I Should Believe In God? Okay, Help me Pick One! (Enjoy!!)

Here's an incomplete list of gods proposed at one point or another throughout history. Please help me decide which one I should be following. For the sake of brevity (lol) Yahweh and Allah (same god anyways, no?) have been left out.

Agdistis or Angdistis

Ah Puch

Ahura Mazda

Alberich

Fuck Ray Comfort. No Seriously, Fuck Him.

Ray Comfort Week continues, but this time there's nothing but insults. I'm mad as hell atm, and I'm venting. I've been watching some Ray Comfort videos and reading some stuff and I'm fucking ready to blow.

Ray Comfort Week Continues!! Comfort PWND?

I am not sure if pointing out simple logical deductions to a retard (sorry) is considered pwning as much as it is beating up on a hapless retard (sorry again), but this hapless retard (sorry, really) is manipulating people into believing lies, making them feel guilty for being human, and making big money off of doing so, so fuck it, it's a pwning.

So, on to what I will, perhaps tentatively (you decide!) call Ray Comfort being PWND.

New Video

Based on This Post:

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes Part Deux

It's sequel time, baby! This is a sequel to This Blog which was entitled Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes. So, let's gear up, and take on some more Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason. *Whew!!* Try saying that 5 times fast.

In Defense of The Anthropic Principle

As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle the anthropic principle is the idea that the observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the life observed in it. The principle was formulated in response to the fine tuning/argument from design type arguments, which assert that the universe seems to have been created just for us, as all of the natural laws, and all physical constants contained therein, are conducive to life. The anthropic principle basically counters this contention with a well, duh. Of course it's all conducive to life. If it wasn't, we would not be here to make such observations. You cannot observe conditions of a given universe of you do not exist.

Draw Muhammad Day: A Post Hoc Analysis

Note: This is an older post that I had sitting around in draft form. Excuse the slightly belated timing.

Here's a barely literate post from a jackass I unfortunately have to deal with on occasion on an internet forum speaking about Draw Muhammad Day:

I am all for freedom of speech, whether it will insult billions of people or not, since i can tolerate it. i, along with billions others are not stupid enough to start threatening people over it or send death threats over it or even kill a few of it. because we Muslims werent TAUGHT to react like that. but the moment some of you start taking the piss out of us INNOCENT people just because of a bunch of minority dumbasses, then its clearly obvious, that whatever shit your doing, was simply not gonna work. coz like i have been saying all along: you can express freedom of speech, but insulting people is not the RIGHT and FAIR way to do it.

Now, this is the type of sentiment I have seen expressed quite a bit since all of this has come to light. People who claim to be all for free speech (before adding conditions to it; cleary they don't actually grasp the concept of 'free,' but I digress) stating that Draw Muhhamad Day is not an exercise in free speech but rather a day meant to do nothing but insult and enrage.

These people have missed the point entirely.

Granted, I do concede that for many, Draw Muhhamad Day, or DMD, as I will refer to it going forward, was an excuse to insult and enrage. But for the rest, DMD represented exactly what it was purported to: a day dedicated to free speech and the exercise thereof. Well, that, and more. Much more.

See, the people making these sort of claims with respect to DMD don't seem to grasp the other point of the day at all. The day was dedicated to the exercise of free speech, yes, but also, and perhaps just as (even more?) importantly, it was dedicated to consciousness raising, to borrow from Dawkins. The message needed to be sent and reinforced: Non Islamic people do NOT live by Islamic law. We are not bound by it, we do not recognize it, and we are not duty bound to heap upon it any reverence or respect. In fact, we're free to admonish it and heap disdain and insults upon it and its followers if we so desire. The point is, no matter how far one does (or does not) take it, the message was that YOU say drawing this man is verboten. Okay, fine. That applies to you, but you do NOT get to dictate to the rest of the world what we can and cannot do.

They do not consider themselves bound by Christian or Hindu laws, correct? What makes them think an atheist or  a Christian would be bound by the laws of their religion? The point was to drive home this very, well, point (awkward phrasing FTL). Basically, DMD was supposed to:

1. Drive home the idea that we are not bound by Islamic law. 
2. Demonstrate how silly it is to be mortally offended by a drawing. It's completely silly.
3. Exercise our free speech and show those who would like to take it away that we will not allow them to do so. 
4. Show people that free speech means free speech. Free speech is only free if it is not restricted, and so, if you must reign in or attenuate your speech in any way, then it's not free. Sure, self censorship is fine, and perhaps even ideal at times, but note the preface: Self. Being FORCED to censor oneself violates the very idea of free speech.
5. To show all religious practitioners that the days of religion getting a free pass are numbered. Any and all ideas should be up for scrutiny, and any and all religious commands are apt to be disregarded, especially by those who aren't in the religion to begin with.  

I'm not advocating that anyone go out of their way to insult a large group of people. At the same time though, sometimes the end justifies the means, and if we must offend a group of people en route to making an important point, then so be it. And, frankly (here comes the insulting part) if a bunch of adults are going to get offended at a stick figure drawing with a man's name above it, they seriously, seriously need to step back and re-evaluate things. They're nothing but irrational, emotive, reactionary morons at that point, especially if they think a death threat is warranted.

And to think the whole ban on drawings came out of the concept of idolatry (yes, just like xianity). How the hell does anyone think idolatry is relevant to someone who disbelieves in god in the first place?

Talk about irrational belief......

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Forum Quotes Pt. 1

It's sequel time, baby! This is a sequel to This Blog which was entitled Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes.  So, let's gear up, and take on some more Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason. *Whew!!* Try saying that 5 times fast.

God probably got rid of the fossils of those evil giants & the rest of the people that didn't listen to Noah's warning.

But nothing is impossible to God, he can do anything he wants with all his power & wisdom even on specific situations.

Everything needs a start & process in order to appear & continue operating (with the exception of Jehovah cause he always existed and is the Almighty

It wasn't magic it was power. God doesn't use magic.

things that exist in the whole universe. That's all the evidence we need as Christians.

But when was the last time that you read about mankind's extinction caused by volcanoes?

God shrunk all the animals

In response to "So every single human being on the planet sinned enough to deserve eradication? Even infants, small children who haven't done anything whatsoever? Wow, that's one benevolent god!":

Yes. The small children were too busy being sacrificed, raped, or traumatized to do much sinning, though. They would have grown up to be horrible.

(man, the lengths these guys will go. The cognitive dissonance must give them migraines at times)

And now, amidst all of this rampant idiocy and hilarity, I close this particular edition (oh ya, more are coming. PLENTY more, actually. I have so much material just from the same topic.....yes, all of these in this edition were from 1 single forum thread) with this absolute doozy. Is it the worst of the worst? You decide. Like Faux News says, We report, YOU decide. Although, I must draw a line of differentiation between myself and Faux News, as the following statement is not misquoted or misrepresented in any way. Here goes nothing:

Someone made this statement (still talking about the Noah's Ark story): You are also aware, that 2 animals are not enough to start a race, right? It would led to horrific genetic deformities over the generations- no one species can start from just 2 animals. And the response from some moron:

How do you know that those species needed either salty or fresh water?

Since "evolution is a fact", if the salinity of water back then was less than it is now, the fish in the water back then were able to survive in it, otherwise we wouldn't have any fish today.

There's a reason the story is called NOAH'S ark. It's because it's about Noah and his ark. It's not even about plants or aquatic creatures. If God took care of 8 people and some animals, what makes you think he didn't take care of the aquatic life and plants?

Well, I'm sure God found a way to do it. Nothing is impossible for him.

Water produces oxygen & hydrogen. Enough to breath and help them to survive as well.

That's where faith comes into play. It does stand to reason that the deformities wouldn't have been all that bad, considering the planet was only...two thousand years old or something.

WOW. Just fucking WOW.

Oh, and here's a pic to sum up this awesome forum topic (which is going to provide comedy gold for a few more blogs, amazongly):

Online BS in Religion!! LMAO!

Want to be a minister? Get yourself an online BS in religion from Liberty U and prepare yourself for a life in the ministry!!!!

This is way too funny, even in just a light hearted sort of way. I mean, really, even a devout theist should be able to chuckle at this.

On the Impossibility of the Noah's Ark Tale

Noah's Ark. The fable of a 600 or so year old man taking two of every species of non human animal, placing them on a giant wooden boat which he built, and surviving a global flood perpetuated by an angry, omniscient (wait, but if he's omnisc- I know, I know.....just forget it) aboard this giant ship. A silly tale that the majority of Christians have had to admit could never have happened. Yet, and maybe you have to admire their tenacity, there are still those who cling tight to this tale like Noah clinging tight to the sides of his ship as it rocked violently in the ravaging waters that covered the entire (flat, according to the Bible, the greatest science book of all time) Earth.

Guess what people?

It could never have happened.

There are a multitiude of reasons why this is so, and we've all heard several of them. I'm sure most, if not all of those who believe that this tale is literally true or at least profess to) have heard several of them. They probably have a fair amount of practice defending the story against these claims. Hell, Noah's Ark apologist could probably qualify as being resume worthy for some of these people.

Well, get ready to sharpen your apologist skills, because I've got more for ya'!

Now, before I get to the meat of this, let me quickly run through some of the most common, classic arguments as to why this story could not possibly have happened.

• No one could live to be almost a thousand years old. It's not possible.
• There's no way a wooden boat of that size would have been built (by one guy!!), let alone functional.
• How, exactly, did he acquire two of every species, from all across the Earth?
• How did these species survive? What did they eat? What did the carnivores eat? The anteaters?
• What about the climactic requirements these animals had (have)? There are some species that require 100% (or near 100%) humidity to survive (cave dwellers).
• Not a single one of these animals, insects, etc died aboard this ship?

And so on, and so forth.

That alone should suffice, really. I mean, come on, my 18 month old daughter wouldn't buy this shit. But no, I must press onwards.....dare I say, atheist soldier? (oh take a joke).


Fine, let's kick this into overdrive.

1. Everything alive would have suffocated. How could they breathe with all of the plants on earth dead?
2. There's not enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth up to the highest mountain peaks.
3. The ice caps would not exist in their current form, as there would not have been enough time for them to form in this climate. They would have to form, as the buoyancy of the water would have floated the polar caps off their beds and caused them to break apart. The climate in the last 5000 years has been too warm for the ice caps to have reformed to their current size and density.
4. If the entire Earth flooded, that would mean that salt and freshwater mixed together. This would have resulted in the salination of ALL the water on Earth. There are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED fresh water to survive, and there are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED salt water to survive. This would have resulted in catastrophe for plants, coral reef and fish. These are mutually exclusive inhabitants. They wouldn't survive in a planet with consisted of nothing but salinated water.
5. Absolutely no evidence of a flood in tree ring data.
6. Unequal mountain erosion? How?
7. Ice cores from Greenland contain no layer of sediments, which you would have seen if the entire planet had been flooded. The salinity levels never changed.
8. Egyptian civilization was in full swing during this time, building pyramids, living life. No great extinction, and not one mention of a global flood. Huh.
9. So, since all of the plants would have died due to being flooded with salinated water (not that the salinity actually matters, being flooded with water alone would do it), aside from the suffocation issue, how exactly did the herbivores survive once the flood was over? What did they eat?

Don't trust science? Okay........How about Genesis itself?

Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood. How, in 110-150 years, did the human population grow large enough to build this tower.....and an entire city around it?

And of course, in addition to this, there needed to be enough people to build the aforementioned Pyramids,  and populate the rest of the world, which we know had people spread out far and wide, due to historical records.

You can be a Christian all you want, but at least have the courage to admit that the Noah's Ark tale is just that. A tale, and a laughable one at that. Hearing grown adults actually trying to posit that it actually transpired, and even coming up with such insipid apologist arguments such as the water canopy defense, as I call it, is frankly fucking sad and pathetic. They sound like 4 year olds.

Your Christianity doesn't make you sound ridiculous (at least not overly so). Your literal belief in every facet of the bible does. Stop denying reality and step just a tad bit forward into the light. It was called the Enlightenment for a reason.

Dare I say, Amen?

Atheism 101 (Resources for those New to the idea of Atheism)

Some of My Resources for People New to the Idea of Atheism

One of my very first posts here was entitled Atheism is a Religion? and The Burden of Proof.

I just went back made a few changes to that post. The new version can be seen here:

http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/01/atheism-is-religion-and-burden-of-proof.html

I have added a few things and fixed up a few trouble areas. I believe this post will be much more useful to anyone stubling across this blog who may be interested in atheism in any regard, but is new to the idea and quite unaware of the sort of Atheism 101 type concepts. I have added some things to this end, like an operational definition of atheism.

Also, for anyone who fits this description, you may also want to check out:

http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/02/youre-not-agnostic.html

and perhaps:

http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-are-atheists-so-angry.html

Thanks, and science bless ;)

Twenty Five New (Religious) Commandments. Like a New Ten Commandments, But Better! ) UPDATED)

UPDATE: Video released, see HERE if you so desire.

As I stated in a previous, related blog, The Lost Commandment? I was working on a new set of religious commandments. Basically, some rules/laws/commandments that I felt would be much more appropriate, if we are to assume we need them at all. I had come up with 5 in a matter of well, seconds, perhaps one minute, when I was hit by a thought and changed the idea of the blog from several new religious commandments to one supposedly lost one, which I stated that I hoped did exist and we'd one day locate (not really believing this, of course).

Well, I said at the end of that blog that I was going to finish off that initial list (it had been 5 in number that that time) and so, without further adieu (?) here are my list of ideal religious commandments, which, as I said in that blog, are of course modeled after (but not specifically aimed at...per se) the Ten Commandments (capitals for emphasis!)

These are in no particular order. A few of these are done in jest. It's good to joke around once in a while :) Also, assume these are in addition to those few useful religious commandments.

Psht, we can top that.

Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone based upon their sexual orientation, race, age, etc.

Thou shalt not work towards limiting the happiness of those whose actions you disagree with, if those actions are not harmful to others.

Thou shalt treat others as you wish to be treated, unless thoust art a masochist. If so, see the next command.

Thou shalt not treat others as you wish to be treated, if thoust art a masochist. Do the opposite.

Thou shalt not abuse neglect, or otherwise treat poorly non human animals. Do not adopt a pet if you cannot and will not provide a loving, stable, fulfilling environment for them.

Thou shalt not have numerous amounts of children for whom thoust cannot provide, financially, emotionally, or otherwise.

Thou shalt not neglect to consider societal and environmental impacts when contemplating having children.

Thou shalt not knowingly exploit others for financial or other gains.

Thou shalt enter into a marriage purely for monetary or other reasons not involving love if you so desire, but be honest about it. Nobody believes that you married a rich 89 year old for love, if you're a gorgeous 25 year old.

Thou shalt be intellectually honest in all of your intellectual endeavors, no matter how uncomfortable this maybe make you.

Thou shalt seek to question and challenge thy beliefs, including those theistic in nature.

Thou shalt not act contrary to these or any other moral or ethical teachings in the name of business.

Thou shalt not solicit those protected by the do not call list.

Thou shalt strive towards not teaching children known falsehoods, especially when the truth may lead to more beneficial outcomes, or lessened negative ones.

Thou shalt not murder another, with the exception of a self defense situation in which all other options are unfeasible.

Thou shalt not watch Fox News.

Thou shalt not seek to enforce your religious or cultural heritage upon others. Sharing it is welcomed, attempting to enforce it is not.

Thou shalt not proselytize to someone who has requested the cessation of such activities.

Thou shalt not use fear as a basis for said proselytization.

Thou shalt respect secularism as the only reasonable way to ensure as healthy a society as possible, unless every single member of said society belongs to the same religion and shares the exact same beliefs.

Thou shalt not deny your children medical care in favour of prayer or religious healing practices. Empirically validated treatments are the only recommended course of action for anyone, especially a dependant child.

Thou shalt watch The Young Turks, even if thoust doth not reside in the United States of America. 

Thou shalt not assume that this list is complete.

Thou shalt work towards effecting change in this very list, when both the means, and the societal imperative to do so, arise. If the state of societal health and individual liberty necessitates a change,

Thou shalt make that change!!!!

That's it for the new commandments, at least for now. If you have any of your own to add, please feel free to add some in the comment section. Also, feel free to criticize my choices. Keep in mind, this list was made up on the spot, and it is very liable to be revised (in fact, THAT'S ENCOURAGED!).

In all seriousness though, if you removed the ones done in jest, I'd say I'm on to something here, although I would certainly make some changes and some additions after some more thoughtful deliberation. And with the input of others, which can only serve to make this much stronger.

If I Was God....

Note: This one is pretty much directly aimed at this Yaweh character (and his followers)

Note 2: There is a video on this very subject located at the bottom of this post.

If I was god......

If I was god, I'd have done things a bit differently. Here's a list of some of the things I would do. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list. It's just to exemplify the type of things I'd be doing.

I'd make inanimate, non sentient meat grow on trees. so no species have to endure being eaten alive to provide sustenance for something else.

I'd make it so that the life I created is suitably built to withstand the environment I put them in. And if I did not (although I cannot foresee a reason why), I'd at least give them stuff to meet the environmental demands. I mean, what? The dude couldn't throw us a winter jacket? Do you send your kids out into the cold without a jacket? Make them hunt dangerous animals to make their own until they become smart enough to make coats in factories?

I'd design a world that doesn't have natural disasters, ever.

I would never have created things like cancer, polio, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, crohn's and ulcerative Colitis (things with which I am intimately familiar), ulcers, huntington's, asthma, angina, stroke, bursitis (have this as well), parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia (yes it's real), narcolepsy, depression, bipolar disorder, social anxiety disorder, birth defects like craniosynostosis (which I had) and probably one of the most horrible ones in existence, anencephaly (babies born without all or most of their brain, skull and scalp), which is pictured here:

(what the hell kind of perfect god allows THAT sort of shit to exist?)

I'd switch out pain for something else that warns you of danger but doesn't make you suffer. Or I'd make it so that pain shut off when it was no longer needed. Burn victims do not need to suffer for months on end. They are well aware of their injury and what not to do. Why do they need to suffer so?

I'd create people who adhere to the golden rule. Of course, this wouldn't apply to masochists. Actually that reminds me....

No masochists. And no sociopaths or psychopaths. Human brains wouldn't be such fickle things if they were of my creation. Yes, people would have freedom to develop as they will, but I would set some basic fucking parameters.

I wouldn't give two shits for what consenting adults do with their bodies.

I would not give people pervasive desires and then make it a no no to act on them.

I wouldn't expect to be worshipped. If I deserve it, respect me. Even love me, if you wish. No worship please. Maybe a few hugs from some pretty ladies, but that's it.

I wouldn't sit idly by and watch my children destroy one another and the environment I gave them to live in. We don't allow human parents to act in this manner, and I wouldn't expect you to allow me to do so either. Not that I would. A parent should guide their children and help them along the path of life, not remain hidden and silent with the only message being ''read my book.''

And, lastly, if I ever did get angry (a curiously human attribute), I wouldn't act out in a childlike way and throw tantrums involving hurricanes and earthquakes. I'd calm down and then approach my creation in a constructive manner, and broach the subject that ailed me. At most, I might raise my voice a few times a millenia. And for that I do apologize.

NOTE TO "GOD":

And if this stuff was caused by the so called fall of man, as you and your followers often say, well, you know what buddy? Perhaps you need to do what women have done for centuries: Lower your expectations. We didn't live up to your vision for us? Your creation failed you? Well, ignoring the fact that you are supposedly omniscient and would have seen this coming, you should lower your damn expectations and reduce your requirements. Lowering your standards makes a lot more sense than creating loopholes that include blood sacrifices, does it not? Especially given the fact that your loophole shenanigans still failed.

Sorry folks, but I think I would make a better god than this supposed god character. And no, I don't view myself as some sort of deity, demigod, or anything other than a fallible human being.

Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes

PREFACE: For anyone who came here expecting to find The Lost Commandment? on this page, I apologize, but I was inspired to write another blog post. You can easily find that blog by looking to the right and slightly down. It's right under blog archive. Or, you can just click this Link and get to it that way.

Okay, so the blog. Brilliantly Stupid And/Or Ironic Youtube Quotes sent my way by people trying to insult/own/'pwn'/denigrate/disparage or otherwise hurt me for whatever reason.

you are a beginner and I dont expect you to understand more complex intricacys that you'll miss


now...who is the dumby?


Also, those video clips you have are blasphemous and you should really take them down and repent before it's too late.

P.S. Your a fucking hippie. Wanna be friends?

i am an extra terrestrial, i come to earth to save mankind, i am appalled at the state of mankind and i am asking, no i am DEMANDING that you denounce your ways, and watch my video (it is my featured channel video, broadcasted from my craft) and you devote your lives to God

Creationism is a widely believed theory along with evolution. Not allowing it in discussions is wrong especially since many kids at that point would already believe it to be true.

Sarah Palin? She's not too bad. Probably not President material but she could be a Senator. She too is a victim of rabid attacks by the left as well.

so you don't like Palin I take it.



That's called God of the Gaps: "We don't know what happened, so God must have done it."


But what I'm doing is this: "Scientists don't know what happened from a naturalistic point of view, so here's an explanation that completely works and makes sense
atheists are more irrational than devout religious believers

He asked God what he could do better to serve him, and God literally said "You can preach," out loud

The God of the Bible wasn't invented to explain any natural phenomenon.

In response to: What happens when cosmology has an excellent, viable model for the origins of the universe(s). Then what?: Outside of the Big Bang, I don't anticipate this occurring.

  positing a creator is not only the only reasonable option available, it is better than merely positing a non answer, or a wild conjecture about multiverses. Not taking a stand on an issue as important as this is sheer folly.

And the absolute best thus far:
Jesus Christ, was that last one an exercise in doublethink, or what?

Islam is a religion of peace. It is something of beauty and Truth, not ugliness like apostasy and your dirty Atheism. I don't appreciate the content of your video, and if you were in front of me in person, I would do as I am commanded and strike you down for Allah. No one gets to spit in the face of Allah and Muhammad (s.a.w.) without retribution. You are taking advantage of the fact that we cannot get to you in person. At least, not yet. Keep insulting my beautiful and peaceful religion, and you might face judgement sooner than you smugly think, you disgusting atheist.
 
Peace be upon you.

EDIT: Part Two now available

The Lost Commandment?

Note: Follow Up: 25 New Religious Commandments Is Available!! (read after this)

I started this blog with the intent of creating a new list of religious commandments, modeled after of course (but not specifically aimed at...per se) the Ten Commandments (capitals for emphasis!) but I hit upon something in the course of doing so, and decided to revamp the concept. I now offer but one commandment, and, the optimist in me (yes, there is one....somewhere) is hoping against all hope that this in fact is a real (but lost) commandment, that we will one day stumble upon. Before I reveal this commandment, let me explain how I hit upon it.

I was coming up with new religious commandments, such as:

Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone based upon their sexual orientation, race, age, etc.


Thou shalt not work towards limiting the happiness of those whose actions you disagree with, if those actions are not harmful to others.

Thou shalt not abuse, neglect, or otherwise treat poorly non human animals. Do not adopt a pet if you cannot and will not provide a loving, stable, fulfilling environment for them.

Thou shalt not have numerous amounts of children for whom thoust cannot provide, financially, emotionally, or otherwise.


Thou shalt not neglect to consider societal and environmental impacts when contemplating having children.

when I wrote a caveat about revisionism into the list. And that's when it hit me.
 
Revision.
 
Perhaps the most important of all of the things left out of religious commandments. The idea that these lists should be revised when both the means, and the societal imperative to do so, arise. If the state of societal health and individual liberty necessitates a change,
 
Thou shall make that change!!!!
 
There is NO reason why ALL religions should not have built in safeguards for the changing moral zeitgeist. Well, apart from that supernaturally provided, absolute morality nonsense. That pesky little thing, that. Probably the single greatest barrier to true, healthy morality that religion has given us (gee, thanks, religion!).
 
If these religious texts, which issued moral commandments, all acknowledged that things change over time, and we must change our morality to crest the tide of these contemporary shifts, we'd be a lot better off, as I see it. 
 
Then again, we've seen changes despite (and often in spite of) these texts and religions, so perhpas, while a nice idea, this isn't imperative. Then again, it certainly could not hurt.  
 
NOTE: If anyone is interested, I will be blogging on the original idea behind this. So, those 5 'new' commandments posted here will see the light of day once again, accompanied by some friends. If you are interested in seeing what else I have in mind, check back. And, if you have any of your own to add, please feel free to add some in the comment section, either on this post or in that future one. Also, feel free to criticize my choices.

Descartes Walks Into a Bar.....

And the bartender asks him, "Evening sir, may I interest you in a drink?" to which Descartes relpies, "I think not." He then disappears.

By the way, if you don't get the joke, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

My latest blog post: http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/04/americans-for-prosperity-is-front-for.html

Also, my next blog post (or perhaps a post or two will come before it, but it's definitey upcoming!) will be a defence of the Anthropic Principle. See you then, Sephiroth ;)

Presuppositions, Frameworks, and Argumentation.

Video on this topic:


And yes, I was having a horrible hair day that day, sue me ;)

Okay, so I have been intermittently been thinking about this topic for some time. The thing of which I am speaking is debate on the subject of relgion. Now, while this could actually pertain to any subject, I would like to frame this within the context of religious discussion. Namely, that which takes place beteen believers and non believers.
So, believers and non believers have two completely different worldviews, or frameworks, from which their arguments on this subject are deployed. Each of these viewpoints, or frameworks, contain beliefs that are fundamentally subscribed to. They are presupposed. For example, the believer will pressupose the existence of god(s). Any discussion regarding religion always takes place with this presupposition in effect.

An atheist will pressupose things as well. For example, if I am to discuss evolution with someone, I absolutely enter the debate with the presupposition that evolution is a fact. Or, to tie in with the example I gave for the theist, an atheist will pressupose that certain arguments for the existence of a deity are false. Speaking for myself, I outright reject the TAG, cosmological, and teleological arguments for the existence of god, and thusly enter into any discussion about them with the idea in mind that they are insufficent/flawed/unacceptable.

So just what the fuck am I driving at here?

Well, presuppositions can change, although it is (notoriously) difficult. So my question is as follows:
Which do you think is the more effective method of argumentation? Working within people's given frameworks, and trying to change their mind on enough non pressuposed issues until one day the presuppositions themselves naturally come under scrutiny (or they are willing to actually consider them)

aka The Top Down Approach (as it was named by my friend and excellent Youtuber http://www.youtube.com/user/RelaxGodfolk

OR

Going right for the presuppositions, knowing that if you strike right at the heart of the matter and are successful, everything else will presumably fall in line?

aka The Bottom Up Approach (also named by my friend and excellent Youtuber http://www.youtube.com/user/RelaxGodfolk

To elucidate this, as an atheist, would you think I'd have more success refuting a theists' notions on several different particulars until their very belief in god comes into question, or going right for the presupposition, knowing that if I can remove the certainty, the rest will crumble the second the belief in god does?

This of course, as I stated, can be applied to anything. Politics is another big one. This does not have to be about religion.

One thing to add was something I stated in the video: Does the fact of whether or not the ideas that follow from the presuppositions are logically consistent/follow from the belief (aka not non sequitors) change the ideal approach? I would think that it does, in that, if Y follows from X, it might be more prudent to go right for X, since you will have a harder time attacking a position which is seemingly steeped in solid logic. And of course, the opposite would be true (in my view, of course). If Y does NOT follow from X, then it is easier to tackle Y. So, if Y and Z both do not logically follow from X, and you strip them away, X is more susceptible to scrutiny (aka the top down approach).

I would love to get some feedback on this, both from theists and atheists. I think this is an interesting topic than could benefit from anyone, on both sides of this debate. Actually, forget that context, anyone, period, in terms of ANY debate. Sometimes I get too steeped in the theist/atheist thing, but what can I say? It's the area of discussion with which I am most fascinated, opinionated, and well, according to a few people.....obsessed.

A Message to Catholics

Letter to a Christian Nation

Well, more like letter to a religious world, but that's not a particularly catchy title, is it?

;)

So, here is a short and simple, but important message from me to the religious:

If you follow what you believe to be a peaceful, loving religion, live as though that were true. Don't hate on or discriminate against gay people, atheists (or gay atheists....haha), people of a different religion, etc, and don't put up with a priest, preacher, pastor, imam, monk, family member or anyone else pushing those types of ideas. Call them out on it. Challenge them. Don't provide cover for them because you share their religion. Make it difficult and uncomfortable for them to hold (and especially promote) such views. Don't give them a free pass because you're of the same religious belief.

The same way I don't tolerate bigotry from my atheistic brethren, you should do the same. When people like Pat Robertson say the disgusting shit they do, the voices of contention seem to be largely atheistic. Ditto for the sex abuse scandals, and all sorts of other things. Let's change that. Stand up and say NO to these people.

Gay people are people just like you and I. The only difference is whom they are attracted to. That's it. Does that sound like something worthy of hate? No. Wanting to stop them from marrying someone they love is cruel and wrong. Don't be a part of that. Atheists? We're people too. Don't buy into the rhetoric that's out there, and if you're in church or synagogue, mosque or school, and you hear the religious leader talking nonsense about us, say something. Don't let hate filled ignorance exist uncontested.

We're not immoral as a people. We're not ''evil.'' We're just like you. The only difference is belief, and really, you should understand that too. Take your position on the gods you do not believe in, and that how we feel about your particular god(s). Does that sound evil to you? The reason they spread such nonsense about us should be quite obvious: we're seen as a threat. They figure if you guys mingle with atheists, you are at risk of losing your religion, and they can't have members leaving in large numbers. Think about it.

Also, about religion in general....I won't get into a long diatribe here, but allow me to say one thing: religions always get to people when they are very, very young, and they almost always villify/demonize the nonbelievers.......doesn't it seem as though they are working very hard to ensure people buy into the ideas they're espousing? Think about it. If you want people to join your group and share your beliefs, and this belief is generally predicated on something as potentially tenuous as faith, doesn't starting really young and demonizing nonbelievers make sense, in a manipulative sort of way? How many people would be religious if they were
first exposed to the religion at say 20, as opposed to 4? That's all I'll say for on that for now.

Thank you for reading, and science bless ;)

God is a Terrible Parent

I try to demonstrate how silly and disingenuous the free will argument is as applied to the problem of evil by equating it to a ridiculous hypothetical situation. I frame it in terms of a parenting situation.

I believe this to be a valid point, but this is presented in a less serious and highly exaggerated manner.