Posts Tagged ‘demon’

« Older Entries

Let’s Talk…Atheism

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

Ivy is a guest writer for State of Protest.

Just for a moment. While taking a break from some work, I — rather unfortunately — came across a few of the most ridiculous talking points for atheism that I’ve ever seen. Matt Slick, the Christian apologist, has a website which led me to CARM, and I happened to notice a “cut and paste” section in which visitors to the site are encouraged to copy and paste the arguments neatly listed for them. Please don’t take my word for it. Click the link and see with your own eyes. Now, this strikes me as incredibly humorous because, to me, most forums that have discussions of religious nature exist for the sole purpose of exchanging ideas and partaking in critical thinking (ideally). It seems to me that encouraging people to copy and paste arguments rather than figuring out arguments for themselves is detrimental to the poster.

In any case, with great interest I clicked on the Atheism topic. I was immediately dismayed. It’s fair to note that Slick says, “Please understand that these are not ’stoppers.’” They certainly aren’t. In fact, it is my belief that Slick is doing a huge disservice to his visitors by listing these points because they’re so common that any atheist in any debate forum will get pissed just for having to deal with the same old nonsense.

Here are just a few points from this site that gave me the most *headdesk* moments.

Slick begins:

Dealing with atheism is actually easy to do. They don’t have any evidence for their atheism and they can’t logically prove there is no God.

Now hold on there, Slick. We’re already starting off on a very huge misunderstanding. First, I think it’s helpful to define terms (it’s going to be important a little further down). So what is atheism? Atheism, at its barest, is a lack of belief in a deity. A — without, theism — God. Please note: this does not automatically equate to “There is no God.” That is a variation of atheism (sometimes called “strong atheism”). Atheism comes in shades, and the only thing each shade has in common is a lack of a deity. Some go all the way to denial (“There is no God”), but denial is not required.

Thus, atheism is not, in itself, a claim. If I am an atheist, I have absolutely nothing I need to prove (unless I am a strong atheist and my claim is, “There is certainly no God”). If I am not making a claim, I do not require evidence. Let me put it another way: assume that someone states, “There is a pink, magical monkey that lives in my room, often flying around at night while I sleep. It is invisible, so you cannot see it. However, I believe that it is there.” Now before this individual told you this, you held no belief of this pink monkey. You were an a-pinkmonkeyist. And after this person made the claim, your natural reaction is to say, “I have never heard of such a thing. Before I believe your claim, I would like you to prove it to me. Until then, I cannot believe you.”

Is it then logical for the individual to retort, “You have no evidence that my monkey doesn’t exist and you cannot logically prove that it does not exist, therefore, your position is illogical”? Certainly not. This is exactly why you cannot tell an atheist, “You have no evidence for your atheism” and “You cannot prove God does not exist.” The burden of proof falls upon the person who is making the claim. Unless coming from the position of strong atheism, the atheist has absolutely no claim to make and no burden of proof to meet. Right off the bat, Slick is mischaracterizing the atheist position (or at least failing to clarify that he is describing strong atheism).

Slick continues…

Please understand that these are not “stoppers.” But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending. Do not return their condescension. Instead, ask them to give rational reasons for their positions.

No, they are not stoppers. Nor are they particularly challenging to most atheists who hang out on debate forums or spend a great deal of time having these discussions.

Unfortunately, many atheists do become condescending, but I have a few points to make on that. First, the condescending attitude is not exclusive to the atheist community. There are plenty of theists who are just as condescending, in some cases even more so. It’s a problem for both sides, so I find it irritating that it is brought up here in such a…well, ironically, the way it’s mentioned here is quite condescending. Yes, just you see how long it takes for those heathens to become condescending. Right. Secondly, the condescending attitude, I think, often stems from frustration more than anything else (for both sides). When you repeat a point over and over and over while the person from the opposition does the same, both sides are likely to become frustrated and emotional. It’s almost inevitable, and happens to even the most level-headed of people who started the conversation with only the best of intentions. Sorry, Slick, this isn’t a problem of the atheist. It’s the problem of the human being.

So let’s move on to some of the points.

Ways to Attack Atheism

  1. By asking questions
    1. Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?

1

I am an atheist for several reasons. The biggest reason is because I simply have yet to see any evidence for a deity, and all logical “proofs” for any sort of deity have been circular or otherwise logically flawed. I believe that people are basically influenced by their culture and the predominant religion found within their culture, and they come to the “truth” of their religion because that is the only religion they know. A devout Christian here would likely be a devout Muslim had he or she been born in the Middle East. I could go on and on, but I don’t want to make this all about the problems with theism and belief.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn’t that simply faith?

I have no idea how Slick comes to his conclusion here. My atheism needs no evidence because it makes no claim, so I do not see how I am taking anything on faith. It’s important to note that I would never claim with certainty, “There is no God” because I don’t know and I cannot know. I do not believe in a god of any type because I have yet to be shown that there is, but I do not claim that no god exists. I would assume many other atheists feel the same. There is no faith involved in that.

  1. If you say that atheism is supported by the lack of evidence for God, then it is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.

As for Number 3, I do agree that my atheism comes, in part, from a lack of evidence for God, but I make no claim that there is no evidence for God. I claim that I have yet to see evidence for God. This does not hurt my position any because, again, I do not claim that a god does not exist.

  1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence…like say, screaming blue ants? Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief in them, too?

I think Number 4 is silly because it appears that Slick is trying to mock, when it’s actually the closest he has gotten to what atheism is. I do not believe in screaming blue ants, and if we were to speak in a casual, practical sense, I would tell you they do not exist.

However, I could not claim with absolute certainty that screaming blue ants do not exist.

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren’t absolute). So, how do you account for them?

1) Why is a god required?
2) How are they conceptual by nature?
3) How do you know they are not properties of the universe?

There are a lot of problems with TAG, and the best rundown I’ve seen on the argument recently is the argument found here.

Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to “now” you’d have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can’t that be God?

Sure, why can’t it? Nobody said it couldn’t be. Now I ask Slick, why does it have to be God? How did Slick make that jump? Could a god have brought about the universe? Yes! But so could have any other phenomena that we have yet to discover. How do we know our universe was not created as a byproduct of a previous, dying universe? Why not aliens? Or if it’s a god, why must it be your God? Why must “God” be the very first answer?

The Universe exists

  1. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn’t be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.
  2. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
  3. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
  4. Uncaused Cause
    1. Objection: If something cannot bring itself into existence, then God cannot exist since something had to bring God into existence. Answer: Not so. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes lest an infinity be crossed (which cannot happen). Therefore, there must be a single uncaused, cause.
    2. All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

This goes back to what I was saying to the point above. The universe had a beginning. Yes. But to Number 2 I say, “Atheism does not NEED to account for our existence!” Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity. It does not seek to answer any questions or offer any ideas. Slick is criticizing atheism for not doing something it was never supposed to do in the first place! I repeat myself for the last few points: yes, something caused the universe. But there’s no way of saying that it must have been God. To immediately jump to a god as a cause is highly illogical.

Responding to Atheist Statements about God

  1. “I Lack of belief in a God”
    1. If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.
    2. Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not…or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of “lack of belief.”
    3. If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don’t you go around attacking that idea?

For Slick’s first point I say, yes, your cat is also an atheist! That’s why it’s silly to even have a word for a concept like atheism because you don’t have words for people who don’t believe in unicorns. I’m sorry if he finds the definition “insufficient” but that’s really what the word means.

As for the second point: Lacking belief is not necessarily a non-statement. And here is where Slick gets confused with terms like “atheist” and “agnostic.” Atheism and agnosticism deal with two separate things: atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge (a — without; gnostic — knowledge). Technically, all of us — theists or nontheists — are agnostics, and for anyone — religious or non — to claim otherwise is simply ignorant or dishonest. So back to myself — I am what is considered an agnostic atheist; I do not know whether there is a god because I cannot know, but I do not believe there is a god. If you are a Christian, you are an agnostic theist, meaning you do not know for certain that God exists, but you certainly believe that God does.

Lastly, the third point. Why do atheists not attack ideas like the pink unicorn? It’s very simple: I’ve never had a believer in the Pink Unicorn interfere with my schooling, my science, my sexuality, my life. No Pink Unicorn believer has ever flown planes into buildings; no Pink Unicorn believer has hated me without knowing me just because his or her Sacred Unicorn told him or her to.

  1. “I believe there is no God.”
    1. On what basis do you believe there is no God?
  2. “I don’t believe there is a God.”
    1. Why don’t you believe there is no God?

1) An apparent lack of evidence.
2) Looks like you’ve got a typo, Slick. “Why don’t you believe there is no God?” Well, I do believe there is no God. ;)

“There is no proof that God exists”

  1. To say “there is no proof for God’s existence,” is illogical because an atheist cannot know all things by which he could state that there is no proof. He can only say he has not yet seen a convincing proof; after all, there may be one he hasn’t yet seen.

Again, we’re getting into agnosticism and atheism. I freely admit that there is perhaps evidence that I’ve never seen. However, at this point I would consider that unlikely because if there were such compelling evidence, it would be all over the place. I have frequented many forums, watched many videos, and listened to many people. I can say that after a while the arguments are all the same — just as the reasons for atheism are all the same. I would be delighted to hear anything I have not already heard.

“All of Science has never found any evidence for God”

  1. That is a subjective statement. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God’s existence through science.
  2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
  3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.

I would have to say that Number 1 is an exaggeration. There are many scientists who believe in a god, however, to say they “affirm evidence” is to say that there is scientific evidence, and scientific evidence would go through the process of peer review. If that were the case, the evidence would be confirmed as scientific truth (it would have to — science does not go by opinion), and there would be no debate over whether there is scientific evidence for a god. But if it has not gone through peer review, or has and failed to pass, then it is not scientific evidence, but rather a matter of subjectivity. So no, there has yet to be “scientific” evidence, so that covers Slick’s second point regarding opinion. Scientific evidence is scientific. It would be well documented and testable.

Slick’s third point is just a cop-out. So you declare God outside of the universe. Well isn’t that just too easy, as Dawkins once commented. Declaring God outside of the universe thus removing all responsibility of having to prove him? How convenient!

What is God? or Define God.

  1. God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.

First, I ask how anyone would know this about any god. You cannot cite a Bible or a holy text because for all we know the description of God is false. If you claim that the Bible says God doesn’t lie because God cannot lie because God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God cannot lie…see the circular argument? You do not know the nature of God. You cannot know the nature of God. Therefore, I cannot accept that definition.

  1. Prove your God is real.
    1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don’t love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
    2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgment of many types of evidence…because your presuppositions don’t allow it.
    3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
      1. When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count.

Right off the bat, if you cannot prove your claim, you cannot be upset if someone dismisses it. And in that case, you probably shouldn’t even get into these conversations. “Believe in God or you will burn!” Well, prove God. “I can’t prove God anymore than I can prove that I love my family, silly!” Well…okay? Then I don’t believe. Have a nice life.

For the second point, I need not prove that the universe is all that exists. I don’t know if the universe is all that exists. The only thing I claim is that I don’t hold a belief in a deity.

For the Number 3 — okay, Slick asserts that God brought the universe into existence. Great, but didn’t he also say, “Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count”? Oh, irony! For the umpteenth time, yes, the universe had a beginning. However, that does not automatically mean that the beginning was a god, and even if it was a god, it doesn’t necessarily have to be Slick’s God. How did the universe come about? I don’t know. But “I don’t know” is not a problem. “I don’t know” is an honest answer. Saying it’s a god is an opinion that could be right or could be wrong, but is no better than “I don’t know.” Atheism does not set out to explain where the universe came from. It is a lack of belief in a deity.

And lastly…

  1. Responding to Atheist Statements about Evolution and Naturalism
    1. “Evolution is a fact”
      1. That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
      2. Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
    2. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
      1. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

This is, admittedly, very frustrating. These are very common points that people bring up regarding evolution, and I think it’s a shame that the subject of evolution isn’t better covered in schools. Slick’s questions show a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. So let’s wrap up this post with a brief lesson on evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

It is also a scientific theory.

Contrary to popular belief, a scientific theory is not “just a theory.” In the context of science, a theory is something backed up with evidence; it’s not like the colloquial use of theory that means a guess. Science considers gravity, the idea that germs cause disease, and that your body is made of cells all theories. All of those are scientific theories. And they are facts. Evolution is scientifically documented and hugely supported by evidence. I promise.

Now let’s get into this micro/macro nonsense. When I first saw Slick make that distinction, I knew I was dealing with someone who hasn’t kept up with his evolution research. Science makes no distinction between micro and macro evolution in terms of processes. Both are evolution. The only difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is time. Macro evolution comes from micro evolution. To say that macro evolution cannot happen while micro evolution can is akin to me saying that I can walk to my kitchen but I cannot walk to the state of Washington. I can, and it will take many more steps, but it is the same process. We get macro evolution from a lot of micro evolution. Slick is being dishonest if he tries to tell anyone that there is a difference.

Also, this “gap in the fossil” record is disingenuous at best. We have a very thorough fossil record. Let me demonstrate how opponents of evolution make the gap argument.

I have fossil A and fossil B. Someone says, “Well what’s the fossil between those?” I produce a fossil between A and B. Well look what I just did! Now I’ve opened the door for my questioner to say, “Well where are the two fossils that link it to A and B?” And so on. The more fossils I produce, the more “gaps” I have. It’s an infinite process. Are there gaps in the record? Surely. You cannot possibly have every single fossil that ever existed. You can, however, have so many that the picture is clear, and that’s exactly what evolution has.

As for Question 2, no, I have not read any books. I have discussed evolution with people on forums and in blogs, though, on many occasions and I have read several arguments against evolution. None of them have held water. Honestly, the majority of people (majority, not all) who don’t believe in evolution simply don’t understand what it is or how it works. Evolution does not say that everything came from nothing. Evolution does not say that life came from non-life. Evolution does not say that God cannot exist if evolution is true. Evolution doesn’t “fail to explain things like the eye.” In fact, evolution is probably one of the most important discoveries of science. Evolution ties together so many disciplines of science and biology that it has been said that none of these would make sense without evolution. Evolution is so important to science. And yet it is one of the most controversial topics. What’s worse, people seem to believe that there is still actually a debate over whether evolution is true. I assure you — science has moved on from that debate ages ago. Science does not question whether evolution is true. There is no debate. The only question now regarding evolution (in science) involves the specifics (“Does evolution work through punctuated equilibrium?”).

I would urge Slick to reconsider posting these copy and paste points for theists. All he is accomplishing is a gross misinformation campaign for his readers, along with depriving them of the chance to use their own reasoning when engaging in debate with those who don’t share their viewpoints.

  1. Editor’s note: The original website used multiple instances of lists of ones; not all of the quotes in this article reflect the exact numerical positions of the subparagraphs. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion | 8 Comments »

There is something wrong with Teh Gays

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

Yes, there is something wrong with gay people. Terribly, demonstrably wrong. Horrific, actually. Well, at least with most gay people.

Today, in the land of corn fields, and amongst the meadows and barns dedicated to animal husbandry (how ironic), the Iowa Supreme Court announced that gays should have the right to marry. This is IOWA! The gays invaded the heartland and won a victory. It’s a rather hollow victory. All that victory does is secure the civil rights gays have long sought to put them on par with heterosexuals. That’s all. No big deal.

But why? Sure, there are a host of social benefits in acknowledging formalized homosexual relationships (even the informal ones), but to what end? There is something very wrong with teh gays. Teh gays, many of them at least, still believe in the bible. They believe in religions of various kinds that don’t just dislike gay people, which should be sufficient, but no, their holy books call homosexual interactions an “abomination unto the lord” (or some variant). The cure normally is death to the perpetrator.

If you are gay, and you believe in the bible, particularly the Christian Bible — my favorite being the King James Version — why on earth do you actually believe in that god? In that religion? Why do you attend a church whose very words and practices do more than simply insult your existence, they often require the extinguishment of your innate characteristics and attributes from reality?

Oh, that’s right. Many of teh gays attend a gay-friendly church, like MCC. WHY? Because Jesus loves them. Yeah. Well, Jesus didn’t love teh gays enough to really come out in the New Testament and say something wonderful and loving and uplifting that would erase all the prior hate-filled scriptures. NOPE! But, teh gays love Jesus anyway.

WAKE UP QUEER FOLK!! THE TIME HAS COME TO STOP PLAYING THE WRONG GAME AND STRAIGHTEN UP YOUR LOGIC!!

GAYS NEED TO GO STRAIGHT! FUCK AN ATHEIST AND YOU’LL BE TURNED ON BY REGULAR LOGIC!!

Andrew, I know you really want to go straight and fuck an atheist. I have seen you sit on the fence many times, looking as though you really want to break on through to the other side. If you already fucked one, then maybe it wasn’t the right one. Just go to Dupont Circle and ask around. You’ll find one. It’s okay.

IF YOU ARE GAY AND DON’T KNOW AN ATHEIST, VISIT AN ONLINE FORUM LIKE ATT OR WWGHA, FIND AN ATHEIST AND THEN GET BUSY GOING STRAIGHT.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Government, Religion, Sexuality | 1 Comment »

Carnival of the Godless #112 – Daylight Saving Time Edition

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

cotgbadgeState of Protest is honored to host the Carnival of the Godless #112. We first hosted COTG in May of 2008, Carnival of the Godless #91. That was rather successful, as I received comments like this, from Sean the Blogonaut:
“I really like the way that you have formatted the post with short excerpts from each of the articles.”

And from Christine, “This is one of the easiest-to-navigate, most-inviting Carnivals I’ve seen. Very nicely done!”

I hope to be able to create such a satisfactory COTG again. (Fortunately, this time I didn’t get repeated submissions about how “The Secret” is real, but I did get some pro-God submissions, yay.)

Not only is today a day that we are, once again, robbed of a precious hour, but it is also International Women’s Day. Please, in some way, celebrate the fact that none of us would be here were it not for women, and mourn the fact that women are still treated like second-class citizens (or much worse) all over the world today.

And now, without further French, Carnival of the Godless #112!

Oz Atheist suggests that you should Never put your cashews to the side. I know that whenever I buy cashews, I can’t stop eating them! However, Oz Atheist tells the sad story of someone who did put her cashews to the side, and how that’s an analogy for how religious people live their lives.

One evening she was having Chinese chicken and cashews for dinner at a relatives. As she found a cashew she would put it aside on her plate so she could enjoy all the cashews at the end of her meal.

Oz Atheist follows up his Cashew article with The Helicopter, or “somewhere someone is having a worse day than you.”

Recently whilst on a short jog (and thinking how my life had turned to shit) the rescue chopper flew overhead. I looked up and thought, “if you need the rescue chopper then you must be in serious trouble.”

Guest poster Mathurine at Tree Dreamer answers a collection of Questions for Ex-Muslims:

I don’t have an agenda against Islam, I’m not doing this because I suffered some trauma at the hands of Islam. Rather, I would like people to know some of the other aspects of the religion – the questions and answers you’re not going to get from your local mosque or Muslim Students Association.

A few articles dealt with the questions for atheists that Lee Strobel submitted to Friendly Atheist:
Hank at Dangerous Intersection follows up on those questions with some questions of his own for theologists and apologists in I ask; will the apologists answer?

How do you discount other religions, many with an equal or greater number of followers, which make similar claims to divine inspiration? How do their various claims of divine inspiration, miraculous occurrences and absolute moral authority fail to meet your standards of evidence?

and Friar Zero at Apple of Doubt joins the gang of atheist responders with his own answers to Strobel’s questions in An Atheist Snipe Hunt.

[Strobel's] questions are not the silver bullets that some seem to believe. They are not the best arguments against atheism or the questions most likely to plant the seeds of conversion in the godless.

finally, Conversational Atheist challenges Strobel in Response to: Who Would Die for a Lie?

Then Ask: Is a supernatural explanation allowed in order to explain the claims of Jesus’ disciples that they witnessed him resurrected and the 500 people that Paul talked to?

If no: then the person you are talking to isn’t a Christian. Simply explain that one cannot embrace the supernatural in his/her version and forbid others from using it in their explanations.

If yes: Propose the following situation:

The disciples were possessed by spirits who claimed that Jesus was resurrected.

Anthroslug thinks about morality in Thinking About Morality.
(Morality is a theme I’ve been assaulted with a lot in the past few weeks)

That religion is not the bulwark of morality against a rising tide of social ills is further illustrated by the fact that the non-religious make up a smaller portion of the prison population than of the general population. Independent of the question of whether or not religion causes social ills (a very complex question outside the scope of what I am writing here), it should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that if religious belief was in fact the source of morality, then belief in gods would correlate with higher rates of moral behavior, but this proposition is demonstrably false.

Cereal at Separate Spectrum (Your daily dose of bible thumping fun-time) addresses Systems of Right and Wrong.

I think it’s time for a new outlook on how we treat the guilty of our “people’s democratic justice system.”

From the Best Blog Names file, Wenchypoo at Wisdom From Wenchypoo’s Mental Wastebasket compares the relationship between followers and the church to the relationship between citizens and the government, with regard to belief and expectations, in A Faith-Based Nation.

For decades, certain segments of our society have put blind faith in government in the same way that some put blind faith in a god. Like the so-called “miracles” of loaves and fishes, parting the Red Sea, walking on water, and so forth, our own government is expected to do similar things…

Ila, trying to find a place in the world, asks What is atheism? Rather than settling with a mere (stereotypical) definition, Ila, instead, encourages atheists to reach beyond disbelief, but in a positive way.

I cross referenced these two terms in the dictionary and came with “The doctrine or belief that there is no God. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” and “Someone who denies the existence of god.” But i would like to see atheism in a different perspective.

Mark Koester at The Mystic Atheist (Understanding what it means to be “the still point of the turning world”) compares the Word of God (a story already told) to The Word of Science: A Story Still to Tell

Atheists often find blatant error in religious people’s claim at truth and meaning in such sources. But such a judgment ignores that people generally don’t look at these stories and communities through the lenses of scientific reasoning but through the lenses of a broader, more primordial human phenomenon: narrative truth and storytelling.

Cubik’s Rube disassembles Pascal’s Wager, explaining why the gambit isn’t convincing to non-believers.

His most famous argument for believing in God, based on his analysis of the odds and outcomes of belief versus disbelief, is repeated more often than any twelve episodes of Friends on late-night satellite TV channels, and judging by the way it’s often used, has shown as little progress or development in the three centuries or so since it was first proposed, as Ross did over ten seasons.

Greta Christina addresses the origin of the “Shut up, that’s why” arguments against atheists and atheism in Curiosity and the “Shut Up, That’s Why” Argument. Greta’s summary:

Why are conversations between atheists and believers often so frustrating for both sides? And is there anything we can do to make those conversations go better? The thesis of this piece: In atheist/ theist debates, atheists assume that believers are insatiably curious and looking for a consistent and plausible worldview… and believers assume that atheists are looking for an appealing worldview and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We need to recognize these differing, cross-purpose goals if we want these conversations to be productive.

Sound byte:

I think that, when we argue with theists, atheists tend to assume that of course theists want to know the truth. Of course they want to follow the God question to its logical conclusion. Don’t they?

and then Greta Christina, in Atheism and the Argument from Comfort, counters the argument that religion offers comfort while asserting that atheists should stop arguing against it. Greta points out flaws in the argument and offers strategic suggestions on how to deal with the believers who make it.

It’s an argument that tends to drive atheists batty… since it’s not, in fact, an argument. It’s an emotional defense for hanging onto an argument that’s already been lost.

Romeo Vitelli at Providentia tells the tale of an almost forgotten tragedy from history, in Fallen Women.

Long before Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code, the legend of Mary Magdalene was a strong part of early Church doctrine. Despite the lack of any scriptural basis, the tradition of Mary Magdalene as a reformed prostitute who found salvation through repentance made her the natural patron saint for convents in which “problem” women could be redeemed.

Luke Muehlhauser at Common Sense Atheism analyzes The Explosion of Early Christianity, (Explained), asserting that it’s simple math, not a miracle, and it’s much less impressive than the growth of Mormonism or atheism in the 20th century.

Exponential growth explains the explosion of Christianity perfectly. In fact, it also explains why Christianity seemed insignificant until about 300, when it suddenly became a huge force in the Roman Empire.

SocraticGadfly shares some poetic reflections on religious outcasts, starting with the literal ones in India, in Outcasts in the name of gOd.

In the American South, in the land of cotton,
Old bible passages were not forgotten
But were twisted, to look away from the evil
Of black slavery in Dixie land.

Eric Michael Johnson at The Primate Diaries (Notes on science, politics and culture from a primate in the human zoo) discusses a new study about the origins of moral disgust in The Bad Taste of Moral Turpitude.

The greed and avarice responsible for the current economic meltdown has resulted in a growing distaste for business as usual. As it turns out, evolution may explain just why this is.

Angus Stocking at Belief Systems and Other BS asks a profoundly simple but ignored question about the nature of the Christian god in relation to that deity’s alleged son, in Oh Jesus.

In fact, Jesus appears to be stating in the plainest language possible the core message of all mysticism: that even though humans live in separation, union is possible – that we poor, pitiful, separate and alienated humans can, by grace, directly experience unity with the divine.

As Crowley said of Jesus, “I don’t blame the man for the religion foisted upon him after his death.”

Seth at Whiskey Before Breakfast tells us the story of the skinny gay kid.

Kids, if your parents are a hypocritical, child beating, cable stealing, environmentally moronic creationist fuckwad Methodist Deacon and his cowering sycophant of a wife, do not bring your crazed, hard drinking, drug taking, sexually liberal debate veteran friend home to stay for Easter Weekend.

(Nominating that for the quote of the year)

Matt Pritchard at Christian 2.0 (not an atheist blog, but the article does relate to atheism, and I felt it was fair to post it here) posts a compilation of conversations between himself and atheists from the atheist blog site Uniform Velocity, and asks (apparently Christians) whether their aim is to mend or to destroy when conversing with atheists, in Atheism: Mend or Destroy? Of course, the author could have been asking atheists. Perhaps both.

To the Christian reader: I want to show that it is possible to have a real conversation with someone who holds different beliefs, about their beliefs (or non-belief), without being hostile.

Danny Boy at Verbal Razors writes about The god of the gaps.

We have much to be thankful to our current state of knowledge. But just as we are marching forth into the future, people still stuck in the past are planting their feet in the ground and demarcating areas where our inquisitive spirits must not go.

Ron Britton at Bay of Fundie (Keeping the Radical Right at Bay) hammers Creationist Kevin Wirth’s article promoting the teaching of intelligent design in schools, in This Dork Couldn’t ID Farce if it Were Designed by God.

The ridicule and the insults are for our amusement! Watching you creationists is like going to the old circus freakshow and laughing and pointing at the freaks, but without the guilt!

PhillyChief at You Made Me Say It… explores the need to indulge the inner child and imagination, and what happens when you don’t, in Inside-Out Jammies.

The past two days were fun escapes from reality, indulgences in the unrestrained fun, excitement and imagination of childhood. I don’t see any serious harm in such escapes, and certainly I don’t see why one’s imagination must be shelved along with other toys and trinkets of childhood.

Chris Hallquist at The Uncredible Hallq examines The Plantinga-Dennett debate.

On the “low” half of the argument, Plantinga has some ideas about how maybe false beliefs could work out to be adaptive, somehow, but none of it amounts to a real argument that the odds actually are against us.

Samson Blinded (a Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict) suggests that Christian friends might not be ours.

A Christian state of America rather than Muslim Egypt forced Israel to give away the Sinai. Christian powers finance the Arab wars with Israel by oil purchases, and enable those wars by selling Arabs advanced weapons.

Z at It’s the Thought that Counts shares a thought experiment to illustrate how it’s possible to have moral principles regardless of your belief in God, or in the absence of a god’s commandments, in Choosing between God and Satan.

So let’s imagine that two beings manifest themselves to you, both claiming to be God, and both demonstrating extreme power, far beyond your comprehension. How do you tell them apart?

Last, but not least, Andrew at Evaluating Christianity explains Why The “Minimal Facts” Model is Unpersuasive.

The underlying problem is one of selection bias: if an intelligent and informed person thinks the Bible is probably true and therefore significant, he or she is more likely to pursue a career in biblical study and then publish his or her findings (confirming that the Bible is true). If, however, an identically-qualified person thinks the Bible is probably false and therefore not significant, he or she is dramatically less likely to trundle off to seminary regardless, and is exponentially less likely to publish his or her findings confirming that the Bible is false.

—

Thank you for your submissions and your support!

Please keep submitting on the rolling Carnival of the Godless submission site. The next COTG host will be at Daylight Atheism.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in COTG | 8 Comments »

Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs?

Friday, December 12th, 2008

As reported by ABC news, an Oregon couple, by offering up prayer instead of what would have been an easy treatment by medical professionals, allowed their infant daughter to die. Or, put another way, murdered their infant daughter.

Carl and Raylene Worthington, the killers (should we really call them parents?) happen to belong to the same church, the Followers of Christ Church, as Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide in October, 2008, after they attempted only prayer healing for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, instead of medically treating him for what was an easily treatable illness. Apparently, this church as been the catalyst for at least twenty other child deaths as a result of applying faith healing techniques, when every one of them could have been easily cured with proper medical treatment.

Although my first reaction to these heinous acts is to shrug and hope the result is the direct or indirect thinning of the herd, my more contemplative criticism is not based on what the parents or church have done, but what our laws and the courts have allowed and currently allow. Specifically, the fact that a decade ago, during the events that led investigators to believe that twenty children affiliated with the Followers of Christ Church had died because of that affiliation, the existing Oregon law allowed for claims that religious beliefs prevented defendants from seeking medical help — the “spiritual healing defense.” In 1999, the Oregon state legislature, upon hearing about the twenty children, changed the law to bar such claims.

The original language of the defense:

Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.
{ – (3) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating
subsection (1)(c)(B) of this section that the child or dependent
person was under care or treatment solely by spiritual means
pursuant to the religious beliefs or practices of the child or
person or the parent or guardian of the child or person.1

But a lot of good that does when the law currently allows the same spiritual healing defense to be used to reduce sentencing: (emphasis mine)

137.712. (1)(a) Notwithstanding ORS 137.700 and 137.707, when a person is convicted of { + manslaughter in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.125, + } … the court may impose a sentence according to the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission that is less than the minimum sentence that otherwise may be required by ORS 137.700 or 137.707 if the court, on the record at sentencing, makes the findings set forth in subsection (2) of this section and finds that a substantial and compelling reason under the
rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission justifies the lesser sentence. …
(2) A conviction is subject to subsection (1) of this section only if the sentencing court finds on the record by a preponderance of the evidence:
{ + (a) If the conviction is for manslaughter in the second degree:
(A) That the defendant is the mother or father of the victim;
(B) That the death of the victim was the result of an injury or illness that was not caused by the defendant;
(C) That the defendant treated the injury or illness solely by spiritual treatment in accordance with the religious beliefs or practices of the defendant and based on a good faith belief that spiritual treatment would bring about the victim’s recovery from the injury or illness….

In short, what it means is that if the court believes the parents believed that the spiritual healing would have worked, then the court can reduce the sentence of parents who murder their children based on their religious beliefs. Well, if you could call it “spiritual treatment,” which can really include just about anything, apparently.

This is clearly a law respecting an establishment of religion, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Of course, the counter argument is that the First Amendment also prohibits the government from interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion. What the counter argument and those who would use it (obviously those who got that law enacted in the first place) fail to acknowledge is that we have employed our government to protect an even greater self-created right — the right not to be killed by fellow citizens. That greater right trumps any defense of religious preference when it comes to murder. (Yes, technically, it’s “manslaughter,” but I don’t view it that way).

What we all need to do, with swiftness and fervor, is contact our state representatives to find out whether our own states have similar laws unconstitutionally favoring religion and letting murderers off with potentially lighter sentences, and, if so, we need to tell them to work toward eliminating such laws. If there aren’t any such laws (doubtful), ask your legislator to ensure that none ever get passed, because such a breach of the separation of church and state is an affront to everyone (even the religious), especially when those laws favor the most vile of people. As Daylight Atheism skillfully argues, No Religious Exemptions from Child Abuse Laws.

Do you think the Followers of Christ Church should be tax exempt? If you live in Oregon, contact your state representatives and demand that the church lose its tax exempt status. The purpose of allowing religious organizations a tax exempt status is the flawed idea that the church is somehow benefiting society. The Followers of Christ Church does the reverse. It doesn’t deserve a tax break. Everyone in every state, in every country, should be demanding that churches be taxed.

Don’t let these murderers or anyone else use religion as justification for their actions.

—

Input from readers:

Blackstar9000, on Reddit, says:

The article leaves out the two clauses that follow:

(D) That no other person previously under the defendant’s care has died or sustained significant physical injury as a result of or despite the use of spiritual treatment, regardless of whether the spiritual treatment was used alone or in conjunction with medical care; and (E) That the defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection (4) of this section or for criminal mistreatment in the second degree. + }

Those clauses shed some light on why there’s a provision, I’d say. It’s basically a learning curve that says, if you’ve been taught to believe that faith healing works, and there’s nothing in your past that should have demonstrated to you that it doesn’t, a lesser sentence may be warranted simply because you weren’t fully aware of the damage you could be causing. It isn’t a get out of jail free card, but if a person’s been cloistered all their life and might not reasonably have enough experience to know the consequences of their action, they might need at least some legal protections.

My response:
Why couldn’t there be a general provision indicating that if the defendant lacked the knowledge or mental capacity to understand that a particular method of treatment would not likely be successful, then the sentence could be reduced based on that fact? Why not that instead of the direct reference to religious belief? If the principle is, as you suggest, whether a person reasonably possesses the knowledge or know-how to treat someone with proper care, then why explicitly restrict that to the “spiritual”? Are there never any instances where non-spiritual upbringing can mislead someone?

Any takers?

Blackstar9000 replies:

Those are all valid question, and it’s way beyond my competence to give anything more than a reasonable guess. I will say this, though: Generally, laws of this sort arise as a response to particular instances rather than as a consideration of future possibilities. It’s a fair bet that this piece of legislation was written after a specific, precedent-setting case, and that the circumstances of the case itself did much to dictate the form that the legislation ultimately took. In other words, it specifies the religious belief because the religious belief is what the court has had to deal with in the past. Caution probably also played a part; not all judges and legislators are willing to introduce sweeping provisions without first having seen how a given set of circumstances will play out in an actual case.

Having said all of that — and, of course, this is all lay interpretation — while the law cited is setting forth an exception, the sense I get from it is that it’s spelling it out in order to provide restrictions on that exception. In other words, legislators could have laid out a blanket exception for religion: “If you’ve got a note from your priest, we’ll let it slide.” Instead, what they’re saying is that, in certain circumstances, a person’s religious background does mitigate some of the severity that would otherwise be warranted, but the court has to retain some control over how it’s determined that those circumstances have been met. What those provisions are looking for, it seems to me, is some relatively reliable guarantee that the parents weren’t being intentionally malicious or even simply callous in their neglect. The provisions likely aren’t a perfect instrument for gauging that, but in dealing with matters of judgment like that of deciding whether or not someone was a caring parent, the legal system has to traffic in evidence that is more or less tangible.

Where that’s true, ie. where caring and concerned parents have lost a child through their own neglect, then any punishment the court can mete out is likely to pale next to the suffering the parents already feel.

StOP

  1. http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2400.dir/hb2494.en.html [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Logic, Morality, Religion, Science | 14 Comments »

Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl

Monday, December 8th, 2008

From the What a Fucking Moron files comes the verdict of a child pornography criminal case in Australia, where Justice Michael Adams, of the New South Wales Supreme Court of stupidity, held that a fictional cartoon character, specifically Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson, is a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Because the accused, John McEwan, possessed images of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson having sex, the court found him guilty of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

Said the judge:

In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …

… The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a ‘person’.1

So, is the judge right?

Bwahahahaha. Oh my goodness.

Look, it’s two stick figures having sex: (man, I’m bad at this)
O
|\___o
||/\../\

See the one on the right? That’s a 7-year-old girl, right? Just play along. The one on the left? An old guy.

BOOM, that’s child pornography in Australia. Nearly was in the U.S., too, before the U.S. Supreme Court (barely) decided that, hey, maybe no one is actually getting hurt when someone DRAWS (simply or creatively or otherwise) a child.2 Wait, did I say “nearly” in the U.S.? Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law that Congress passed, which would have criminalized possession of cartoon kiddy porn, Congress persevered, passing the PROTECT Act of 2003 (related to COPA that originated in 1998). Now we’re just like Australia in that respect. [also see the latest bs Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years] (my stick figures are going to end up with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) (But see Update below about the implied overturning of the law) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly:

The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects of child abuse, prohibits all illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. However, the computer-generated child pornography provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law. One section of the PROTECT act has been challenged and was upheld by Supreme Court decision in May 2008.3

But perhaps I could have been of some use in McEwan’s defense. Here’s how I would have argued:

The youngest Simpson, Maggie, was a newborn at the start of the cartoon series on television, which was in 1987. Considering it’s now 2008, that would make the youngest Simpson family member about 21 years old. Despite the fact that the characters have not “appeared” to have aged, someone in possession of depictions of these actual age of majority characters having sex is no different from possessing pictures of an adult victim of dwarfism engaging in sex.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that McEwan’s attempt to appeal was successful. What would you do if someone in the U.S. were tried under the PROTECT Act for possessing Bart Simpson porn? What if it were you?

It may seem pointless to defend the rights of someone who would illustrate or enjoy such things, but realize that by doing so, you’re actually defending the rights that you currently possess, but that quite possibly are next in line on the chopping block. If you’ve ever pointed a finger at someone for being a hypocrite, for cherry picking moral lessons from an ancient book, note that by defending what you think is your right to speak freely, but attacking someone else’s self-perceived right to do the same thing (because, perhaps, you don’t like the content of the speech), you’re pointing a finger at yourself.

Wake up. Get the new administration to examine and amend the PROTECT Act, and other laws based on nonsense.

—

I linked above to The Nock Blog, where an automatically generated trackback thingy posted on my behalf on that blog. Mr. Nock read this post, and commented, albeit on his blog. I responded, and he elaborated. Here’s the conversation, which can be seen at The Nock Blog.

#State of Protest » Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl
December 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm

[...] with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly: The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects [...]

(that’s the auto linky thing)

Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Firstly Wikipedia itself is not banned, only that access to Wikipedia passes through transparent proxies that cause the page that is dodgy to be not available in the UK, with no logging taking place based on Plusnet’s responses and other information gathered from the Internet.

Secondly, the cartoon depiction of sexual acts between minors is as illegal in the UK as it is in Australia. It matters not that they are cartoons or real, as long as the meaning is sexual. I think however a full legal opinion would need to be sought for this, but you can bet that the realism of the depiction does count and Lisa Simpson is real enough but your stick figures are not. However associate those stick images with the words you have so placed on your site then I think you could be going some way towards demonstrating important circumstantial evidence that you are indeed committing a criminal offence. However, I am not a lawyer as I said and a full legal opinion would need to be obtained… This in itself is pertinent to the discussions today as the IWF are not a full legal body (for opinion) and are making decisions about content that can be challenged in court, and would ultimately be challenged with the right amount of suspicion and belief that an offence is taking place.

stateofprotest
December 8, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Ian D. Nock,

(First, feel free to leave that comment on my actual blog; what you see above is an auto-generated trackback thingy).

Second, what’s the difference between stick figures described as minors doing it and the sticks that make up the words creating the description you suggest would criminalize my depiction? In other words, words are stick figures, and once you start censoring the content of words (stick figure or no), you open the door to having any words censored for any reason. For, who is to judge?

Censorship is a double-edged sword.

Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm

The words give the drawing context, this is what can give criminality to something that is otherwise grey.

UPDATE:

According to Polymorphous Perversity, the fact that the law was pinballing among the courts till recently meant that despite its “passage” in 1998, it could not really be enforced until a final decision (or at least a precedent) was made. PP refers to an article in the LA Times today that indicates that the Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die. Five years ago, the Supreme Court was split on the issue, deciding that the lower courts should determine whether the proposed filters would be sufficient to protect minors. In the key case of Mukasey vs. ACLU, where the ACLU prevailed in the lower courts, the fact that the Supreme Court declined to review the case indicates that the law is effectively unconstitutional (or at least not enforceable as it stands), and is effectively dead. Good news for free-speech advocates and stick-figure artists.

Also check out this thorough article on CNet: Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law

StOP

  1. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767142-29277,00.html [<]
  2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795 [<]
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Law, Morality, Sexuality | 12 Comments »

« Older Entries