Religion

How do we know God created the world? Because carrots look like eyes and walnuts look like brains.

Really.

This is the medieval "doctrine of signatures", a way of understanding the world that, for most of us, vanished along with witch burnings, the black death, and the Crusades.

These people are allowed to vote.

This explains a lot.

Thanks to Pharungula for the tip!

Also, check out John Derbyshire's excellent excoriation of Stein's blood libel against western civilization.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 10:38 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Yeah, I know, big shock, but apparently it is to CNN...and to a lot of the army. As for me, I find it amusing that we're told the military is out there "protecting our freedoms", but, apparently, a lot of members of it don't actually believe in them.

Note I said "amusing", not "surprising". The military, by definition, is a conformist, groupthink, organization -- any military, not just ours. The whole point of military training is to destroy individualism and turn a person into a part of a machine, a part willing to die if ordered to do so, a part willing to order others to die if necessary. The grimly hilarious part is that it's the only way the system can work -- an army of individualists would be swiftly destroyed by the enemy or destroy itself in chaos. Call it reason 598,012 why only an all-volunteer army is morally justifiable -- because no one should ever be subjected to that kind of deconstruction and reconstruction if they didn't sign up for it as a free adult. The other side of that dodecahedron is that the kind of people most likely to volunteer are those already not too keen on this whole 'individualism' thing in the first place, people who want to 'belong', who enjoy being 'part of the team', etc. (Well, and the occasional high functioning sociopath steered to a place where his predilections can be channeled in a socially acceptable manner.)

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 05:42 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

It seems that the government of India is under attack because of a report it issued which claims that a natural land bridge is just that -- natural -- and not, as legend would have it, built by an...er...uhm...army of monkeys. Anyone feeling ashamed of being America, you can stop now -- religion infects minds all across the world, and no religion is any less silly than any other. (Well, OK, Scientology is exceptionally silly, but it's still only a little worse than the rest.)

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 08:30 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Or some such. At least, that's the impression I get from this article, which says the problem with atheism (and with women's equality and the rise of the secular state in general) is that the Islamists are breeding like rabbits; therefore, one presumes, we must all believe in God and start frantically making the beast with two backs. (But only if babies will be the result). The only way to stop the Islamist hordes is to breed more Christian Soldiers to fight them! Yeah, right. (I seem to be saying that a lot lately, but really, there's not much else to say when confronted with ideas this bad. It's not like you can rationally argue against such a premise; all you can do is point and jeer.)

One thing I have noticed, however, is that more and more 'proofs' of the existence of gods are consequentialist. That is, the author doesn't do much to prove there is a god, but rather argues that belief is necessary for social reasons. This is, I suppose, an honestly cynical point of view, and places such apologists squarely on the same side of the issue as Karl Marx -- he, too, argued that religion existed solely for the maintenance of the social order. The only distinction is that the consequentialists approve of the social order and he didn't; both, it seems, do not actually believe in any gods. (Well, Marx inarguably created his own religion, one which, like all religions, consists of false prophecies and real corpses.)

Radical Islam is, of course, just as, if not often more, evil than fundamentalist Christianity, and many essays on this blog say as much. However, unreason is not defeated by greater unreason; the problem with Islam is not that they believe in the wrong god, but that they, like Mr. Metcalf, oppose the Enlightenment and all the good that came with it. It does not matter if the enemy of liberty carries a cross or a crescent;it does not matter if the books are burned because they dispute the Koran or the Bible. The great ideological battle of the 21st century is not between faith and faith, but between faith and reality. In the long run, reality always wins; what remains to be seen is if humanity picks the right side.

(As a quick PS, I find it interesting Mr. Metcalf is quick to dismiss any parts of the Bible with which he personally disagrees as 'abrogated'; on that basis, he and I are alike in kind, but differ merely in degree...)

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 11:28 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

I think I'm starting to understand how the believers reconcile a world full of random pain and death with the belief that the universe is run by an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity -- they claim that without him, any disaster would be even worse. What is terrifying is that they genuinely believe this is a convincing and even rational argument. They are so mired in their delusional worldview that they are incapable of stepping outside of it and seeing how their "arguments" look to someone who doesn't accept their premises.

Take, for example, this guy at "Olive Tree Ministries". According to him, we know God is with us (even though we don't deserve it) because fewer people were kill in the bridge collapse than theoretically might have been. Unfortunately, this is a pretty crappy experimental standard, as there is no disaster, no matter how bad, which might not have been worse. Hurricane Katrina weakened before landfall, for example. Therefore, despite the incredible loss of life and property, it might have been even more catastrophic -- therefore, this proves God exists. Yeah, right. Pull the other one, for it has bells on.

Believers -- whether in God or baroque conspiracy theories -- have trouble accepting a purposeless and chaotic universe. They cannot see the simple randomness that pervades all life. Why did someone miss a bus and thus avoid being at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001? Because God held out his might hand to save her from a dire fate (and condemn 3,000 or so other people to die?). No. Because people miss busses every single day, and that there happened to be a terrorist attack on that particular day doesn't mean a damn thing. That is the reality of the world we live in -- one where Shit Happens, and that is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega, of understanding why things occur as they do. No plan. No purpose. No guiding hand or angry fist. Just the world stumbling along, uncontrolled and uncoerced, where the good can die young (or not) and the evil can prosper (or not) as their choices and random fate allows. Accept this reality -- or live in a state of delusion. We must make our own purpose in life, our own choices, create meaning for ourselves. We see the pictures in the clouds, not because they're there, but because we make patterns out of the patternless, because that is how our brains evolved and that is how we work. Madness consists of forgetting that no one put the pictures there but us.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 07:40 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

So, I was reading Daily Kos, because it's always good to know what the enemy is saying, and I stumbled on this piece. While, obviously, I agree with the author's revulsion at tearing down the wall of separation between Church and State (me, I'd like to add some razor wire and guard dogs to it), I find his shock! Shock, I say! at Brownback's "no exemption for rape in abortion" laws to be...odd, and shows signs of someone not thinking something through very well. (Liberal Fails to Think Things Through -- Film At 11) Of course, he's not alone in this -- it's a common piece of massive cognitive dissonance.

Firstly, let me make this perfectly clear: I think abortion is an absolute right, and should be available on demand without any legal interference until very roughly the seventh month, which is when the forebrain -- the part of the brain which holds conscious thought -- clicks on. At that point, at least arguably, there's a human being there.

However...

One of the most important things anyone can do is to consider issues from the other side. It is only those of weak conviction and weaker intellect who cannot play Devil's Advocate with themselves. So it is that I reason thusly -- if I opposed abortion on the usual religious grounds, I, too, would oppose it in cases of rape. And, no, it's not because "I hate women" or "I want to continue patriarchy" or other Berkeley-esque folderol. It's simply logic from the premise.

Begin with the premise that, somehow, fetus is a human being from the instant of conception. If this is true, then the circumstances of conception have no bearing on its value as a human being or on the rights it possesses. Would you say that a one year old which is the product of a rape can be cavalierly murdered in the street? I doubt it. So, then, if you believe a four month old fetus is a human being -- and if you oppose abortion, you do -- then you can't make a special "rape exemption". To murder a human being because of the circumstances of his conception is utterly barbaric.

If you say "I am opposed to abortion except in cases of rape or incest", you are saying, "I do not think a person born of rape or incest is fully human." If you discuss the trauma of the mother, and claim you act, not out of contempt for the child, but compassion for the victim of the crime...well..now you're in very dangerous territory if you claim to oppose abortion in general.

If you argue abortion is acceptable because carrying and birthing a child conceived under horrible circumstances is too traumatic for a civilized society to inflict...then you have to start asking "What are the limits of trauma?" Suppose bearing a child would be life-destroying for a woman, ending chances of education and career? Suppose the father, if not actually a rapist, was still abusive, cruel, and despised by the woman he impregnated and abandoned? There are many situations where a woman could suffer emotional trauma equal to that of being impregnated by a rapist, and if the trauma alone is your standard, you oppose abortion, in essence, "except when the mother is traumatized by the fact of pregnancy".

And thus, you pretty much don't oppose abortion, as no one goes to an abortion clinic for shits and giggles. You go because the pregnancy traumatizes you, to the point where you're willing to endure emotional duress and social contempt in order to free yourself from it and all it entails. Arguing that the source of the trauma, not the intensity, is the defining factor just doesn't cut it -- we're back to "children of rape are not human".

So take a consistent stand: Either be up-front and say "I oppose abortion even in cases of rape", or say "I support the right to abortion". Middle-ground positions are logically inconsistent.

(Cases where the life of the mother is threatened are pretty simple; the right to self-defense is part of every sane culture. Only the most lunatic of madmen would demand a woman risk her own life to possibly give birth.)

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 20:53 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

In this world of chaos and confusion, it's nice to know some things are as reliable as the tide, which is probably not going to be reliable much longer due to global warming or space junk or giant space weasels or something. One such thing is that the Muslims of the world -- or at least the loudmouths who appoint themselves spokesmen for the hopefully sane majority -- have all the sense of perspective of a 13th century manuscript illuminator.

To wit: Salman Rushdie was given a knighthood, and the Muslim world reacts like this was done for no other reason to insult them. (They have the odd delusion that they matter. Ever notice that the more powerless someone is, the more convinced they are that everything is about them? This can't be about Rushdie's literary achievements -- no, no, it's all about hurting the feelings of the poor widdle suicide bombers. Awww...anyone have an electron microscope so I can see the violin playing for them?)

And, of course, in order to dissuade anyone from thinking of Muslims as violent atavistic fanatics, they threaten to blow themselves up. There. That'll teach us.

Morons.

(Please note that when Yasser Arafat was given the Nobel Peace Prize, Jews were angered -- but didn't threaten to blow anyone up. And Arafat was actually responsible for the deaths of Jews -- Rushdie has not killed, or caused to be harmed in any way, a single Muslim. What does this tell you?)

Thanks to reader (I have a reader???) uafbaum who pointed me over here. Read the comments section, where people of dubious intellect attempt to draw comparisons between, say, Christians upset over "Piss Christ" and Muslims upset over Rushdie. Both groups, IMO, need to get a life -- they are, in essence, angry that someone insulted their imaginary friend. But what were the actual actions taken? Christians wrote editorials, help protests, and, at the extremes, tried to stop tax dollars -- not private funds -- from supporting "blasphemous" art. While I don't doubt one or two loonies might have tried to threaten Serrano, no one with any power or influence in the Christian community -- not the Robertsons, the Grahams, the Falwells, the Bakkers -- ever threatened or advocated violence. When "South Park" showed Jesus Christ and George W. Bush defecating on each other, no one threatened to blow up comedy central or Matt&Trey. There is a very real difference between someone who says "Ooooh, you hurt my feelings, I don't think you should do that, so I won't give you money/vote for you/whatever" and someone who says "Ooooh, you hurt my feelings, now I will kill you and anyone I associate with you because they share your faith or are from your country." Anyone who cannot see that difference and tries to draw moral equivalency is, basically, so dain-bramaged by political correctness and Western self-loathing that they might as well join an ultra-fundamentalist faith.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 11:07 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Two posts in one day. All 10 regular readers of this blog should be thrilled.

To get the full "story", head over to Daily Kos. (Not there's a recommendation you don't see from me every day!). D'Souza is, to put it very simply, a drooling moron. There's no other word for it.

Firstly, I've already written an essay on how atheists deal with tragedy, so go read that. Secondly, in regard to D'Souza's stunningly imbecilic comment that:

Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy.

I reply only: Even if this were true (and it isn't), saying nothing to them is better than lying to them -- which is what the religious do.

If there were a hell, Mr. D'Souza, I would sincerely wish for you to die and go there.

EDIT:
Upon reflection, I've got a few requests of Mr. D'Souza, and any other religious types. I'd like them to answer some questions.

a)Do you believe all of the 32 victims had accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior? Please remember that lying is a sin. Now, given that the odds of 32 young adults at a college ALL being born-again Christians are pretty damn slim, would you be willing to confront the parents of those victims and say "According to the tenets of Christianity, your dead child is burning in hell alongside Cho and will for all of eternity, forever, without hope of reprieve."? Because that is what your faith teaches, and that is the "comfort" you have to offer them.

b)"Religion" offers multiple, conflicting, answers to the "meaning" of a tragedy. Are the victims in hell? In heaven? Reincarnating to their next life? Different religious speakers will offer all of these options, and others. How do you propose to pick the "right" one? How do you tell a Christian parent "Your son is with Jesus now" and a Hindu parent "Your daughter is in her next life now", and expect both of them to accept these wildly contradictory premises as true? Obviously, one (or both, IMO) are false. How can one derive "comfort" when the "comforters" are clearly just making shit up?

We don't have too many Believers here -- I think I scare them off -- but if anyone would like to take up this challenge, I'd love to hear it. And if any of the more politically connected members of this list can get these questions -- especially the first one -- to Mr. D'Souza, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 06:50 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

That's Tom Smith's quote on this video, not mine, but I couldn't say it any better.

They let these people vote.

This just provides yet one more (as if it were needed) data point for Lizard's Dictum On Evolution -- There is no one who does not believe in evolution. There are people who don't understand it, and people who lie about it. Or, as Megatron once asked Starscream:"Are you lying or stupid?"

I could, I suppose, try to wrap my mind around people so astoundingly ignorant that they believe that the theory of evolution states that primordial Earth was covered in a sea of peanut butter, but I can't. I shall, instead, attempt to grasp the concept of people so immoral, so vile, so full of contempt and loathing for their audience, that they will teach said audience that the theory of evolution states that the primordial Earth was covered in a sea of peanut butter.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 08:42 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Jubal sang of the new-found sea,
And the love that its waves divide—
But Tubal hollowed a fallen tree
And passed to the further side.
Black—black as the hurricane-wrack,
Salt as the under-main—
Bitter and cold is the hate they hold—
Jubal and Tubal Cain!

As Kipling wrote so long ago, the world can be safely divided between those intellectuals who use their brains to tell people what can't be done, and those intellectuals who use their brains to do what can't be done. The "Intelligent Design" movement is an organization of Jubals, whose entire contribution to science is to throw up their hands and claim "Since we can't figure it out, no one can." Other than the colossal egotism involved in stating that one's own ignorance and lack of imagination must be universal, you also have the fact that such is not science; science is about finding out how the universe works, not deciding that no one will ever be able to do so. Science has no trouble saying "Nobody knows -- for now", but a great deal of trouble saying "Nobody will ever know."

And so we come to the favorite dead horse of the IDiots, the flagellum, their shrine to "irreducible complexity". Well, here it is, reduced.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 10:06 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

From a mailing list I'm on:

> If we could cleanse the world of religoun 74% of all wars would end.
>

I'd like to believe that, but since most religious wars occur in opposition to their religion's tenets, or even between members of the putatively same religion, I'm afraid even I can't blame religion itself for religious wars. Humans will always use their tremendous capacity for reason to devise ways to irrationally hate each other. This is one reason (of a few thousand) I no longer buy into any utopian ideals.

Atheism is superior to religion not because it will guarantee peace or end world hunger or eliminate the heartbreak of psoriasis -- it is superior to religion because it is true. That's enough for me to advocate it.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 08:13 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Huh? What? You want to know why he's a moron? What, you don't trust me?

Well, fine. Read this.

All done? Good. Moron, right?

Well, for those of you in Mr. Prager's IQ Range, I suppose I can elaborate.

Anyone who thinks American civilization is undermined by the choice of which book of mythology to swear an oath by is a moron. Indeed, the fact that one has a choice of which fanciful tales to believe -- including none at all -- and one is not held back in public or private life because of this choice is the very essence of American civilization -- it is what makes America, America.

The Constitution (written, it seems, by a bunch of namby-pamby commie hippie pinko leftists, at least in Mr. Prager's view of the world), makes it clear: There shall be no religious test to hold public office. Of course, there were Dennis Pragers back in the day -- the stupid, like the poor, will be with us always -- and they greatly feared that the lack of such a test might allow a Jew or even a Mohammedan to hold office. (We won't even discuss the idea that, someday, women or Negroes might be elected; such possibilities belong in the fanciful works of Mr. Swift, of course!) Well, as it turns out, they were right...and America has managed to not only survive, but thrive, deriving strength from diversity.

Pull quote:

What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Dingdingding! Guess what, Mr. Prager? America is not a collectivist nation, founded on the belief that the individual is a cog in the machinery of the State. America is an individualist nation, founded on the principle that The People are not as important as The Person, that rights are inherent in the nature of being human and not granted by the collective will. The conscience of the individual, not the mewling of the masses, is paramount. Those who think otherwise, those who believe that the collective is more important than the individuals which compose it, are known as "Communists". Because America is a free society, Communists are allowed to live here and preach their vile doctrine (even, apparently, from the digital pages of Town Hall Online), but they should not be accorded any respect and should be roundly mocked at any opportunity. Point and laugh, dear readers, point and laugh.

If Tom Cruise follows in the footsteps of Ahr-nuld or Reagan, should he be allowed to swear an oath on a copy of Dianetics? Why not? An oath is something meaningful and important, even if what one swears it on is a fetid load of dingo's kidneys (a category into which Dianetics, the Bible, and the Koran all fit handily.) An oath-taker should swear by, or on, whatever they most sincerely believe in, from the Bible to The Origin Of Species to Atlas Shrugged to a DVD collection of Star Trek Season One.

It boggles my mind that this would even be an issue, that anyone would waste precious bytes ranting about it. But someone did, and so, I, in turn, must contribute to the destruction of America's stockpile of ones and zeroes to reply. So Mr. Prager is not only a moron, he's a moron who is wasting my time. Feh.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 07:49 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Since Wal-Mart is now under attack by homophobic right-wing fundementalists, good liberals can save money AND not feel guilty. Don't let your leftist friends sneer at you -- tell them that you're doing your part to oppose bigotry, and why aren't they?

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 16:15 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Or something.

The problem with being cynical is that I can never keep up.

You'd think, for example, that having yet another family values Christian leader turn out to have a gay skeleton in his closet would be sufficient. But, no. Now, it turns out, his 'defenders' are saying that he might have gone to...ah...putt from the rough because his wife "let herself go", or wasn't sufficiently available for him to sate his vile lusts upon.

In short, we're right back to the Garden of Eden -- blame the woman for the moral failings of the man.

(Please note, also, that the article specifies the wife needs to be 'sexually available' to the man, as if she's simply a fleshlight with arms and legs. There is no mention of any responsibility the man has to the sexual needs of his partner.)

It's astounding. It's pathetic. And the core fundementalist base just nods and says "A-yup. Another great man brought down by the conniving wiles of a woman."

These people wield considerable power in America. That's democracy for you.

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 11:20 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)

On a list I'm on, someone mailed me this:
Is there not some social utility in having human beings who feel a direction connection to God/Yhwh/the universe/Whoever and to His/Her/its creations? Can we not expect it to deeply influence their behavior in a way more profound than an intellectual acceptance of a systm of morality?

To which I replied:
Only if they've been conditioned, by society, to believe that morality is external to human beings.

Your argument is, basically, the 'con job for their own good' argument. "Well, sure, you and I know there's no such thing as God (wink, wink). But it's better for society if the masses THINK there is."

Is social utility a good reason to lie for people? If a moral code rests on an immoral act (telling people God exists), can it truly be moral?

I have a direct connection to the universe through science. Dude, *I am made of the corpse of a star*. So are you. You can't get more connected than that. Every atom in my being used to be something else. There's bits of me that were dinosaurs, plants, fish, worms, and rocks. I may contain pieces of Julius Ceasar or King Richard III or the Prophet Mohammad. That's pretty mind-bogglingly awesome, and you do not need to believe in anything 'spiritual' or 'religious'. (And if it turns out the current theories are wrong, well, so it goes. Whatever the truth is, it will most likely be just as cool, if not cooler.)

Posted by Lizard in Religion at 11:58 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)