Stupidities of Religions

god doesn't exist, get over it

2006-10-21T04:23:00.000-05:00

theonlybigboss at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUew-e9ntiA

God is Imaginary

2006-10-13T00:51:00.000-05:00

God is Imaginary is a set of exercises. See also GIIVideos.

Motto Madness

2006-07-29T10:48:00.000-05:00

I received the following email From: Dr. Walter Jones eCampaign@gop.com
Subject: In God We Trust
Date: July 29, 2006 10:30:13 AM EDT

Dear Thomas,
On Friday, President George W. Bush officially proclaimed July 30, 2006, as the 50th anniversary of the national motto of the United States, "In God We Trust".
Mr. Bush succinctly chronicled the motto's history from its original wording in Francis Scott Key's poem (which later became our National Anthem)--"And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'" during the War of 1812--to its establishment as our national motto by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on July 30, 1956.
In commemorating this day and "recognizing the blessings of the Creator," the President encouraged all Americans to "offer our thanks for God's great gift of liberty" and to "observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities."
For the full text of the President's proclamation honoring our national motto, "In God We Trust", click here.
Take Action. Forward this proclamation to 5 friends.
Sincerely,
Dr. Walter Jones
Director of Conservative Development

It's officially at the White House:

50th Anniversary of Our National Motto, "In God We Trust," 2006 A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
On the 50th anniversary of our national motto, "In God We Trust," we reflect on these words that guide millions of Americans, recognize the blessings of the Creator, and offer our thanks for His great gift of liberty.
From its earliest days, the United States has been a Nation of faith. During the War of 1812, as the morning light revealed that the battle torn American flag still flew above Fort McHenry, Francis Scott Key penned, "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'" His poem became our National Anthem, reminding generations of Americans to "Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation." On July 30, 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the law officially establishing "In God We Trust" as our national motto.
Today, our country stands strong as a beacon of religious freedom. Our citizens, whatever their faith or background, worship freely and millions answer the universal call to love their neighbor and serve a cause greater than self.
As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of our national motto and remember with thanksgiving God's mercies throughout our history, we recognize a divine plan that stands above all human plans and continue to seek His will.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 30, 2006, as the 50th Anniversary of our National Motto, "In God We Trust." I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH

Aside from being an incredible waste of time, this is a clear violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. It brings us one step closer to a theocracy. I suggest that everyone who objects to the proclamation to write to Jones.

"Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?"

2006-05-03T22:25:00.001-05:00

Rabbi Marc Gellman asks "Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?"

First, we are not threatened by the idea of gods anymore than we (and presumably you) feel threatened by the idea of the easter bunny. Neither exist except in people's stories. We feel threatened by the things people DO in the name of gods such as fly airplanes into buildings, crusading around and killng thousands while torturing others and building big walls to exclude other peoples. I hope you recognize which religious groups of people were responsible for these atrocities. Don't forget that slavery is condoned by the bible. One can read the religious books to support any position that is politically expedient - and people do and then they kill their neighbors. Doesn't that tragedy make you angry?

There just isn't any evidence for gods. I'm a scientist and, although we do not know everything (otherwise I'd be out of a job!), it is clear that we already know enough to exclude god from all the traditional places such as the formation of the sun, earth and yes, formation of all living things all the way down to the deepests molecular levels.

Given that it is clear that there is no purpose, we must wake up and take responsibility for ourselves and our planet. Camu's idea was as wrong as thinking that there is a purpose given by a god. Have you ever asked someone what they think god's purpose is? They invariable say they don't know. This is the most important thing that god does for people, give them purpose, and they don't know what the purpose is!

So we must chose our purposes and take responsibility for everything that happens.

There is nobody guiding what happens. The recent tsunami and Katrina have dispelled that myth. If there is a god then it is really a horribly mean creature to have done those things. But we understand the physics behind waves and winds and we had better recognize that the winds will get worse if we keep on driving our cars without figuring a way to reduce their emissions. We are responsible! So an atheist gets angry because people are not taking proper responsibility for what is happening on the planet and we identify the problem as religion and beliefs in fairy tales about gods. The sooner we get rid of those primitive ways of thinking, the sooner we can get on with figuring out how to live sustainably on the planet.

We get angry when we think about the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" and hear about people with 23 kids. We know that no gods will rescue us when our population hits the limits of the planet. We recognize that there is a finite amount of oil and we WILL RUN OUT. Whether it is the peak last year (as predicted) or 10 years from now does not matter - we WILL RUN OUT and belief that some mythical creature will save us does nothing but make the situation far worse because we waste our time. People are sitting around thinking that god will take care of everything while we calmly go over the cliff.

What's not to get angry about? A vast majority of problems on the planet are caused by a belief in gods!

Listen to this: Letting Go Of God by Julia Sweeney

There is still hope for you: let go of god and become a responsible person.

Cargo Cults

2006-04-09T12:36:00.000-05:00

Cargo Cults are religions on Pacific islands that started when Americans built air strips and landed cargo planes there during World War II. After the Americans left, the natives assumed that if one built things that look like air strips, more cargo would arrive. They have been doing this for the past 50 years. An article in the Smithsonian (Paul Raffaele, Feb 2006, 70-77) and one in the Washington Post (Peter Carlson, Tuesday, January 31, 2006; C02) describes The John Frum religion. Even the famous physicist Richard Feynman wrote about Cargo Cult science.

It is odd to see an American flag venerated as a religious symbol, along with red tipped fake bamboo "rifles".

What's the difference between this so-called 'cult' and other religions? None. One might argue that cargo cults haven't been around too long, but it's been many years. Raffaele asked Chief Isaac "John promised you much cargo more than 60 years ago, and none has come, so why do you keep faith with him? Why do you still believe in him?" Chief Isaac responded "You Christians have been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to return to earth, and you haven't given up hope."

Have you ever heard of a religion that makes an instrument of horrible torture and death its primary symbol? Can you imagine that this symbol becomes so venerated that it comes to represent life itself?

CNN (April 9, 2006) reports that Pope Benedict as saying "But Palm Sunday tells us that ... it is the cross that is the true tree of life."

Objectively the only difference between a 'Cargo Cult' and a mainstream religion is size and acceptance.

sanctity unveiled

2006-01-18T11:23:00.000-05:00

We now know exactly what the 'sanctity of life' means.

Today CNN reports that Clarence Ray Allen was intentionally killed by the state of California.

Allen had asked not to be resuscitated if he had a cardiac arrest before being executed but prison officials would have refused to honor this.

Prison spokesperson Vernell Crittendon said "At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life. We would resuscitate him." After that they would execute him.

Of course that's completely illogical - he would die either way. In one case it would be natural and in the other case it would be state supported murder.

In other words, the 'sanctity of life' is not, as religious folk would have you think, that life is precious and sacred. Rather, they mean that they have the right to chose how someone dies on their own terms. The inquisition showed this quite clearly, where their terms meant horrible torture.

It is ironic because a heart attack is considered by religious people an act of 'god'. That is, most of the time 'god' is supposed to take care of the matter of when someone dies. Here these people have done the killing themselves, an act that only 'god' is supposed to do.

This killing, in direct violation of the highest religious directive 'thou shalt not kill', must have been fully supported by the churches and their members because there were no reports of crowds of church goers at the prison in protest.

Religious people protest, harass and kill in the name of a single cell (abortion), but when 100 trillion cells are intentionally destroyed (execution) they are totally silent.

That makes all the church goers within traveling distance from San Quentin the deepest of hypocrites.

But you and they knew that already. Religions have taught most people not to be honest about what is really going on.

Sanctity, smhanktity, the real issue is that religious people are dishonest with themselves and everyone else.

Lying UNDER OATH for the 'Truth' in Dover

2005-12-22T05:56:00.000-05:00

The Kitzmiller Decision (also available from CNN) is the 2005 Dec 20 ruling by John E. Jones III, United States District Judge, Case No. 04cv2688 TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al. v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Among several direct statements that religious members of the Dover school board lied under oath, on page 115 we find:

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs's election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy

Stunning. I have known that religious people are dishonest and that they will lie for what they consider the 'truth' but I never imagined that they would commit perjury!

The board members railroaded the teachers by refusing to accept the standard biology textbook they needed unless the teachers accepted the creationist text Pandas for teaching and yet Judge Jones reports that

Furthermore, Board members somewhat candidly conceded that they lacked sufficient background in science to evaluate ID, and several of them testified with equal frankness that they failed to understand the substance of the curriculum change adopted on October 18, 2004. ... In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. ... Board members ... admittedly had no comprehension whatsoever of ID.

(page 121) These people didn't know any science and they were forcing their religion on others.

Jones states that the Defendants created a "sham" and gave "repetitious, untruthful testimony" (page 130-132). "Defendants' previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere." (page 132). "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." (page 137) "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial." (p. 138)

Before you debate about creationism and Intelligent Design I strongly recommend that you read the ruling.

"Rapture": Utter stupidity founded on nonsense

2005-12-22T02:15:00.000-05:00

Rapture Letters claims that suddenly, soon, all the people who believe in (their flavor of) "god" will die and those who don't believe in their flavor of "god" will remain. The silly part is that many people are looking forward to being killed by their "god"!

It would be laughable but for the fact that 40% of the people in the USA have this delusion.

So the Rapture Letters web site is devoted to sending letters to the sane people who don't believe in god(s) after this supposed mass murder has occured. The example letter includes a magic incantation which if uttered by a survivor will supposedly cause them to die instantly too.

Could anything be more insane?

The God Who Wasn't There

2005-12-22T01:19:00.000-05:00

www.thegodmovie.com

Calling all creationists!

2005-12-06T01:42:00.000-05:00

I just had another runin with a young earth creationist. When I asked for evidence of his points, this person dumped 47 references on me without explanation of the source of the list. It was a smoke screen. I was able to read the first paper and found that it did not support his idea. Apparently there are no honest creationists. If they were really honest, they would not use all these tricks and misdirections. Also, of course, they would realize that they are lying and abandon their ideas. So, of course, the only ones left are dishonest!

On How We Know and Lying for the Truth

2005-11-04T07:45:00.000-05:00

How do we know anything? There are three basic ways:

instinct
we are taught by someone else
we find out for ourselves

Maybe there are more, but these will do for the moment. Each of these methods can fool us:

instinct Sometimes, if we are careful, we can catch our brains red handed making things up. Consider your blind spot. This can be a shocking phenomenon if you are not familiar with it. Google: "blind spot" gives Seeing more than your eye does. I strongly suggest that if you have never seen your blind spot before, that you do the exercises there. So our visual system tells lies to us.
we are taught by someone else Are they a reliable source? Where did they get their information from? It's easy to lie, sometimes emotionally harder to tell the truth.
we find out for ourselves This method is the most direct but it is strongly discouraged by religions. It is easy enough to misinterpret facts, and so we must keep alert for our own biases. It's easy to fool oneself. But if you check things out for yourself they can be quite convincing. For example, you don't need to rely on what I say to know that you have a blind spot. You can check for yourself. You will if you are a normal human with normal eyesight. You won't if you are an octopus. (If you are an octopus, please write to me.)

So how can we know anything when all the roads have pitfalls? Fortunately we have figured out a way to gain solid, reliable knowledge. It's called science. You don't need to trust me on this. You can learn how the system works and verify it for yourself.

Science is a community effort at knowing about the universe and ourselves. It has a big advantage over other methods in that it is self correcting. People who lie are exposed by other scientists. Sometimes this happens quickly but that is rare because scientists know that they might get caught so they are careful if they chose to lie. But eventually they get caught. The case of Hendrik Schon is an example where a scientist cheated and was caught. Science burns away untruths.

In a prevous post, I wrote about Lying for the Truth, an unethical practice of many religious people.

The purpose of this posting is to examine this ugly practice a little closer because the case covered in that posting is the tip of the iceberg.

What do I mean by that? When I hear religious sermons (yes, I have been in churches listening on occasion) they often make me want to stand up and shout. The person giving the sermon will often make statements that are clearly made up and that have no substantial backing.

Let's take an example and google for "god told me". The first hit is quite interesting:

God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers BBC 06.10.2005.

So what could the president have meant?

The statement was denied by Scott McClellan, the Whitehouse spokesperson, so maybe it was never said. In this case the Palestinian ministers lied. (On the other hand, McClellan is probably not a reliable source.)
The president heard things in his head. Normally we consider this a sign of illness. It's a terrifying thought that the most powerful nation on the planet is being run by an insane person.
God spoke to the president. Do we have a reason to believe this? No, all we have is what he (presumably) said. There is plenty of evidence now that he is not a trustable source.
The president stated in the 2003 state of the union address "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." The first of these statements was refuted by Joe Wilson before the address was given and the second one was also proven to be false. Apparently the Whitehouse response was to attack Wilson by (illegally!) revealing that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. (Republicans have been stalling the investigation of the situation for months. Why have Republicans become so dishonest? Is it their religious inclinations?) The Iraq war was sold on the basis of weapons of mass destruction but it is now well known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So president Bush is not a reliable source for difficult questions! Given that, it is unlikely that a god spoke to him and other possibilities are much more likely. The next possibility is more reasonable.
The president made it up. This is called a lie.

Many hits are for Bush, so let's google away from him: "god told me" -bush

That leads to an interesting statement, partially true and partially false by Mike Feazell: 'God told me'. Let's examine it as an illustrative example. Some quotes:

"God told me to..." is often a euphemism for "I want to and have decided to..."

It isn't wrong to want to do something and decide to do it. But why not be honest? Why not say: "I have decided to go to Africa and work in a health clinic. Please pray for me." That would be honest. But 99 times out of a hundred (in my opinion, of course) when someone says, "God told me to go to Africa and work in a health clinic," they are playing fast and loose with honesty.
Excellent! But then he stumbles:
God can and does bless us in our decisions without making them for us. God gives us the ability to weigh the factors in our lives, get advice, do some research, study the issues involved and make informed, well-considered decisions. And we should ask him to lead us.
How does he know these things? He made them up! He was dishonest in exactly the same way he had just spoken against!

So 'god told me' collapses to either a lie or an unbelievable and unproven claim. However, it is frequently made by religious leaders, which makes it likely that they are lying all the time.

One of the highest ethical principles is to tell the truth. Religions are failing to tell the truth and this is causing death and misery. It is time to stop lying.

Lying for the Truth

2005-11-04T04:36:00.000-05:00

Antiabortion advocates jumped on the suggestion that abortions cause breast cancer. For example, an entire web site is devoted to this religious cause, www.abortionbreastcancer.com. Another example is The Abortion Breast Cancer Cover-up Susan B Komen, "Race for the Cure" which is full of quotes from the bible and religious statements claiming a relationship. It is by Angela Michael and dated June 18, 2005.

Is breast cancer caused by abortion? This is a straight forward scientific question.

To determine the current scientific understanding of the issue, I looked to the vast collection of biomedical abstracts at PubMed. I searched for

abortion "breast cancer"

and found

J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Apr;59(4):283-7. Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study. Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral V.

The link provided gives the original scientific paper. The date of publication was April of 2005. Their conclusion was:

CONCLUSION: These data do not support the hypothesis that miscarriage or induced abortion represent substantive risk factors for the future development of breast cancer.

To confirm this, I looked to the National Cancer Institute of the U.S. Nationa Institutes of Health. This organization has top world scientific experts on cancer and they are making fantastic progress at detecting and curing cancers. If there is a linkage they would know, and be studying it intensely. At that web site I searched for 'abortion' and found the fact sheet Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk which states

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.

So the scientific case appears quite clear - abortions do not cause breast cancer.

One is given to believe that religious people are ethical and that they are on an intense search for the ultimate truth. The following quote from the Center for Reproductive Rights:

A stark black and white billboard looms over Interstate 95 near Philadelphia, thrust on motorists by Family Life Education Foundation and boldly displaying the provocative message: "abortion increases breast cancer risk." In 1996, similar messages were posted on subways, buses and trains in metropolitan Baltimore, Washington D.C. and Philadelphia by a group called Christ's Bride Ministries (CBM). Matthew Staver, legal counsel for CBM and other conservative religious groups, has defended this anti-choice chicanery by saying, "I don't think the First Amendment depends on truth. I think you can say things that are wrong." It appears he is right on that count.

The science has come down on the side that their statement was wrong. But nothing can ever excuse a lie for 'Truth'.

It is irresponsible for religious groups (or anyone else) to continue to propagate this idea in support of a religious agenda.

It is unethical to lie for the "Truth".

How is it possible that modern religions lie?

Thanksgiving without stupidstition

2005-11-02T22:44:00.000-05:00

Thanksgiving: To Whom (or what) Are We Grateful -- and Why? by Jone Johnson Lewis.

Morning for the Loss of a Friend

2005-11-02T00:15:00.000-05:00

Within hours of my October 31 posting New candidate for Darwin Awards, which is the case of a who pastor who used a microphone while standing in water to do a baptism, Shaun Groves wrote to me about it. His main objection was that my posting was callous. This is my response.

Dear Shaun:

I am saddened by the loss of this person and I'm particularly unhappy that he had a wife and children. It is certainly a tragedy.

However, the simple facts are:

In case you are making a connection with the date of the posting, there is none, I blogged the day it appeared in CNN.
I was reporting the facts, though I did mention that the case was sad. But facts themselves are often callous. This is a hint about how the universe runs.
According to their web site, the Darwin Awards are verified, not fictional.

Many electrical devices come with warnings that caution one not to use them while in contact with water, hair driers in particular. The tag on my little travel one says

"KEEP AWAY FROM WATER
DANGER---
AS WITH MOST ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES, ELECTRICAL PARTS IN THIS DRYER ARE ELECTRICALLY LIVE EVEN WHEN SWITCHED OFF: TO REDUCE RISK OF DEATH BY ELECTRIC SHOCK:
1. ALWAY "UNPLUG IT" AFTER USE.
2. DO NOT PLACE OR STORE WHERE DRYER CAN FALL OR BE PULLED INTO TUB, TOILET OR SINK.
3. DO NOT USE WHILE BATHING.
4. DO NOT USE NEAR OR PLACE IN WATER.
5. IF DRYER FALLS INTO WATER, UNPLUG IMMEDIATELY.
DO NOT REACH INTO WATER"

Everybody must have seen these warnings not to use electrical devices in water. One might argue (as the Darwin Awards review committee did) that microphones are supposed to have low voltage. Perhaps, but any electrical device can fail and it apparently did in this case.

The physics of electricity is fully understood. The fact that you can read this is stunning evidence of our full mastery of this physics.
A god did not teach us anything about how electricity works, nor did any even say it exists. At best we have the story of the god Zeus, with some confusion about him holding lightning bolts. (You would probably need a magnetic confinement system in addition to the hand to confine the bolt the way it is normally depicted.) No, it wasn't a god who helped us, it took generations of hard work by scientists to figure electricity out.
Natural selection occurs all the time. To some degree, we can avoid being killed by understanding how the universe works and flowing with that.
Prayer is obviously ineffective or this person would have been immediately revived by all the people watching.

To prevent further needless deaths, you could use a radio transmitter microphone. Google for radio transmitter microphone or wireless microphone and you will find many sources for as little as $25 (www.techbuys.net).

Finally, we come to the philosophical problem of 'why' this good person died if there is a God. Here are some possibilities for solving the puzzle:

God hated this good person and is a murderer, causing the electrical fault. Unfortunately there is plenty of heresay 'evidence' in the Bible for this.
God knew this was going to happen but didn't come to the rescue. This is either heartless or impotent, certainly not omniscient.
God didn't know this was going to happen. (Maybe God doesn't understand how electricity works?) This is incompetent, not all-seeing.
God wasn't watching. Then we must conclude that he is not omniscient. Also, this person was conducting a special ceremony for God and God was not polite enough to watch?
God moves in mysterious ways. Sorry, that's a cop-out. It doesn't cut it compared to the science we now understand.
There is no god. This hypothesis fits all the facts of this case and it is simple. It also fits thousands of other facts we know about how the universe works. Why would a god make human eyes have blood vessels in front of the light sensing parts? You can apparently see this sometimes. The octopus has a better design than we do. So we are not the favored species ... or there is no favored species. Why do we have bad backs and bad knees? Why don't women just unzip at the abdomen instead of squeezing our heads (which are too big) through the tiny cervix? That would be a better design and it would avoid untold pain. Why do our DNA polymerases fail to replicate our DNA properly, giving our children horrible genetic diseases? Etc. etc.

From these points (and thousands of other facts) I conclude that it is highly unlikely for there to be a God. Given modern scientific knowledge, all the old arguments fail. At best, Jesus was a person. In his article The World's Most Dangerous Book, Alan Watts proposed that Jesus was like Buddha, and that Jesus understood how we are all 'godlike'. Watts thought that the things Jesus said were misunderstood, perhaps intentionally.

So (apparently) the answer to "Why Did This Happen?" is: that's an incorrect question, there is no why. The physics of the universe is consistent, and if one choses to ignore the physics, then there may be consequences one doesn't like.

But that means that, if there is no external guide, we are more responsible for what happens on this planet, not less. It means that if we choose kindness and being ethical, that leads to a pleasant place to live. Morality comes from within us.

How did morality come to be within us? I think we can make a pretty good case that we evolved that way. (You are welcome to do the genetic studies to test this hypothesis! It will probably be done in the next 50 years at the rate we are going.) Those who disagree, by chosing violence, will be selected against by being thrown in jail or killed - this has been true of societies for a long time and so we have selected ourselves to be [mostly] pleasant! While on a trip to Finland this fall I learned that the word berserk comes from Berserker - a person who would go wild when the vikings were invading. They were great for raides but caused a problem when they got back home. There are stories about how the town's people would have to gang up on these guys - get them drunk and then kill them. So exceptionally nasty people get eliminated from the gene pool by other people. (This suggests that there could be genetic forces towards peaceful people. Unfortunately the reverse may also be true: war leads to rape which spreads genes around the planet.)

All that's irrelevant in the face of the loss of a friend and family member. I am sad that this happened. My deepest condolences to you and your friends.

Tom

New candidate for Darwin Awards

2005-10-31T07:14:00.000-05:00

Pastor electrocuted while performing baptism Rev. Kyle Lake regularly used a microphone while standing in water. The Darwin Awards are bestowed regularly to those who remove themselves from the gene pool. They are frequently humorous but often sad, as in this case. It doesn't matter who you are, physics always works the same way. (Note on 2005 Nov 1: DarwinAwards did not accept this case because it was not funny enough.)

The World's Most Dangerous Book

2005-10-29T17:55:00.000-05:00

The World's Most Dangerous Book Alan W. Watts

Faith is an openness and trusting attitude to truth and reality, whatever it may turn out to be. This is a risky and adventurous state of mind. Belief, in the religious sense, is the opposite of faith because it is a fervent wishing or hope, a compulsive clinging to the idea that the universe is arranged and governed in such and such a way. Belief is holding to a rock; faith is learning how to swim and this whole universe swims in boundless space.

He's brilliant as usual:

No argument, no reasoning, no contrary evidence can possibly reach the true believer, who, if he is somewhat sophisticated, justifies and even glorifies his invincible stupidity as a "leap of faith" or "sacrifice of the intellect."

Alan Watts points out that idiot was "...originally a Greek word meaning an individual so isolated that you can't communicate with him."

True salvation: leave the church

2005-10-29T13:34:00.000-05:00

ExChristian
From Minister to Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind
Let me start off by stating categorically that this book is an absolute "must have" for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion.
Edward Babinski
- Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists
But even with all the prayers, activism, and governmental sanctions of the "religious right" during the days of the Christanized Roman Empire, that empire fell. So why should anyone believe that Christianizing America is the solution to today's complex problems? Only people ignorant of history can believe such a thing.
So the Christians took over Rome and it collapsed!

If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong

2005-10-27T02:06:00.000-05:00

by Cenk Uygur, reposted with permission.

The original source is from HuffingtonPost.com.

We live in a twisted world, where right is wrong and wrong reigns supreme. It is a chilling fact that most of the world's leaders believe in nonsensical fairytales about the nature of reality. They believe in Gods that do not exist, and religions that could not possibly be true. We are driven to war after war, violence on top of violence to appease madmen who believe in gory mythologies. These men are called Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Osama bin Laden is insane. He believes God whispered in the ear of Mohammed 1,400 years ago about how he should conquer Arabia. Mohammed was a pure charlatan -- and a good one at that. He makes present religious frauds like Pat Robertson look like amateurs.

He said God told him to have sex with as many of the women he met as possible. I'm sorry, I meant to say "take them as wives." God told him to kill all other tribes that stood in his way or that would not placate him with assurances of loyalty or bribes. God told him, conveniently, that everyone should follow him and never question a word he said.

He sold this bag of goods to the blithering idiots who lived in the Arabian Peninsula at the time. If that weren't shockingly stupid enough, over a billion people continue to believe the convenient lies that Mohammed told all that time ago -- to this very day.

We live in a world full of insane people. Sanity is an island battered in an ocean of frothing delusion. The people who believe in science are the minority. The people who believe in bloody fairytales are the overwhelming majority.

George W. Bush is the most powerful man alive. He is a class A imbecile. He is far less intelligent than the average Christian. But like most of the others, he believes Jesus died for his sins. That idea is so perverse and devoid of logic it should shock the conscience. Instead, it gets him elected, and earns him the reverence of a great percentage of America. America! The most advanced country in the world -- run by a bunch of villagers who still believe Santa Claus is going to save them.

There is no damn Easter Bunny. There is no Jesus waiting to return. Moses never even existed. These were all convenient lies from the men of those times to gain power. Their actions were rational -- they wanted to deceive their brethren so that they could amass power. I get their motivations. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand our motivations, thousands of years later, still following the conmen of yesteryear into our gory, bloody, violent end.

Jesus is said to have said on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Because Jesus was insane and the God he thought would rescue him did not exist. And he died on that cross like a fool. He fancied himself the son of God and he could barely convince twelve men to follow him at a time when the world was full of superstition.

Excellent marketing by some of his followers would later rescue his botched effort. How many people saw his miracles? One? Twelve? Eighty? Why didn't he show the whole world? Not because this is some giant pop quiz by God to test us -- but because he did not perform any miracles!

Even his apostles can't agree on what miracles he supposedly carried out or when he carried them out. Or whether he returned after death or he didn't. Whether they saw him in person or just as a vision. Rational human beings shouldn't believe this kind of nonsense. Yet most of the world does.

If a man today killed his only son to show how much he loved other people, he would be considered a madman, locked in jail and earn society's contempt. Yet we think this is some sort of noble act by our Father in Heaven.

In Heaven? What, with the harps and the winged angels and the 72 virgins? My God, how stupid do you have to be to believe that?

I know most of you don't actually read your religious texts, and when you do, you assiduously try to avoid the parts that make no sense whatsoever or hide underneath the comforting grasp of your religious leaders who have concocted a bunch of circular logic (a crime to even use that word in regards to Christianity, Islam or Judaism) to shield you from the obvious folly of the written text.

So, I'm not calling you stupid if you haven't really read the material. And I know how powerful brainwashing is. We all received it when we were young and it is exceedingly difficult to break its grasp. But people dance around the issue out of politeness because they don't want to call you what you are -- ignorant.

There are a lot of people I love dearly and respect wholeheartedly who believe in religion. I hate to do this to them. But we have killed far too many people, wasted far too much time on this nonsense for us to keep going in this direction for fear of offense.

Jesus was a lunatic. God is not coming to your rescue. He hasn't come to anyone's rescue in thousands of years, including Jesus. Mohammed was a power hungry, scam artist and ruthless conqueror. Moses and Abraham were figments of the imagination of some long dead rabbi. He would probably laugh his ass off at all of you who still believe the fairytales he made up thousands of years ago. He probably wouldn't even believe it if you told him.

Did I mention Judaism? The chosen people? Come on, get off it. People walk around in clothes from 18th century Russia, thinking they have been chosen by God when they look like a bunch of jackasses. I'm tired of all the deaths because we did not want to give offense. Orthodox Jews are wrong and ridiculous.

As are the orthodox and fundamentalists of all of the religions. It says in the Bible that it is an abomination to wear clothes made of two different cloths or to eat shellfish. If you think God will hate you because you mixed wool and linen or because you ate some shrimp, you are insane.

How long are we going to dance around the 800-pound gorilla in the room? The world is run by madmen. It's not just Bush and bin Laden. It is the leader of all of the countries in the Middle East, almost all of the Americas and most of the rest of the world.

Have I offended you? That's too bad. Stop killing each other in the name of false and ridiculous Gods and I will stop ridiculing you. Trust me, your offense is much worse than mine.

Right now as you read this, there are ignorant, hateful Muslims teaching other ignorant Muslims how to put on a suicide belt. There are orthodox Jews telling other Jews how they must never leave their "holy land" no matter what the consequences are to other human beings. They assure their followers -- remember, they are not the chosen ones, we are. If we crush and oppress them, don't worry, God will excuse it, and even desires it, because He is on our side.

There are maniacal Christians who are praying for the end of time. Who are hoping that most of the world's population is wiped off the face of the Earth by their vengeful and murderous God. Whom they believe is, ironically, a loving God. Unless, of course, you make the fatal mistake of not kissing his ass and appeasing him, in which case he will slaughter you and condemn you to eternal torture. What kind of sick people believe this?

The kind who live next to you. The kind who voted for George Bush. The kind who send their religious leaders to the White House to argue against even-handedness in the Middle East because it would prevent their sick prophecy. The kind who have undue influence over how we use the greatest and most lethal army ever built by man.

If you don't want to be called ignorant or misinformed, then get informed. Learn the real nature of our universe and put aside old wives tales about resurrected Gods, omniscient prophets and a guy who could split the Red Sea but couldn't find where he's going in the desert for forty years.

It's the year 2005. Let's start acting like it.

If You're a ... You are Wrong

2005-10-27T01:28:00.000-05:00

Bravo to Cenk Uygur for bravely saying it as it is! If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong

We live in a world full of insane people. Sanity is an island battered in an ocean of frothing delusion. The people who believe in science are the minority. The people who believe in bloody fairytales are the overwhelming majority.

Humanist Network News

2005-10-27T01:08:00.000-05:00

26 October 2005 These weekly report give many interesting articles about religious events, some incredibly stupid. Worth signing up for!

It's almost that time of year again: That ambivalent time when we enjoy feasting with our families, and appreciate what we've got, but object to "giving thanks" to a non-existent deity. What are we doing then, and why?

Christian DVD sparks riot

2005-10-22T12:35:00.000-05:00

CNN 2005 Oct 22

god as the root of all evil

2005-09-29T22:56:00.000-05:00

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' Ruth Gledhill, Times Online, September 27,2005 see blog: Religious Societies are Worse Off Than Secular

The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

US Senate resolves to violate the constitution

2005-09-17T14:32:00.000-05:00

Google search: senate resolution pledge gave: Senators call Pledge decision 'stupid' On June 27, 2002 Senator Robert Byrd said that the judges who ruled that the words 'under God' should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance was stupid. No need to be so low, Mr. Bryd, but you are absolutely wrong. You voted for this in 1954 and you were wrong then and wrong now. The phrase is a religious phrase. "God" is a religious concept. Putting it into the Pledge was in violation of the constitution. It should be removed. I write this today because the senate just pledged the same thing unanamously after the most recent ruling. google: senate resolution pledge 2005 Senate Approves Talent Resolution Condemning a Federal Court Ruling that the Pledge is Unconstitutional So U.S. Senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.) is the person responsible for this latest stupidity. 109th CONGRESS 1st Session S. RES. 243

RESOLUTION
Expressing Support for the Pledge of Allegiance.

That's reasonable.

Whereas on June 26, 2002, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow v. United States Congress that the words `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution when recited voluntarily by students in public schools;

True.

Whereas on March 4, 2003, the United States Senate passed a resolution disapproving of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Newdow by a vote of 94-0;

Stupid.

Whereas on June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed the case, citing the plaintiff's lack of standing;

VERY stupid. They avoided the issue!

Whereas on January 3, 2005, the same plaintiff and 4 other parents and their minor children filed a second suit in the Eastern District of California challenging the words `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance;

True.

Whereas on September 14, 2005, the Eastern District of California declined to dismiss the new Newdow case, holding that the Ninth Circuit's earlier ruling that the words `under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Establishment Clause was still binding precedent;

Good for them!

Whereas this country was founded on religious freedom by the Founding Fathers, many of whom were deeply religious;

IRRELEVANT!

Whereas the First Amendment to the United States Constitution embodies principles intended to guarantee freedom of religion both through the free exercise thereof and by prohibiting the Government from establishing a religion;

True.

Whereas Congress, in 1954, added the words `under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance;

Unfortunately true.

Whereas Congress, in 1954, believed it was acting constitutionally when it revised the Pledge of Allegiance;

Clearly they were wrong!

Whereas the Pledge of Allegiance has for more than 50 years included references to the United States flag, to our country having been established as a union `under God', and to this country being dedicated to securing `liberty and justice for all';

Well, this is an argument to keep slavery - we had it 100 years, didn't we? So it is right and we should keep it!

Whereas the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution disapproving of the panel decision of the Ninth Circuit in Newdow, and overwhelmingly passed legislation recodifying Federal law that establishes the Pledge of Allegiance in order to demonstrate Congress's opinion that voluntarily reciting the Pledge in public schools is constitutional;

That was stupid.

Whereas the Senate believes that the Pledge of Allegiance, as revised in 1954, as recodified in 2002, and as recognized in a resolution in 2003, is a fully constitutional expression of patriotism;

Oops. You were wrong.

Whereas the National Motto, patriotic songs, United States legal tender, and engravings on Federal buildings also refer to `God'; and

IRRELEVANT! Also, all of those have to go too!

Whereas in accordance with decisions of the United States Supreme Court, public school students are already protected from being compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance: Now, therefore, be it

BAD ARGUMENT! First, little children DO NOT KNOW that they do not need to say it. Secondly, those who realize that they don't have to say it will feel compelled by their teacher and peers to do so. They are forced by social pressure to say 'under god'. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF THE PLEDGE WERE: I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under Santa Clause, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Resolved,

SEC. 1. That the Senate strongly disapproves of the September 14, 2005, decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Newdow, et al. v. The Congress of the United States of America, et al.

SEC. 2. That the Senate authorizes and instructs the Senate Legal Counsel to continue to cooperate fully with the Attorney General in this case in order to vigorously defend the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

This was a unanimous vote.

America is a nation without a distinct criminal class "with the possible exception of Congress." -- Mark Twain

Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain

Becket Fund doesn't get it

2005-09-16T04:22:00.000-05:00

Becket Fund Vows Immediate Appeal to Preserve the Pledge Sep 14, 2005.

For generations, public school students have enjoyed the constitutional right to opt out of the Pledge if conscience dictates, and that's as it should be.

-- Anthony Picarello, President & General Counsel for The Becket Fund Unfortunately Mr. Picarello does not understand something about children: they don't know and are not told that they can "opt out". Furthermore, any child who does not say the pledge like everyone else can get severe social ostracism. That is, the system forces the child to say something false (that a god exists). This is highly unethical. FINALLY, the solution is obvious: just remove 'under god' from the Pledge:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

This is yet another intentional (?) misunderstanding of the facts by a religious group. (The most egregious of these are the Intelligent Design Advocates.) Picarello is putting up a big fuss about not having a pledge: "If you don't want to say the Pledge then don't, but don't try to force others not to say it". This is bad logic. Newdow and others are aiming only to remove the constitutionally illegal religious content of the pledge. Two words should never have been added by congress in the first place and they should be gone. Picarello uses blatantly poor logic to imply that this is an effort to prevent the entire pledge from being said. Of course this is intended to incite patriotic objections. But removing the illegal religious content of the pledge would allow all peoples to say the entire Pledge with clear conscience. The poor logic of religious people should be flagged and flogged every time it is put forth in the public arena.

Pledge of Allegiance

2005-09-16T04:06:00.000-05:00

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation that denies god exists, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

-- Michael Newdow's brave new form of the Pledge of Allegiance, CNN, September 14, 2005 If that makes you mad, then here's another variation that to consider:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under Casper the Ghost, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

(Casper is far more likely to exist than a god, so you should have no objection to this.)

cat religion

2005-09-08T00:15:00.000-05:00

When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, the cat who lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them. So the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice. Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up. Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice.

Zen Stories

creeping theocracy: the source

2005-09-05T12:04:00.000-05:00

Roberts Hearings Likely to Enter Religious Territory, By Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, Monday, September 5, 2005; Page A06.

Bush helped to trigger the debate in summer 2002, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the "under God" clause. "We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench," Bush declared then.

HE IS WRONG! Our rights come from the Constitution, which was written by people. The Constitution does NOT mention a diety! At inauguration Bush swore he would "uphold the constitution":

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- Presidential Oaths of Office

Bush's statement in 2002 means that he following a religious idea that contradicts the Constitution. Is the President of the United States is upholding the Constitution of the United States or is he upholding the fusing of church and state?

Supernatural selection

2005-09-03T17:46:00.000-05:00

Supernatural selection Mark Fiore cartoon rips apart 'intelligent design'.

Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

2005-09-02T10:28:00.000-05:00

Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism: The True Religion Takes Off!

2005-08-31T09:34:00.000-05:00

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism at Wikipedia.

Prayer study demolished

2005-08-31T09:25:00.000-05:00

Questioning Healing Prayer Time Online, Leon Jaroff, Thursday, Jul. 01, 2004

Praying as an engineering methodology

2005-08-24T22:18:00.000-05:00

CNN reported Monday, August 22, 2005 that Commander Eileen Collins of the Discovery space shuttle is relying on prayer to hold her ship together. She said:

"She [the widow of the Columbia shuttle commander] was praying for us -- everybody was praying for us. That's another reason I knew we were safe."

But why didn't this 'praying' (i.e. quiet wishful thinking to oneself with no external motion or action taken) work on the Challenger shuttle, which exploded 73 seconds after liftoff and the Columbia shuttle which was torn up in the atmosphere during reentry? If there is a god, did god ignore those prayers? Worse, did god cause these disasters? Certainly if he is omniscient he had to know they were going to happen. Why didn't he prevent them? What lesson was he teaching by killing those brave, intelligent, highly skilled people? Is praying causing the accidents because god gets angry at people who try to tell him what to do? More realistically, has time wasted praying taken away from the serious engineering and hard thinking that is needed to prevent disasters? Why is praise being wasted on a non-existent god when it should be heaped in great mounds on the excellent engineering work, the dedicated management, the steady piloting and the clear foresight of NASA? Evidently (that is, based on the available evidence) there is no god and relying on petitions to a god is a terrible and incredibly risky way to run an engineering operation. reference: Wiki: space shuttle

Hand of God Revealed

2005-08-24T21:48:00.000-05:00

Soccer: Maradona Admits to 'Hand of God' Goal against England So this person used the concept of god to lie about his cheating in a game.

Feynman on Uncertainty

2005-08-24T21:21:00.000-05:00

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I do not know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask 'why we are here?' and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit if I can figure it out then I go into something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't have ... I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which it the way it really is as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." The fear many people have seems to be at the root of their religion. Eliminate the fear and one of the roots is gone.

Searching for News of God

2005-08-24T21:16:00.000-05:00

I went to Google news and searched for 'God'. Here is the result:

The Bucket of Doom: Why Skepticism Rocks

2005-08-24T06:11:00.000-05:00

The Bucket of Doom: Why Skepticism Rocks The designer infinite regress leads to ... evolution! Nice logic.

thou shalt kill

2005-08-23T09:59:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson claims that the USA should assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezula. Hmm. What ever happened to the first dictum of god that thou shalt not kill? Suddenly the raw bones of religion are sticking through the thin grey sticky skin. references: Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez Christian broadcaster says 'cheaper than starting a war' CNN, 2005 Aug 22. Robertson: Assassinate Venezuelan Pres Call for anti-terror law ban on US evangelist Hamish MacDonell, news.scotsman.com

PROMOTING "INTELLIGENT DESIGN": PRESIDENT RELEASES IRONCLAD SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD'S GENIUS BLUEPRINT FOR HUMANITY

2005-08-16T08:02:00.000-05:00

EVIDENCE OF THE LORD'S BRILLIANT BIOENGINEERING

more of the same

2005-08-15T12:04:00.000-05:00

The Wait in a Catholic Hospital After Rape

creeping theocracy

2005-08-15T08:53:00.000-05:00

CNN the last sentence is a chilling lie: "Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments." said Mike Miller. (The USA religious wars are starting - they are fighting amongst themselves already.)

no sugar craving in cats

2005-07-25T20:24:00.000-05:00

Cats don't taste sugar. For a carnivore, this makes sense, and one would expect God to have made it so. But wait. It turns out that cats do have a gene for tasting sugars, just like other mammals. The gene has a mutation that prevents it from functioning. The RNA is made in the right cells, but the sugar receptor protein is not expressed. Now why would God do that? There is only one possible answer: S/He didn't. It's a bad engineering design; no reasonable engineer would do this. So God can't be a reasonable engineer. But that doesn't make sense for a being who putatively created an entire universe. There is only one one possible conclusion: There is no god. Genetic flaw leaves felines without sweet tooth, CNN. Pseudogenization of a Sweet-Receptor Gene Accounts for Cats' Indifference toward Sugar by Li et al. PLoS Genetics 1 (1): e3, 2005

There is only one God, right?

2005-07-08T07:27:00.000-05:00

-Egypt's envoy in Iraq killed CNN Thursday, July 7,2005

"We, the al Qaeda in the land of the two rivers,announce that the verdict of God against the ambassador of the infidels, the ambassador of Egypt, has been executed, praise be toGod"

The politically correct view these days is that there is only one god and that everyone in the world worships that same god. If, for the sake of argument, we take that as an axiom (which is my way of saying that it need not be true) then the folks who killed the ambassador of Egypt believe they are doing this because God told them to. Now who are we to say that they are wrong about that? But, on purely humanistic grounds we can say that taking the life of another human is unethical, irrespective of what one believes in terms of gods. The reason is that every person has the right to live as they chose. But why does each person have that right? One person cannot know what another person requires. Therefore it is false for one person to claim to know how another should live. The only way to avoid a false claim is to allow the other to live as they chose. Clearly if one person choses to harm another, they are infringing on that other person's choices and so are taking their actions on a false basis. So murder is based on a false claim. By keeping truthful, one would not claim to know how someone else should live (or not) and therefore one would not murder. One will then have respect for the other. The people who killed the Egyptian ambassador have made a false claim: that they knew how the ambasador should live. Since they could not know that, their actions were wrong.

Why God Wants Abortions

2005-07-08T07:17:00.000-05:00

Dangerous Practice by Jesse Fox Mayshark (published in the weeklywire.com on November 30, 1998) quotes an anonymous doctor "Smith":

"I would make a point too of saying that despite all this emphasis on life, the fact is humans do not differ from other animals or even plants in terms of a natural abortion rate. It's been estimated that only a third to half of all conceptions would progress to an actual human being. And we've known for many years that even 15 percent of known pregnancies will miscarry. I think one thing that might be concluded from this is that God himself does not attach particular significance to a conception. I think it is certainly important to recognize that potential life is important, but I think it does not have the moral standing of actual life. And it's important to make the distinction."