Heaving Dead Cats » Proof

Atheism at a glance- BBC Style

Neece — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:51:31 +0000

I thought I’d share this with you. The BBC has a page for each religion where they give a bit of information at a glance, and one for atheism too.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes from a, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods.

Atheists don’t use god to explain the existence of the universe.

Atheists say that human beings can devise suitable moral codes to live by without the aid of Gods or scriptures.

Reasons for non-belief
People are atheist for many reasons, among them:

They find insufficient evidence to support any religion.

They think that religion is nonsensical.

They once had a religion and have lost faith in it.

They live in a non-religious culture.

Religion doesn’t interest them.

Religion doesn’t seem relevant to their lives.

Religions seem to have done a lot of harm in the world.

The world is such a bad place that there can’t be a god.

It is possible to be both atheist and religious. Virtually all Buddhists manage it, as do adherents of other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.
But many atheists are also secularist, and are hostile to any special treatment given to organised religion.

Atheists and morality
Atheists are as moral (or immoral) as religious people.
In practical terms atheists often follow the same moral code as religious people, but they arrive at the decision of what is good or bad without any help from the idea of god.

What does it mean to be human?
Atheists find their own answers to the question of what it means to be human.

What are your main reasons for being an atheist? Mine are:

There is zero evidence of the supernatural in any shape or form. (except the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may you die an honorable death, trampled under her holy pink hooves!)
Religion is harmful if swallowed. It survives and thrives on indoctrination/brainwashing, especially in early childhood when a person has no defense for its insanity.
Religion has caused more death, murder, destruction, harm, repression, ignorance, destruction of knowledge, etc, than anything else.
I live in a religious culture and I see the hypocrisy and harm it causes.
The morality of the religious is twisted and usually extremely hypocritical. As an atheist I have my own moral code that doesn’t rely on 2,000 year old rules from desert goat herders who liked to stone people for wearing 2 different fibers at the same time.
Life does not appear to be sacred to the religious, despite their constant braying about the issue. The religious seem desperate to control everyone’s life but their own. (More hypocrisy). The religious subjugate themselves in this life (at least they pretend on the surface, while breaking their rules in secret often) because they want eternal life that doesn’t involve roasting forever in hell (so it’s based on fear of suffering, not on being good for goodness sake).As an atheist, this the the only life I have. It is natural, amazing, awe-inspiring, and precious beyond measure. Every moment is to be treasured and lived fully.
Religion is based on faith, which by definition, has no proof. Religion abhors such free thought. I embrace reason, critical thinking, logic, observation, experimentation, facts, science, intelligence, freethought and skepticism. Basically I believe in using your brain, and thinking for yourself.

That’s my short list. I’m sure I have other reasons for being an atheist but I can’t think of them offhand. So what are yours?

I Have 2 Dogs, But Neither Is god. I’m Sure.

Neece — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:15:07 +0000

I’m bored. I have about 5 matters I should be attending to, but I’m uninspired to tackle any of them at the long end of a productive day. So I’m doing what every self-respecting blogger/Geekess/hermit does. I’m stumbling the internet.

Oh, and now is the time to remind you that I officially live under a rock. Someday I’ll take a picture of my rock so you can see how nice it is. But suffice it to say, I’m not a newshound, always up on the latest and greatest of everything.

So in my stumbles I come across a BusinessDay article, a South African paper. This is how I learned this awesome explanation of the difference between an atheist, 2 kinds of agnostics, and a theist. Here we go:

The difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a theist can be summarized by their responses to the question: do you have a dog?

The atheist will simply answer, “No”. If you go to his house to search for a dog, you won’t find one. There will be no signs in the house or the yard that there ever was a dog there. None of his relatives or friends will remember having seen a dog there. They’ll ask, “Does he have a dog? How could I not have known?” And they’ll be absolutely right. There are no signs that there could ever have been a dog at the atheist’s house or indeed anywhere where he spends his time. Not at his home, not at his work, nowhere.

The agnostic who thinks that there’s simply insufficient proof for either having or not having a dog will be a great deal less certain.

When asked, she’ll look around her house searching for traces of a dog. When pressed, she’ll say, “Oh, I’ve searched my house, but what’s to say that there’s not a dog in my garage as I’m searching the house, and what’s to say that dog isn’t going to be in my house while I search the garage?”. If asked, “Do you believe you have a dog, despite there being no signs of it?” She’s likely to answer firmly: “There’s simply not enough evidence to support the fact that I don’t own a dog to come to that conclusion.”

Then there’s the agnostic who doesn’t believe that he owns a dog, but is nevertheless not willing to completely rule out the possibility.

When asked, he’ll say, “I have no dog at home, that’s for sure.” Pondering the question further, he’ll say, “But, obviously, I can never be everywhere all at once. So, there must be some small possibility that there’s a dog out there somewhere that’s got a disk on its collar saying I’m the owner. That I don’t know about it isn’t sufficient proof that it doesn’t exist.”

Needless to say, you won’t find traces of a dog at his home either.

Finally, there’s the theist. When asked, she’ll answer an empathic “Yes!” But if you go to her house and search for a dog, you’ll not find a trace of a dog there either. Nowhere is a dog to be found.

Naturally you’ll ask her why she thinks she has a dog when there’s no evidence. You might find relatives and friends who say she has a dog, but who’ve never seen it, heard it, or felt it licking their face.

“It’s a matter of faith,” the theist will proclaim. “I have faith in this (or that) which says so. My friends say so. My parents said so. So who are you to question the fact that I have a dog?”

Other perspectives:

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. HL Mencken

And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. Bertrand Russell

I agree completely! What a great explanation. I have no god. There is no evidence of a god. If you look in my house and my yard, you won’t find any evidence of a god either. I’ve never had a god.When I was a kid everyone told me I had a god but when I got older I caught on that just like Santa, it was make believe and they were lying. There’s a lot of evidence that they have been making up stories for millennia, by the way.

I live my godless life quite happily. I don’t have to make believe, I don’t have to doubt and wonder and worry and pretend and pray. I don’t have to think I’m being watched or judged by some invisible friend who is jealous, angry and crazy. I am my own counsel. I am my own moral compass. I am responsible for me entirely. It’s simple, sensible and smart, and leads me to live each moment of my life fully and with happiness and awe among the wonders of the universe.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I do have 2 dogs, though. I have evidence of them snoring quietly on the floor at my feet.

Conversations With christians – Beth 5 – Around Again!

Neece — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:40:47 +0000

Hey everyone! Beth is back for more! I just got her email a bit ago, which is not really good timing. My parents are getting here tomorrow about the time that I get up, so I really don’t have any time to reply in detail. But that shouldn’t stop you from commenting or emailing replies to heavingdeadcats@gmail.com. I’ll be happy to incorporate your replies into the post as well as my reply to her. I feel like I’m on a merry-go-round here!

Here is the email in its entirety. She is replying to my statements (from Conversations With christians 4a) which are not in block quotes:
~
Whether you agree to the label or not is irrelevant. It doesn’t make it any less true. What history and science resources are you looking at to come to these conclusions? How are you so sure that you are getting the whole story? Please give some of your resources. I am quite curious as to what you’re reading to come to such wild opinions. For instance, name one contemporary document from Jesus’ time that refers to him. Better yet, name one person who wrote about meeting him, outside of the gospels. You can’t because no such documents or evidence exists. Since you insist that he existed, that he was magical and had special powers and rose from the dead, the Burden of Proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim. Please provide references. Simple inflammatory statements are baseless.

No, I do not agree to the label because your accusation that I am “cherry picking” is baseless in itself. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is unimportant, however. It does not change the fact you are wrong.

I will gladly share my sources with you. One I use quite frequently is tektonics.org. It has great articles that address many of the issues you appear to have with Jesus and the New Testament especially. Furthermore, I’d like to establish that while I do not doubt that Jesus once walked the earth that the rest, as far as him being the son of God, performing miracles, and being resurrected is all a matter of faith. I cannot prove that to you.

Why didn’t jesus write anything down himself? He was a god-man after all. Why not document his life and teachings to share for future sheep to get his message accurately? Why rely on flawed men to write things down 40-80 years after his supposed death? This doesn’t bother you in the slightest? You don’t find it odd?

There are several reasons why Jesus may have not documented anything himself. 1.) His ministry was to teach and inspire. That does not include recording his own lectures. If you look throughout history, teachers such as Aristotle did not directly write about themselves. Their students did. 2.) The basis of a relationship with Jesus and his “father” was that you believe with little to no evidence available. Then of course, he would see that there was no need to write anything down. If people truly followed him they would do so out of faith.

Also, you should account for the possibility of evidence being destroyed. Do you honestly think everything involved in history is still around? And what about the fact there is time still for more proof to be discovered? I highly reccomend looking at the site I linked you to. Particularly to listen to this debate: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={6F8A97D2-2B10-475F-B0DD-3D0A13E7F98B

I think it’s time you explain in clear terms why the Jesus Myth is absurd. Making such claims without any kind of backup is groundless. You have a belief that jesus existed because you were indoctrinated into the mindset. You then look for evidence to support that belief and discard any and all history or science that may threaten such an idea. I have already linked you to HYPERLINK “http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm”a great article that spells things out clearly and concisely, with references. I also recommend reading Bart Ehrman. Here is his Wikipedia page as well.

It is quite the assumption on your part to say that I disregard arguments against Jesus. I enjoy studying both sides and comparing and contrasting the two. I did not blindly make that statement. As far as I’ve researched there is nothing that points to him not existing historically. I have always welcomed any sources you have that suggest otherwise. The original article you sent was using the plagarism theory which is dead as far as I’m concerned. I plan on picking up Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus” so thank you. I am very interested to see what I can learn from it. I also plan to see what critiques might be available on it.

Perhaps you should also look for them and offer your opinion. It would be to your benefit to not ignore challenges thrown in your direction as well. Because I seek the absolute truth looking at things from both angles is imparitive as I am sure you understand.

The Jesus Myth relies on biased research (those who contributed are atheist, diest, or against religion in general) and fails to account for the possibilities I listed earlier. Furthermore it includes the idea that Jesus was a plagarised figure which as we have discussed multiple times, is not even credible.

Again, your lack of documentation or references makes for a groundless argument. You provide zero resources, yet you attack everything that doesn’t agree with your presuppositions.

Thomas Kuhn said in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, “The man who rejects one hypothesis without simultaneously proposing an alternative is rejecting science itself. He will be known to his colleagues as the carpenter who blames his tools.”

Most myths and religions are far from pure, borrowing heavily from other stories and legends. For example, there is no concept of Hell in the old testament, yet the loving jesus talks incessantly about people burning in hell in the new testament. Where did that come from? It may have come from the Greek concept of Hades. Just because the details are changed a bit does not negate the fact that christianity is entirely borrowed or stolen from other myths dating before the time of jesus’ supposed life to a few hundred years after. This is when Mithras really gained in popularity and they borrowed extensively from each other.

This might interest you. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest known writing to exist. In it you have a child of god, prophet dreams, curses from god, a great flood, walking on water and a resurrection.

Or how about Horus from Egyptian mythology? This is a handy chart for easy comparison.

I apologize for not citing my sources for you, but as you can see, I am very willing to share them. I have given you a few already. When analyzing the plagarism theory I simply look up information on the gods that are referenced. That is done through a google search of the diety. According to what I have read the similarities are too minimal and require a huge stretch to draw any connections. Here are some sites I’ve found that do a great job of debunking that claim:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
http://kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

Once again, I do not discourage you from pointing out any flaws you can see with these arguments. I cannot stress enough that I am after truth, not fiction. I believe everyone has personal biases that can affect their judgement so I cannot lie and tell you I do not hope to be right there is a God out there, one similar to what Jesus described, but that does not mean I will ignore fact. However, until there is an authorized scientist or historian who says otherwise and offers solid evidence and examines the alternative possibilities I will not dismiss my faith.

Hell indeed is not conceptualized until Jesus arrives in the New Testament. It is mentioned a number of times in the Old Testament, but as you noticed, it does not go into full detail about it. I will look more into that as it never really bothered me before. I do not think it is very logical to automatically jump to the conclusion that because of that the plagarism theory has weight. God, in the OT did interact with his people and threaten them, but why would he need to be specific? Because he is God and proves it by using his power, what shouldn’t he be taken seriously even if he isn’t clear about everything? And if he had been asked it is possible he would have elaborated so I fault those who follow him more then he himself.

If god made the old testament laws why would he send his son down as a man to change those laws without clearly stating that? It makes no sense. Jesus doesn’t clarify or rewrite the laws. He says himself (not that he existed) that he came to uphold the law, as I have quoted before. And that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law” until the end of time. That’s pretty clear.

So since Jesus mentioned Moses, the old testament is good, but not the rest of the old testament? That makes no sense whatsoever, since Moses was around for a large part of the pentateuch, if I recall. In fact, didn’t he supposedly write the first 5 books himself, inspired directly by god? I think so.

So you like the 10 commandments, but which set?

The first batch, which is never called commandments, or the second? Notice they are different. Which do you follow? I guess the second set would make more sense since it’s later and god obviously changed his mind. Why then does everyone know the first batch and not the second? If they are still relevant even after Jesus, why wasn’t god clear which batch was the right one?

Yes, it does make sense. You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. What if the law was interpreted incorrectly? Jesus can uphold the laws and show people how that is done properly. So yes, there was room for clarification. As for Moses, I said that he could have lived because of the existence of the ten commandments. It is not hard to distinguish which of the two batches is the one that should be the one regarded as the true set. Which did Jesus talk about in his parables? What you presented as the second ones appears to have similarities to the first. For example, look at 34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest. That sounds like one of the original commandments: 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. It appears they added more and altered the phrasing of some of the first. I do not think God changed his mind, rather, if you look at what his son taught it is evident the first batch, whether officially called commandments or not, are from the Lord directly. (under the premise Jesus is his son)

There were multiple wise men, but they came bearing 3 gifts. It is probably safe to conclude they each had a gift. Not that it matters one bit since the story is completely fabricated. The first book of the gospels to be written was Mark, and there was no virgin birth story. It started with Jesus getting baptized by John the Baptist. The virgin birth was added decades later by whoever wrote Matthew, borrowing from the other myths as I have stated many times.

I am curious why you are having this (non)debate with me. What do you hope to gain from such discourse? You mentioned above that you can be right and it seems that proving me wrong is very important to you. Unfortunately you provide no evidence, documentation or proof of any sort for your arguments. They are simply your feelings and beliefs, which you have clearly shown to be immutable and inflexible. So what is the point of this exercise? I’d love to understand what you hope to get from this exchange.

Why does that have to be the case? That is very illogical. So there are multiple wisemen who brought 3 gifts, so that must mean they each brought one of the gifts. Nevermind the fact one of them could have come with two of the gifts and another with the last gift. Or any variation of the sort.

Please cite your sources. I cannot trust your own word in regards to what you said about the virgin birth story.

It is humorous to me that you feel that I spoke to you to start a debate and win it. I honestly have no other intention but to understand why you decided there is no God. It is interesting to have deep conversations with atheists because often times there is a subjective reason behind why they chose to stop believing in a diety. It is not all about the scientific evidence. It is unfortunate you view me as inflexible since I am very open-minded. It is just that you have not convinced me of your side. Nothing you’ve presented has not been countered to a degree by myself, including the sources I just linked you to. I do not care if you ever agree with me, but from my position, it looks like you very much want me to admit you are right.

One brief comment: So she doesn’t want a debate? Why is she debating then? She doesn’t want to win? She wants to find the ultimate truth? (I feel like I’m in a crazy fun house) She’s open-minded and flexible in her thinking? (Am I insane?)

I have yet to reply back to her. Your input is invaluable, as always! Maybe she’s right. Maybe I do want her to admit I’m right. Of course, that’s because I am, especially with your help. LOL …

Conversations With christians – Beth 4a – With A Little Help From My Friends

Neece — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:54:29 +0000

So below you’ll find the latest email from Beth, which I posted the other day. After chilling out and thinking happy thoughts, I am ready to tackle it with your help. My replies, mixed with your comments, are added below. I am wondering though, why Beth is still talking to me? What is your opinion? Is she trying to get me to change my mind and find the lord? It’s obviously not to learn anything. What could be her motivation? I have no idea. Your suggestions are welcome, as usual.

I will never agree with you that I am “cherry picking” as I am not. In fact I was discussing it with another person of no faith and they even wondered how you drew such a conclusion. The Bible, as I stated in earlier messages, is nothing more then a compilation of documents put together by men. As we both concurred, the Holy Book is not without fault and was subject to being edited wrongly. Therefore I turn to history and science to determine what books are authentic and which are not. I do intend to look at what you suggested. I’ve honestly never come across it before. It will definetely be an asset to my research.

Whether you agree to the label or not is irrelevant. It doesn’t make it any less true. What history and science resources are you looking at to come to these conclusions? How are you so sure that you are getting the whole story? Please give some of your resources. I am quite curious as to what you’re reading to come to such wild opinions. For instance, name one contemporary document from Jesus’ time that refers to him. Better yet, name one person who wrote about meeting him, outside of the gospels. You can’t because no such documents or evidence exists. Since you insist that he existed, that he was magical and had special powers and rose from the dead, the Burden of Proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim. Please provide references. Simple inflammatory statements are baseless.

The Jesus Myth, as it is titled, is a contention that is absurd. I told you this is not a debate, however, so I won’t go into details as to why unless you really want to. I am convinced this man existed. Thus far, according to what I have studied, nothing points to this Jew not being real. I have read many arguments, most insisting that the documents that refer to him are forgery, but I have yet to see any of those claims to be backed by facts. Now, I realize that you did not just decide there was no Jesus without reason, so please, I encourage you to link me to any sources you may have that refute his living.

I think it’s time you explain in clear terms why the Jesus Myth is absurd. Making such claims without any kind of backup is groundless. You have a belief that jesus existed because you were indoctrinated into the mindset. You then look for evidence to support that belief and discard any and all history or science that may threaten such an idea. I have already linked you to a great article that spells things out clearly and concisely, with references. I also recommend reading Bart Ehrman. Here is his Wikipedia page as well.

The plagarism argument honestly should be dead. There are so many flaws in it, such as overexagerrations that it’s ridiculous people keep using it. Mithras I’ve heard much about. I looked that Persian God up and found that Mithraism itself, one of those called a “mystery religion”, was not established until well after Jesus’s death, so it had no real influence on Christianity. Osiris, another one cited for the copycat theory, has similar characterisitics to Jesus, however it’s a stretch to make the connections many atheists have tried to make. His resurrection was not anything like Jesus’s, in fact, it was more a zombification then anything else. While it was true he was restored by Isis, he was brought back to govern over the netherworld, not brought back to life on earth as Jesus was. Oh, and might I add this was only after his chopped up 14 body pieces were collected? Hardly sounds like he “rose from the dead” to me. I can go on about the other dieties he was compared to, but really, it seems pointless. I cannot even regard such an accusation like that as plausible anymore.

Again, your lack of documentation or references makes for a groundless argument. You provide zero resources, yet you attack everything that doesn’t agree with your presuppositions. Thomas Kuhn said in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, “The man who rejects one hypothesis without simultaneously proposing an alternative is rejecting science itself. He will be known to his colleagues as the carpenter who blames his tools.”

Or how about Horus from Egyptian mythology? This is a handy chart for easy comparison.

Ahh, I see, so it is speculated Jesus (THE JEW, emphasized because HAHA I KNEW THIS-okay, done acting childish now) was versed in the Old Testament writings. This is why you believe that the laws he spoke of where of those there. This is brand new information to me so I thank you for it. However, Jesus’s teachings were so contradictory to the Old Testament laws that I cannot help but doubt that is the case. From my perspective, Jesus may have been taught these laws, but that does not mean he agreed with them, do you understand? If the Bible is written by man, that makes it flawed, God more then likely sent his son for clarification on what is sinful and what just. In what you quoted, he says that he has not come to abolish the old laws so assuming that what you said is true he is establishing that although he may challenge them they continue to hold authority? Since he spoke of Moses then I will agree the Ten Commandments are valid, but all else does not fit with his lessons. In that way, I believe I can still be right.

So you like the 10 commandments, but which set? The first batch, which is never called commandments, or the second? Notice they are different. Which do you follow? I guess the second set would make more sense since it’s later and god obviously changed his mind. Why then does everyone know the first batch and not the second? If they are still relevant even after Jesus, why wasn’t god clear which batch was the right one?

Oh, as for the wise man, it still never specifically says “THREE WISEMAN.” That is what general comparison is often made and that was what I was explaining to you. The Bible never said how many attended Jesus’s birth so to try and make that connection is ridiculous. That is a wrong idea that was accepted into the media and so that is why you see it in pictures, figurine scenes, etc.

~ At the end of the email I added:

~Thanks again to everyone who commented with such helpful information. GMNightmare, Antimattr, Brigno, Jenny and Johnny, you are really awesome. I hope I did justice to your points above. I just sent the email off. Let’s see if she replies.

Let’s Stop Pussyfooting Around

Neece — Sat, 23 May 2009 03:32:13 +0000

The other day I did a post called Here We Go Again…. A christian had come by HDC and offered to have a bit of discourse so I posted what he had said and replied accordingly. Apparently there were quite a few comments, some of which got a bit heated and unpleasant. But a few questions were asked in amongst all the angry exchanges that I thought I’d address directly.

Sometimes I know I can be a bit vague about where I stand on issues, mainly because I don’t want to offend anyone. I like to be happy and make others happy. But I think at a certain point, honesty really is more important than a bit of bruised ego. So let’s stop pussyfooting around and I’ll lay my cards on the table. I am not trying to offend anyone. I’m just being honest.

It was noticed that I don’t ever capitalize god. Why should I when there is no such thing? I capitalize Jesus when I feel we’re talking about a person, even though I don’t believe Jesus existed. I capitalize Rome because it’s a place. But I don’t capitalize god because it’s a concept, not a reality. There is no god, hence no need to make it a pronoun. When referring to yahweh or jehovah, also not real… no reason to make them pronouns either.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, on the other hand, is completely real, bless her holy hooves. LOL… sorry.. trying to lighten the mood.

In that vein, Michael Mock in the comments referred to god as G-d. I find the whole g-d thing irritating because it is done out of deference for the christian god, even fear. That’s why it bothers me. Because it’s silly. Your god can spell, after all. So whether you stick that “o” in there or not means nothing. It’s simply a sign of fear for a god who seems cruel and arbitrary if something like writing out the word god, all three letters, is bad.

There was also a good discussion about indoctrination. I agreed with Steve that people adopt the detergent/ political party/ religion and eating habits of their parents and community.

Religion by its nature is done through indoctrination. And here I’ll say it. I think religion is inherently evil. I think indoctrination of any sort, whether for religious reasons or for simple manipulation is also evil. It assumes that the person being indoctrinated has no free will and gets no say in what they are forced to learn to believe. It’s evil.
I think that picking a detergent is based on parents and society too, but that’s not indoctrination as much as intellectual laziness if you never try anything but what your mother used. Same with what you eat. If as an adult you only ever eat the same meals that your parents cooked for you when you were little, that’s lazy. Try new things, experiment. Especially if she made you eat liver and onions because she thought liver was good for you. You don’t like it but you still eat it because you never bothered to think about it. That’s crazy. That’s not indoctrination though.

And in my view, indoctrination leads to faith. Just to make that clear. Faith is belief in god or the teachings of a religion. It needs no proof or evidence. I feel that if you have faith in a god, then you have been indoctrinated into the religion of that god. Plain and simple.

Sometimes people will go against their indoctrination. Look at me. I was indoctrinated into the christian religion. I gave it all up and am now a happy atheist. It’s more common to stay in lockstep with your family and your community than to wander outside the limits of the lies you were told.

Michael Mock keeps talking about the difference between christianity and other religions, as well as different brands of christianity. Perhaps he could make it clear where he’s coming from. What are you talking about, specifically? I think we’re all pretty clear that every church has its own brand of christianity, or islam or whatever. There are methodist churches, protestant, catholic, pentacostal, etc. Do we need to be specific every time we refer to christianity? I don’t think so.

When I speak of religion, I speak against it as a whole. Sure, there are small little churches that actually help the community. But those small little churches that do good are run by a thoughtful and kind person who would have been good even without religion. But all in all, the evil of religion is pervasive. It crushes the human spirit and turns people into mindless sheep.

In the case of the fathers and priests and pastors, it turns them into wolves in sheep’s clothing in most circumstances. They act like fathers and role models, all while never letting their “children” grow up and be full human beings. No one has to be responsible. No one has to think for themselves. It’s abhorrent to the natural human endeavor to advance and grow. Not to mention the politics, corruption and abuse that has always been associated with the catholic church, especially.

Perhaps you find my statements unwarranted and you see them as harsh and disrespectful assumptions, but I make them with a clear mind. I am not going to cull the news and history books to validate every single word I write. Read the news for yourself. Read history for yourself. See the evils of the different brands of religion throughout history and even today.

Of course you might interpret it all differently. That’s only natural. But I can not and will not sugar coat reality just to make people feel better on this blog. I think that is intellectually dishonest and completely unhealthy.

When you wrap yourself in faith and fairy tales and refuse to listen to reason, or look at science, then yes, you are intellectually lazy and gullible. There’s no nice way to say that. I don’t believe in being politically correct because all it does is make us weaker and more sensitive. Just look at how uptight and sensitive people are about every little supposed slight or utterance. It’s disgusting. I won’t play that stupid game on my blog or in my life.

Sure, sometimes I’ll be nice and not say anything at easter dinner to offend my hosts. But that’s out of respect for their hospitality, not respect for the insane lies spouting forth from the host’s mother.

If I get something wrong and someone corrects me, I apologize and make amends. If I make an assumption about you based on your actions, well, mistakes happen. Again, I will apologize. I don’t always have to be right. I never proclaimed to be perfect.

Steve brought up a great idea about why religion originally came about in the first place. He suggested that it’s to explain “why”, to explain the world when we only had questions and fears with no answers. (I added the second bit because I agree.) So religion isn’t wired into the species, asking “why” is in our very nature. Steve further notes that gods are formed in the image of the people and their culture. Again, I agree, because that is what seems to make sense to a people at the time. It answers the most questions.

Ok, I think that wraps up my small mention in the comment war. I hope it makes it clear where I stand with religion. Your comments and thoughts are most welcome, as always. Please, though, try not to attack each other personally. Use good argument techniques and avoid the dreaded ad hominems if you can help it.

Here We Go Again…

Neece — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:52:01 +0000

Forgive me if I sound less than over the moon about this. Another christian has volunteered to converse. His name is Ash. I’m just not getting my hopes up. He left a comment the other day which I’ll share with you below:

Here is Ash’s comment:

Hello, I was led to your blog from de-conversion.com and wanted to share my thoughts. I’m a Christian who grew up going to church and then stopped believing for about seven years, and was led back to Christ just in the past few months.

“it took scientists to do careful experiments, then to share those results, then have them verified and checked, and have other scientists to do the same experiments before the law of gravity was considered more or less a given.”

Sounds about right. I am an artist, but I have a pretty good understanding of the scientific process, having taken classes in high school and GE’s in college. It definitely stimulates the mind, which is a great experience for most people. I have a little scientist in me as well who loves to experiment and observe the world in the spirit of trial and error. We’ve all learned to trust in evidence.

Art is different because it’s more of a bodily experience. There is a great amount of thinking that goes behind art, but the actual experience has more to do with the body: producing with the hands, consuming with the eyes. It’s more about the feeling and less about the thinking. Often we can’t pinpoint exactly why we love a work of art- I know that for me I’d rather just listen to a song I love in the time that I could spend analyzing it.

And then there’s the spirit. I believe that to pursue God, whether you knew him in the past or not, you need to be willing to let go of your dependence on proof. I think the reason art/literature/music is mainly seen as a break from work is because that’s when you can sit back relax, and stop thinking. I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t need the occasional break from mental stimulation. The thing with Spirit is, you can’t look at God (objectively or subjectively) without thinking. I really don’t think it’s possible. But spirit is missing that essential element of proof that scientists live by. Instead of proof, we are asked to trust in faith.

If human beings can accept both art and science despite their natural differences, I believe they can also accept the concept of faith, if they really want to. I myself am still getting used to the feeling of having this faith, since I lived without it for so long.

I agree that you can be happy without God. But there is a different kind of joy in believing in God that I find completely amazing. The desire to share this joy is really so overwhelming, and that’s the reason why we Christians can’t leave you guys alone, even if we have the utmost respect for you.

If you’re interested at all I would really love to trade ideas over email and share our experiences. If not, I can only pray that you’ll always keep an eye out for God, and that my ultra long ramble made at least a microscopic drop of sense.

I have been busy since he commented so I hadn’t replied. But apparently he got the interest of 2 people who I will quote below in all their splendor. I’ll intersperse my comments within as usual. If you want you can click above and read the original comment and replies in context.

James replied:

“you need to be willing to let go of your dependence on proof”

Checkmate. You’ve clearly got nothing to add to any thoughtful or rational discussion if that is your major selling point.

Neece says: I have a video that addresses this exact topic. I will post it at the bottom. In the meantime let’s look at the definition of faith:

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in god and a trusting acceptance of god’s will.

I disagree with the second definition. Faith is not a virtue, it’s a crutch, a weakness. You believe what you are indoctrinated to believe without any kind of evidence or proof. That’s gullibility, not something to be proud of. I’ll stick to science, thank you very much.

By the way, it sounds like the side effects of your god experience are similar to what I’ve blogged about before. It’s called Transcendence. It’s when the right parietal lobe of the brain shuts down. It’s not god, it’s just your brain shutting part of itself down.

Personally my life is quite happy without believing in bronze and iron age fairy tales. I’m not trying to be rude, but that’s what they are. I really do not understand why you feel the need to convert others. If you want to have your own beliefs I’m OK with that. I don’t try to deconvert anyone. Just leave me and my rights alone. It’s when christians insist on foisting their beliefs and false morals onto me that I get very irritated. I have yet to meet a christian who shows any kind of respect to me if I tell him I’m an atheist. If anything I get anger, abusive attacks, threats, insults or lies. My experience with respect from christians is lacking. I’m not sure where you get that. Maybe that’s your personal experience.

You have faith in the christian god, but why is that? Why not believe in Zeus or Odin or Allah? Because you were indoctrinated into christianity. Your societal exposure around you is christian and you take comfort in that. But that only makes it a cultural brainwashing, not a reality.

You’re also saying that science is different than art. Then that science is different than god? Or art is like god, neither need any kind of logic or sense or evidence? First I’d say that science and art have one thing in common. They both follow the laws of science and physics. Your god does not. (miracles, the dead rising, talking snakes, creation in 7 days). Why does the bible and your god get to break the laws of physics? That would be special pleading, wouldn’t it? I don’t buy it.

Your ramble makes sense in context. You are a christian and this is what you believe. But it doesn’t encourage me to change teams in even the slightest way. We can converse by email if you would like. But the same rules apply. See here for a list. Plus I’d like to carry the conversation to HDC here. I think we all benefit from the dialogue.

Ash retorted:

Assuming of course that nothing in life can exist without scientific proof. The evidence of love is not in the theories of the human body/psyche but in the act of loving. Love can never be a controlled experiment because it is unique to individual experience, yet everyone has the potential to know love. I believe God is the same way.

And James riposted: (sorry, running out of synonyms)

I didn’t say that nothing can exist in life without scientific proof. It is a question of epistemology – what we can claim to know with some semblance of certainty. Love is not like God. Love is a subjective human emotion. A label that we assign to certain feelings and behaviors that are common to all of us and thus easily understood. God is allegedly a being that exists apart from any of us and apart from anything around us.

Neece here again. I think I’ll leave that as it stands. I agree with James.

Then Michael Mock swooped in to quip:

Ash said: “I believe that to pursue God, whether you knew him in the past or not, you need to be willing to let go of your dependence on proof.”

This is interesting to me, because you also said: “I’m a Christian who grew up going to church and then stopped believing for about seven years, and was led back to Christ just in the past few months.”

So, are you actually a Christian? Or merely a Deist? What, in your personal experience of G-d, led you to choose that particular mythos (that Jesus, who is somehow both G-d and the Son of G-d, died on the cross to obtain forgiveness for our sins) to describe your experience of the divine?

I guess what I’m getting at is that it’s really easy to confuse belief in G-d with Christianity – at least here in North America, where Christianity is so prevalent as to saturate the mainstream culture, and where other religions are less common and rather more difficult to find/notice.

So… Belief in G-d gives you a unique joy. That’s fine, at least for me; I’m perfectly willing to accept subjective personal experience as a basis for faith. But why are you a Christian in particular?

Editied to add: My reason for quoting you on the need to let go of dependence on proof is that an awful lot of Christians seem to treat the Bible as proof of G-d’s existence – and more, as the authoritative description of the nature of the divine. This seems to me a bit limiting, given that we’re talking about a being who is supposed to be Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent.

Michael Mock
who doesn’t mind e-mails
but would rather have the conversation here

Neece here again: First, I have to say, I find referring to god as G-d to be strange and exceedingly irritating. What purpose does it fulfill? Here’s a story for you. I was helping a person move. We got everything into the new house and were sitting on the floor amongst the stacks when a friend said, “Now where are the n-i-g-g-e-r-s to unpack everything?” (she was totally kidding, by the way.) But I laughed at her because she’s very religious and it seemed completely ludicrous for her to be spelling out racist bad words. I said to her, “god can spell, you know!” That ended that conversation! LOL

Anyway, it seems silly to be afraid to type an o in the middle of a word, even if it is the nickname of the invisible sky daddy that can make you burn in hell for all eternity along with us heathens.

Michael, obviously you’re a christian. But why give another christian such a hard time? Why do christians do that? Why do you all attack each other so much? No one is the right kind of believer just like you. No one worships right like you do. That just seems crazy to me.

The other day I went to an atheist group meeting. Of course we all had widely divergent ideas and philosophies but we were all dogma-free and god-free. So for 2 hours we had a great time talking and enjoying each others’ company. Why do christians constantly say “that person isn’t a good christian. They go to the wrong church, or practice christianity wrong.” It makes no sense whatsoever. All it does is make me think of Occam’s Razor. If things continue to get more divergent, you have to wonder if they were ever right to begin with.

Michael, the bible cannot be quoted as evidence of god. That would be circular logic which by its definition proves nothing. There is no evidence of god at all, and there never has been. What is your evidence for god then?

Oh, and faith by its nature needs no proof at all, just to be clear. That makes it completely baseless in reality though too. And shows someone as gullible and intellectually lazy.

Here’s a video I found through Facebook. It’s 5:50 min and sums up how to look at religion and science in an amusing way. It’s titled Religion is Retarded, but try to see what he’s saying. It’s good stuff:

Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy

Neece — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:51:09 +0000

Remember Craig the christian from last month? He emailed me yesterday about the recent post I wrote: Cherry-Picking and a bible Lesson for Atheists. I’ll quote his email and then post my replies.

Craig said: I do not have a problem with your use of the Skeptic’s Bible per se. The issue I have with the Skeptic’s Bible is the use of the King James Bible, which relies on later documents for its translation (8th and 9th century if I remember correctly) as opposed to the 1st and 2nd century documents other translations use (NRSV & NET to name a few).

Neece’s reply:
If you know of a more accurate interpretation of the bible that I can link to online and read online, can you link me? Otherwise I’ll stick to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Because it’s the one people know best, and it’s the one I was indoctrinated with, and it honestly shouldn’t matter that much for the following reasons below.

Craig said: Unchecked, the Bible can be made to mean a number of things. The Bible has been used to support slavery and patriarchy. It has also been used to try to define marriage and condemn homosexuality. I’m sure we will get into these matters at a different time. My point is, that the Bible does none of these.
There are three different courses of action on can take when interpreting tricky passages from the Bible
1. Cherry-pick from the texts
2. Ignore difficult texts
3. Admit that we don’t know what the text means and hope that future research will shed light on the meaning.

(Neece’s note: Craig thoughtfully included commentary regarding the quotes I chose in the bible lesson for atheists from April 7th, but I am omitting them here. If you’d like me to include them, comment below and I’ll add them to the bottom of this post.) Instead of getting tangled in the apologetic thinking of the commentary, I said this:

Neece’s reply:
Regarding the bible verses and their interpretation, I think that the word of god should be infallible and shouldn’t be ruined and easily misinterpreted by man. It should be the same in every language, and should be offered to every culture in their own tongue, by god himself, if it should even be necessary at all. Why can’t god make it so that we’re born with an inherent understanding of our creator? Why did this local god play a prominent role in the lives of the Israelites, who ordered the killing and maiming, the torture and deaths of women and children, as well as people who made the slightest error in their worship of that god says a lot to me. The sheer barbarity of the bible is telling. It certainly doesn’t read as a divinely inspired text of love and understanding. It is conflicting at almost every turn, it’s barbaric and cruel and unjust, just like the people of that time.
Why only preach to the men of the Middle East and make those few men tell the rest of the world? It is so easily warped and interpreted to suit anyone and everyone, whether for good or ill. It was written by men from many different walks of life, and many different political eras, over a huge range of time. The stories are all stolen from more ancient religions, and not much of it is original, which is quite telling as well. It all leads to a text that, in its original form, is relevant historically, but certainly doesn’t appear to be divinely inspired.
If god existed, and cared about humans, the bible wouldn’t be easily misinterpreted and would not contradict itself in any way. The message would be simple and clear and probably quite concise.

What you said is the exact opposite of what I think about the bible. What do you mean by the statement that the bible does not support slavery and patriarchy, that it doesn’t define marriage and condemn homosexuality? That is exactly what it does. Sometimes by different authors in different books, sometimes with a different message, but often the same statement of hatefulness as the others.

It says those things plainly in some cases, and in other contexts it’s more a part of a story. But usually it’s pretty plain and blatant what it means. So what do you mean that the bible doesn’t do that? What does the bible do, then? What is its purpose and what is its message? What does the bible do? What is its moral stance? I ask because I was assuming a more direct interpretation of the text, and now I am not sure where you’re coming from.

Next, Craig quoted me from the Cherry-Picking article. I said: “Hey, if I am smart enough to realize that, don’t you think an all powerful god would figure it out too? Maybe it’s because he was just all made up and not really there. That would be the simplest and most logical explanation. Especially since there is zero evidence of yahweh or any other god ever having existed in any fashion.”

Craig said: I debated how I was going to respond to this because I don’t want to come off harsh or sound like an arrogant ass. In fact, I was very hesitant to respond in this way, but I really can’t see any way around it. It’s taken me about four days to get it to this point. So please keep that in mind as you read on.

Zero evidence does not equate non-existence. Saying that something does not exist because there is no evidence is a logical fallacy, the fallacy of negative evidence, or more specifically the argument from ignorance. I pulled this from Wikipedia:

“The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.”

I will concede that this same fallacy can be applied to Christians because it can be said that we make claims that there is a God when there is a lack of evidence.

First, I don’t think Craig sounded like an arrogant ass. I forgot to tell him that in my reply.

Neece’s reply:
Zero evidence does not equate to non-existence. That’s true.

Claiming that a supernatural being in the sky is the creator of the universe and only started talking to men in the middle east about 6,000 years ago, and simply ignored all other humans before and since is pretty extraordinary. Not to mention virgin births, talking snakes, rising from the dead, etc. It’s all pretty magical.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If evidence came along that was convincing and extraordinary, after it was verified and retested, I’d reconsider my position on the existence of god. But since I’ve yet to come across any evidence, then the burden of proof is on you to show and verify the existence of god.

If I say I am the best bread baker in the world, I’d better be prepared to back that claim up. You come along and say you don’t believe me. That’s your prerogative because there’s been no evidence for my claim. So why should you believe me for no reason? That’s faith, which is based on belief without proof.

If I say the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) visits me every other Tuesday if it’s raining, then I had better be able to show the IPU in all her glory off to a bank of scientists who want to verify her existence. There’s no difference. I’m sure you don’t believe in the IPU. Would you say that is an argument from ignorance, too?

Neither one of us believes in Santa Claus anymore (I hope) and that isn’t an argument from ignorance. There’s no evidence of Santa and no proof of his existence, not to mention his very existence would break the laws of physics. So we can say we don’t believe in him without argument. That isn’t a fallacy.

Now, if Santa walked into the room and offered to prove his existence to us and show that he can fly in his sleigh and deliver tons of presents to good christian boys and girls all over the world, I’d be skeptical, but I wouldn’t stop him from doing the tests.

Skepticism is about holding off judgment, being doubtful and thinking critically. We want proof of wild claims, instead of ignorantly believing everything that is told to us.
Skepticism doesn’t mean we flat out deny everything and don’t believe anything. There’s a huge difference.

There IS ZERO evidence for yahweh or any other god in history having existed in any fashion. And since yahweh makes some huge claims, just like I’d require extraordinary evidence for cold fusion, I’d want it for yahweh. No evidence? Well, I see your point, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist, but the burden of proof lies on the claimant. You claim there is a god, so you have to prove it. I can’t prove a negative. So I am left with lack of belief in a god.

That’s not to say that I can’t change my mind if there was proof and evidence and it all followed testing and the scientific method, which is the best way to verify claims that we have. Until then, you don’t believe in leprechauns any more than I do, and that’s not an argument from ignorance any more than my lack of belief in gods.

Heaving Dead Cats » Proof

Atheism at a glance- BBC Style

Related posts

I Have 2 Dogs, But Neither Is god. I’m Sure.

Related posts

Conversations With christians – Beth 5 – Around Again!

Related posts

Conversations With christians – Beth 4a – With A Little Help From My Friends

Related posts

Let’s Stop Pussyfooting Around

Related posts

Here We Go Again…

Related posts

Conversations With Craig The Christian 2 – Biblical Interpretations and A Logical Fallacy

Related posts