Why Swallow That?

Is that a trampoline down there? The Resurrection of Christ (Kinnaird Resurrection) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

There is a heroic legend in the technology community about the man who invented elevator safety brakes. He claimed that any elevator fitted with his brakes, even if all the cables broke, would be safely and swiftly stopped by his new invention. No one trusted it. Did he get angry or indignant? No. He simply put himself in an elevator, ordered the cables cut, and proved to the world, by risking his own life, that his brakes worked. This is the very principle that has delivered us from superstition to science. Any claim can be made about a drug, but people are rightly wary of swallowing anything that hasn’t been thoroughly tested and re-tested and tested again. Since I have no such proofs regarding the resurrection story, I’m not going to swallow it, and it would be cruel, even for a god, to expect otherwise of me. So I can reason rightly that a god of all humankind would not appear in one tiny backwater of the Earth, in a backward time, revealing himself to a tiny unknown few, and then expect the billions of the rest of us to take their word for it, and not even their word, but the word of some unknown person many times removed.

Yet, if one returns to what was probably Paul’s conception of a Christ risen into a new, spiritual body, then the resurrection becomes no longer a historical proof of the truth of Christianity, but an article of faith, an affirmation that is supposed to follow nothing other than a personal revelation of Christ—not to be believed on hearsay, but experienced for oneself. Though I do not believe this is a reliable way to come to a true understanding of the world, as internal experience only tells us about ourselves and not the truth of the world outside of us, I leave it to the Christians here to consider a spiritual resurrection as a different way to understand their faith. But I don’t see any reason to buy the resurrection story found in the Gospels.

 

—	Richard Carrier – Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story (6th Ed., 2006) Phenomenal half-hour Yale University speech touching pretty heavily on the historic story of Jesus and his resurrection.

God’s Belly Button | graygoosegosling

Great post. SOB

Jack had a ready answer, “God the father does not have a belly button. God the son had a belly button. God the Holy Spirit does not have a belly button. That’s one out of three for belly buttons.”

“Jack, who are you to claim you know about such things. What does your church say about it?”

“Hmmm, You know, I really don’t have any idea.”

I thought not. “What about DNA? Was Jesus haploid or diploid. Did he have half the number of Chromosomes or the same number as other humans?”

“Hmmm, I don’t know, but I do know he probably had genes from his mother.”

“Wait a minute Jack. It says in the bible that Jesus was descended from the house of David, so he also must have had genes from David’s line. Right?”

Jack looked confused.

God’s Belly Button | graygoosegosling.

The Actual State of Marriage in America

re-posted from Tim’s Reflection Connection

The Actual State of Marriage in the US

Today, an interesting article appeared in my news feed that made me curious enough to do more reading about marriage and divorce. The facts, when isolated from a conservative or liberal agenda, are sobering, fascinating, and not at all what one might think given media coverage of the same. Here is an encapsulated version of the information I found.

The Data

• Conservative, self-defined, born-again Christians have the highest divorce rate by far in the nation—a whopping 13% higher than atheists! (The old saying, “The family that prays together, stays together.” just isn’t true.)
• People living in the “Bible belt” have the highest divorce rate in the nation.
• Less educated people have a higher divorce rate while more educated people have a lower divorce rate.
• Married couples who argue about money once or more per week are 30 percent more likely to divorce.
• Atheists and Agnostics have the lowest divorce rate.
• One year after Massachusetts legalized marriage equality for same-sex couples, their already low divorce rate actually dropped.
• If you live in a red state, you’re 27 percent more likely to get divorced than if you live in a blue state.
• If only one partner in your marriage is a smoker, you’re 75 to 91 percent more likely to divorce than smokers who are married to fellow smokers.
• Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago. Between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce.
• The bible belt has the highest rates of: divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. (Yet, they believe that being obese is genetic and being gay is a lifestyle choice. Huh?!)
• The average length of time a couple in the US remains married is only 11 years.

Divorce rates by faith group:

• Non-denominational (Independent, conservative fundamentalists): 34%
• Baptists 29%
• Mainline Protestants 25%
• Mormons 24%
• Catholics 21%
• Lutherans 21%
• Atheists and Agnostics 21%

Failure to Help
If Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council actually, sincerely, wanted to support family values and maintain a truly special place (the actual definition of “sanctity”) for marriage in this nation, he and his organization would stop wasting their time babbling on and on ad nauseam about marriage equality being a “war on marriage,” and focus on what really is causing marriage to fall apart in this country. Religious fundamentalism is probably strongest in the very places in this country where divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates are the highest. This fact speaks to the outrageous level of ineffectiveness of what religious leadership is actually doing in those areas. Is what the religious extremists are doing actually hurting the institution of marriage. Is their “cure” (raising hell about gay people all of the time) really a level of indifference to the real issues and actually making the state of marriage worse! I have come to the conclusion that they themselves are the ones defeating their own self-proclaimed mission!

To claim an interest, no, more than an interest: a singular focus, a mission, a calling to preserve a very special place for marriage and do little of nothing except ranting on and on about gay people is, at its very best, disingenuous. Why isn’t the Family Research Council grappling deeply with the actual real causes for divorce in the places where the dissolution of marriage has reached the highest levels?!

Instead, the church chooses to ignore real people with real needs, perhaps because the church has presently demonstrated a real inability to provide real people with anything of substantive value to address their needs and reduce their failed marriages. This inaction or misplaced action on the part of the church is not just an outrage, it’s a moral outrage. Devoting so much of their attention, financial resources, and talk time to decrying marriage equality is perhaps their strategy of choice to obscure the absolute failure of their faith practice to provide critically needed care and support to real people in need: to reduce divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates. Instead, their “support” is nothing more than turning the very people who are in need of their support away through self-righteous judgement and condemnation!

While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages.”

Source: George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group

Correlations
Don’t miss these important facts as I suspect they are all deeply correlated:

• The Bible belt is the poorest area of the nation. (Arguing about money increases divorce.)
• The Bible belt is the least educated area of the nation. (Less education is associated with divorce.)
• The Bible belt is filled with Conservative, self-defined, born-again Christians. (This is the religious group with the highest divorce rate.)
• The Bible belt significantly trends to “red states.” (Red states have a higher divorce rate.)
• The Bible belt has the highest rates of, among other things, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, and infant mortality.

A Plan that Would Work
Shouldn’t Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher really be focusing their efforts on getting the people in the Bible belt higher paying jobs, better and more education, and more progressive and liberal religious and political ideology. I mean, hello! The data indicates that effort would actually pay long term dividends in their self-proclaimed mission to protect the special place of marriage!

Clearly, we are once again witnessing a failure of leadership! Shame on them! Shame, shame, shame on them!!

Enslaving people in ignorance is the cruelest form of imprisonment!

I say that everyone should utterly reject organized faith practice that hurts people!

I say that everyone should utterly reject government policy (and those who make it) that hurts people!

I am personally fed up with religious and political liars whose lies promote only themselves and end up hurting people. America: Stop supporting the people that are hurting you!

Sources include:

• Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009
• Marriage in the United States
• 15 Ways to Predict Divorce
• Hey Fox, What About This “War on Marriage?” Divorce Rates Are Highest Among Evangelicals is the article that sparked my curiosity.
• U.S. Divorce Rates for Various Faith Groups, Age Groups, & Geographic Areas This article provided these very informative resources below:
• “Christians are more likely to experience divorce than are non-Christians,” Barna Research Group, 1999-DEC-21, at: http://www.barna.org/ (Barna no longer has this report online. However, a review of the report is at: http://www.adherents.com/)
• AANews, Posting #699, issued by American Atheists on 2000-JAN-2.
• Michael Inglis, “Survey of the Unification Church 1982 marriages,” at: http://www.unification.net/
• “Bible belt has nation’s worse divorce rate,” CNN.com, 1999-NOV-12. Online at: http://www.cnn.com/ (Cache copy as of 2000-FEB-11. The page has since expired.) A similar report is at: http://www.divorcereform.org/
• David Crary, “Deep in the Bible Belt, a counterattack on the nation’s worst divorce rate,” Detroit News, 1999-NOV-11, at: http://detnews.com/
• “Survey provides profile of Protestant Pastors,” 1998-JAN-6, at: http://www.barna.org/
• “Divorce statistics collection: Summary of findings so far,” Americans for Divorce Reform, at: http://www.divorcereform.org/
• “Fresh Thinking Needed on Divorce Issues,” Jesus Journal, at: http://www.jesusjournal.com/
• John Rossomando, “Born-Again Christians No More Immune to Divorce Than Others, Says Author,” CNSNews, 2002-JAN-21, at: http://www.cnsnews.com/
• Donald Hughes, “The Divorce Reality.” 109 pages. This is an eBook written from a positive, conservative Christian. It can be purchased and then downloaded from Theatron Media at: www.Bookstore.TheatronMedia.com
• William V. D’Antonio, “Walking the walk on family values,” The Boston Globe, 2004-OCT-31, at: http://www.boston.com/
• James Veverka, “The moral hypocrisy of the Bible Belt,” Stop The Religious Right, undated, at: http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/
• Arland Thornton, “Children and Marital Stability,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 39, #3, 1977-AUG, Pages 531-539. Abstract at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/
• Aandrew Cherlin, “The effect of children on marital dissolution,” Demography©, Vol. 14, #3, 1977-AUG, Pages 265 to 272. Abstract at: http://links.jstor.org/
• “Bible Belt Leads U.S. In Divorces,” National Center for Policy Analysis, 1999-NOV-19, at: http://www.ncpa.org/
• “U.S. state divorce rates…including 2004 data.” Divorce Reform, at: http://www.divorcereform.org/

 

Scientists warn that human activities may cause global ecological collapse this century | Deep Green Resistance News Service

Scientists warn that human activities may cause global ecological collapse this century | Deep Green Resistance News Service.

Political Stalemate, Inaction, and Evolution | graygoosegosling

When politicians  have no policies that work they turn to religion. SOB

 

Political Stalemate, Inaction, and Evolution | graygoosegosling.

Atheist Camel: Watching a Theist Explode: Witnessing the end of faith?

 

I’ve bee reading Atheist Camel for a while and I found this post particularly enlightening as I’ve had similar experiences with theists. Read and enjoy then  book mark Atheist Camel. SOB

Atheist Camel: Watching a Theist Explode: Witnessing the end of faith?.

You Atheists are so Narrow-Minded….

I am always  amused by this comment  when it is thrown at me by some fundie with whom I am disputing.  Yes, we are a narrow group, we atheists, who refuse to believe in fairy tales, magical invisible friends, virgin births, resurrections, bigfoot and the like. How dare we be so closed, so rational in our thinking. We need to open up and embrace the delusions. SOB

Re-blogged from Uncompromising Rhetoric

76 Things Banned in Leviticus

The pig is considered an unclean animal as food in Judaism and Islam and some Christian denominations. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks to The Tumblr Atheist

Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. A decent number of them are punishable by death.

1.       Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)

2.       Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)

3.       Eating fat (3:17)

4.       Eating blood (3:17)

5.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

6.       Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)

7.       Touching an unclean animal (5:2)

8.       Carelessly making an oath (5:4)

9.       Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)

10.   Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)

11.   Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)

12.   Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

13.   Tearing your clothes (10:6)

14.   Drinking alcohol in holy places (10:9)

15.   Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (11:4-7)

16.   Touching the carcass of any of the above (11:8)

17.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)

18.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)

19.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)

20.   Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)

21.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)

22.   Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)

23.   Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

24.   Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)

25.   Having sex with your mother (18:7)

26.   Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)

27.   Having sex with your sister (18:9)

28.   Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29.   Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30.   Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

31.   Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)

32.   Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

33.   Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

34.   Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)

35.   Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36.   Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

37.   Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)

38.   Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)

39.   Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)

40.   Having sex with an animal (18:23)

41.   Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

42.   Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

43.   Picking up grapes that have fallen in your  vineyard (19:10)

44.   Stealing (19:11)

45.   Lying (19:11)

46.   Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)

47.   Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)

48.   Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (19:13)

49.   Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)

50.   Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)

51.   Spreading slander (19:16)

52.   Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)

53.   Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)

54.   Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)

55.   Cross-breeding animals (19:19)

56.   Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)

57.   Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)

58.   Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)

59.   Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)

60.   Trimming your beard (19:27)

61.   Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)

62.   Getting tattoos (19:28)

63.   Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)

64.   Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)

65.   Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)

66.   Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born”  (19:33-34)

67.   Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)

68.   Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)

69.   Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)

70.   Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)

71.   Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)

72.   Working on the Sabbath (23:3)

73.   Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)

74.   Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)

75.   Selling land permanently (25:23)

76.   Selling an Israelite as a slave (25:42)

(Source: leviticusbans)

Related articles

• Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 “Is everything detestable to these people?” (queerlandia.com)
• The Cherry-Pickers of Leviticus (blinkutopia.com)
• Slideshow: 10 things the Bible bans that most people ignore (thegrio.com)
• Rick’s Cafe: Ron Brown, Tim Tebow and the war on secularism in sports – NBCSports.com (offthebench.nbcsports.com)

10 Commandments of Logical Fallacies

The 10 Commandments of Logical Fallacies:

ladyatheist:

1. Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument. (Ad hominem)
2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw man fallacy)
3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)
4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the question)
5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False cause)
6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False dichotomy)
7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (Ad ignorantum)
8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)
9. Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection. (Non sequitur)
10. Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. (Bandwagon fallacy)

Source: ladyatheist

The Myth of New Atheism

re-blogged from The Deconversion Movement

What is this New Atheism?  New atheism is a type of Atheism — if we can even call it that — that is criticized for being outspoken.  Furthermore, it is shunned upon by so called old Atheists for scientifically testing religion and for its anti-theistic undertone.  However, new Atheism is a concoction of haughty-minded Atheists who pride themselves in near total silence and read the philosophy of Baron d’Holbach, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain and Karl Marx; just to name a few.

Didn’t these men write publications?  Weren’t they as outspoken as possible when considering that some of them were at risk of persecution, censorship, or even execution?  Please, do tell, were they able to rely on science?  Definitely not in the manner in which we are able to rely on it.  The major scientific findings that undermine what was previously regarded as religious truths came after most of these men.  For instance, even after the publication of The Origin of Species, the evidence for Evolution wasn’t nearly as strong as it is today.  Therefore, the only real difference between some of today’s Atheists and Atheists in the past is a reliance on science.  However, one can argue that there’s no difference there either:

Science is the true theology.

Portrait of Thomas Paine by Matthew Pratt, 1785–1795 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thomas Paine, quoted in Emerson, The Mind on Fire pg 153

There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.

Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

David Hume

How about anti-theism as defined by Oxford: opposition to the  belief in the existence of a God or as some interpret it, opposition to religion?

The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.

Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.

Mark Twain

All religious notions are uniformly founded on authority; all the religions the world forbid examination, and are not disposed that men should reason upon them.

Baron d’Holbach

Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

David Hume, A Treatise Of Human Nature

Note: none of these quotes specifically mention a particular religion; thus, demonstrating anti-religious views.

A reliance on science existed prior to new Atheism.  Anti-theism also existed prior to new Atheism; let us ignore the fact that most old Atheists conveniently disregard the alternative definition of anti-theism:  disbelief in gods.  Thus, that implies that some old Atheists rely on science to some degree.  Moreover, some of them also subscribe to anti-theism.

I ask again, what exactly is the difference?  Let us forget the negative connotations of the label.  Let us forget the air of condescension implied by individuals who call fellow Atheists ‘new’ Atheists.  Thankfully, I live in a country that grants freedom of speech; therefore, I am outspoken.  However, let us not forget the many around the world who hide in anonymity.  Let us not forget them who are at risk of penalty and death.  They harbor many of our sentiments; some are fortunate enough to express their ideas, albeit anonymously.  All Atheists share a disbelief in gods.  Some choose to reserve their views either because of imagined pride or the risk of penalty and death.  The former has no reason to criticize the approach of another Atheist.  The latter has no choice but to hide in darkness.  Ultimately, there is no new Atheism.  Whoever thinks there’s a such term is severely misinformed, especially when considering that the ideas they subscribe to came about via the writings of authors who held similar views to today’s ‘new’ Atheists.

Freedom From Religion Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)