An interesting interview of the author of Constantine's Ladder, James Carroll, a former priest and still-practicing Christian.
Interesting points:
1. At 6:40 he discusses how extremism and fundamentalism are, contrary to conventional religious "wisdom," in fact rooted in traditional religious ideas.
2. At 7:20 he discusses the roots of anti-semitism in general as well as with respect to Nazi Germany.
3. At 10:20 he discusses when the distinction between Jews and Christians arose (hint: it's not when you thought, at least it wasn't when I thought it was).
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Youtube war: Atheist v. ...Non-atheist
Who wins?
The rational man using common sense and logic?
Or... this guy, who, like most religious people, uses bad analogies but mostly resorts to name-calling.
First, no one chooses to be black or Irish, people choose to be Muslim, just like some people chose to be Nazi's (while, like in Islamic countries, many more were forced to become members). Certainly we are not bigots for not tolerating Nazi's. Islam is an idealogy and by becoming, or continuing to be, a Muslim, you adopt its idea as your own. Here's a brief list of some of those ideas.
Their book says to make war against us, but we become intolerant because we don't like that?! That's the definition of insanity! "My book says to kick you in the balls, you don't like that?! Bigot!!!" Also apparently the guy wasn't even listening to Condell because in the video that guy is watching, you can hear Condell condemning all religions that worship the God of Abraham. He probably just missed that part, had he heard it I'm sure his response would have been far more articulate and coherent, probably bordering on Shakespearean.
Also, I'm sorry, did he just tell someone named PAT about anti-Irish sentiment that existed when he was a kid?
The rational man using common sense and logic?
Or... this guy, who, like most religious people, uses bad analogies but mostly resorts to name-calling.
First, no one chooses to be black or Irish, people choose to be Muslim, just like some people chose to be Nazi's (while, like in Islamic countries, many more were forced to become members). Certainly we are not bigots for not tolerating Nazi's. Islam is an idealogy and by becoming, or continuing to be, a Muslim, you adopt its idea as your own. Here's a brief list of some of those ideas.
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)Their book says to make war against us, but we become intolerant because we don't like that?! That's the definition of insanity! "My book says to kick you in the balls, you don't like that?! Bigot!!!" Also apparently the guy wasn't even listening to Condell because in the video that guy is watching, you can hear Condell condemning all religions that worship the God of Abraham. He probably just missed that part, had he heard it I'm sure his response would have been far more articulate and coherent, probably bordering on Shakespearean.
Also, I'm sorry, did he just tell someone named PAT about anti-Irish sentiment that existed when he was a kid?
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Bananas the Atheist's Nightmare
While you watch, play a little game called "spot the sexual innuendo." Amazingly, I completely missed them and they had to be pointed out to me by a friend.
I counted 4, but I think we all win... Unless your favorite wasn't "the contents don't squirt in your face.". Unless this guy is a male prostitute, there is just no reason to be amazed that the contents don't squirt in his face. He might as well have said, "You'll notice, the contents don't squirt in your face, then throw money at you while you cry inside a bathroom stall in a highway rest-stop, but then take solace in the fact that the 5 dollars you earned by sucking-off an obese trucker with a swastika tattoo will go to buying you a new pair of Gucci sunglasses." Isn't God considerate?
Things I liked about this video:
1. Even Kirk Cameron couldn't keep a straight face.
2. This guy completely ignores the fact that bananas as we know them are a human creation, the result of domestication. Which means: a) this guy is too lazy to do a wikipedia search and b) wild bananas are far from human friendly. So even assuming bananas are perfectly designed for humans (wouldn't they not have a skin if they were designed for us, I mean we are a lazy bunch, especially in America, see the KFC bowls) God didn't design them, we did. Even if they were perfect for us, what does that prove? Coincidences do happen, and if it wasn't a coincidence, then shouldn't all the food we eat be perfectly designed for us? The pomegranate? Meat (which we have to cook before getting most of the nutritional benefits)? Not only that, but doesn't evolution give a good reason for the seeming design of the banana(if make the faulty assumption that the banana as we know it is the original "god-given" form of it)? Often plants evolve to be appealing to the organism that eats them so that the organism spreads the seed or pollen of the plant through its waste. That's why fruit is sweet and why some plants have nectar. The sweet coating around the seed is incentive for animals to eat them. Primates have been around for a long time, it could have been possible that banana plants evolved along side primates in order to specifically appeal to them. But I can not stress the importance that I am merely showing one of the ways that apparent design can be a byproduct of evolution, I am NOT saying that banana's DID evolve to appeal to primates.
3. British accent.
4. This brings up an idea I have always found amazing. Generally, in science when one part of a theory is proven wrong, the whole theory has to go out the window. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity predicted that light would bend as it passed by planets because masses bends the fabric of space-time, if it was shown that light did not bend (in fact this was one of the major experiments which proved relativity) the whole theory probably would have had to been thrown out or modified beyond recognition. But religion doesn't work like that. This man is saying that bananas show God's existence, why isn't it that once we show that bananas as we know them were not designed by God (which was remarkably easy in this case) the whole theory isn't thrown out? It absolutely should be. But instead they simply move on to the next thing, "Ok, well how about the eye? No? How about the central nervous system? No?..." They are not trying to explain the world, they have arbitrarily arrived at an explanation and are haphazardly trying to find anything that will support their position, when in reality everything should support such a broad theory, and yet so little does.
I counted 4, but I think we all win... Unless your favorite wasn't "the contents don't squirt in your face.". Unless this guy is a male prostitute, there is just no reason to be amazed that the contents don't squirt in his face. He might as well have said, "You'll notice, the contents don't squirt in your face, then throw money at you while you cry inside a bathroom stall in a highway rest-stop, but then take solace in the fact that the 5 dollars you earned by sucking-off an obese trucker with a swastika tattoo will go to buying you a new pair of Gucci sunglasses." Isn't God considerate?
Things I liked about this video:
1. Even Kirk Cameron couldn't keep a straight face.
2. This guy completely ignores the fact that bananas as we know them are a human creation, the result of domestication. Which means: a) this guy is too lazy to do a wikipedia search and b) wild bananas are far from human friendly. So even assuming bananas are perfectly designed for humans (wouldn't they not have a skin if they were designed for us, I mean we are a lazy bunch, especially in America, see the KFC bowls) God didn't design them, we did. Even if they were perfect for us, what does that prove? Coincidences do happen, and if it wasn't a coincidence, then shouldn't all the food we eat be perfectly designed for us? The pomegranate? Meat (which we have to cook before getting most of the nutritional benefits)? Not only that, but doesn't evolution give a good reason for the seeming design of the banana(if make the faulty assumption that the banana as we know it is the original "god-given" form of it)? Often plants evolve to be appealing to the organism that eats them so that the organism spreads the seed or pollen of the plant through its waste. That's why fruit is sweet and why some plants have nectar. The sweet coating around the seed is incentive for animals to eat them. Primates have been around for a long time, it could have been possible that banana plants evolved along side primates in order to specifically appeal to them. But I can not stress the importance that I am merely showing one of the ways that apparent design can be a byproduct of evolution, I am NOT saying that banana's DID evolve to appeal to primates.
3. British accent.4. This brings up an idea I have always found amazing. Generally, in science when one part of a theory is proven wrong, the whole theory has to go out the window. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity predicted that light would bend as it passed by planets because masses bends the fabric of space-time, if it was shown that light did not bend (in fact this was one of the major experiments which proved relativity) the whole theory probably would have had to been thrown out or modified beyond recognition. But religion doesn't work like that. This man is saying that bananas show God's existence, why isn't it that once we show that bananas as we know them were not designed by God (which was remarkably easy in this case) the whole theory isn't thrown out? It absolutely should be. But instead they simply move on to the next thing, "Ok, well how about the eye? No? How about the central nervous system? No?..." They are not trying to explain the world, they have arbitrarily arrived at an explanation and are haphazardly trying to find anything that will support their position, when in reality everything should support such a broad theory, and yet so little does.
The Nephilim Rising
Just thought you should know. Also the idea of the Nephilim (a race or giants, and maybe aliens, discussed in the Bible) are fascinating and worthy of a youtube search. In case there's any confusion, obviously all of it is absurd, but I still found it interesting and in the end one of the things I find amusing is that there is no more proof that these believers in the Nephilim are more wrong than any religious person. I also just think it would be hilarious if one day all the leaders of the world came out and were like, "PSYCHE, praise satan."
The Atheist's Nightmare
Why is it that so many evangelicals have blatant comb-overs? I like to think they're so full of it, even their hair lies. Anyway, I doubt I really need to "debunk" this video. But I would like to highlight a few things. First, these people clearly demonstrate the dedication of the evangelicals to remain completely ignorant of science. The theory of evolution says absolutely NOTHING about the origins of life. Even if we concede that there are flaws in the scientific theories behind the origins of life, that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with how organisms change once life already exists. It's like saying, "evolution doesn't explain why the moon goes around the earth." Of course not, but physics does. I think this observation is important because it just shows that the people arguing against evolution, and invariably for creationism, aren't really pursuing a scientific theory because they wouldn't know a scientific theory if it took a dump in their mouth, let alone the theory of evolution. And if this video really did make anyone think twice, NO theory ever claimed that the primordial soup consisted of vacuum sealed peanut-butter in a glass case, plus light. There's no real debate about the fact that oxygen is necessary for live, and there is virtually none in a jar of peanut butter. God I feel dumber having had to say that, I'm gonna watch sesame street to raise my IQ.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Intelligent Design Case
Below is msnbc's coverage of that case where the Republican Judge bitch-slapped Intelligent Design. My favorite part is when the mother is upset that her son was upset when he learned that we are descended from Apes... I guess she's not gonna be the one break the Santa Claus news to that brat. But that's a great theory mom, lets just let the students decide what they're taught, goodbye math and history, hello xbox and wii.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Introduction
So I'm thinking of starting a group targeted at atheists, agnostics and generally non-religious people, the nature of which I will abstain from disclosing at this moment in time. On the right side of the page I have a poll that I would like you to fill out that addresses one of the potential names I am considering. I want to know the reader's personal reaction to the title. I'm not really interested in how people feel this name might affect those people to whom the group is clearly not geared to, i.e. religious people. Also, if you don't like something about the poll, or you feel none of the answers apply to you, feel free to write a comment to this blog stating your qualms.
In addition, this blog is aimed at providing people with a forum for all kinds of non-religious people to post articles regarding any issues the author might consider of interest to like-minded individuals. Just send your article to tufgy12@aol.com where I will review it before posting it.
In addition, this blog is aimed at providing people with a forum for all kinds of non-religious people to post articles regarding any issues the author might consider of interest to like-minded individuals. Just send your article to tufgy12@aol.com where I will review it before posting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
