if it's intelligent. To try to draw any conclusions from this assertion is impossible.

Similarly, theists will claim that the universe cannot exist eternally (for various unconvincing reasons) and so it requires a point of Creation. That point of Creation must have been enacted by a Creator, who is God and who is eternal. But the question then goes, "If the universe cannot be eternal, why can God?" Again, we have failed to demonstrate anything by the assertion, and we have failed to provide any evidence for the assertion.

The illusion of meaning, or purpose, is something taken very seriously by the religious. An argument that atheists hear time and again is that God must exist, because otherwise we would all be simply biological machines and everything we do would be ultimately meaningless and without purpose. They, of course, assume that life is not meaningless and without purpose as a foregone conclusion. Atheists respond to this by suggesting that the religious try to enjoy life for what it is, rather than for what they wish it to be. I think we can do better.

To suggest, somehow, that the existence of God solves the problem of purpose is deflecting the question. If we are unable to imbue meaning in our own lives (which, I would argue, we are), what makes us think God can? What makes It the final arbiter of purpose? The universe, if "Created", would simply be a grand experiment, or play, or argument. Its Creator, though having authored something of extraordinary magnitude, is without intrinsic value. To put it plainly, God is as empty as we are. To suggest that It is somehow able to imbue meaning and purpose into anything is to stop the infinite regression at an arbitrary spot, because the alternative hurts our heads (or, in this case, hearts).

God, if It exists, is a lonely, solitary, empty entity playing with Its own illusions. There is no other way to view a being like that. Theists must be so depressed and anxious, trying to search for approval and validation from something that never gives direct answers. I'm glad I'm an atheist so I can kiss a girl, eat a steak, laugh at jokes, and appreciate life for what it is.

Someone's Been Reading My Diary

2009-03-03T22:39:00.000-07:00

Free Speech

2009-02-14T19:30:00.002-07:00

Something's going on. To be honest, I don't really have the energy right now to give you the brief version and analysis that I normally do, but I can provide the links you need to read. This looks fairly important.

This is the first article. Selected line: "The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid."

This is what happened after the first article. Selected line: "The editor and publisher of a major Indian newspaper have been arrested for "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims after they reprinted an article from The Independent."

Here's the follow-up article. Selected line: "If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone."

I rather like this guy.

I Have Not Abandoned This Blog

2009-02-05T22:50:00.004-07:00

I promise.

Updates will just be slow for a while as I adjust to compensate for this new job. Not to mention that my brain is busy learning a great deal of new stuff and has no time or energy left to think up new ways to argue against theism.

If I was a normal person, this is the point where I'd take the "Who cares?" perspective on the whole question.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, I am too stubborn for that.

I'll be back. So help me God.

Storm

2009-02-01T19:33:00.001-07:00

A beat poem by Tim Minchin.

People Don't Give Out Free Stuff

2009-01-31T19:13:00.002-07:00

Not without wanting something back, anyway.

I just received this letter from "Sansford & Jordan".

I am pleased to inform you that you have been chosen to receive (2) Roundtrip Airfare.

That's amazing, considering I'm not entered in any contests. First mark against them - no return address on the envelope. Legitimate companies tend to make stuff like that apparent, or at least use an envelope with the company name on it.

We have attempted to contact you several times without success. This is our last attempt.

I can only hope. Second mark against them, the letter is signed by a "Claire Mason" from the "Travel Awards Division". There's a division of this company solely dedicated to giving out travel related awards. She's not qualified to give out cash rewards, just travel. If you want to buy someone a vacation, call Claire Mason. She's all over it.

If you choose to decline your Roundtrip Airfare for (2), please contact us as soon as possible so we may issue your Roundtrip Airfare Voucher's to an alternate recipient.

Marks three, four and five. You don't just write (2) in parenthesis for no reason. You put that there after you write out the word "two". Example:

If I received two (2) letters from this company, I will firebomb their office.

That's why it's in parenthesis - because it's confirming with a numerical symbol the spelled number that came before it, and it's not really part of that clause of the sentence.

The fourth mark is the green grocer's apostrophe in "Roundtrip Airfare Voucher's". Watch out, here comes an S! That's not what an apostrophe is for. When you're making a word plural, as in saying that there's more than one of something, you don't use an apostrophe. Example: bananas.

The fifth mark is the fact that they expect me to call whether or not I'm interested in getting the trip. Real companies don't rely on customers to inform them of their lack of interest. They set deadlines and move on. This is clearly a trap to get me to call their number.

That number, by the way, is 1-877-878-3956. If you Google the company name, you'll find a number of other people reporting this scam. Some called the number out of curiosity and reported that a live person answers. That might be good for a laugh if anyone out there is feeling bored.

Defund The NCCAM

2009-01-16T12:39:00.000-07:00

The NCCAM, or National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, has been open for over 15 years in a couple different incarnations. This is a government funded institution researching such things as qi, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc, etc, etc. It attempts to demonstrate the validity of alternative medicine techniques through the scientific process.

Unfortunately, they aren't doing very well. After hundreds of millions of dollars, they have yet to demonstrate the legitimacy or reliability of a single "alternative or complimentary" method.

Enter: Obama

You may know that Barack Obama's website allows users to sign up, write a brief message about an issue they feel is important, and other users can sign off on that issue showing their support. It's very much a voting system. Over here you can see that some intrepid soul has suggested saving the government a decent chunk of change by defunding the NCCAM. This should save a minimum of $225 million. I suggest you follow the link, register, and vote that issue up.

Yup, That's Pretty Much How It Goes

2009-01-07T22:39:00.001-07:00

Personal Identity

2008-12-29T21:36:00.006-07:00

There's a movie out there called "The Ghost In The Shell", about a futuristic world where people regularly get cybernetic enhancements. Some people go so far as to replace their entire bodies, having their consciousnesses, whatever that is, moved into android bodies.

The logic behind this world is interesting. It states that there was a scientist who asked at what point a human stops being a human. If you lose an arm and have it replaced, are you not human? What about both arms? How about the torso? Eventually, he reasoned that there was never a point where a human would stop being human as long as it retained its consciousness.

But what is that? What is that thing that is transferred? Let's take this example out of the realm of fiction and move it into reality. How would such a process work? What, exactly, is "downloaded" into the android body? Most would say "thought patterns", but that begs the question - why would that remove the thought patterns from the original host? From everything we know, the information would be copied into the new form and deleted from the old. That means that, while it is functionally the same in every way, the android is not the same person. The original person died when the old thought patterns were deleted. That is, unless there's some kind of soul that you could move. I don't think that there is.

That thing that makes you who you are and differentiates you from an exact duplicate of yourself I will label Personal Identity. Soul carries too much baggage. When that personal identity ceases to exist, you are dead. That we will call "breaking the continuity".

This sort of thing happens all the time. If you're old enough to read and understand this, you don't have a single atom left from the body in which you were born. In many ways, you are a duplicate of your original. The continuity never seemed to break, though. There was never a moment where you ceased to be you and became a duplicate. Is it simply the gradualness of a process that determines if your personal identity remains or is lost?

I don't think so. That seems arbitrary. Illusory. I think that we do, slowly, over time, lose one personal identity and develop another. And another. But it's so gradual, so insignificant, that we'd never know. We are functionally the same. I have memories of myself as a little boy, but can I really say that I was that boy in the sense that I discussed? I don't know. Wouldn't an exact duplicate of me think the same thing, whatever the means of its construction?

Volumes of science fiction could and probably have been written about this subject. What about teleportation? Can we disintegrate a person and reconstruct her, atom by atom, in another place without breaking continuity? I doubt it. Wouldn't it be just as simple to analyze the atomic structure of that person and reconstruct her in that other place without disintegrating her? If you did, that other her would be functionally the same without sharing that same personal identity. Why, then, would we think differently if the first was annihilated? Because there's no one to claim otherwise, I suppose.

Going back to the first example, with cybernetics, let's say that you replace part of the brain with an electronic duplicate. Is it still the same person? Functionally, yes, but is the personal identity the same? I don't know. What if you gradually replace the entire brain with electronics, bit by bit over a period of years? Is the end product the same person you started with? While he or she may be exactly the same in every perceptible way, I would think not. I would think that this is a duplicate.

If this is the case, then why would we think differently of ourselves just because our brains are replaced atom by atom with organic material? There is no clear point at which continuity is broken, and yet it seems that it has been. What, exactly, is happening here?

All of these may very well be impossible to answer truthfully. This is one of the great laments of the rationalist. Because we refuse to use the easy, likely untrue answers, we often have to settle for no answer at all. If I do not allow for a soul that sits in the mass of atoms that composes my body and drives it the way I might drive a car, I can't know whether the child I see in old pictures of myself is actually me or if that's just how I remember it.

Arguments Theists Can't Win

2008-12-16T20:49:00.004-07:00

Clever, clever. It would seem a fellow named Doug Eaton has distilled several atheist arguments that beat him regularly and used them to populate a list called "Pitfalls For Atheists To Avoid".

His reasoning, I can only assume, is that atheists will believe that he truly has their best interests at heart and will indeed stop using these arguments. I'd love to return the favor for theists, but I can't think of any arguments they have that can't be taken apart on their own merits.

Anyways, let's see what he has to say, shall we? I apologize for the length, but I think it's worth understanding why these arguments actually work.

Doug Eaton believes that we should not:

1. Assume that because you compare theism to believing in pink unicorns or fairy tales that you have made a good argument.

Okay... so, maybe you were going to refute that argument to show why it's not good? What we're doing here is making an analogy, Doug. We have no good reason to believe in pink unicorns. We see drawing of pink unicorns everywhere. Children love them. We can imagine them. We can discuss their habits, desires, wishes, dreams and accomplishments. Despite all this, we have no legitimate evidence for the existence of pink unicorns. That's a lot like God. It's a good argument until you can refute it to show why the analogy is flawed.

2. Become hostile and use degrading vulgarities while maintaining that Christianity is an immoral religion.

Alright, I'm not sure if you mean that it would be hypocritical to be hostile and use vulgarities while calling Christianity immoral, because it wouldn't be hypocritical at all, or if you mean that it just won't be taken well. You're probably right, it generally won't be taken well. That doesn't mean it's not still deserved or, in the case of the latter point, true. Christianity is, after all, an immoral religion. What else would you call a religion that allows for slavery, child abuse, murder and eternal torture on the basis of an incorrect guess? I would also encourage your side to avoid becoming hostile, using vulgarities or accusing atheists of immorality. We can refute the latter, you can't.

3. When you are having trouble answering an argument posed by a Christian theist, simply say, “well even if this were true, it doesn’t prove the existence of the ‘Christian’ God.”

So an example would be, let's say, the Big Bang argument. What set the Big Bang in motion? Were I to, for the sake of argument, grant that it could have been some sort of God, why should I then concede that it would also have to be the Christian God? Sorry, Doug, this is still a valid point. The burden of proof is on you not only to show that there is a god, but that it's your god. Otherwise it could very well be the deist god, who started the universe and buggered off, or a pantheist god who started the universe by being the universe. It could be Atman, Ymir, Nox or any of a billion other gods we've seen on this planet, or something else altogether. Those are pretty poor odds, Doug. You still have a lot of evidence to present, and you're not off the hook just because you think yours is the best.

4. Assume that simply because you explain a phenomena from a naturalistic perspective that it constitutes an argument which must be true.

Here's where we get back to Occam's Razor. It is possible that the Black Cherry Soda in my mouth is actually an illusion perpetrated upon me by a mischievous boggan, who has stolen my soda and is drinking it himself. Or it could be that I'm actually drinking the soda. Let's take a look at which one is more likely to be true.

With Occam's Razor, we look at how many assumptions each argument makes. The first is that the supernatural is possible, that such things as boggans exist, that they are capable of illusions involving taste and touch, that they would be motivated to perform such illusions on humans, and that they like Black Cherry Soda. Assumptions in the second argument are that I can trust my taste buds to reliably describe what I'm eating or drinking and that the flavor of the soda in the can is correctly described on the can's label.

By definition, Doug, a supernatural explanation is less likely than a natural explanation. That's what makes it supernatural. We have yet to see any sort of precedent whatsoever for legitimate supernatural explanations. Fewer assumptions are made in natural explanations, therefore those arguments are to be preferred. That's not to say that they are definitely the truth but, until we get compelling evidence to the contrary, we can safely assume that they probably are. Again, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.

5. When arguing against the Christian God, simply say that you only believe in “one less god” than most people, as if that does not require you to defend an atheistic understanding of cosmology, anthropology, ethics, philosophy of history, philosophy of politics, philosophy of science, and epistemology.

It... doesn't require me to defend all that crap. In fact, the two are so unrelated that I don't even know how you put this together.

First, the "I believe in one god fewer than you" argument isn't really an argument; it's an illustrative tool. The goal is to get the theist to consider all the reasons that he or she disbelieves in other gods and then consider why those reasons are dismissed in the case of his or her own god. It's to show that we agree on most stuff, it's just this one point where we think you're being inconsistent.

Second, none of those things requires a theistic mindset. None of them contradicts an atheistic mindset. We don't have to reimagine every field of knowledge to confirm our beliefs, Doug. We just have to check to make sure that our beliefs are consistent with existing knowledge. So far, yeah, that's been the case. Anthropology may not have anything to confirm or deny the existence of a god (though I would suggest it does deny all gods pretty strongly, for the sake of argument let's say that it doesn't) and that doesn't matter. That only means that it contradicts neither of our beliefs, so we can both have the exact same views in anthropology. No contorting must be done. So far, we haven't had to contort at all with any of these subjects. I can't say the same for theists. That whole evolution thing really threw you for a loop.

6. Make metaphysical statements that suggest that metaphysics are a useless waste of time.

Rrrrrrrright. Contemplating the nature of reality is fine. The problem with metaphysics is a very low bar for entry. It all too quickly becomes a masturbatory enterprise for people who don't really know what they're talking about or what metaphysics even is. Saying that all metaphysics are a useless waste of time is incorrect, yes, but massive, massive segments of it are exactly that. Metaphysics has become a new word for people who like to sound "enlightened". Like "spirituality". They are buzzwords. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

7. Argue that we should only believe things proven by empirical evidence without proving it with empirical evidence.

Proven by empirical evidence? No. Shown as more than likely by empirical evidence? Yes. And I can prove that.

We will create two categories: one favoring evidence, one against.

In the "For" Column, we'll list Things Which Have Evidence And Are True, and Things Which Have No Evidence Which Are Untrue.

In the "Against" Column, we'll list Things Which Have No Evidence But Are True, and Things Which Have Evidence But Are Untrue.

You might have spotted the trick already. The fact is that it doesn't matter how many examples we can come up with for the "Against" Column, because the second category in the "For" Column is literally an infinite list. There is no end to things that are untrue and which have no evidence.

Therefore, it can be established that evidence is at least a better guide than flipping a coin. Until you can demonstrate a better system, we'll go with this.

8. Use logic like it is a universal, transcendent, unchanging reality when atheistic naturalism cannot account for universal, transcendent, unchanging realities.

Logic is unchanging? Says who? As we learn more, we refine logic to fit reality and more accurately predict the truth. Doug, you're really putting the wagon before the cart here. Not to mention that your people invent new logical fallacies constantly, so we get to figure out why they're fallacies, using analogies as demonstrated in #1, and add them to the Big Book Of Logic. You do have a Big Book Of Logic, don't you?

Also, take a look at #7 again. I can demonstrate in the same way why logic works. Let's count out how many illogical assertions are untrue.

9. Argue that there is no evidence to believe in the existence of God because all the evidence that is produced fails to pass the standards of evidence which have been constructed from the belief that God does not exist.

You believe the standards of evidence were formulated around the idea that God does not exist? What happened to all those genius scientists who were believers? You know, the ones your side loves to trumpet as though they were walking proof of God's obviousness? Newton and the like?

The standards of evidence were not stacked against God. They were constructed to predict reality. They've been working pretty well so far, see #7. God has yet to show up.

10. Argue that human beings are robots, puppets, and machines programmed by natural selection in a closed system of cause and effect, and then argue for free thought and moral agency.

Fair enough. I'm not a big fan of physical and chemical determinism, either. We're certainly shaped by our experiences and our genes, but within those frameworks we do have the freedom to choose. I assume that's what you mean by free thought.

Moral agency is a stickier issue. Can we blame people like Jefferson for owning slaves when that was just the zeitgeist? The answer is yes, though our blame is tempered with the knowledge that he was not the general commanding atrocities, merely the soldier carrying them out. He can be blamed for his lack of courage, conviction, perception, perspective and reason, but it is the zeitgeist itself we must blame for the atrocities of slavery.

I have no doubt that our generation will be similarly condemned for issues we do not see as obviously moral questions in our times. My money's on eating meat. Give it a few hundred years and a different perspective, I suspect future generations will wonder how each of us ever justified the casual murder of thousands of animals to feed ourselves, much less the number societies murder as a whole. The more I think about it, the harder time I have finding ways around it. We might very well be wrong.

But I digress. God isn't necessary for free thought or moral agency, sorry. Experiences and genes shape us, and there is no external absolute moral authority, but the former does not remove our ability to choose and the latter does not negate accountability for our beliefs and actions.

11. Place your ultimate trust in human reason while believing that man’s mind evolved from lower animals such as monkeys and will continue to evolve until we become the monkeys from which the minds of the future will have evolved.

Oof. Not an English major, were you, Doug? I see where you're going, though. We have to acknowledge that we're flawed, and trusting a flawed system is a bad idea. That would be the case, except that no better system is known to exist. There are degrees of accuracy, Doug, and as our ability to perceive, digest, understand, comprehend and predict the truth, reality, the universe, or whatever you want to call it, we seem to be moving farther and farther away from supernatural explanations. We have no reason to suspect that a more developed mind would turn back and embrace superstition.

Also, just so you know, there's no guarantee that humans will be any smarter, biologically speaking, in the future. Natural selection and evolution only reward breeding, not intelligence. If anything, we're more likely to backslide as the future approaches. There's also no reason to think we're any more biologically intelligent than our ancestors going back thousands of years. Our knowledge has grown sociologically. It's not that our brains are better at discerning information, it's that we have more information available. Though I really could go for a banana right now.

Seriously, though, you know we didn't evolve from monkeys, right? That's like saying that your cousin is your grandfather. We share an ancestor, monkeys are not our ancestors.

The Art Of War On Christmas

2008-12-14T00:07:00.003-07:00

I love Christmas. Halloween is more fun, but Christmas feels more important. Everything's shut down, everyone just takes some time out. I'm almost surprised when I see people driving around, and I always assume that they're just on their way to some gathering with family or friends. I don't like the idea of anyone trying to do anything productive on Christmas. Take the day, man. Have some nog.

One of my favorite parts of Christmas, however, is a shining little light tucked away in the long, dark, irritating tunnel that is the month leading up to the holiday. (Also, the tunnel plays Christmas music all the time.) That light is the War On Christmas.

Oh, it's like an early present every year. People I suspected of insanity earlier in the year confirm my suspicions and go completely bat-shit over something stupid like "Season's Greetings". Jesus lollerskating Christ, and you people say the liberals are too sensitive.

That said, this year's war had a pretty interesting skirmish. The Washington Legislative Building in Olympia allows for holiday displays, even those of a religious nature. The catch is that they aren't allowed to discriminate, so anyone can put up their little display. The Freedom From Religion foundation decided to do exactly that.

"At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Oof. That's a little rough. Also, it doesn't rhyme. That probably won't get people to think twice about their beliefs. Touchy as they are, they'll be too busy being offended (though, of course, this sign doesn't even distantly imply that they'll be tortured for all eternity for the crime of guessing wrong). As a PR move for atheists, it's probably not that great. As a catalyst to demonstrate the silliness of allowing these sorts of displays in a public building? Oh, it's pretty damn good.

First came the protests.

"The No. 1 thing is, we want the state of Washington and the governor to represent everyone in the state," said the Rev. Kenneth Hutcherson, the pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond. "But just because you must represent everyone in the state doesn't mean that you put up with intolerance from the people that you represent."

Hey, good call Reverend. That's why we're not going to listen to the protests. The sign stays.

Republican State Representative Jim Dunn, you had something to add?

"It is time to chase out of the house of God all the unbelievers and evildoers," Dunn said.

Great, thanks for the input.

In a stunning display of religious tolerance, the sign was stolen.

The sign, which was at the Legislative Building at 6:30 a.m. PT, was gone by 7:30 a.m., Gaylor said.

The incident will not stifle the group's message, (Freedom From Religion co-founder Annie Laurie) Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."

It didn't last for twelve hours. That's how crazy people get about Christmas. Mark my words, it won't be long until we see signs reading "CHRISTmas!!" to match the "One Nation, UNDER GOD!!" bumper stickers. Hey, did anyone else notice that the first line of that CNN article says the sign criticizes Christianity? That's weird, I don't remember the sign saying anything about Jesus.

The story doesn't end there, though. I wouldn't waste your time. Everyone's favorite IRL-troll Fred Phelps and his crew have decided to get in on the action. Here's what their sign will say:

You'd better watch out, get ready to cry, You'd better go hide, I'm telling you why 'cuz Santa Claus will take you to hell. He is your favorite idol, you worship at his feet, but when you stand before your God He won't help you take the heat. So get this fact straight: you're feeling God's hate, Santa's to blame for the economy's fate, Santa Claus will take you to hell.

Man, that's awesome. Sometimes I'm actually thankful for the Westboro Baptist Church. They illustrate points so well.

Bill Donohue, a crazy bastard who I suspect lures children under bridges and then eats them (and he has yet to prove otherwise), has some especially confusing logic to explain why he should have freedom of speech, but other people shouldn't.

In other words, hate groups have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but they have no right to set the time and place. Moreover, freedom of speech is meaningless unless it can prevail unobstructed by attempts to stifle it.

Yes, he really did follow that first sentence with that second one. Yes, that really does completely contradict his first sentence. No one's speech is being violated by the atheist sign, Bill. You still have your display. Atheists just get to say something, too. That's how freedom of speech works - everyone gets it.

But wait! Everyone? Yes, everyone. That means that they actually do have to put up the Festivus pole. That means that they actually do have to put up the Flying Spaghetti Monster display. This has become a complete circus.

And here's the point. This is why secular government is the way to go. This is why you don't allow nativity scenes on public property. You aren't allowed to discriminate. If you let one group do it, you have to let all the groups do it. The result is exactly what you see. This is one-upmanship run amok. Half the participants are laughing their asses off, the other half are losing their minds, and I can only imagine that Washington's poor governor is buried in a deluge of angry letters from people with delusions of relevance.

Wasn't there some sort of holiday coming up or something?

God Only SEEMS Nonexistent

2008-12-11T09:52:00.001-07:00

Warning for the sensitive: There are a couple pictures of birth defects that are a bit disturbing. They don't last long.

Dang it.

2008-12-05T14:21:00.003-07:00

Someone came up with the same thing I did and put it on a t-shirt. You can get a stick figure Muhammad t-shirt. I'm tempted to buy it, but I don't know that I'd ever actually wear it. Not because I fear repercussions (I'd be happy to get on the news), but I'm not a fan of the design. There are some pretty good shirts on that site (such as the "I'd verb her noun." shirt), but I just don't want to be the goofy t-shirt guy.

Roger Ebert Attacks Expelled

2008-12-03T09:09:00.002-07:00

He's a bit late to the party, but Roger Ebert decided to weigh in on Expelled, Ben Stein's anti-Evolution and pro-Intelligent Design film. He's not very kind to it.

I liked this bit:

This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.

Rational Moms

2008-11-21T09:30:00.002-07:00

Just a link for my few readers who are parents. Rational Moms is exactly what it sounds like. Moms talking about rational thought and how it relates to parenting.

Sometimes, life is just awesome.

2008-11-16T00:38:00.003-07:00

Proof of God's Benevolence:
No one had anything sharp or explosive.

Why atheists are mean and depressed.

2008-11-07T22:41:00.002-07:00

Hold on, stick with me for a second.

I just got done reading this article on Slate and I thought it made some pretty good points. I don't know how mean and depressed I actually am, but they do quote some hard numbers and show some scientific results that indicate that atheists are more likely to be unhappy than the religious.

The religious like to say that this is because atheists have a god-shaped hole in our lives. Turns out, it's just because we don't go to church. We don't get that community that the religious have. The way to fix this, of course, is to find a community.

I might suggest a book club.

Personally, though, I think I'm doing just fine without a community. Though I've never given blood (mostly because I really dislike not having all my blood), I give to charities and the homeless whenever I can - which is pretty frequently. I might get lonely every now and again, but that has more to do with being a shy, single guy than it does with being an atheist. I'm not depressed. I'm not angry.

I might be mean. I don't know. Am I mean?

Not Good Enough

2008-11-05T13:25:00.002-07:00

I'm happy with the results of the presidential election last night. America showed that most of us have moved past the bigotry of earlier generations against black people in our society.

We did, however, strongly affirm that we have not moved past all bigotry. In California, Proposition 8, an initiative to ban gay marriage in the state once again, passed by about 4%. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization known for beginning the movement to add the phrase "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Mormon Church both donated millions of dollars to the campaign to once again breach the wall of separation between church and state and violate the rights of a reviled class of citizens.

In Arizona, Proposition 102 passed by 13%. Proposition 102 adds to Arizona's state constitution a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. This follows a 2006 initiative, which was defeated, seeking to outlaw both marriage and civil unions for same sex couples. Apparently, my state believes in the separate but equal principle. I've read history, so I do not. Gay marriage was already illegal in Arizona, the fear was that the law could be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. This was a preemptive movement to stop that from happening. It succeeded and set back the next great civil rights movement by years.

Amendment 2 in Florida passed with a 62% approval, two percent more than needed to clear the margin required to amend the state's constitution.

In Arkansas, a Initiative Act 1 was passed preventing unwed couples from adopting children. Same sex couples are unable to wed in Arkansas, but in this particular state they decided to alienate unwed straight couples as well. Regardless, the intent was to prevent gay couples from raising children. They have the gall to claim that it is about the welfare of the children, not the rights of adults. Nevermind that no study has ever indicated that being raised by a same sex couple is in any way harmful or inferior to a "traditional" childhood.

Gay marriage isn't like abortion. There is no argument to be made for banning it except on a religious basis. There can be no discussion that does not appeal to religion or tradition. Every one of these examples is a violation of your rights. Whether you are gay or straight, religious or not, you have an interest in maintaining a clear line of separation between church and state.

Last night was a good night. However, our nation is still not delivering on its promises. The next four to eight years might make our work easier, but do not let yourself be fooled into thinking that we don't still have a great deal of work to do.

A Razor's Edge

2008-11-02T11:59:00.002-07:00

Our planet orbits in what is called the Goldilocks Zone. It's called that because scientists have weird senses of humor. The idea is that the planet is not too hot and not too cold, but just right. The determining factor is whether the planet can have liquid water. From what we know, that is the primary requirement for life. No liquid water, no life.

Our planet also happens to have one moon to help stabilize its orbit, normalizing the climate to some degree. We have an asteroid belt that serves to shield us from many incoming, potentially damagings Rock Of Death From Outer Space.

There are a number of other factors that make our planet particularly suited to life. Some theists see this and say, "It can't be a coincidence that we just happen to show up on the one planet that has all this. We are balanced perfectly on the edge of a razor."

Well, no, not exactly.

This argument supposes that we were somehow destined for Earth, that life couldn't have appeared on another planet if it was equally suited. The argument seems to say that, were Mars equally suited to the genesis of life, it still would not have appeared there.

The entire suggestion puts the cart before the horse. It's like arguing that the shape of the Colorado River is proof of the existence of God, because it happens to fit perfectly into the Grand Canyon. If either the Grand Canyon or the Colorado River had a different shape, there would be constant flooding all through Northern Arizona. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics behind the operation of water.

Life, with evolution and natural selection, is very much like water. It seeks a niche and continues to work at that niche until it dries up. If it doesn't dry up, it creates the Grand Canyon.

It's not a coincidence that the Colorado River happens to fit perfectly into the Grand Canyon, but nor is it proof of design. That's just how it works.

Also bear in mind that our planet has only been able to support life some of the time. It also isn't a coincidence that we happened to show up in that time. Nor is it proof of design.

Contempt For Science

2008-10-27T14:47:00.002-07:00

Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies.

If you've been paying attention, I expect you will have no difficulty determining to whom this quote refers. If you know me, you can probably guess that it is by Christopher Hitchens.

I wanted to avoid being overtly political, because that is not this blog's subject. When politics cross with science and skepticism, however, it falls within my jurisdiction.

Firstly, the three million dollar overheard projector that McCain continually brings up is actually a star projector for a planetarium. You can't argue that we need more students entering scientific study and at the same time argue against the very things that inspire students to enter scientific study. That's not wasteful spending, that's investment.

Second, McCain likes to joke about the millions spent on research bear DNA, but if we can about preventing the species' extinction it's actually a pretty important matter.

Third, Palin made a joke about wasteful spending for fruit fly research. It's more important and useful than you might think. Fruit flies go through very quick generation cycles and have fairly high rates of mutation. For studies of DNA and evolution, they are excellent subjects. DNA studies are fairly important, as they give us things like flu vaccinations. You know, the kind that Jenny McCarthy says will give you autism.

Quite simply, this year isn't about political affiliations any longer. It's about fact versus rhetoric. It's science versus religion. Obama has time and again shown himself to be aware of even the nuances of the latest scientific information. Imagine that. A president who isn't hostile to scientific inquiry and will even adjust his policies to align with fact.

It Won't Stop.

2008-10-24T21:04:00.003-07:00

Chances are that Barack Obama will win this election. That's fine by me, but a lot of people are very upset about this. Fortunately for some of these people, a number of them are very good at ignoring reality. Conspiracy theories about Barack Obama have proliferated on the Internet for a few months now, and this little article does a fantastic job of cataloging the most delusional.

I'll bet you didn't know that Obama's book, Dreams from My Father, was actually written by Bill Ayers and that Obama had a homosexual relationship with his father-figure "Frank" when he was 9 years old.

I assure you that these claims are all based on the soundest evidence. Go look for yourself.

Don't expect this sort of thing to end when the election season is over. The conspiracies will change from questionable history to questionable present as Obama takes the blame for every modern development. Even good results will be questioned as the insane, fringe conservatives imply that a devil's bargain was struck with the Illuminati, or terrorist cells, or potentially the actual devil. The Internet is a wonderful thing.

Blogger Harassed Into Anonymity

2008-10-12T15:11:00.003-07:00

A mother, blogger and atheist, Possummomma was known for her popular blog "Atheist In A Minivan". Thanks to harassment from decent folk she closed down her blog. The stress of dealing with their harassment, both online and in real life, exacerbated the symptoms of her chronic disease. See the posted link for a more in-depth summary.

Friendly Atheists

2008-10-09T13:24:00.002-07:00

This has been bugging me for a while, and it's something my own crowd is doing.

With greater frequency you see blogs springing up titled, in essence, "The Friendly Atheist". Often a synonym for friendly is used.

Look, your heart is in the right place, but you're not doing anyone any favors with a name like that. What do you think that says about the other atheists?

Let's compare. What are your reactions to the following fictional sites?

The Honest Republican
The Masculine Democrat
The Harmless African American
The Tolerant White Man
The Open-Minded Christian

All you're doing is taking a stereotype and reinforcing it by saying, "I'm the exception." Stop it. Most atheists are friendly. We're normal people.

We are perceived as unfriendly, or arrogant, because we ask uncomfortable questions. The questions themselves aren't that uncomfortable, but the answers that people know they have to give to be logically consistent are embarrassing. So, rather than recognize the belief for the silly thing it is, they assume criticism on our part and feel insulted.

The tone of the debate doesn't matter. You can do nothing but ask questions and still receive this reaction. That's a problem.

It's not because we're being mean.

Not always, anyway.

World Ending Tomorrow

2008-10-06T22:42:00.005-07:00

Apparently, there's this thing called a Web Bot. This thing predicts the future by looking at web sites. It predicted a lot of things. Don't ask what those things are. I don't have to prove myself to you.

Yeah, it was important stuff. How important? Stuff like 9/11. Yeah, that's right. Bet you're sorry you questioned it now, huh?

Well, yes, of course it managed to predict that by scanning the web. It was in the collective unconcious, man. The collective unconcious knows its stuff.

Anyways, the collective unconcious, through the Web Bot, says something's going down tomorrow.

Something big.

Well, according to these guys it's going to be bigger than you can possibly imagine. Remember the first ten days after 9/11? Remember how you felt then? It's going to be like that, but it's going to last until late February.

Because the Web Bot says so, that's how I know!

So, anyways, when 10/8/08 rolls around expect to see headlines along the lines of:

GIANT SQUID DEVOURS NEW YORK

or

ATLANTIS INVADES JAPAN

or

LEX LUTHOR BLOWS CALIFORNIA INTO OCEAN USING PROPELLERS DISGUISED AS WINDMILLS, KILLS SUPERMAN, EXISTS

or

NANO-AIDS BOMB DETONATED AT 2ND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE-
Palin Only Survivor With Inexplicable Immunity

Also, you should go to the grocery store right now and buy water. Lots of water. And medicine. And close all your bank accounts. Seriously, if you know how to survive in the wilderness you might just want to leave now to beat traffic.

Jesus Is Missing.

2008-10-06T10:11:00.001-07:00

via videosift.com

Court To Moron: "You're a moron."

2008-10-02T13:59:00.002-07:00

They told him to shut up and go home.

You are probably aware that a lot of people who don't really know what they're talking about keep saying that the Large Hadron Collider is going to devour everything (literally - everything) in a black hole.

It was everywhere just a few weeks ago when they were getting ready to power up the LHC to test it. Even in the grocery store I heard people talking about it. I resisted the urge to yell at them. Barely.

Scientists have said a lot about this. For instance, that the LHC doesn't have nearly the amount of power to create a black hole. Even if it did, such a black hole would be incredibly unstable and instantaneously vanish in a puff of Hawking radiation. Even if all that didn't happen, it would be so small that our sun would have turned into a red giant and obliterated the solar system well before the black hole could devour a single gram of matter.

The probability of this being an actual threat has been compared to the probability of your car spontaneously turning into a horse due to random quantum fluctuations.

What the LHC is likely to do is answer a lot of our questions about physics, and it will lead to incredibly advances in our technology. The LHC puts out over a gigabyte of data per second. Scientists created a new thing called the Grid to deal with that. Wonder if that'll find its way into the world at large.

Thrice Raped

2008-09-10T20:26:00.003-07:00

This post is outright political. I've tried my best to keep things at least related to skepticism in some way, like with my energy post debunking the lies about Obama's stance on energy, but this is just something that everyone needs to know.

We already know that, if Sarah Palin has her way, rape victims would be forced to carry the child of rape to term. One could certainly argue that this is like a second rape, one that continues for at least nine months and culminates in a supremely painful experience.

Now, this news story from the year 2000 shows that she continues to be a maverick in her attitude toward rape victims. In 2000, the Democratic governor of Alaska signed a bill ensuring that victims of rape would not be charged for the rape kit procedure. Most cities in Alaska already agreed with this, providing the service for free. One little hamlet was vocal in opposition to this.

I think you know where I'm going.

Yes, Wasilla, while Sarah Palin was mayor was the one town to object.

Imagine living in Sarah Palin's world. You can be raped, forced to pay over a thousand dollars for a chance to catch the offender, and then forced to carry the child to term. Maverick indeed.

Well Done

2008-09-10T12:49:00.000-07:00

See if this rings a bell:

The theory of childhood, also known as child origin, is a damnable, loathsome and indefensible lie. How can any thinking person suppose all humans used to be babies once? There is no development path from babies to adults, no transitional forms between these two species. Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body. Can you? No? Not even a bearded toddler? No adults with unfused skullbones, outside unfortunate disorders? Not even a tiny little newborn girl suddenly sprouting a respectable bosom? You can't find them, because they don't exist. There isn't a single transitional form between children and adults, and you will never find one because the theory simply is an unscientific lie.

The development of children has been well-researched in our six-month study following a sample of one thousand children and adults of various ages. We have conclusively proven that while there are minor changes in features like height and body fat, and replacement of deciduous teeth with permanent teeth, incontravertibly still every creature in the study that started out as a child had only slightly more adult features at the end of the observation period than at its beginning. Children and adults are separate kinds and there will never be sufficient changes to change one into the other. We reject any evidence from longer-term studies as we believe the laws of physics have changed within the last year.

To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. We have observed how children behave. If we acted like small children we'd all be demanding and impatient, and we'd be cheating, lying, and stealing from each other all the time. If the theory of childhood were true there would be no morality, and with no morality to build one on, no society. Childhood is a wicked lie used by charlatans to justify evils such as public schools.

There is no consensus on the theory of childhood in the scientific community. We should teach the controversy. Our children will be served well to learn that the prospect of them becoming adults is merely a theoretical idea. Many children come from families that do not subscribe to the theory of childhood, and they could be disturbed if the theory were taught as fact.

Energy

2008-09-10T12:24:00.003-07:00

The harnessing of energy is one of the key problems facing the next administration, and there's been a lot of debate about it.

McCain says, for instance, that he'll allow domestic drilling for oil, encourage use of our natural gas supplies (insert joke about Republican party here), challenge automotive companies to make more efficient vehicles, all the while investing in clean coal, nuclear power, wind, solar, and hydro energy.

He's blasted Obama's policies on this, accusing the Democrat of relying on technologies that are years out of our reach and offering no solutions for now.

And that's true, as long as you base your opinion on Obama's energy plans entirely on assumption and ignore what he's said on it. He does accept some offshore drilling may be necessary to carry us through until we have sufficient technology to support ourselves.

Another complaint leveled towards Obama is the suggestion that he lacks specific plans. Science Debate 2008 was initially intended to be a live debate between the two candidates, but that never materialized. Instead, 14 questions were sent to the candidates. Both said they would answer them. The link above contains Obama's answers, but McCain has yet to send his in.

Here's his answer regarding energy:

America's challenges in providing secure, affordable energy while addressing climate change mean that we must make much more efficient use of energy and begin to rely on new energy sources that eliminate or greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My programs focus both on a greatly expanded program of federally funded energy research and development and on policies designed to speed the adoption of innovative energy technologies and stimulate private innovation.

First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment by $150 billion over ten years. This research will cover:

• Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals;

• Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings – both new and existing;

• New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption;

• Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids;

• Technologies for capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases produced by coal plants; and

• A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks.

I will also work closely with utilities to introduce a digital smart grid that can optimize the overall efficiency of the nation's electric utility system, by managing demand and making effective use of renewable energy and energy storage.

Second, it is essential that we create a strong, predictable market for energy innovations with concrete goals that speed introduction of innovative products and provide a strong incentive for private R&D investment in energy technologies. These concrete goals include:

• Increasing new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade, and taking other steps that will reduce the energy intensity of our economy 50 percent by 2030;

• Increasing fuel economy standards 4 percent per year and providing loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers to build new fuel- efficient cars domestically;

• Extending the Production Tax Credit for five years and creating a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard that will require that 10 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; and

• Ensuring that regulations and incentives in all federal agencies support the national energy and environmental goals in ways that encourage innovation and ingenuity.

I will also encourage communities around the nation to design and build sustainable communities that cut energy use with walkable community designs and expanded investment in mass transit.

How much more specific does he have to get?

The fact is, Obama has time after time shown that he understands current scientific issues. Whenever confronted with these questions, he always gives the right answer. He is remarkably informed on the matter in a time when most politicians aren't.

As for McCain, he still hasn't answered. It's hard to gauge his opinion on any of these questions. All we do know is that his VP thinks we should teach the Adam and Eve theory of life in schools.

Good Point

2008-09-01T10:29:00.005-07:00

McCain's VP pick answered a questionnaire during her gubernatorial campaign in Alaska. You can find the whole thing here.

One of her answers was of particular interest to me.

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Interesting that she chose to phrase it that way.

The founding fathers didn't have a Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, who was a Baptist minister. Incredibly enough, it didn't say anything about God in its first draft. The "under God" bit was added in 1954 after several failed attempts to get it in earlier.

God, in fact, is very specifically not mentioned in the Constitution and it's very unlikely that, had the founding fathers been around when the Pledge was created, that they would have added "under God" on their own.

So I suppose the question to ask her, when she mentions the founding fathers in defense of our altered Pledge of Allegiance, is what, exactly, she's talking about. The fact is, they really have nothing to do with anything.

The entire argument is simple enough. Would it be acceptable to these people to have "under no God" in the Pledge if the majority of the nation was composed of atheists? An answer in the negative is bigoted, an answer in the affirmative shows a very strange interpretation of truth and the role of the majority government.

Genius

2008-08-28T20:53:00.001-07:00

Just a quick plug for this site, The Brick Testament. It's the Bible illustrated with Legos. It's at least as fantastic as it sounds.

Duck And Cover

2008-08-28T12:37:00.002-07:00

Death

2008-08-25T20:43:00.003-07:00

An unavoidable side-effect of atheism is lack of belief in an afterlife. There exists no scientific reason to believe that any shred of self-awareness or thought remains of us after death. This is what scares so many people away from atheism. They don't want to die. Not for real.

I don't exactly want to die either, but I no longer fear my own death. I fear the pain that may lead to death, I am saddened at the thought of the pain that my loved ones might suffer because of my death, but the thought of death itself is simultaneously a comfort and a motivator for me.

I like living in a universe where the only constant is change. I like knowing that everything dies eventually. No matter how messed up things get, it's only temporary. Everything changes. Everything dies. Once I learned to accept that concept instead of struggling against it, I found it oddly soothing. My own insignificance and transience reminds me to just live and experience life in the best way I know.

At the same time, it motivates me to do it. I'm on the clock, as it were. There is no Heaven where I'll see all of my dreams come true. If I want them to come true, I have to make it happen. And I have to make it happen sooner rather than later.

But my own paltry offerings aside, some other thinkers have given us excellent perspectives on death in a godless universe.

Dale McGowen, author of Parenting Beyond Belief, tells the story of explaining death to his children. He does a fine job, using terms they understand to express a quote attributed to Mark Twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."

George Hrab wrote a song about it when his dog died. His sentiment was that, even though he felt immense pain and sorrow at the loss of his friend, he was thankful that his friend would be spared that same pain and sorrow. His dog would never miss him the way he missed his dog. Often, a husband or wife will wish for their own death before that of their spouse in fear of their own weakness in the aftermath. This is the reverse of that, taking the burden of surviving from the loved one as an act of true and noble affection.

Death causes pain, without question. At times, it seems unfair that we are denied eternity. The fact is, though, that we are mortal. No matter how deeply we feel that pain, there are honest consolations for a rational mind to help soothe the grief. We needn't lie, even to children. Over time, one's own death seems almost inconsequential compared to the death of loved ones. Greater love hath no man.

The Strange Case Of Rev. Samuel Krouse

2008-08-25T20:18:00.004-07:00

You can read the story over at Friendly Atheist.

The extremely short version is that this Reverend has taken stock of the "New Atheist" movement and analyzed it pretty honestly.

He acknowledges that intellectuals are far more likely to be atheists, that atheists are very knowledgeable about religion and are completely aware of what they've rejected and, most importantly, he agrees with Sam Harris in saying that there's really no good reason to believe anything but Biblical Literalism or Atheism. I think there are one too many options in that last bit, but it's not my opinion we're talking about.

The confusing part is that he has seen atheism for what it really is, he seems to understand it, and he seems to laud all of its strengths... but he's still a pastor. He seems determined to fight against this movement with everything he has. It's another example of fighting against the evidence to preserve one's existing beliefs, taken to a very strange place.

That said, it's refreshing to see an honest attempt at rational thought from the other side. Perhaps we could even have an honest debate between intelligent people. I don't agree with his conclusions, of course, but the Reverend does deserve some applause for stepping outside the party line. I hope to hear more from him.

For a more in-depth analysis of each of the Reverend's points, visit the Black Sun Journal.

Captain Disillusion

2008-08-21T15:01:00.002-07:00

I realize that this can sometimes be a very negative blog. So, in an effort to make it a little brighter around here, I wanted to share this with you all. I hope it makes you smile.

Cat And Dogs Living Together

2008-08-17T16:15:00.002-07:00

Chances are, if you're here, you support the right of gays and lesbians to marry. I do, too.

But let's talk about this a little bit.

What is the logic that leads us to the conclusion that they should be married? We can figure that out by trying to draw some parallel examples.

One example that the bigoted like to use against these rights is the suggestion of bestiality. Calling those who suggest this as a parallel example "bigoted" is, I think, very accurate. One creature is capable of reflective and abstract thought, the other isn't. That is, of course, assuming that the bigots do believe gay people are capable of thought on the level of ordinary people.

A comedian, whose name I'm sad to say I cannot remember, made an interesting observation on this subject.

They like to say that next people will want to marry box turtles. I'm a vegetarian. By that logic, I can say that you all are only one step away from eating gay people.

So, obviously, the animal comparison is right out.

That said, there are other taboos on marriage. We don't tolerate polygamy. We don't tolerate incest. How do we differentiate these?

Incest is a tough one. Assuming that both of the participants are consenting adults, how do we say that they have no right to be together? Certainly, they risk genetic abnormalities with their children. However, gay couples can have no children. The production of children isn't the purpose of marriage. It's neither necessary to it, nor sufficient for it.

This is the toughest one for me, because I do feel that it is rightly illegal but I cannot explain why. Perhaps my feelings on it are simply a matter of societal conditioning. Osiris and Zeus married their sisters. Without the assumption of harm to potential children, whose conception cannot really be linked with the marriage in question, there is no victim.

Polygamy I find less challenging. It should be legal.

Before you disagree with me, consider that every negative thing we associate with polygamy is wrong on its own grounds. Marriage to a minor, for instance, we find just as repugnant in monogamy. A forty-year-old married to a fifteen-year-old is disgusting whether or not he has another wife. We can make that illegal by itself, with no need to stigmatize polygamy with it.

Often, polygamy is associated with arranged marriages. Women are assigned to a husband and expected to serve him. This is wrong, because it is a violation of the woman's rights. But, again, it is still wrong in a monogamous example. We can make arranged marriages illegal, though such a law is perhaps unenforceable when the victims refuse to believe that their rights have been violated.

There is nothing inherent in polygamy to suggest that it values men any more than women. Simply because we never hear stories about a woman choosing to have three husbands does not mean it does not and could not happen. That it always seems to be a man with many wives is just a reflection of the gender bias that still runs through our world's societies. Nothing about polygamy is sexist unless sexism is forced onto the topic.

Separating polygamy from its unsavory associations, it makes more sense. Adultery is not illegal. We do not demand fidelity as a society. Orgies are even legal. In our society, people are free to love as many people as they will. Polyamorous individuals become more common as people start to question the validity of the "mate for life" tradition. There is no reason that any consenting adult should be forbidden to marry as many other consenting adults as he or she wishes. There is nothing to force a spouse to stay in a polygamous relationship if that is no longer what that individual desires. There is no harm and no victim.

That said, I still think the vast majority of us prefer monogamy. I believe, very fiercely, in fidelity to one person. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to live the same way. I have no reason to believe that my way of life is any more justified or reasonable than the above examples.

We may look askance at polyamorous groups and have our doubts about the nature of their relationship. We may look at an incestuous couple and privately feel disgusted.

But then, that's exactly how the bigots feel about homosexuals. Maybe we still have some tolerance to learn.

Lucky for me, I'm planning to die alone so none of the above is really my problem.

Good Ol' Texas

2008-08-17T15:12:00.003-07:00

If you live in Texas, you should probably join a church as soon as you can. After you've done this, feel free to break any laws you want. That is, as long as you can say you broke them religiously.

That's the logic behind this case that recently regained some publicity.

Here's the short version. This 17-year-old girl was a member of this church. She was acting weird one day, so they tied her up and beat her while she begged them to stop. They held her captive for two days. They called it an exorcism.

After the event, she dropped out of school. She tried to slit her wrists.

Now, twelve years later, the Supreme Court of Texas is saying that they can't do anything for her. It's a First Amendment issue, can't interfere in the practice of religion.

You wonder how these people sleep at night.

If a crime is committed, the religious reason doesn't matter. At no time or place in our society should religion supersede the law or government. You aren't allowed to beat someone when they don't want to be beaten, especially not a child. You aren't allowed to hold someone prisoner for two days if they don't want to be held, especially not a child. Religious law is supposed to be the lowest authority in the land.

The court claims that they can't do anything because the harm inflicted was emotional, not physical. So it stands to reason, then, that as long as you keep someone in reasonable health, you can imprison them indefinitely in your church. As long as you're convinced that you're helping and you don't cause any physical harm (except for bruises, which the young lady suffered from being pummeled by church members), the Supreme Court of Texas has your back.

The Grand Wheatgrass Finale

2008-08-13T21:11:00.009-07:00

I'm tired of it, you're tired of it, but I'm too stubborn to quit, so here we go. The remaining lies.

26 Drink Wheatgrass Juice for skin problems such as eczema or psoriasis.

Lotion does it better.

27 Wheatgrass Juice keeps the hair from graying.

Dye does it better.

28 Pyorrhea of the mouth: lay pulp of wheatgrass soaked in juice on diseased area in mouth or chew wheatgrass, spitting out the pulp.

I think the people who wrote this have pyorrhea of the mouth. Wrong -rrhea, I know, but work with me here.

29 By taking Wheatgrass Juice, one may feel a difference in strength, endurance, health, and spirituality, and experience a sense of well-being.

Or one may not. In fact, probably will not. One is more likely to feel a shudder of disgust as one tries to gulp that garbage down.

30 Wheatgrass juice improves the digestion.

Uh. How?

31 Wheatgrass juice is high in enzymes.

Enzymes. They're what plants crave.

32 Wheatgrass juice is an excellent skin cleanser and can be absorbed through the skin for nutrition. Pour green juice over your body in a tub of warm water and soak for 15 to 20 minutes. Rinse off with cold water.

Nope, I didn't make this one up. They're seriously suggesting that you bathe in wheatgrass juice. Personally, I'd recommend water and soap. I hear those are great at cleaning skin.

33 Wheatgrass implants (enemas) are great for healing and detoxifying the colon walls. The implants also heal and cleanse the internal organs. After an enema, wait 20 minutes, then implant 4 ounces of wheatgrass juice. Retain for 20 minutes.

I promise I'm not making these up. They really did tell you to hold 4 ounces of wheatgrass up your ass for 20 minutes.

34 Wheatgrass juice is great for constipation and keeping the bowels open. It is high in magnesium.

Sometimes, you want the bowels shut. It's hard to hold down a job with permanently open bowels. That said, you can probably nail two birds with one stone and just solve this problem with one of those wheatgrass enemas!

35 Dr. Birscher, a research scientist, called chlorophyll "concentrated sun power." He said, "chlorophyll increases the function of the heart, affects the vascular system, the intestines, the uterus, and the lungs."

Do a Google search for Dr. Birscher and count how many times that sentence, slightly mutated, appears. Check out the article about his findings written by... Dr. Ann Wigmore! I remember her! Wow, this is awesome. She's quoting the Bible to prove how healthy wheatgrass is. Truly scientific.

36 According to Dr. Birscher, nature uses chlorophyll (wheatgrass) as a body cleanser, rebuilder, and neutralizer of toxins.

Your body uses protein (BigMacs) to rebuild muscle! See what I did there? (Of course, my initial statement was actually true.)

37 Wheatgrass juice can dissolve the scars that are formed in the lungs from breathing acid gasses. The effect of carbon monoxide is minimized since chlorophyll increases hemoglobin production.

First of all, they misspelled gases. Second, is there any real indication that chlorophyll increases hemoglobin production? I see lots of talk about one having to do with the other, but it ranges from this to the molecules simply resembling each other.

38 Wheatgrass Juice reduces high blood pressure and enhances the capillaries.

It enhances the capillaries? What does that mean? Do they become admillaries? (Captain... Admiral... give me a break, I'm sick of this subject.)

39 Wheatgrass Juice can remove heavy metals from the body.

Immortal challenges that assertion. Be careful, they have weapons and look like scary pandas.

40 Wheatgrass juice is great for blood disorders of all kinds.

Sufferers of everything from anemia to AIDS will be thrilled.

Done! Next subject: 75 facts about astrology.

Consider yourselves lucky I didn't pick the list that suggested douching with wheatgrass.

Seriously.

Why Am I Being So Hard On Wheatgrass?

2008-08-08T10:17:00.003-07:00

I just got this comment in my last post on the subject. I've provided a handy link to a website called "What's The Harm?" that will show you why I care about this stuff.

However, in an effort to get this horse to drink some water, I guess I'll have to do more than just lead it to the lake. Consider this the metaphorical equivalent of holding water to the horse's mouth:

The 13-year-old, the youngest of four children, has a genetic disease that interferes with her kidneys and breathing. Two of her brothers also have the condition, which has only been documented 39 times in the past 50 years.

She was taken from her mother by a youth court judge in February because her mother had placed her on a regime of wheat-grass juice and raw foods and was withholding a medication. Judge Judith Landry found that the mother had watched her daughter's health deteriorate over a period of months and ruled that custody be temporarily transferred to the teen's father.

I'm hard on wheatgrass because it leads to situations exactly like this. People think they can use this snake oil instead of real medicine and it causes harm and death. If you want to do shots of wheatgrass that's your business, but stop telling people that it does anything except provide a fraction of the nutrition of a spinach salad until you can prove otherwise.

And on the subject of raw food...

Natural Selection

2008-08-08T10:06:00.002-07:00

I had a conversation with a friend last night about religion, and he asked me why it is that the prominent religions seem to be based on the idea of wiping out any other religions.

We can't ever know for sure, but natural selection certainly seems like a plausible reason. Richard Dawkins has suggested that memes follow a similar pattern to genes in this respect.

When one religion preaches passivity and tells its followers not to evangelize it will eventually die out as its followers are killed by more aggressive religions. Its culture is soon wiped out in favor of the religion "designed" with multiplication in mind- specifically, the religion that says to kill the infidels and to convert unbelievers.

It helps, of course, if your holy text can be interpreted to say both. That way you can multiply at the expense of others while still managing to avoid being perceived as a threat.

YET MORE WHEATGRASS

2008-08-07T11:50:00.003-07:00

Oh my god, it keeps going.

21 Wheatgrass Juice cures acne and even help to remove scars after it has been ingested for seven to eight months. The diet must be improved at the same time.

Okay, so wheatgrass causes this effect as long as you do this other action that is known to cause the same effect. Hey, if you buy my lucky pennies you are guaranteed to win the lottery. You must have a winning lottery ticket for them to work.

22 Wheatgrass juice acts as a detergent in the body and is used as a body deodorant.

If you like smelling like mud, I suppose. Hippies. And again, they're harping on this detoxification thing. Detoxification is a myth. You don't need it. It doesn't fix or improve anything and it costs you money. Give me money if you want to be rid of it so badly. I'm at least honest.

23 A small amount of wheatgrass juice in the human diet helps prevents tooth decay.

There's that word again. "Helps". You kind get the feeling it helps like a three year old helps his dad fix a car.

24 Wheatgrass juice held in the mouth for 5 minutes will help eliminate toothaches. It pulls poisons from the gums.

GOOD LORD YOU HAVE POISON IN YOUR GUMS, RUN! Come on, seriously? What poison? Name it. Again, note the use of the word "help". One begins to wonder why, if this stuff cures toothaches, acne and parasitic vaginal infections, on top of granting immortality to rabbits, we don't bathe in it daily. Which is more likely: that there's a vast conspiracy of evil doctors desperately trying to hide this elixir of life from us in protection of their own pocketbooks, or that this stuff really doesn't do anything?

25 Gargle Wheatgrass Juice for a sore throat.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that would give me a sore throat. That stuff is nasty.

Stubborn

2008-08-06T20:15:00.003-07:00

Oh man, I can't believe I let this thing sit here this long. I'm a horrible blogger.

Today I wanted to talk about a complaint I've seen a lot lately. That is the idea that atheists stubbornly ignore evidence for God.

The suggestion is ridiculous.

When you present evidence for God, we consider it. If it is found erroneous, we discard it. That's not us being stubborn, that's adherence to the facts. If you perhaps presented evidence that withstood the rigors of inquiry, we'd accept it.

Let me present the argument in another one.

Person 1: Y because Z.
Person 2: No, Y doesn't necessarily follow from Z and Z is only half true to begin with.
Person 1: No, Y because of Z. Why can't you accept that?

Who's being stubborn?

If you want to say you have legitimate evidence for God, it has to withstand inquiry. If you can't come up with a response for our criticisms, perhaps that indicates a problem with your assertion.

Truth has nothing to fear from inquiry.

Wheatgrass Part 4

2008-07-25T11:32:00.003-07:00

This is when you start to notice one of the tactics that conspiracy theorists and psuedoscientists like to use. They overwhelm you with information. There's so much of it that you don't even want to begin to take the time to take it apart. Unfortunately, I'm just that stubborn.

16 Liquid chlorophyll washes drug deposits from the body.

Your body does that on its own.

17 Chlorophyll neutralizes toxins in the body.

Your liver does that.

18 Chlorophyll helps purify the liver.

Watch for those words that allow them wiggle room. It "helps" purify the liver? How does it "help"? On its own, will it purify the liver? Probably not, or they wouldn't have avoided saying it. Chances are, it doesn't do anything for your liver.

19 Chlorophyll improves blood sugar problems.

Improves them how? Does it raise your blood sugar or lower it? I'm pretty sure it has to do one or the other and can't do both.

20 In the American Journal of Surgery (1940), Benjamin Gruskin, M.D. recommends chlorophyll for its antiseptic benefits. The article suggests the following clinical uses for chlorophyll: to clear up foul smelling odors, neutralize Strep infections, heal wounds, hasten skin grafting, cure chronic sinusitis, overcome chronic inner-ear inflammation and infection, reduce varicose veins and heal leg ulcers, eliminate impetigo and other scabby eruptions, heal rectal sores, successfully treat inflammation of the uterine cervix, get rid of parasitic vaginal infections, reduce typhoid fever, and cure advanced pyorrhea in many cases.

Wow, that's a big one. Let's see what we can find about it. Here is a Time Magazine article about this research in which we learn that:

Dr. Gruskin is not sure how chlorophyll works.

Maybe it's a good idea to ask why they're quoting an incomplete study from 1940. Surely a more complete, recent study proved the results more effectively.

Or maybe not.

Wait, parasitic vaginal infections?! Holy crap! Seriously, I don't know how you women live with those things, but you're doing a yeoman's work.

Catastrophic Cracker Kerfuffle!

2008-07-22T23:11:00.003-07:00

According to The Skeptics' Guide Rogues, the aforementioned Cracker Wars have officially upgraded to a Cracker Kerfuffle!

What a great word.

The specifics of some of the death threats being sent have come to light and they're just too amusing to not share.

This email was sent to PZ Myers, among many others, and PZ followed his policy regarding letters that threaten violence. Specifically, he posts them with all the identifying information attached. He even has a little item on his front page announcing this.

I do my best to avoid swearing here, but I won't censor anyone else's choice of language. All errors are the author's:

Subject: your short life

Paul,

what I would like to know is how did you even
get a job at a collage.

when you are obviously a moron.
How would you feel if nice folks starting ranting against
Fags, and atheist like yourself.

well sir, you don't get to blaspheme and walk away from this.
You have two choices my fucked up friend, first you can quit your job for the good of the
children. Or you can get your brains beat in.

I give you till the first of the month, get that resignation in cunt

What's interesting about this email is that it came from an address at 1800flowers.com. As it turns out, 1800flowers doesn't appreciate people sending threats from their computers. The owner of the email address was fired.

Unfortunately, the lady who owned the email address is not the psychopath threatening violence over a glorified saltine. No, she's just married to him.

For how much longer remains to be seen.

... I wish I had a job at a collage. It sounds colorful.

Convince Me

2008-07-22T21:07:00.004-07:00

It's often said that an unfalsifiable theory is a useless theory. The best way, in my mind, to determine whether a theory is falsifiable or not is to ask what sort of evidence would convince its believers to change their minds.

I can conceive of no evidence to show that God does not exist. God is unfalsifiable. I can't disprove God, and that's its biggest weakness.

My beliefs, on the other hand, are falsifiable and I'll explain how.

All of the following must stand up to scrutiny in order to prove that a "natural" explanation is not plausible or possible.

If two civilizations with no contact (first, second, third or whatever hand) managed to produce identical holy texts of such length that happenstance would be impossible, that would be significant evidence to contradict my belief that there is no contact between mortals and the divine.

If any holy text produced knowledge that was beyond the possible understanding of the mortal authors, that would also be relatively convincing. For instance, if the Bible made mention of Strangelets, that would certainly shake me. As it is, the Bible gets the measurement π wrong. That sounds a lot more like a bunch of guys in the desert making their best guesses than it does the creator of the universe.

One thing that holy texts like to use is prophecy, and a legitimate prophecy would indeed convince me. Unfortunately, it needs to be very specific and verified. They aren't very good at that. I won't be convinced by the first part of the book making a prophecy about the second part of the book. That's called foreshadowing. Most books have it.
In all seriousness, let's say I wrote the first half of a fictional series with significant statements and foreshadowing about the second half of the series. I die and a fan of the series takes over. How likely is it for the new author to make sure the promises of the first half come true?
I will also require a 100% accuracy rate. I think that's fair to ask of omniscience.

Finding a ghost would be a significant step toward proving the existence of God. If we could find a ghost, a real ghost, we can learn about it. If it is visible, then it interacts with light and can be measured. If it makes sound, then its movement causes vibrations and can be measured. If it can be felt, you get the point. If we can measure the essence of a ghost, we can determine what, exactly, it is. If the ghost retains any intelligence, that is proof of an afterlife. If the same "ghost substance" can be discovered and measured in humans, that is proof of a soul.

If the claims of the religious are true, at least one of these should be producible. Please inform me if any of these happen. Once again, they must all stand up to intense scrutiny. If they are legitimate, they will only be reinforced by the effort.

The Correct Answer Is C

2008-07-22T21:04:00.003-07:00

A friend sent me this article over on Slate.

The short version is that a multiple choice test in Saudi Arabia contains the following question:
Q. Is belief true in the following instances:
a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.
b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.
c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers.

Pencils down.

Offensive

2008-07-22T20:28:00.006-07:00

I recently mentioned that I disapprove of going into churches with the intent of stealing Jesus' cracker-bound form. I wanted to clarify that the reason I disapprove is not out of respect for the ritual or the cracker itself, but out of politeness. Simply, you don't crash a party just because you can.

However, if they were handing out Nabisco Nazarene Nibblets on the streets, there'd be nothing wrong with tossing it in the trash. Personally, I'd probably try to feed it to birds so they become attracted to the spot and drive off the missionaries, but trash is acceptable.

That said, sometimes a group needs to be intentionally offended. This is sometimes the only recourse to force someone to either amend their beliefs to cope with society or appear and feel completely absurd. As has been said, sometimes the only effective response is ridicule.

So perhaps, in this case, a little Grand Theft Deity is called for.

In this debacle, I've noticed a huge number of Catholics and other Christians claiming that we wouldn't dare mock Muslims so openly for fear of violence. I fail to see what that red herring has to do with what's going on currently, but I suppose I can spare a bloodhound for that as well:

Okay, get offended.

The Atheist Blogroll

2008-07-21T14:03:00.002-07:00

I've been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

In other news, I just learned that there's such a thing as a "blogroll". I'm good at this.

The Cracker Wars

2008-07-19T14:21:00.003-07:00

For those who are not aware, a cracker has been stolen.

To sane people, this may not seem like a big deal. Apparently, it is. This kid, Webster Cook, is receiving death threats over this. A lot of them. So is PZ Myers for supporting him.

I don't expect to receive death threats for a few reasons. Primarily, I'm not popular. Secondly, though, is that I actually do not support this kid.

The death threats are ridiculous and those people do need to be smacked. However, this was fairly disrespectful and rude. This is an attempt to irritate Catholics just for the sake of irritating them to show that we can. I do believe that, within the privacy of their churches, they have a right to practice their goofy little rituals undisturbed. That means that we unbelievers should stay out of their business and not try to do things like steal their Christ Chex and swapping out their communion wine for pig's blood.

This may separate me from some of the other atheist groups, who are suggesting that more people go through steps to steal The Holy Ritz. Most of them are specifically stating that they don't want church services disturbed, stating that subtlety is the first priority in these games, but I think the whole practice is really unnecessary.

While, yes, we do need to inform morons like Bill Donohue that he doesn't get to have people fired to supporting the theft of crackers, we don't need to go out of our way to mock the stupid things people do in private. What concerns us is the influence they have on the rest of society. They can privately cannibalize all the crackers they want for all I care.

Of course, when someone says something like this about it:

"It is hurtful. Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family." -Father Miguel Gonzalez

Well, that does sort of give me that old cracker-thievery urge. Some people need a serious, serious reality check.

And it does make me wonder why, if stealing the cracker is kidnapping, eating it isn't murder. One might suspect that, given enough Sun(ofGod)Chips, you could rebuild the Messiah. Maybe that's why he hasn't shown up for that Second Coming yet.

Demanding Evidence

2008-07-18T21:45:00.003-07:00

Freedom fighter PZ Meyers debated some theists recently. They tried to come at him with this idea that there is no empirical evidence for love, in an attempt to deflate his argument that belief in God is unjustified due to a lack of evidence.

He defended himself pretty well, pointing out that we witness empirical evidence of love every day. I just wanted to expand on his point.

We can imagine a world without love. We see examples of a loveless society in novels like Brave New World. It's a world significantly different from our own.

Now, close your eyes. Wait, open them. You'll need those to read this. But do whatever you need to do, aside from closing your eyes, that helps you imagine. Think about a world, or universe, without God. Think of the development of the universe and life on our planet as a combination of unlikely events, rather than the designed directive of a creative force.

How different is your world from the one in which we live?

In my mind, it's not different at all. That's the difference between needing evidence for love and evidence for God. The fact is that our world very much resembles a world without any interfering or creative God. Occam's Razor demands we avoid needlessly complicating the equation.

Arrogance

2008-07-18T02:12:00.005-07:00

While researching something else, I stumbled on this quote by Stephen Jay Gould:

The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.

Absolutely. We are not the limit of the universe. We are not the center of the universe. Our solar system is not the center of the universe, or even our galaxy. How much further do we have to go, do you suppose, before we decide as a world that the universe was probably not designed for us?

Wheatgrass Part 3

2008-07-18T01:43:00.006-07:00

I've been neglecting this blog and this feature, which is a shame because the best part is coming up.

On to the "facts"!

11 Chlorophyll can be extracted from many plants, but wheatgrass is superior because it has been found to have over 100 elements needed by man. If grown in organic soil, it absorbs 92 of the known 102 minerals from the soil.

Fantastic! Did we establish that chlorophyll is good, yet? I don't remember. Also, how much of those elements and minerals does it have? Is it enough to matter? Does it have 100 elements needed by man like a Snickers bar has protein?

12 Wheatgrass has what is called the grass-juice factor, which has been shown to keep herbivorous animals alive indefinitely.

You heard it here first! IMMORTAL RABBITS.

Wish I believed in God, because I have a sudden urge to start praying.

13 Dr. Ann Wigmore and institutes based on her teachings has been helping people get well from chronic disorders for 30 years using wheatgrass.

First of all, your verb should be plural. Dr. Wigmore and institutes HAVE been helping. Secondly, who is this Dr. Ann Wigmore? Well, let's take a look. Oh, this is good. Dr. Ann Wigmore's studied for years to become a qualified professional holding a PhD in...

Divinity!

I wonder what her thesis was about.

14 Liquid chlorophyll gets into the tissues, refines them and makes them over.

So chlorophyll is like a deep tissue massage? Don't let the Swedes find out about this, their whole economy could collapse!

15 Wheatgrass Juice is a superior detoxification agent compared to carrot juice and other fruits and vegetables. Dr Earp-Thomas, associate of Ann Wigmore, says that 15 pounds of Wheatgrass is the equivalent of 350 pounds of carrot, lettuce, celery, and so forth.

And so forth? So, what, tomatoes? Broccoli? Spinach? Well, it doesn't matter anyways, because that's completely wrong. It's difficult to find information on Dr. Earp-Thomas, he doesn't show up on Wikipedia. All I could find was remarkably professional page that clearly isn't run by a crazy person with a very basic knowledge of HTML. What I just did there was a logical fallacy, but in this case I'm going to cut myself some slack.

Hostility

2008-07-13T21:58:00.002-07:00

Atheists are often accused of being hostile to religion and believers. Why do we think it's out place to destroy the belief systems of others? Why can't we just live and let live?

Well, most of us do. I suppose the existence of this blog could be convincing evidence that I, personally, don't, but there's a reason for that.

Religious people often forget that they worship a book that set the tone of hostility thousands of years ago.

1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Psalm 14

Those servants of His who refuse to believe in the soon-coming King, and live a wanton life, will be cut asunder, and punished as unbelievers. Luke 12:45-48

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15

Or thinkest thou that most of them listen or understand? They are only like cattle;- nay, they are worse astray in Path. Qu'ran 25:44

That's leaving out the lake of fire.

"You started it," may not work with parents, but it clearly explains the tone of the argument. You worship as divine truth a book that specifically insults me. It's only now that atheists have developed some teeth that you're feeling the hostility that's been around for millennia.

You don't get to hail Mein Kampf as a work of genius without angering Jews, and rightfully so. You don't even get to say, "You know, the Ku Klux Klan isn't all bad." without getting black people on your case, again rightfully so. The book that you claim is the True And Holy Word Of The Lord God Creator is deeply offensive. Get used to the hostility or find a new book.

I recommend De Rerum Natura by Lucretius.

Untouchable

2008-07-09T17:34:00.005-07:00

Caste systems, it's generally accepted, are wrong. The reasoning behind this is simple enough: you're born into servitude with no chance social movement. You are born, essentially, in debt to a higher class. In free nations, we find the very idea of this abhorrent.

We believe, rightly so, that each person should be judged by his or her own thoughts and actions, not the circumstances of his or her birth.

That is, except religious people. They claim to support the ideals of equality, and they even live it, but according to their theology we are all members of a caste inferior to God. Born in debt to him because of the actions of ancestors so far removed that there's no hope of piecing together the genealogy, we are locked in our inferior, servile positions for not just life, but all eternity.

According to them, we are a world full of Untouchables, forever undeserving of love or respect but receiving despite our flaws because of the infinite benevolence of our loving, superior emperor.

It's truly amazing that America is one of the most religious nations in the world, given how the core concepts of religion are so incredibly un-American.

Why would we ever want to submit ourselves to a life like this?

Pascal's Wager

2008-07-06T14:57:00.005-07:00

I recently saw this comment on another blog:

I am a pastor. I worked hard towards it and take it seriously. By the way I had to look Pascal's Wager up. That is what I was saying but I never read it before.

Forgive me, but at what point did it become acceptable for professional theists to be ignorant of the absolute basics of theology?

How can I possibly believe that you "worked hard" and "take it seriously" when you skipped over an argument you should have learned in Philosophy 101?

For those who don't know, Pascal's Wager is a very simple argument for belief in God. I specify that it's an argument for belief in God, rather than an argument for the existence of God, because it never actually says anything about whether God exists or not. It's important to separate the two, as theists so often enjoy confusing them. I believe the strategy there is to muddle the line between fact and opinion, because they can't win with facts alone.

Pascal's Wager, essentially, states that God either exists or does not. Each of those conditions has two possible outcomes.

If God does not exist and you did not believe he existed, you die and receive no reward.
If God does not exist and you did believe he existed, you die and receive no reward.

If God does exist and you did not believe he existed, you die and receive eternal torment.
If God does exist and you did believe he existed, you die and receive an eternity in Paradise.

Therefore, you might as well believe in God. What do you have to lose?

The false assumptions this argument makes are as follows:
Belief in God is something you can change at will because it suits you.
If you believe in God, you believe in the right God. One thing gods tend to be is jealous, so choose well.
A life lived in fear of God's punishment is equal to a life lived freely.
God is appeased by self-serving belief, for fear of punishment.

There. Now you know more about basic theology than a pastor.

Solipsism

2008-07-05T19:27:00.005-07:00

I'm going to make an effort to make my posts much shorter, so that people can actually read them.

Theists often like to claim that atheists believe in nothing greater than themselves. I believe in many things greater than myself, I simply do not believe that they care about me.

I will go on record right now saying that I am not entirely certain that there is no God, though I'm fairly confident that is the case. I am absolutely sure that no being who created a universe as massive and vast as ours cares one bit what I do and what I believe.

It appears, from observing the rest of this truly awesome (like red and yellow socks) place that, if there was a Creator, it didn't exactly design around us. We clawed our way into life and consciousness on a tiny planet that can sometimes support life on some of its surface, warmed by a tiny star, in a tiny galaxy hidden away in a corner of the universe.

That's the miracle.

Wheatgrass Part 2

2008-07-04T12:12:00.003-07:00

This is part two of my refutation of "40 Benefits of Wheatgrass". Each installment will include five of the claims made by one of the most popular sites promoting wheatgrass and my attempts to refute those claims.

6 Chlorophyll is anti-bacterial and can be used inside and outside the body as a healer.

The evidence does seem to indicate that wheatgrass can kill bacteria. That doesn't suggest that ingesting it will help your body fight bacteria, or that you'd want your body to fight bacteria better, or that it's any better to use than any other antibiotic/antibacterial substance.

7 Dr. Bernard Jensen says that it only takes minutes to digest wheatgrass juice and uses up very little body energy.

Alright, let's assume that's true. Wouldn't that mean it just runs right through you with no effect?

But putting that aside, let's take a look at this Dr. Bernard Jensen. Here is his Wikipedia page, and this is a "tribute" page. Both indicate he was a chiropractor and proponent of Iridology. For those who don't know, Iridology is the "alternative medicine" style that claims you can examine the iris of a patient's eyes to determine information about a patient's systemic health.

Exactly what qualifies this guy to suggest anything related to health? He became a "doctor" at 21 upon graduating from West Coast Chiropractic College. Clearly a highly trained professional.

8 Science has proven that chlorophyll arrests growth and development of unfriendly bacteria.

This sounds an awful lot like number six. I think all of my refutations still apply to this one.

9 Chlorophyll (wheatgrass) rebuilds the bloodstream. Studies of various animals have shown chlorophyll to be free of any toxic reaction. The red cell count was returned to normal within 4 to 5 days of the administration of chlorophyll, even in those animals which were known to be extremely anemic or low in red cell count.

I'd like to see these studies, no links are provided, but even assuming that these were legitimate studies that doesn't tell us what kinds of animals were tested and whether the same effect could be expected in humans. What works for animals doesn't always work for us. In fact, it usually doesn't. This entire claim is extremely vague.

10 Farmers in the Midwest who have sterile cows and bulls put them on wheatgrass to restore fertility. (The high magnesium content in chlorophyll builds enzymes that restore the sex hormones.)

I've yet to hear of a single farmer actually doing this, but again let's assume that it's true. Why should we assume this will work for humans? The suggestion here is that wheatgrass will cure sterility. Were that the case, you would think something like that would make the news.

Wheatgrass

2008-07-02T16:39:00.003-07:00

A recent miracle supplement that you can find in any local smoothie shop is wheatgrass. Supposedly, it's very healthy. It's hard to get anyone to explain what exactly is so healthy about it, so I decided to take a look.

If you Google "wheatgrass", the first link that appears is one to Wikipedia. After that is a site called Wheatgrass Kits.com, which has a handy-dandy section called "40 Benefits of Wheat grass".

Forty is a lot, so I'll break this into several posts. Let's take a look at these claims.

1 Wheatgrass Juice is one of the best sources of living chlorophyll available.

Alright, nothing really wrong here. We may not know what living chlorophyll is and why it's good for us, but we can give them the benefit of the doubt that wheatgrass has a lot of it.

2 Chlorophyll is the first product of light and, therefore, contains more light energy than any other element.

Hm. What is light energy? A Wikipedia search for "light energy" doesn't turn up any responses. A Google search for the term leads to articles regarding the physics of light and energy, but nothing about the term "light energy".

3 Wheatgrass juice is a crude chlorophyll and can be taken orally and as a colon implant without toxic side effects.

So the good news is that it's not poisonous. You can even stick it up your bum if you like. This doesn't mean it will do anything good for you, but it won't do anything bad.

4 Chlorophyll is the basis of all plant life.

This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, I am not a plant.

5 Wheatgrass is high in oxygen like all green plants that contain chlorophyll. The brain and all body tissues function at an optimal level in a highly-oxygenated environment.

Fortunately, we have lungs to provide our brain and body tissues with oxygen. If you think you may not be getting enough oxygen, you can always buy yourself a can. Try doing some Calculus after, I'll be interested to hear how that goes for you.

Atheists Believe In You

2008-07-02T14:19:00.000-07:00

One of the more popular positions to take lately is embodied by author Chris Hedges in his book "I Don't Believe In Atheists".

A defense of faith, the book claims that radical atheists are just as much a threat as fundamentalists. I'll ignore that he continues to misuse the word fundamentalist (there are no atheist fundamentals, so how can you be a fundamentalist?), and instead concentrate on his argument.

His claim is that the New Atheists (specifically Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) are just as bigoted as the religions they attack. Additionally, and this is where his claims get a bit strange, he seems to say that claiming religions have impeded moral progress means that there must be moral progress. He does not believe there is moral progress, as the existence of this progress would indicate a move towards a final point of total morality- a utopia. Utopian mindsets, he says, are dangerous.

First points first, he charges the New Atheists with encouraging violence against religion and trying to snuff it out entirely. In fact, only one of the mentioned authors could be interpreted to have said that and it would take a healthy dose of self-convincing to do so. Sam Harris does indicate several times in his book that our supposed "War On Terror" is really a "War On Islam", but it's not politically advantageous to say so and so we call it a War On Terror.

That certainly seems damning, but when I first heard him say that I never once thought he was encouraging anyone to hunt down Muslims. Perhaps he would have been better served to say that it's actually a war on the stubborn and violent refusal of the majority population of Muslim-dominated countries to accept and adapt to modern day society, but Sam Harris is a man who values brevity. You can see this in his "Letter To A Christian Nation".

Hedges has experience with Muslim countries, and he says that the way they're addressed in Harris's books is simply racist. Fair enough, but Hedges provides little evidence to vanquish Harris's evidence. Harris quotes dozens of surveys taken in major Muslim countries regarding the use of violence for religious purposes. The percentage of those who find it acceptable is shocking. Simply labeling those statistics as racist does not make them untrue. You must either show contradictory evidence, or show that the procedure through which the "racist" evidence was obtained was flawed. It's not racist to think that a black guy stole a car or a white guy embezzled from his company if they actually did those things. The statistics seem to indicate that the parties perceived as violent actually are violent.

To move on to the point that there has been no moral progress. That's going to be a difficult point to make. His evidence for this is that the greatest slaughters have occurred in the 20th century in both Hitler and Stalin's regimes. That is certainly true, but allow me to draw an analogy. In the past hundred years, humans have done more to pollute the planet than in the entire history of humanity previously. Does that mean, then, that there has been no environmental progress, that we have completely failed to utilize our resources with greater efficiency?

Of course not. Think back to the near death of the buffalo in America, with people shooting them for fun and leaving the carcasses behind completely unused. With that mindset and the tools of today, it would be trivial to drive entire species extinct in the span of a month. The same goes for those regimes- not that they were signs that morality hasn't progressed, but that the tools we currently have are so much more effective at what they do that previous eras could not hope to compete. Rest assured, if Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan had access to automatic weapons and gas chambers, their death tolls would have been much, much higher.

I would counter his argument by pointing out that there were only two of those slaughters, when a slaughter of that magnitude is so easily accessible to anyone with power, is proof that there is moral progress in our international society.

Similarly, his conclusion that moral progress necessitates a final Utopian point is false. Consider the mathematical example of an asymptote. An asymptote is a line on a graph that forever reaches toward a number, but never reaches it. An easier way to think about it would be to divide ten by two again and again and again. You understand that you're getting closer to zero, but you will never get there. That is progress without end.

Or, to put it more concisely by paraphrasing author and all-around awesome guy Warren Ellis:
"The world can be neither perfect nor doomed. But it can be better."

Most of these authors agree that religion isn't going anywhere. Christopher Hitchens has been quoted repeatedly saying religion will never die, "or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other." The goal of the so-called "New Atheists" isn't to banish religion to the shadows of human history, though many may believe the world would be better for the change were that goal plausible.

No, the goal is to put religion on the same footing as political beliefs. It must not be above criticism or reprisal, and it must not carry any authority simply by virtue of its self-importance. The goal is to get closer to zero. We understand we will never reach it.

There is some humor to be found in this. All of this arguing back and forth really has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. The argument is whether or not atheism or religion is healthier for society. Which one is actually the truth never enters into it.

Because it matters.

2008-07-02T12:27:00.000-07:00

A few months ago I went to dinner with my mom and grandfather. My grandpa is slowly losing his mind to Alzheimer's, so having a conversation with him becomes more difficult as time passes. He can't even remember which entrée he wanted to order, much less follow a complicated subject. As a result, that evening's conversation was limited to my mother and I.

Clinton and Obama were, of course, still going at it then. Naturally, the subject came up. That progressed to other topics, like the Supreme Court, and eventually brought me to a rant about religion's influence on our supposedly secular society. Being me, of course, I progressed into a bit of a rant about religion itself. This prompted my mom to say to me, "You're so obsessed with this stuff."

I really didn't know what to say.

Religions claim to know a universal truth about all of reality. If ANY religion is right, we instantly know what is right, what is wrong, and everything else we need to know about life, love, morality and reality. Their claims are the most important claims that can possibly be made, and they have absolutely no justification for making them. The tragedy is that people still listen to them.

Yes, I am obsessed with this stuff. It matters. I want to know the truth about reality. I want to hear every single claim every religion makes and see if there is even the slightest kernel of truth to be found. Because it matters.

The only thing that is more mind-boggling than the prospect that any given religion might be right, and that there may be a single or many gods who are so far beyond our understanding that they created our universe, is the prospect that they are all wrong and that there is no god.

That raises so many questions. Science does its best to explain as much as possible, but we will never truly reach a complete understanding of everything in our universe. Never. The only thing we can do is try.

You are damn right I'm obsessed with this stuff. I don't understand how anyone couldn't be. What happened that made the truth of everything in the universe seem trivial? If this doesn't matter, what does?