Fractal Pensive Ziztur
Freedom of the Mind.
Ziztur.com

Monday, March 8, 2010

Help?

I have a problem!

At the end of this month, Blogger (which I use to blog) will end FTP publishing (which I use).

I need someone to help redesign my blog for Wordpress. I have money! For you! If you help me!

Labels:

Monday, December 28, 2009

Last War on Xmas post

I am literally laughing out loud at this blog post by Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issues Analysis titled, "Nazis Started War Against Christmas" in which Gap (the company who *gasp* compared Christmas to the solstice, how dare they!) and anyone who does not specifically acknowledge Christmas during the month of December is compared to anti-semites and Nazis.

You're just going to have to read it:

While the left tries to perpetuate the myth that the Nazis were right wing Christians, nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler was steeped in the occult, and even introduced a calendar late in the war that replaced every single Christian holiday with a pagan alternative.

Really, nothing could be further from the truth?

The Nazi's were clearly Christians, who hated Jews because they believed the Jews murdered Jesus. They hated Jews because the Jews rejected Jesus. They believed Jesus was Aryan. This is unambiguously clear. Hitler's hatred of Jews was not new. He learned to hate Jews due to Catholic and Protestant preaching at the pulpit. I know it's fun to try to rewrite history to make your religion look as wonderful as possible, but denying that the holocaust was perpetuated by Christians is nearly as bad as denying the holocaust occurred at all.

In 200 years, when homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else, the AFA will probably be insisting that "the left tries to perpetuate the myth that right wing Christians opposed gay rights".

Mr. Fischer. You are claiming historical "facts". Where are your citations? Why do you provide no evidence? I can provide evidence that Hitler was a Christian. It's not hard.  Here's more.   Here's some more.

Especially important in the Hitler/Christian controversy is the unreliability of Hitler's Table Talk, a source referenced by Christians to prove that Hitler was against Christianity, but the source is unreliable.

So what's up with this calendar?

Rosenberg, the guy who created the calendar, rejected parts of Christianity, and helped develop positive Christianity, the model of Christianity adopted by Nazi's. Positive Christianity rejected the Old Testament, insisted that Jesus was Aryan and non-Jewish, and had a goal of uniting Catholicism and Protestantism into one united Christian church.

It seems pretty clear to me that all of the sources of this calendar paint it in such a light as to ignore the positive Christianity aspects and play up the nationalistic, propagandic aspects.

When it came to Christmas, the Nazis urged Germans to celebrate the holy day (excuse me, "holiday") by using ornaments on their trees in the shape of swastikas and the Iron Cross, baking cookies using swastika-shaped cookie cutters, replacing St. Nicholas with an image of the Norse god Odin, and burning candles set on swastika-shaped holders.

You realize, Mr Fischer, that "holiday" is a contraction of Holy Day, right?

You didn't provide a source again for your cookie and ornament comment, but I can. Yes, they did have Swastika ornaments. They also seem to have a baby-Jesus shaped cookie:




The source I cited also refers to the Nazis as "atheist". So I have to wonder about the accuracy of the way the historical documents in this museum are presented. One of the women who set up the museum of See-How-Anti-Christian-Nazis-Were had this to say:

'Christmas was a provocation for the Nazis - after all, the baby Jesus was a Jewish child,' Judith Breuer told the German newspaper Spiegel. 'The most important celebration in the year didn't fit with their racist beliefs so they had to react, by trying to make it less Christian.'

Yes, but documents are extremely clear – the Nazis were Christian and believed Jesus was an Aryan, not a "Jewish child". This quote makes me think that this whole museum may be about as historically accurate as the Creation Museum.

Nazis also specifically perpetuated violent acts during Jewish holidays.
Believe it or not, Germans produced ornaments in the shape of bombs and hand grenades. And no, I am not making that up. Not much "Peace on Earth" in that, is there?
They, like many Christians, probably believed that one had to war for peace. They just had a funky way of expressing it. 
In something emblematic of the German church's craven capitulation to the Nazi regime, German churches put up little opposition to the Nazification of Christmas. Why? Says a student of the time, "[T]hey largely kept quiet, out of fear."
Or out of agreement. 
The Daily Mail story refers to "the atheist Nazis, who tried to turn (Christmas) into a pagan winter solstice celebration."

Can you say "Hello, Gap?" The Gap responded to pressure from the American Family Association about the absence of "Christmas" in their advertising by producing a commercial that does mention Christmas, but then adds "Go Solstice" in the next breath.

Really. The Gap is compared to atheist Nazis who tried to turn Christmas into a pagan solstice celebration. I don't even think I need to present a counter-argument, this can just stand on its own.
The Nazis hated Christmas for one simple reason: it celebrates the birth of a Jew.

The Nazis hated Jews because they killed Jesus. There really isn't evidence that they "hated Christmas", just evidence that they wanted to blend Christmas with nationalism. If anything, Christians should be angry that businesses are exploiting their holiday to make money.

By the way, this suggests a new tack in our discussion about Christmas. The left hates Christmas because it celebrates the birthday of the first Christian. But isn't there something faintly anti-Semitic about that?

No. First of all, the left does not hate Christmas. How many people on the left consider themselves Christian, anyway? There really aren't any good studies on religion vs left-wing and right-wing politics, so I cannot say.

Personally, I just feel as though you should not force people to acknowledge your holiday. If they do – okay. If they don't –okay. It should be our choice, right? But AFA insists that people do not have a choice. Wanting the choice is not "hating Christmas" and certainly is not anti-Semitic. If that were the case, then lobbying to force business to specifically acknowledge Christmas while simultaneously not forcing businesses to specifically acknowledge Hanukkah is anti-Semitic.

After all, Christians can hardly be accused of systemic racism when we believe the Savior of the world lived his life on earth as a Jew.

So? So maybe you're not racist with regard to Jesus. Maybe you still hate other Jews for killing Jesus. Maybe you hate black people, or Muslims. Believing that Jesus was a Jew is not an argument against Christians being racist. It is a red herring.

Even the left tries to protect the celebration of the Jewish holiday Hanukkah, which conveniently for Jewish children aced out of the whole Christmas gift thing falls near Christmas most every year. In fact, some schools with left-leaning principals will allow the display of menorahs in school buildings while forbidding nativity scenes.

Citation needed, dude. Here, I did it for you. This has nothing to do with principals as far as I can tell – the whole menorah but not nativity scene is a New York City Public Education policy, which allows religious symbols during holidays so long as they do not depict a specific deity. So go put up a cross.

But wait a minute. All the key players in the nativity scene - father, mother, child, shepherds - were Jewish. That means we can celebrate two Jewish holidays this time of year instead of just one!

This is just underhanded. Mr. Fischer knows that Jewish people do not celebrate the birth of Christ as a Jewish holiday.

I say we start reminding folks that December 25 marks the birth of the greatest Jew who ever lived, and that America is too great a country to allow anti-Semitism to rob us of the recognition of this world-shaping figure given to the world by the Jewish people.

People who wish that the holidays be more inclusive to other religions are not anti-Semitic. Ad hominem much?

What other Jew has had the impact on the world that this figure has had? His influence is pervasive even 2,000 years after his death. One third of the world's population calls itself by his name. If there ever was a Jewish man who deserved his own holiday, Jesus is the one.

So from now on, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. When people question whether we ought to celebrate Christmas, my response will be to express wonder that they nurse such anti-Semitic feelings in their hearts. Why, I will add, with our first post-racial president and all, I thought we were supposed to be way beyond all that racist bigotry.

And I will conclude, "I celebrate Christmas because I'm no anti-Semitic racist bigot. How about you?"

Good for you! Go on celebrating Christmas. But don't force everyone else to do so as well and don't call people anti-Semitic racist bigots for not celebrating Christmas. That's really insulting to Jewish people. I guess people who celebrate Kwanzaa should say that they do so because they're no anti-black racist bigot. I guess people should say they celebrate Hannukah because they're no anti-Semitic racist bigot. I guess people should celebrate nothing at all because they aren't bigoted toward people who aren't religious. I guess people should celebrate Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha because they are no anti-Muslim racist bigot.

Okay, I'm done now.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Interview with Ray Comfort!

The other day I got the opportunity to send Ray Comfort (who blogs here and writes just about everywhere) some questions. Here they are!

Dear Mr. Comfort,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to e-interview you on my blog. I know you do lots of interviews, so I tried to ask you some questions in this interview that are a little bit out-of-the-box. Of course, you're not obligated to answer any of them. Some of them are questions that were suggested by my commenters.

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this famous Christian named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you're more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as "banana-man."

(Asked by my friend Pastor Keith): What is the gospel?

In a nutshell--that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word "gospel" means good news, and the gospel doesn't make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it's allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called "Hell"--because each of us has violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.

(Asked by reader Gord) Can you define "kind"? What is the closest equivalent to "kind" in taxonomy? Species? Genus? Something else?

The word "kind" is the biblical word for "species." God created dogs to reproduced dogs, cats to reproduce cats. Every animal was created to bring forth after its own kind. The Book of Genesis repeats this many times in the first chapter to make it clear, for those of us who are a little slow. We see evidence of this, both in the fossil record, and in living creation. The meaning of the word "species" has changed over the years. At one point it was synonymous with "kinds." However, nowadays it is used differently in different circles.

(Also asked by Gord, long question): Have you met, chat[tted] with or otherwise communicated with an Old Earth Creationist named Adnan Oktar (pen name of Harun Yahya)? His argument for creation is that despite Millions of years of existence, the fossil record shows that all kind[s] of creatures does not display any form of change at all. A fossil of a fish seems to be the same as a modern fish, a fossil of a bird seems to be the same as a modern bird, etc. He says that this clearly shows that creative genius of his Creator, Allah. What fossil evidence can you point out to him that he is clearly mistaken, that micro-evolution does happen and that an ancient fish is very dissimilar to a modern fish. An ancient bird is very dissimilar to a modern bird, etc.? What physical evidence can you show him to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is the creative force behind all of these micro-evolution? Evidence that is so compelling that nothing in the Koran can dispute to it's truth?

I have never heard of Mr. Oktar and I am therefore not familiar with his arguments, other than what you have related. Those who believe that a fish fossil is "ancient" reveal their unquestioning faith in dating methods. The fact that a fossil of a bird is different from a modern bird simply means that the Creator made them different. There was no transition from one species to another, so micro-evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. We can see micro-evolution throughout the entire creation of God--both in the fossil record and living things--from the small finch to the large albatross, from the massive Great Dane to the tiny chihuahua. These are variations within species.

As for the God of the Bible being the Creator. That's simple. The moral Law , which Moslems embrace (the Law of Moses), leaves all of humanity condemned to death and on the path to Hell. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only God-given means of escape. Islam has no answer to that, our biggest dilemma (see John 8:31-32).

(Asked by EdW) You have talked to a huge number of people about their beliefs over the years, atheists and Christians alike. According to your understanding of Christianity, broadly speaking how many would go to Heaven if the world ended tomorrow?

God only knows. The only way anyone can have assurance of everlasting life is to repent, trust Jesus alone for their salvation (without good works--see Ephesians 2:8-9) and show the genuine nature of your repentance by living a life free from hypocrisy (something the Bible calls "holiness"). You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that there aren't too many who do that. The modern church is full of pretenders, and they will be sorted out from the genuine, on the Day of Judgment.

Can you comment on the claim that part of your introduction to the 150th anniversary edition of Origin of Species was plagiarized?

No.

You're voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why? (For me, if the situation were reversed and I had the choice of voting for an unqualified atheist or a qualified Christian, I would not hesitate to vote for the Christian)

I would never vote for anyone who advocated the murder of children in the womb. If an atheist was pro-life, of course I would vote for him. However, I will qualify that answer. A person who is surrounded by creation and yet denies the axiom that there is a Creator, isn't smart in the truest sense of the word. So an atheist disqualifies himself from the race, by the very nature of his life-philosophy. Any person who is a Christian, however dumb he may be in your eyes, is very wise because he has obeyed the gospel and has everlasting life. The day will come when you will see that to be true.

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

There are many questions I can't answer. One is why God allows suffering (it's not that suffering exists--the Bible explains it in that we live in a "fallen" creation). But why does God allow it? This is a mystery but it is not a dilemma to me. The day will come when we (those that love God) will have complete understanding. In the meanwhile, I trust Him with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength (almost every other question has a rational answer. I published something called The Evidence Bible that contains 100 of the most commonly asked question of the Christian faith).

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

I love them. They make people think about God.

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Yes, I think we should co-exist. There is a problem though. I regularly pray for atheists, buy them meals, send them money/vouches to restaurants, give them gifts, and yet they return hatred for my love. If you think I am exaggerating, Google my name and get ready for your ears to tingle. So the problem isn't with Christians--we love atheists. It's with the angry, militant, God-hating, God-blaspheming, God-denying atheist, who sees it as his mission in life to rid our country of any semblance of God. These folk meet regularly to talk about God and how He doesn't exist. They write books about Him. They hang around Christian blogs like bugs around a campfire. They put up billboards about God, and they see us as the enemy. So if a sword exists, it comes from your side, not ours.

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Evolution For Dummies (I'm sure some would say that that is an appropriate book for me). The Wild World of the Future talks about future evolution speculation, as opposed to the usual evolution speculation of past. The last book I read was the modern biologist's bible--On the Origin of Species. I read it from cover to cover and found it a difficult read because most of it is pretty boring. I have heard atheists say the same thing. However, thanks to our generous giveaway of a total of 205,000 copies, others can read for themselves what Darwin actually believed, and make up their own minds. Thanks for letting me give my side of the argument. Best wishes.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

I’m interviewing Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort, the person who wrote You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But you Can't Make Him Think and who recently published a 150th anniversary edition of Origin of Species with a special 50 page introduction, has agreed to do an email interview with me on this blog.

You might remember that we analyzed all (and I mean all) of Ray Comfort's You Can Lead… and so getting to correspond with Comfort after all of that blog fodder is an interesting prospect. Obviously, Comfort and I disagree on a great many things, but we can certainly still have a civil conversation with each other.

Comfort actually answers a lot of questions in interviews that are challenging to his viewpoint, but I'd like to ask some out of the box questions – something he might not hear everyday. Here are some I am thinking of asking:

A very odd thing happens when I try to talk to Christians about this apologist named Ray Comfort – none of them seem to know who you are! Do you think you're more well-known to atheists or to Christians, and why?

If you take a gander at statistics, you'll see that the rate of crime has fallen since 1990. There are lots of different theories floating around as to why this is. What's your take?

You're voting in a local election, and you have a choice of voting for two candidates: one candidate advocates all of the policies you advocate for, and seems rather intelligent, qualified and is an atheist. The other candidate stands against all of the policies you stand for, does not seem qualified, seems a little dim and is a Christian. Who do you vote for and why?

Have you ever been really stumped by a question someone asked you on the blog or on the street? If so, what question stumped you?

What do you think of all of the atheist billboards that are going up across the USA?

Do you think that atheists and theists should try to coexist? Why or why not? How?

Obviously, I have read your entire book (You Can Lead an Atheist To Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think), given that on my blog I responded to something on almost every page. What books by modern biologists or atheists have you read? Have you read any to the same depth?

Do you guys have anything you're just dying to ask him?

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

3H1P: We need more questions!

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc.

Seriously, you guys gave us some great questions for 3H1P (3 heathens, 1 pastor) to answer, but our supply of interesting questions has dwindled down to a few that can really only be effectively answered by Pastor Keith. Questions like the one The Beautiful Kind posed:
In Genesis, the bible says that god created light on the
first day and the sun on the fourth day of creation. What was the
original light source?
Are awesome, but the 3 heathens look at this question and think, "My, isn't the literal interpretation of Genesis silly?" and that's about all we can muster.

If you'd like a question about religion, politics, science, philosophy, morality, or anything else interesting that catches your fancy pondered by 3 heathens and 1 pastor, ask it in the comments section! Leave your name too so we know who you are, and then sit back and wait for our brains to turn.

Labels: ,

Sunday, November 15, 2009

3H1P: The pastor and the atheist(s)

I'm starting a new blog post series in which you - the reader – asks us – the Zizturbloggers – a question – and we answer it in a blog post.Your questions will be answered by:

Ziztur
and/or
Flimsy
and/or
Petter
and/or
.....
....
Pastor Keith!

That's right. We're actually going to have a pastor join this blog and answer the same questions us three obnoxious heathens answer. We'll also be doing some blog posts in which we offer point-counterpoint discussions on various topics. How cool is that? We hope you think it's pretty cool.

Aren't there questions you've always wanted to ask an atheist, or an atheist and a pastor, or three atheists and a pastor? I hope so.

If you're question has a short (and short is relative to the four of us) answer, we'll all answer it in one post. If it requires a lengthier answer, one of the heathens and P. Keith will tackle it.

Obviously, this will require input from YOU, so put your input into my happy comment box below:

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, October 31, 2009

I've had this blog for a year.

It's official. Today is the one year anniversary of this blog.

I'm working on a new layout so that the text is black on a light background. I think I am going to change the artwork, though I am not sure what I intend to change it to just yet.

No more eyestrain for you!

Labels:

Friday, October 16, 2009

Calling St. Louis bloggers

I want your blogs - either your own blog or blogs you read and can supply the link for:

Inclusion criteria:
1. Live in St. Louis or live close enough that you can be downtown in about an hour.
2. Have an active* blog.
3. Blog about atheism, skepticism, freethought, agnosticism, rationalism, ethics, secular humanism or the like.

If you know a blog that fits the criteria above, put a link in the comments section below. I want to collect you.You want more web traffic. It's a sweet deal.

*Active: You post more than once a month.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Capable

I just wanted to show everyone that I really am capable of writing a post that isn't egregiously long. See? I did it just now.

That is all.

Labels:

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Faith Infiltration: Creationist Museum Pt.2

I think I will continue to review the Creation Museum by posting pictures of interesting things I found there and then commenting on them. To that end, here is the second picture.

I am not sure what I think of this shirt. It's so… smug. So… authoritarian. So… abrasive.

Now, before you comment and tell me that smug abrasive shirts are favored by atheists all over the place, I must let you know that I am fully aware of this. A cursory search on Cafepress or other custom t-shirt sites will deliver a plethora of in-your-face infidel fashion. We can be bold, mean, crude motherfuckers. We like filthy language, too.

I found this shirt inside the Creation Museum bookstore. The bookstore contained the largest selection of anti-evolution books I have ever seen, the vast majority of which were published by the good folks at AiG. The bookstore is called "Dragon Hall". My group and I did not spend too much time in there, but I did thumb through several children's books about the history of the universe as told by the Bible, and a book about how evolution poisons our youth.

I wonder though, what this shirt is actually saying. It certainly cannot be saying that plastic Darwin fish attached to the back of cars will physically bow when the rapture occurs. It seems clear to me that the message is, "You mock our religion and our Jesus now, but one day he will come back and then you'll know The Truth™."

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, August 24, 2009

Insufficient Christianity: 18.2

For those of you just joining us, Flimsy and I have been reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and writing up a thorough critique of it in near-daily blog posts. If you want to find all of the posts we have written on this subject thus far, go to the bottom of this post and click the “C.S. Lewis” label. This is part II of my critique of chapter 18, which deals with pride/self-conceit.
For the second half of Chapter 18, Lewis provides us with a lovely little bit of unfalsifiability. I’ve heard variations of it before:

“In God you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. Unless you know God as that - and, therefore, know yourself as nothing in comparison -you do not know God at all. As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.
In other words, if we question god (which is what I think Lewis means by “come up against”), we are being prideful in questioning the Great Superior One. Thus, questioning god shows that we are full of pride and therefore do not know god.

This line of reasoning frustrates me to no end, partly because the people who typically employ it are so smug in their imagined airtightness. This argument specifically sets up the Christian god’s awesomeness as unfalsifiable. 

This argument can be used to nullify criticism of anyone:

In Flimsy/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Allah/This Doorknob you come up against something which is in every respect immeasurably superior to yourself. Unless you know Flimsy/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Allah/This Doorknob as that - and, therefore, know yourself as nothing in comparison -you do not know Flimsy/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Allah/This Doorknob at all. As long as you are proud you cannot know Flimsy/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Allah/This Doorknob. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.

In other words, Lewis is plugging his ears and shouting that being critical of his god proves that we just don’t know his god at all and are proving just how prideful we are.

I’d kind of like to lay this argument out more formally:
P: God is immeasurably superior to humans.
C: Humans are immeasurably inferior to god.
C: If a person is unaware of god’s status as immeasurably superior then the person does not know god
P: Proud people are those who see themselves as superior to other things and people
1: proud people cannot know god.
C: People who cannot know god have no business questioning him.

Now, there is an unstated premise in Lewis’ argument that proud people think they are superior to god, though he does not say this directly. Seeing yourself as superior to “people” or “things” does not necessarily mean you see yourself as superior to god, unless by “prideful” Lewis means, “seeing oneself as superior to everything, including god.” Of course, merely questioning god’s actions could be seen as seeing oneself as superior to god, and thus we skip merrily off into the flaming circle of unfalsifiability.

“That raises a terrible question. How is it that people who are quite obviously eaten up with Pride can say they believe in God and appear to themselves very religious? I am afraid it means they are worshipping an imaginary God. They theoretically admit themselves to be nothing in the presence of this phantom God, but are really all the time imagining how He approves of them and thinks them far better than ordinary people: that is, they pay a pennyworth of imaginary humility to Him and get out of it a pound's worth of Pride towards their fellowmen.

What exactly is the difference between this kind of pride and the kind of pride you get when you believe god has a special plan for your life? Can a Christian explain this to me please? It’s okay though, Lewis has a test:

 I suppose it was of those people Christ was thinking when He said that some would preach about Him and cast out devils in His name, only to be told at the end of the world that He had never known them. And any of us may at any moment be in this death-trap. Luckily, we have a test. Whenever we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good --above all, that we are better than someone else -- I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God, but by the devil. The real test of being in presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget about yourself altogether.
This seems like one of those moral virtues a lot of Christians don’t follow, so how can I be sure that it really is a Christian virtue? This is, after all, supposed to be “mere” Christianity, that is, Christianity whittled down to its most basic parts. This virtue seems very hard for people to follow.

Lewis ends the chapter with a few points he wants his reader to be aware of, to guard against misunderstandings. Namely that pleasure in being praised is not pride, pride in your son is not the same as the vice pride, god is not worried about your pride due to his own pride in himself, and if you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Insufficient Christianity: 18.1

For those of you just joining us, Flimsy and I have been reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and writing up a thorough critique of it in near-daily blog posts. If you want to find all of the posts we have written on this subject thus far, go to the bottom of this post and click the “C.S. Lewis” label. You can also read Mere Christianity online by clicking the link at the bottom of the post. This is my critique of chapter 18, which deals with pride/self-conceit.
Lewis says that Christian morals differ sharply from other morals in that Christians value humility as a moral good.

Lewis is absolutely, point blank wrong on this. Just to make sure we’re clear, here is what he says:

I now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals. There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves. … I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice. And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone, who was not a Christian, who showed the slightest mercy to it in others. There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.

The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.
It almost sounds here as if he is just saying that humility is different from the other Christian morals, but I do not think that is what he is saying. It is all in the wording of this sentence: “I now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals.” The word “they” here refers to the subject of the sentence, “Christian morals”. In other words, Lewis has come to the point where Christian morals differ most sharply from other morals. This difference is the moral virtue of humility.

Humility is not a moral virtue that separates Christianity from other morals. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and other religions consider humility to be a central virtue.

What I find especially interesting is how theists can say things like this, heard on the local Christian radio station the other day: “Look at the vast, vast universe. In this universe, each individual is a tiny, speck. There are billions of humans in the world, countless organisms, and even more vast empty space in the universe for God to watch over. Yet God is specifically concerned about you. Every hair on your head is numbered. He knows every thought, every action, every cell on your body. He has a special plan laid out just for you, and he cares about you so very much. He knows you and he will hear every word you speak to him” while simultaneously calling themselves humble and atheists arrogant. I am at a loss to understand this.

Moving on, Lewis says:

“Does this seem to you exaggerated? If so, think it over. I pointed out a moment ago that the more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others. In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, `How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me,. or show off ?'
… Yes, what he said.

“The point is that each person's pride is in competition with every one else's pride. It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise. Two of a trade never agree. Now what you want to get clear is that Pride is essentially competitive-is competitive by its very nature-while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If every one else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially competitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.
“The Christians are right: it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity - it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.

Now, it seems to me that by specifically saying that Christians are right about pride, that Lewis is being prideful, especially given that he is a Christian. I suppose if he were actually correct, then this would not be the case. Then again, am I being prideful by pointing this out?

Stay tuned, I’ll conclude this chapter in the next Insufficient Christianity post.

Mere Christianity Online

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Twittering Rock the River

Today we're going to be attending the Billy Graham/Franklin Graham Rock the River tour. It's a free concert series at the St. Louis archgrounds featuring a bunch of contemporary rock and rap Christian bands and messages of salvation.

We will be Twittering our thoughts regarding what we see and hear live, so follow me on Twitter here. The concert starts around 2pm central time.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

JREF swift again!

Remember my post on Acupuncture and Occam's Razor from a few days ago? I wrote a more complete analysis of the journal article in question and sent it off to the JREF Swift blog to be published.

You can find it here.

Labels: ,

Friday, July 3, 2009

JREF Swift Blog

For those of you familiar with the James Randi Educational Foundation (the lovely TAM7 folks) you might want to check out the Swift blog - I guest posted over there!

Check it out! I feel so famous.

Labels: , ,

How to make ad hominem attacks

This blog post is in response to this article, published by the Christian "Research" Institute.

Please do not think I am actually making these arguments - I am not.  This is very important - I am NOT MAKING THESE ARGUMENTS. I have taken the original text and replaced the words "atheist" with the words "Christian". The point is that if you make a lot of substanceless and bigoted attacks toward one group, it is very easy to replace the name of one group with another and get the same useless mealy-mouthed results. Note how I say nothing at all, and instead resort to name-calling and sound bytes. This is an example of how NOT to make an argument, yet the original authors have done exactly this.  I highly suggest clicking the link above and reading the original text first, or this may make no sense. Observe:

 A few published and prolific Christians apparently have commandeered the soapbox at the proverbial free speech alley, vowing not to surrender it until the extraordinary and popular delusion of naturalism is completely dispelled. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, in less than a couple of years Christianity’s newest champions have sold 200+ million books, Some 10 million copies of Lee Strobel’s Case for a Creator, 30 million copies of Rick Warren’s the Purpose Driven Life, 65 million copies of Tim LaHay’s Left Behind Series, 250,000 copies of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box are in print, along with countless other books on Christianity taking up huge sections of bookstores. There are even entire bookstores devoted to this new pestilence. 
“The character of the ‘village Christian’ reappears from time to time in history, usually after the latest scientific announcement or the latest natural disaster. His title is akin to that of ‘village idiot’ which was popularized by George Bernard Shaw in 1907,” says Christian apologist Joel McDurmon, author of The Return of the Village Christian.1 “The idea is that every village had its ‘idiot’ who was full of opinions and advice on every topic, would never shut up, and made little sense. No one took the guy seriously” (p. xiii).
When the title “village idiot” becomes that of “village Christian,” it speaks of the person who thinks that The Holy Bible has all the answers and that the idea of non-supernatural reality is an illusion. “Like the village idiot, he knows everything, argues till he is blue in the face, never shuts up, and yet never learns,” says McDurmon, “and like the village idiot, no one really takes him seriously, either” (xii).
Despite what McDurmon notes is a tendency of Christians to wax dogmatic, however—consider Warren’s claim that “This book will help you understand why you are alive and God's amazing plan for you--both here and now, and for eternity...The Purpose-Driven Life is a blueprint for Christian living in the 21st century...”—some argue that there are reasons enough to take them seriously. One of the main reasons is that much passionate debate raises questions for many people, such as, Is naturalism intellectual nonsense? Are science and religion locked in a battle to the death? and, Is atheism simply a force for evil?
Then there is the matter of the cult of personality. Ziztur, occupational therapy doctoral candidate and atheist, believes atheists should take the likes of Warren, LaHay, and Strobel seriously because “these guys are so confident and their rhetorical force so convincing, there are people who may believe the message even if they don’t understand the arguments. These [atheists] should not be reading these books without qualification,” she parodied in her blog, “On the other hand, the critical thinker, able to see through the smokescreen of rhetoric and to endure their caustic delivery, would be led to ask the question, ‘Is this is the best you’ve got? Maybe my worldview has a lot going for it after all.’”
Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, realizes that the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity confirms the ancient biblical wisdom of the book of Ecclesiastes that “there is nothing new under the sun.” He is quick to note several stunning new developments, however.
“Promulgating Christianity has become a lucrative business [and] profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today’s fashionable belief from the varieties of Christianity that have arisen over the millennia,” he says.
The most obvious characteristics, Berkowitz states, are best realized by a historical comparison of Fundamentalist Christianity to the classical Christianity of Martin Luther, the Enlightenment Christianity of the eighteenth century, and the anti-modern Christianity of Lewis and Augustine. “Whereas classical Christianity rejected naturalism in the name of pleasure and tranquility in the afterlife, Fundamentalist Christianity rejects naturalism in the name of superstition,” he says. “Unlike Enlightenment Christianity, which arose in a still predominantly religious society and which went to some effort to include scientific advances in its belief system but also stoned blasphemers, Fundamentalist Christianity proclaims its seemingly never-ending hatred of science and non-belief loudly and proudly from the rooftops.” And, according to Berkowitz, whereas antimodern Christians considered the death of God movement as part of the natural course of culture changes, Fundamentalist Christianity views the attachment to belief despite contradictory evidence as a good thing, “lamenting only the perverse and widespread resistance to shedding once and for all the hopelessly backward belief in a naturalist worldview.”3
Christian and secular responses to the flood of new Christian material appearing on bestseller lists, television, radio, and Internet blogs and sites are gradually building, too.
Founded in 1978, American Vision is a nonprofit Atheist think tank, national training center, book publisher, and speaker’s bureau whose mission, according to its Web site (www.americanvision.org) is “Equipping and Empowering Atheists to Restore America’s Secular Foundation.” The strategy of American Vision is to do so using the Internet, radio, television, audio/video resources, publications, and training seminars.
The latest such resource is a two-minute commercial that has been broadcast globally via the Internet and television. “Christians present themselves as enlightened and civil. But this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers,” reads the Web site promo. “The French Revolution, Crusades, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the Christian worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of anyone different than themselves and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What’s worse is that Christianity is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world."
The commercial script reads:
This is Rick [Warren]. He writes books. Rick likes to think. He uses words like god, faith, and grace. Rick thinks that his god is real and that evolution is a fairy fale. Rick is a nice guy and cares about you. He thinks you should stop living your life based on the morals of modern secular humanist ethics and just love god.
This is Lee [Strobel]. He writes books, too. He’s one of Rick’s friends and believes in a god too. In fact, he thinks that parents who don’t teach their children about his god should be arrested….
This is Robespierre [Maximilien Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution]. He lived 200 years ago in France. He liked to think and use words like god and faith just like Rick and Lee. But he also liked to kill people who disagreed with him. [This was]… known as the reign of terror.…Maybe if more people decide to listen to Rick and Lee we could all be more faithful and god-fearing like Robespierre. Maybe we could even have our own reign of terror for people who continue to be irrational and believe silly things like secular humanism.




See what I did there? Don't I sound bigoted?

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, July 2, 2009

A simple question...

...with no clear answer.

Is this universe better with human beings in it, as opposed to without human beings? Why?

Labels:

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Large Experimental studies

A quote from a commenter on this post:

Yes, alt treatments get by without having to do such large studies (which unfortunately can provide false positives--you can get a positive result for almost anything by making the study large enough). However, that helps to keep the cost down. Herbs and supplements are far, far cheaper than most prescriptions. If we're trying to keep healthcare costs down, do we really want everything to be uber-regulated and uber-expensive, especially innocuous things that have been used safely for a long time?
 I am confused as to how someone could come to the conclusion that the larger one's sample size, the more likely it is to provide positive results for "almost anything". The exact opposite is true, I.E. the smaller the sample size, the more likely one can provide positive results for "almost anything".

A major problem in alternative medicine studies is that small sample sizes produce positive results, but larger sample sizes produce negligible results. In science-based medicine, if larger studies show a medicine to be ineffective, but smaller studies show a medicine to be effective, we conclude that the smaller studies were flawed due to small sample size.

I'll let you guys comment on the rest of the taradiddles you see above.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Seriously, do we write too much?

Believe it or not, this is actually a serious question.

I wonder if more people would tune in over here if we wrote... LESS.

I almost wonder if the three of us here write too much for daily bloggers to slog through. If you miss a few days, you might spend upward of half an hour trying to catch up. Am I right in thinking this? Should I take a poll? I'd really like to know. Should we write shorter posts? I used to make fun of Saint Gasoline for writing such lengthy posts, but when I started up this blog, I began writing posts that rivaled his.

Input! I need some. How can I make this blog better? You guys in the woodwork - I want to hear from you more than anyone else.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Oooooh Technology!

Okay so, are any of my other readers obsessed with technology?

I just got this Blackberry Curve, and after one day I am not sure how I lived without it. It does everything!

So. Here's your opportunity to brag about your technology! Do it, you know you wanna.

I'll start. My blackberry is so cool There is this Google app that lets you search Google with your voice! This is mostly useless but totally fun.

My other favorite piece of tech is my digital SLR camera - Sony Alpha 300. I think the best part about it is that you can stick old Minolta lenses on it. These lenses are made so well and have such nice glass.

Labels: ,

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Best of...?

So a fellow bloggy friend of mine suggested that I put together a set of "best of" posts from this blog.

As I am clearly not an impartial judge of my own awesome goodness, I'd like to ask you, our readers!

Do any posts here really stick out as belonging in a "best of" category? Let me know which post and why.

Please? It will make me feel squishy inside. I also want to know because I may soon have the chance to write for the JREF SWIFT blog.

Labels:

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Atheist Blogroll

I've joined The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar, near the bottom. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world and contains 870+ blogs. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Hopefully it will bring a few more visitors over here!

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Raised secular vs. raised religious

As many of you know, Flimsy and I come from entirely diffeent religious backgrounds, yet we're both equally passionate about atheism.

Flimsy was raised Fundamentalist Southern Baptist, while I was raised almost entirely secularly. Religion was pushed on him when he was a child, while religion was barely mentioned in passing to me.

For the longest time, Flimsy was afraid that his passion for atheism was just an awkward manifestation of continued imprisonment by his early indoctrination. He didn't know any secular people who had the same fire inside as he did.

So, my dear commenters: tell me about your religious upbringing!

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Monthly blog changes and update

You may have noticed that I rearranged some junk over there on the left sidebar.

I also added a script which shows the five most recent comments. Hope you guys like this feature. I can change the numbers so it shows more than five comments, or more text of each comment, but for now I will leave it as is.

Last month the readership here moved from 4750 unique visiters  and 9127 visits (in April) to 5296 uniques and 9792 visits. Woo! I think that's halfway good for an atheist blog, but I don't really know for sure. Either way we're still growing, so thanks for reading.

Last, and perhaps most exiting, I've given my commenter-turned-friend Petter contributorship to this blog! So keep your eyes peeled for his introductory post, as well as his new/assorted goodness.

Labels:

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Tattooing a three year old

I have tattoos (yeah, like most people my age), and I firmly believe that people should be able to chose to modify their bodies in any way they want, and that no one should modify the body of someone without their consent, especially with regard to children.

When I read that this guy tattooed his three year old son with the letters "DB" for "Daddy's Boy" on his shoulder, I got pretty pissed off.

A Floyd County man has been charged with child cruelty after authorities say he tattooed his 3-year-old son.

Floyd County Police Sgt. Teri Davis said Eugene Ashley, 24, tattooed the back of his son’s right shoulder with “DB,” which stands for “Daddy’s Boy,” sometime this spring. The man told police he was intoxicated at the time, Davis said.

The child’s mother, Amy Ashley, was not present during the incident.

The tattoo was discovered after an unidentified person complained to the Department of Family and Children Services about the conditions at the Ashley home. The Ashleys have three or four children, Davis said.

“You keep thinking you’ve seen it all, and then voila,” Davis said.

The children remain with their mother; Eugene Ashley was arrested May 21 and faces charges of child cruelty and tattooing a person younger than 18 years old, the latter being a misdemeanor, Davis said.

Ashley has been released from jail; information on his bond amount was not immediately available.

It should absolutely be illegal to tattoo someone under the age of 18 (or 16, or somewhere around there) but it annoys me that people will absolutely go haywire over this guy tattooing his son, but turn around and insist that circumcision (and to a lesser extent, piercing the ears of little girls) is perfectly acceptable.

Cutting off part of your sons genitalia is much more damaging to his body than tattooing his skin. The tattoo can be removed. It will not affect his sex life. The same cannot be said for cutting off a foreskin.

Foreskins can be kind of grown back using weights, as the skin of the penis is obviously very stretchy, but let's be honest: it's not the same, and the damage has already been done.

It seems rather hypocritical to me that people circumcise baby boys perfectly legally every day of the week while it is simultaneously illegal to tattoo them. In my opinion they should both be illegal, as both are cruel and harmful. There are only spurious medical reasons to circumcise and the rest are purely social.

If Flimsy and I ever reproduce, and if we reproduce a son, we both agree vehemantly that said son will not be circumcised. I might not even cut his hair unless he asks. It's his body, not ours, and I would never alter it unless it directly affected his health.  It's the only body he's got.

Back on the subject of tattoos, while it is terrible to tattoo a child, I think it is awesome when a child gets to tattoo her parents!

Labels: ,

Friday, May 29, 2009

Godless and Black

I really like blogger Godless and Black, who writes infrequent but thoughtful and well-written posts. An exceprt:

Two philosophy students at Antioch College, Gustave Shultz and Chris Dimatto, were the first to introduce me to critical thinking and philosophical speculation. The next year I switched from a Creative Writing major to a Philosophy major and began to read the writings of Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Kierkegaard, Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Rene' Descartes. I read everything I could get my hands on from Socrates and Plato to Herman Hesse and Buddha. It was then that I began to realize that I was not alone in my confusion. It was apparent that after more than two thousand years of inquiry no one had yet come up with the answers. The meaning of life remained a mystery and all the religions, philosophies, and ideologies that professed to the possession of some knowledge in regards to the meaning of life were all full of shit.

I was outraged by this realization. I was angry. How could they not know? How could no one in the history of man have answered these questions? All those libraries, all those books, all those professors with their PHDs and, worst of all, all of those priests, pastors, preachers, and spiritual leaders, none of them knew any more than I did. They were all clueless. How could this be? I looked at all those religious zealots with their faith and certainty and I wanted to wake them all up. I wanted to tell them all what I now knew. Because to me, they were all the problem. The reason no one had found the answers was because there were so few of us looking. Most people were content to remain ignorant. They were content to believe what was written in their so-called holy books even if it made no sense and conflicted with all the known facts of the universe. They had to be woken up and so I made it my mission. I called my mother almost every night and we argued about religion. I argued with everyone I could find. I was angry at the world's stupidity and I wanted to drag them all out into the sunshine of reason even if the sunlight burned their fragile skin and caused them to spontaneously combust like vampires.

Obviously, you need to go visit his  blog now!

Labels: ,

Monday, May 4, 2009

Let's argue like a creationist!

I'd really like to see in the comments of this post all of my commenters arguing for atheism using only the types of arguments creationists use to prove their points

I'll start.

"Theists know there is no god, they are just pretending there is one so that they can blame someone else when they make mistakes"

Ready, okay let's go!!

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, April 24, 2009

Girl is now the Atheist Examiner for St. Lou

Hey everybody!

I just wanted to let you guys know that I am the official "atheism examiner" for St. Louis's Examiner.com.

Examiner.com is a citizen journalism site, in which local users write about their area of interest with a local bent. I'd like to get more atheists on board, so if you think you have what it takes then check them out here.

You can also check out my column here. I'll mostly be cross-posting.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 23, 2009

I love shredding!

My friends and I are big fans of WillItBlend, a website whering people stick nonfood items into a blender and blend them - things like video cameras and Iphones. An example video is here:





Why do I love this kind of destruction? I don't know. The other day my friend Matt (who is an OT too) pointed me to this place, Watch It Shred!

These videos are on a whole new level - it's the blender gig on meth. Check it out:






Ahh...It's so good.


Oh and for an added kick of happy, NonStampCollector has a new vid out:



Enjoyment for your afternoon!

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 20, 2009

Random blog questions

I've changed a few things about my blog, I am not sure if you noticed:

1. Comments are now embedded below the post instead of in a pop-up window.What do you think of that?
2. For a few minutes, I had my archive set to weekly. What this means is that instead of a monthly archive over on the sidebar with each month set as a link you can click, each WEEK was over on the sidebar. So instead of saying:

November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009

It said:

10/31/08-11/7/08
11/8/08- 11/15/08
etc...

I am almost thinking that the weekly archive might be better since my posts are.. well.. LONG. I mean, do you guys even read all this shit? When I started this blog I didn't really realize I was capable of blathering on so incessantly.

Then again, the weekly thing doesn't look nearly as clean as the monthly archives. It's also four times as long, but after I've had this blog for a year or more it wil be very, very long.

3. I really want a tag cloud. I tried looking on the net for some open-source code I could just plug in to my blog, and I found a really cool one but could not get it to work (and nor could Petter, my reader/website fixyman.) The problem is that I am using Blogger and publishing via FTP. If I were publishing via blogspot, I would just add a cloud as a widget. Alas, that is not an option for FTP.

Labels: ,

Friday, April 17, 2009

Faith Infiltration: Origins Seminar

I thought I would remind my dear readers that today at 7:00PM is the first of three seminars on creationism I will be attending that are being hosted by a local church. I mentioned it a few weeks ago.

The seminar runs for three days: Friday, Saturday and Sunday and will include these topics:

Topics Include

  • Was Darwin Wrong?
  • Evolutionary Hoaxes
  • Intelligent Design or Ape-Like Creature
  • Atheism’s Attack on America
  • Is the Bible Just a Good Book?

There is a question and answer session after the Friday/Saturday seminars, which cover the first three topics. Sunday's seminar is during church time so I assume it is not a seminar but a sermon on how evil we atheists are. Funny, because they will probably have more atheists in their church than ever before. I would love to point out that since 15% of the population are nontheist, and a decent chunk of those people specifically define themselves as atheist, they probably know an atheist even if they don't realize it. Their brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, parents, collegues at work, etc could all be atheists - and all of the things they are going to say about atheists they will be saying about those people they know.  I hate to have expectations but when you call your sermon "Atheism's Attack on America", one has tgo expect bigotry and atheophobia.

Leading the seminars/sermon will be Dr. Brad Harrub, who says he will, "Expose the errors, inconsistencies, and hoaxes of Evolution during the three-day seminar, Truth About Origins"

There was a slight hubbub over where these seminars would take place. Originally it was to take place at Lindenwood University, but according to the Origins website, Lindenwood canceled their reservation. 

The guys at Lindenwood tell a slightly different story:

Lindenwood Provost Jann Weitzel sent me the following  clarification from President Jim Evans (4-13-09) and requested  that I notify you: "The President of Lindenwood did not cancel  the event.  It had not been officially scheduled.  Rather, the  application to use Lindenwood’s facilities was declined because (a) the event was not being sponsored by Lindenwood for its students, and (b) the requester did not follow established procedures for obtaining approval of an outside organization’s event on the Lindenwood campus."
I'm waiting for Dr. Harrub to cry "Expelled!" but we shall see.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Petter fixed it: my blog!

Once again, my most awesome commenter Petter Häggholm who wrote this guest post and this Ray a Day post and blogs over here (or by RSS; you can use tags to narrow it down to essay-style posts, or only posts related to skepticism or religion), has extended his EPIC WIN BRAINMEAT to my blog and fixed another ongoing problem I have been having - how to make my pretty template images show up in individual blog posts. So for those of you who go to individual blog posts to read content, you'll probably notice they just got a lot more colorful.

He fixed this problem for me in all of five minutes. He also found like 600+ errors in the template, which makes sense given that I only have a rudimentary understanding of HTML. He tells me he fixed a bunch of these too, and I can only nod my head in mock understanding.

Petter, you totally win, and you make me feel squishy, and you deserve the highest idolatry.

*bows to your godlike website fixy powers*

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Faith Infiltration: Pastor Moody Infiltrates back

The other day I received a comment from Pastor Moody, the pastor at Holy Cross Deaf Lutheran Church. We infiltrated this church several months ago, and our encounter can be found here. 

So apparently we've been counter-infiltrated - a pastor from a church we infiltrated has infiltrated back! We're having quite an interesting conversation there in the comments of the original faith infiltration now. We think this is pretty cool. Pastor Moody's comment was:

I want to thank you again for visiting Holy Cross Deaf. I encourage you to keep on visiting Christian Churches because I believe that gives the power of God's Word more opportunities to bring His grace and forgiveness into your hearts.
Like I said in my sermon on Easter Sunday, using the three of you as examples of all of us in our dead (without faith in Christ) condition, that God greatly loved us all and sent His Son to save us all. In Baptism God crucified us with Christ, we died with Him; we were buried with Him and He rose us with Him so we can live His life now and forever. We can, as the Bible says, be the walking dead (whitewashed tombs)or have Christ's empty tomb as ours.
I mentioned you in the Sermon since one post mentioned that I could not pray for something (President Obama to understand that life begins at conception) unless it was mentioned other places in the Service. I pray for a lot of things without mentioning them other places including prayers now for you three by name. I have encouraged our members to do that also and will be contacting other Church that you have infiltrated to ask them to also pray for you.
An aside about the "simple" language used in our services... Deaf people have no Passive Voice in their language or thinking process. So we speak/sign everything is in the Active Voice. It makes the English sound simpler but it is just clearer and more easily understood by all.
God does love you. There are no atheists after death. I just hope you realize His love for you before that day comes. That is my prayer for you.
If you ever want to talk about anything, let me know.
Pastor Moody
 I responded that Flimsy didn't really mean that Pastor Moody couldn't pray for something he hadn't already mentioned in the service - Flimsy just thought it was a little unexpected, and I think the language he used might have led to a slight misunderstanding.

The "no atheists after death' comment is interesting. By this I take that to mean that there are no atheists after death because P. Moody believes we'll all stand in front of the Christian god on judgment day.  I suppose that since I see no evidence that our consciousness continues after death, I can conclude we're all atheists after death - none of us are theists after death, after all - as there is no neuronal activity in which to give us any thoughts. But, that's just an aside.

It's interesting that we've been used in sermon(s?), and I am not entirely sure how I feel about that. I am inclined to say since I visit churches and write about my experiences on a blog that can be viewed by the entire world, its only fair that said churches be able to speak or write about their experiences with me.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, April 6, 2009

Expelled: #1 documentary?

I happened to stumble upon the website for the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and I noticed something curious. I couldn't help but notice a personal message from Ben Stien on the front page near the top:
I want to thank you America for making Expelled the #1 documentary of 2008. This movie has made real change from the legislature to the classroom and I want to encourage you to continue to support the cause.
The #1 documentary according to whom? The people of Expelled ran a press release claiming that it was the #1 documentary in American in 2008 0n October 17th, just hours before it was dwarfed by Religulous. Religulous was released October 1st (Expelled was released on April 18), and three weeks after it's release, it had grossed 9.1 million dollars. Expelled may have been the #1 documentary in 2008 on October 17, but it had lost it's position by October 22nd. This is especially amusing in light of the difference in the most number of theatres (per week) each was shown in:

Religulous: 502
Expelled: 1052

It does not speak very highly of the people of Expelled that they continue to be dishonest. Religulous made almost twice as much money as expelled, in half the amount of theatres.

So, what types of "real change from the legislature to the classroom" has Expelled actually caused? Do they mean the bit where he used a clip of John Lennon's "Imagine" in the film, and Yoko Ono attempted to sue him for copyright infringement and then later dropped the suit? Because I'm not seeing any changes worth mentioning.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Oh, now I am sad...

The other day I got one of these awesome pendants from SurlyRamics.

I was pleased to wear it for a few weeks, until yesterday. As I was walking out to my car from class, I saw something dangle from the corner of my eye. I was wearing a lanyard with my student ID and several keys, a backpack, and clutching my huge pile of car and house keys, so I just took off my lanyard, annoyed at all of the swaying things I was wearing.

I realized when I got home that the dangling thing was my necklace, falling off in the hall.

 
Now, I have a serious sad. I went back to the building and asked security, and all of the offices in the hall if someone had turned it in. Nope.  No one found or turned in my pendant. Sad. I can only assume someone took it, so I hope they somehow get more use out of it than I did.

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 2, 2009

March's visits!

In the month of March I got a record 4,346 unique visitors and 8,457 visits. This is approaching twice the number of unique visitors that I got last month (4346), and is a 53% increase in total visits.

I must be doing something right! Though I don't get nearly the hits that Pharyngula gets (PZ Myers says he got 2,296,911 visits in March).  Assuming PZ is talking about any visits and not just unique visits, that means I am .003681901%  as awesome/controversial/known as he is.

I want more, MORE! visitors are like an addictive drug, I need more and more as time goes on to feed my precious ego.

The visits, Ziztur wantsss them, my preccccccioussssssss.......

Labels:

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Ray a Day Guest Post: Nigel

Here is a guest post by Nigel!

This section was quite interesting as it's something I have never really looked into very much 'End Time Prophecy'

Here is what the 'Atheist' has to say.

The question raises (for me at least) the whole issue of the rapture. Proof for the existence of God? I think that would pretty much do it for me... According to the myth, people will vanish, the dead will rise and head off to heaven - and will most likely be under the control of a Jewish homosexual world leader... Let us not forget that we will also get a red moon and a black sun - a huge meteor will burn one third of the grass and trees - 200 million horse like creatures will run rampant - oh and fresh water will become blood. Tell you what, if all that bunk comes to pass - I will have another think about this god, I can't promise anything, even then, but I will certainly have another think. Really water turned to blood and horse-like creatures - golly.

Wow scary stuff. I thought I better look up and see if his claims really fit the bible. Now some of this stuff was actually a lot harder to pin down than I expected. Lots of hits in google for Homosexual Jewish Antichrist, but frankly not many of them seem to specify bible verses to back up the claims. This is nothing against our 'Athiest' because a quick google will indicate that many many people (like John Hagee) think this is all true, but the biblical basis is actually pretty thin.

Apparently the origin of the Antichrist being Gay Jew is this verse.

Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all

And Jewish is also apparently from a Tribe (Dan) being mentioned in Jerimiah 8:16 and NOT mentioned in Revelations 7.

Here is the relevant verse about the sun and moon being covered.

Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

And of course Water to Blood is a relatively common bible theme including

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
Revelation 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood

The Meteor has name by the way, 'Wormwood'.

Revelation 8:7-11 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.
And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

And here is our Army of Monsters. (Horse-like doesn't really begin to describe it)

Revelation 7-10,16
And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months
And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them

Wow some fantastic stuff there, lets see what Ray has to say.

May I say respectively, you may have been watching too many Hollywood movies, or the Discovery Channel, or maybe reading stuff on weird Web sties, or eating too much cheese before you got to bed (that can cause bad dreams).

I wonder if Ray included Kirk's 3 'Left Behind' films in this assesment?

I would suggest that you take a deep breath, then read the Bible with a humble hear, praying that God would show you what is prophetically symbolic and what is literal. If you don't do that, you will end up with the nightmare that you have just related. The Bible is a book filled with symbolism - from Ezekiel's wheels, to the dreams of Joseph and Daniel, to the Book of Revelation, and of course, many of the words of Jesus. Again some things are literal and some are symbolic.

Wait, what? Did I read that correctly...

Again some things are literal and some are symbolic.

Huh, ok, so Ray is quite happy to accept that some of the Bible is symbolic. Just not Genesis 1&2 I guess. Couldn't possibly be, No way, No how.

When Jesus said that He was "the Door," He didn't mean a do with literal hinges that swing back and forth. He is the entry to heaven(see also John 14:6). When He said that his flesh was meat and we were to eat it, He wasn't speaking of cannibalism. We spiritually "taste and see that the Lord is good." When He held the cup of wine and said "This is My blood" and told us to drink it, He wasn't speaking of His literal blood (He couldn't have been, because His blood was still running through His veins)
Wine is often used as a symbol of blood - Jesus turned the water into wine at the Cana wedding, and God turned water into blood with the plagues of Egypt. All these symbols and events have hidden and wonderful meanings behind them for the are willing to dig a little. If you think about it, thing that we value in life usually have to be searched out - gold doesn't just like on top of the ground. You have to search for it. It's the same with the silver, diamonds, pearls, etc, and it's the same with Biblical gems. You have to dig a little to find the riches.

Alright so this hits on one of the I find quite interesting about the way people view the bible. You read it, and then interpret it. You decide to take what sections literally, and what symbolically, and then decide what the verses actually mean. It really is a case of 'Pick your own biblical meaning', no wonder there are so many branches of the church.

As much as I would like to be, I am not a prophecy expert of a even a prophecy buff. I don't get too deeply into it, because so many people end up with weird and strange scenarios, and what's more they all they it right. I prefer to put my time into trying to read people like you with the Gospel. Your salvation is finitely more important to me than my eschatological interpretation.

So basically Ray is saying "Eh, I don't know anything about bible prophecy, don't ask me, get saved"

Then why include this question in the book?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Ray a Day Guest Post: X-Zilla

Today's Ray a Day is by blogger/commender X-zilla, who blogs over here.

Here is the text I chose to send off to him, in it's entirity:

Just how long are the “last days” supposed to last?... The Bible says that none knows when the end will come, but then it gives some clues. And the clues it gives are all things that have happened since the dawn of human beans.

Yes, the questioner did write “beans” instead of “beings,” revealing that he has a strange belief about where we sprouted from, or he’s a big Mr. Bean fan, or he’s just like the rest of us and makes mistakes when typing.

Human beings are prone to err, and the greatest error any of us can ever make is to be wrong about God. The religious leaders at the time of Christ made that mistake continually. They came to Jesus with questions for which they didn’t really want answers. Instead their intent was to trick Him so that they could catch Him in His words. One such time was when they asked Him about the resurrection. They concocted a scenario in which a woman had seven husbands who died one after the other. Then they asked, “In the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as a wife.” Jesus answered, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (See Mark 12:18-27 for the whole story.)

The same answer could be given to 90 percent of the questions asked by skeptics. According to the Bible, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who do His commandments” (Psalm 111:10). So a professing atheist who has no fear of god also has no understanding at all of the character and power of God. Even those of us who know Him know only tiny drop in an infinite ocean of his greatness. He is omnipresent-he dwells everywhere, filling the infinitude of space. Every tiny atom in the universe is displayed before Him. He is omnipotent-nothing is impossible for God. He is omniscient-seeing every thought of the human heart. These thoughts are too much for human brains that can barely juggle a few thoughts at a time, let alone comprehend the greatness of the God who gave us life.Skeptics also don’t know the Scriptures. Most of the verses cited in questions are read with an ignorance of corresponding verses to give them their biblical context.

So, in answer to the question: God’s timeframe is different from ours-“For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past…” (Psalm 90:04), and “…with the Lord one day is a thousand years and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). The Bible tells us that the “last days” began on the Day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:17). We have been in the last days for two thousand years (not much in God’s timeframe). Most of the signs that the Bible speaks of have been around for many years; however, prophecies about the increase of travel and the increase of knowledge are far more evident in recent years. And, of course, the Jews obtaining Jerusalem in 1967 is the fulfillment that started the prophetic clock ticking. How long will the last days last? God only knows… but we are certainly getting close to when the door of His mercy closes.
 X-zilla says:

The question presented is not the question of a ‘skeptic’ or an atheist. It is a question from a person who is curious. The question alone does not indicate any belief system. It does however indicate a healthy curiosity about the world and the constructs we live under.

End time prophecy surrounds us in American culture. The Weekly World News, the A&E and History channels, Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Hollywood movies, the Left Behind book series, Tom Robbins, Muslims, and Jews present and/or perpetuate myth about the end of the world. The concepts of a prophetic end of the world envelopes our culture. The power of these myths is fascinating. The deconstruction of prophecy is interesting. More interesting is the progression of these ideas over time. That these ideas subtly and dangerously permeate our politics and diplomatic agendum is frightening absolutely terrifying.

Fortunately for me and the spot on my wall where I bang my head in flabbergasted frustration Comfort does not deconstruct Revelations or Daniel for us. He ultimately answers the question with, “God only knows” so repent and accept Yeshua as Jesus Christ before the horn blows and the righteous disappear leaving nothing behind but sinners and neatly folded clothes.

Comfort begins his response with a lighthearted teasing about a typing error on the questioner’s part, noting that he’s just like the rest of us and makes errors. This is used as a segue into the danger of being wrong about god. The next segue is a subtle and scary one. Comfort equates questioners now with the skepticism of religious leaders during the week leading to the crucifixion (picture Jewish caricatures ala Mel Gibson jeering at Christ) which does nothing but further the divide between non believers and Comfort believers. His example is taken out of historical and political context as well. Yeshua (a member of a fringe Judaic group) came to town, declared himself the Messiah (Christ) and then flipped over the money changers table in the Temple (this sealed his fate, if you want to get nailed to a tree so you can suffer the sins of man and grant absolution and then prove this through resurrection and ascension the thing to do would be to espouse radical concepts and go after the money changers). Other people had reported miracles and supernatural attributed to Christ but that was other people’s observation and Christ himself refused to perform miracles for skeptics to validate his claim. I am one to seriously avoid victim blaming but really if Yeshua was treated poorly and looked upon with disdain by the powers that be it was because he was seriously asking for it. Many people before and after Yeshua have claimed to be a prophet or even the Messiah. It is good whether you believe in no god or Yahweh or whateverism to ask or even demand verification of such claims. Comfort claims that these skeptics do not know the power of god and neither do current skeptics. In order to understand even a little bit of the power of god you must fear him first. In the interest of finishing this review part I’m just going to state that fear is not an effective vehicle for promoting understanding and knowledge.

“Skeptics also don’t know the Scriptures”, Comfort states. Some believers also don’t know the scriptures (are they true believers then?). Some believers and skeptics are well educated in regard to ‘the scriptures’. Using blanket statements about a skeptic’s ignorance of the scriptures is not enough to validate your belief in what they mean.

In the final paragraph of his answer Comfort provides us with verses that indicate he has a non literal interpretation of time as represented in the Bible. Apparently time exists differently for us than it does for god (Does that make god a singularity or does he just live in one?). References to time are metaphorical and not literal. Except of course in Genesis where it is the literal inerrant word of god. Confused? Thankfully we have Ray comfort who knows which is which and what is what.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, March 30, 2009

JREF account suspended

As of this moment, the James Randi Educational Foundation's YouTube account has been suspended. We in the skeptical community have yet to receive an explanation.

Randi publishes an ongoing segment called "Randi Speaks" on YouTube fairly frequently. He usually speaks out against various forms of woo-woo such as homeopathy, dowsing, psychics, etc. We can only speculate as to why the videos were removed. Similar bans have happened in the past with other skeptical or athiest groups such as the Rational Response Squad. 
To complain to youtube follow this link;
Scroll to the very bottom and click on “new issue”
Select “suspended account” from the options and express your opinion.
The account ID is JamesRandiFoundation. 

 

Labels: , ,

IAM Ziztur

I'm starting to realize that other than the random blatherings I post on this blog, you fair readers know next to nothing about me. I don't really share much of my personal life unless it seems relevant.  If you think that this is because the topics covered here are all I think about, you're  not terribly far off, honestly. But amazingly, I have a life outside of atheism and skepticism!

Ten things about me you might not know yet:

IAM: The oldest of three siblings - we're all atheists. My parents were raised Catholic but raised us completely secularly except for sending us to a Lutheran Pre-school. (Crap, I've mentioned the atheist thing already. I failed)

IAM: Totally native to St. Louis - I've never lived anywhere else and sometimes I regret that. I feel (quite erroneously I'm sure) that St. Louis is the only real place to live. Though I am also fond of Boston.

IAM: Formerly a very private person, but decided about a year ago that I could no longer shut people out. I felt like even those who were closest to me barely knew me. It was the intensity of interactions at an atheists meetup group that made me realize what I was missing.

IAM: Always drinking Mountain Dew (so is Flimsy...). We basically don't drink anything else - we can even wake up in the middle of the night, drink some, and then go back to bed. It's our Nectar of the Nonexistent Gods. (aw hell, I mentioned atheism again)

IAM: Terribly bad at small talk. I'd rather know you intensely immediately after meeting you. I don't talk to people in typical social situations (like at the dog park or something) because I just don't see the point in talking about the weather, evening sitcoms or the latest silicone bakeware.

IAM: Described as being "pathologically unemotional" by some, "beautifully rational" by others. My friends used to get angry at me for my lack of emotional response, and I have been told that I am hard to read. A big load of crap happened to me about a year ago, and when I explained all of it to a group of my classmates, they were in awe that I was recounting said events in such a detached, matter-of-fact way.

IAM: "W" sitting, even at 26. That's when you sit with your legs in a "W" shape, with your butt on the floor, your knees to either side of you, and your feet externally rotated.

IAM: Not sure how to describe my sense of humor, but Flimsy says it's "silly". I'd like to think I am more sarcastic than silly, and I also like to see what kind of humor I can get away with.

IAM: Formerly a member of my high school drama club.I was the head of the sets department, and was Juror 12 in "12 Angry Jurors". I used to want to be an actress, but my brain would have been wasted in such pursuits.

IAM: Never wearing makeup. I have some, but I really don't see the point.

Labels: ,