Hitching a Ride

As is no surprise, Christopher Hitchens died a few hours ago. I say no surprise, not because of the severe and aggressive cancer that he was diagnosed with. I say it was no surprise because we all will die. Still, reading about it while listening to one of his speeches didn't make it easier for me to take. In the news are the cold, black and white words. In my ears is his voice, somehow clearer and defiant, pushing back against death even after the battle is lost.

I loved Christopher Hitchens. He was a writer and orator of such might that his slightest efforts put to shame my greatest triumphs of wordplay. I am not secure enough in my manhood to admit that I wept at the news of his passing. He inspired me to actually follow through on the things I believed. He forced me to rethink my stern opposition to the Iraq war. He made me cringe when he would lay down a Hitchslap. I always felt sorry for his opponents.

I know there are a lot of people who are as sad as I am for his passing. I know there are many who will delight in the death of one of atheism's finest warriors. As much as I would like to either wallow in sorrow or rage against the hypocrites, I cannot. There is a Hitchens-shaped hole in the dialogue now. There is an empty chair at the debate. There is a voice missing from the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure and what is true. My own meager efforts may have to be multiplied a million times before that hole is filled. I will do my best and hope that a million more will as well.

Tonight we will drink for him. Tomorrow we will remember him. I hope that the day after that, we will all carry on the cause that he so cherished.

Suicide and Smiles

     First of all, nobody should take this post as a cry for help or a plea for attention. People get all icky about the subject of suicide and I don't want my dear readers to take this in anything other than the spirit it proclaims.

     When I was younger, I was very depressed. I considered suicide, for very very tiny amounts of time and not terribly seriously. A couple weeks ago I far more strongly thought about suicide because I was completely elated. I know. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't really now. Hence, the rest of this piece might not make sense. I'll apologize in advance.

     It could be argued that I spend too much time thinking about things these days. It could be argued, and I'm not sure what side I would be on. In any case, weeks ago I was awestruck by the continuity of the universe. I am a shockingly small part of the universe, but I am quite literally made of the very same basic material as everything else. The time I spend here as a cohesive entity is a fraction of a fraction of all the time in the continuum. The component parts of me will persist for thousands, millions or even billions of years.

     I know. This is dangerously close to all that hippy "we are one with the universe" crap. And yet, it's so close to being true. We, and everything around us, are made of atoms that were born in the massive celestial forges of long-dead stars. Everything we know, love and hate are more similar than we could ever understand before the revelations of modern physics. From the Big Bang, to now, to the eventual thermal death of all activity in the universe in trillions of years, it was as though I could trace my very presence through time. (I told you this wouldn't make any sense)

     As a result, I felt as though a veil had been lifted. The particles that make me up at this moment were widely scattered before coming together for a few decades to be...me. Once I stop functioning as a human being, what makes me up will go on to make up other things, mainly worm crap at first....but still. While I have rarely been afraid to die (since I'm pretty sure I won't experience what it is like to be dead) after this thought I was positively eager to die. Once I do, the next natural step will be fulfilled and miniscule parts of me will continue on.

     So I smiled, comfortable at the thought of my own death. But the thought of suicide passed pretty quickly. As it turns out, I have all the time in the universe.

44 Answers for Christians

     I am writing this as a direct response to what I found to be a very curious list of questions located, ironically enough, on ChristianAnswers.net (which provides no answers). The original article is called "44 Questions for Skeptics" and can be located here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/questions-for-skeptics.html Overall, it really isn't a bad list of questions, if you're asking somebody who is already a Christian and needs to bolster their ideas. However, as I read through it I found many of the questions very easy to answer. So, here's what I came up with.

     1: How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?

     A: This makes an assumption of "design" in the question. There is a lot of order in the universe, but there is also a striking amount of chaos. While I find the mechanisms of physics to be amazing in and of their own right, I don't see anything that doesn't appear to be a natural process.

     2: How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

     A: The reference of actual places in any story does not make the events that are said to take place there true. For example, in the movie Independence Day we see entire cities, like L.A. destroyed. These are actual places but offer no legitimacy to the fictional events.

     3: Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?

     A: The Biblical prophecies of the Old Testament were numerous, to say the least. But the explanation for their fulfillment in the New Testament is found in the New Testament itself. Matthew 21:4 says "This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet ". Now, I am not a scholar, but a man doing things in order to fulfill a prophecy is not at all miraculous or unusual to me.

As for the birth of Christ, none of his disciples were present and therefore cannot be trusted as eyewitnesses to the events that are alleged to have happened. I do not believe in the unusual circumstances of Christ's birth any more than I do those of Kim Il Sung of North Korea, who's birth was announced by birds speaking in human tongues.

     4: How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?

     A: This I thought was an odd question. ChristianAnswers.net cites the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence for the reliability of early texts. Having read the translations that have been made available I was stunned. There are different versions of the book of James, for example. There were many Gnostic Gospels discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and certainly these are now considered inspired by their reasoning.

     5: Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

     A: No. One's choice of how to live is influenced by their experiences. Over time our worldview changes, as does our lifestyle.

     6: Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?

     A: This question clearly has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Bible either way. It seems to be an argument to cover your bases, so to speak. In my opinion it clearly would not be better to live my life as though God were real if I don't believe he does. As we saw in a recent case involving an evangelical church in London that was advising members with HIV that they would be cured through Christ and to stop taking their medication. 6 people died as a result. Clearly it would have been better for them to not trust in God.

     7: In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?

     A: Here is an assumption that Jesus may have been lying by making his claims combined with an assumption that he was "good". Frankly, I don't think Jesus was a "good man" at all, but it is easily possible that he was simply wrong if he was not intentionally misleading his followers.

     8: Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?

     A: Yes.

     9: If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?

     A: The Bible is not universally accepted as the Good Book. A minority of the world's population believe it is true.Also, I should ask, which Bible? Browse a Christian book store sometime and point out the one true word of God to me, ok?

     10: From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?

     A: Humanity does not have a universal moral sense. See this post for more information:

http://devoutapostate.blogspot.com/2011/11/moral-compass-is-broken.html

     11: If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?

     A: This displays a blatant misunderstanding of what humanity is. Nobody has ever claimed that humans are a result of anything random. Richard Dawkins addresses this very clearly in the God Delusion and you should read it for yourself as I can't do it justice. In summary, our sense of caring about one another and responsibility are a result of our evolution and need to care for one another in family groups. And as should go without saying, we do not all behave honorably.

     12: Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.

     A: This is an extension of question 11 so I won't address personality. The question of order relates back to question 1 and is equally repetitive.

     13: If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?

     A: Not to put too fine a point on it, but 12 men did not die for what they knew to be a lie. At the minimum, Judas wasn't executed for it seeing as he killed himself before the resurrection. The other 11's fates are not at all clear since it would not have been possible for them to document their own executions. If they are documented, it should lend some doubt to the validity of the story, should it not?

     To give a modern example: the followers of David Koresh believe he was the Christ, attest to miracles and believe he his still alive despite his shotgun-shell-riddled skull being found in his burned compound. The survivors of the Waco event are going to spend life in prison for what they believe to be true even though we know it is not.

     14: How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?

     A: It could easily be argued that Jesus did very little to change lives and society. His followers and the religious governmental institutions that grew to power in the centuries after his death can be credited with changing, or ending, many lives.

     15: Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?

     A: It should be noted that for much of history, to not be a "believer" was a death sentence. Even persons who made great claims of faith were brutally persecuted for offering scientific explanations that the church did not approve of. Professing belief was a matter of survival and was done by the educated and the uneducated alike.

     16: Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error in their view of the Bible?

     A: Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless people should not question what they are told from the pulpit? Only by examining claims of truth do we ever discover those things that are accurate.

     17: How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?

     A: Irreducible Complexity has never been demonstrated. Professor Behe, the primary warrior for this line of argument, has consistently failed to actually provide an example that biologists have not been able to refute.See also my post on this: http://devoutapostate.blogspot.com/2012/05/demanding-evidence-isnt-demanding-at.html

     18: How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?

     A: The 2^nd Law is frequently misunderstood by creationists. The Law applies to "closed" systems and does not apply to Earth, a system that is powered by the sun.

     19: Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?

     A: I assume the questioner is referring to the book of Revelation. If that's detailed, well, we're playing a totally different game here.

     20: On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard

     A: I suppose if you interpret the Bible from a Christian point of view in order to challenge the Bible, you're not going to get very far. However, the circular logic here should be obvious.

     21: Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?"

     A: That's a clever word game, but not an actual question. Besides, we talked about this in Question 10.

     22: Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?

     A: This type of question implies that a non-believer is actually a rebellious believer. In order for us to make any real headway in a talk like this it must be understood that non-believers honestly don't believe. Really people. We're just not convinced. So.. basically the answer to this question is no.

     23: Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?

     A: Yes. (I should note here how the religious attempt to use questions like this to prey on those who are lost, depressed or otherwise needing more in their lives)

     24: How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?

     A: As I mentioned before, this still wouldn't speak to the accuracy of theistic belief. But in considering the lives changed of those who believed it might be wise to consider the lives destroyed of those who didn't believe or who believed the wrong thing. I don't deny that Christianity has changed lives. But so has Islam, Yoga and the Food Network.

     25: Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?

     A: Well, that's not true. In 1992 Jim Meritt did a better job than I can explaining why. Have at it. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

     26: What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?

     A: ChristianAnswers.net didn't cite what any of these books are so this is difficult to refute. I would direct you to books like God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens and A History of God by Karen Armstrong that I feel do an excellent job of proving the Bible and all monotheisms wrong (though Karen appears to wish it were true).

     27: Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?

     A: I admit an ignorance to what is being referred to here. The history I am familiar with is of a powerful Christian church banning the message of the Bible even among its own people. People were executed for even owning a Bible in their common language. So I guess if Christians were trying to keep Christians from hearing the message of the Bible, this question should be referred back to the questioner.

     28: Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?

     A: I can only assume that this is a reference of St. Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument. I grant that a real God would be pretty awesome, but that does not make the conception of a non-existent God absurd. I can imagine a great many things that do not exist. Because I am able to imagine them does not make them real.

     29: Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?

     A: This would make for a curious argument if it were true. As I noted before, David Koresh's followers believed he rose from the dead. Here's a list of other religious figures that followers believed had died and risen from the dead: Osiris, Baal, Adonis, Melqart, Dumuzi, Eshmun, Asclepius/Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Castor, Heracles, Alcmene, Melicertes, Krishna, Romulus, Zoroaster and Horus.

     30: How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?

     A: I admit, this one stumped me for a while. The main reason was that I couldn't find all this "evidence" that they were talking about. CSI: Israel reruns are notoriously rare. What they really mean is "assertions" not "evidence".

     31: If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?

     A: If Jesus' "condition" was being dead, then he could not. And I don't think he did.

     32: If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?

     A: I don't see why the authorities would have to steal Jesus' body when they were already in possession of it, so this makes little sense. If one is wondering why there was an apparently empty tomb, I am far more likely to question if there was an empty tomb at all.

     33: If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?

     A: Sorry, but he was dead. And so is Elvis. Let it go.

     34: How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion.

     A: If all 500 of those witnesses had left testimony, that would be one thing, but they did not. To the contrary, one person wrote down that 500 people witnessed something. If the single source is unreliable then what it claims is irrelevant.

     35: If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His life?

     A: He did. His own family said so and surprisingly enough, these statements were left in the Bible. John 7:5 and Mark 3:20-21.

     36: If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by suddenly “realizing” that he/she is “God” therefore isn't God?

     A: Agreed. Jesus wasn't God.

     37: Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself

     A: Similar to Question 22. We honestly don't believe it. Please stop looking for some bizarre psychological reasoning.

     38: How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?

     A: Similar to question 3. Give me a couple thousand years to edit a book and I can make it pretty unified too.

     39: Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?

     A: Yes, but this is a case of metaphor.

     40: Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just another faith system?

     A: This is a blatant demonstration of a misunderstanding of science. While the very origin of life is not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, science does not make claims as to what that origin was. Biological science is exploring many options but is unafraid of saying "I don't know". It is exactly the opposite of a faith system.

     41: What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?

     A: Unless the questioner wishes to impart theological accuracy on other cultures, this is a straw man argument. All cultures use religion and mythology to explain the world around them.

     42: Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?

     A: Seeing as there are hundreds of billions of stars making up each of hundreds of billions of galaxies I don't see why this is an issue. There were a lot of chances for a planet to sit in the zone of orbit that Earth does. Lots of planets are tilted. So?

     43: If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e. is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who then caused the universe?

     A: Again, this would imply accuracy to a non-Christian religion and I'm not positive the questioner wants to do that. But, I'll bite. If God is the universe and the universe needs a cause then God needs a cause, so the question falls back to the questioner. I have addressed this issue here though if you wish to read something in more detail: http://devoutapostate.blogspot.com/2011/11/creation-revisited.html

     44: What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?

     A: An act of God.

     Whew, so that's all done with. Now, to cap it all off, ChristianAnswers.net adds this at the bottom of the page:

     "A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: “Has anyone in this class ever heard God?” No one spoke. “Has anyone in this class ever touched God?” Again, no one spoke. “Has anyone in this class ever seen God?” When no one spoke for the third time, he said, “Then there is no God.”

One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: “Has anyone in this class ever heard our professor's brain?” Silence. “Has anyone in this class ever touched our professor's brain?” Absolute silence. “Has anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?” When no one in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, “Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!”
The student received an 'A' in the class."



     Clearly this is yet another invented story that attempts to prove a point, but does so poorly. If we really really doubted the existence of a brain, we could crack open the student's skull and find one. Or not

Creation Revisited

These days I spend a lot of time in discussion with friends and foes who are theists. The vast majority are Christians, likely because I live in Kansas and religious diversity here means you're either Pentecostal or Baptist. I also thrive on websites like AnswersInGenesis that I have mentioned before. Many arguments for a young earth or for creation are pretty obviously based on poor assumptions or bad science, but those are not what I would like to talk about today.
I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. At best I have a very basic understanding of how science works. To put this in perspective, I have a basic understanding of how my car works. I can do simple repairs and even diagnose some issues that come up. Ask me to build you a car and I would do well just to draw a picture of one. However, I don't need to know all there is to know about the design and production of a vehicle in order to hold an informed opinion on it. The same is true of science and the origins of the universe.
However, I am much more comfortable approaching the subject of Creation from a philosophical standpoint. So hang in there, because I'm not sure any of this will make sense.
Something cannot come from nothing: Creationists claim the universe must have had a creator because it could not have come into being without one. Now, we know the universe exists, mainly becuase we're here to experience it, anthropic principal and all. The best science we have can't tell us with certainty how the universe began, or honestly that it "began" at all. What came before the Big Bang is a mystery and one that an honest person has no evidence to fill in.
The universe also apprears to be rather complex. Alright...mind-bendingly complex. Like, way more complex than I can really wrap my head around. I think we can all agree on that. Except for that Hawking asshole. I swear if he wasn't in a wheelchair, I'd kick his ass for being so smart. Then again....he might be able to kill me with his mind.
Sorry. Anyway, so this vast, impossibly complex and spectacular universe exists and nobody can honestly say how or why. Creationists will say that God simply willed everything into being. Even if I am willing to allow that (and in no way am I willing to do so), how does that make more sense? God, by definition, must be even more complex than the universe in order to create it. And he must exist on some level in order to be present before anything else was so that he could create.
My point is this: Why does it seem so easy for creationists to postulate an all-powerful creator who doesn't need a reason for his existence over a natural, but as-yet-unknown reason for the universe's existence?
We know, without doubt, that the universe exists. So however unlikey it might be, here we are, existing in it. We do not know that God exists. (Even the strongest believer admits that faith is not knowledge). To me, taking that extra step seems unnecessary and unwarranted.

The Moral Compass is Broken

Without God, there can be no morality. Believers act as though this is as simple a law of the universe as gravity. I admit that for years, this was a challenging argument for me. Then I applied a few seconds of thought to it and found the claim to be inaccurate at best. At worst, the truth is the exact opposite.

If there is such a thing as universal truth in what is Good and Evil, the followers of any gods don't know what that universal truth is, nor do the gods themselves. Here I can list the crimes of tollowers of any belief structure. Murder, rape of adults and children, theft, and holy war top the list. Lesser crimes, such as intellectual dishonesty, are so commonplace that we hardly even notice.

Please understand that I don't hold these crimes to be the sole territory of theists. People of any belief structure can be motivated to do things that most of us would consider repulsive. However, that is the point. The Holy among us are not. Believers do not follow a moral compass that is unavailable to anybody else.

But, perhaps it is not fair to judge God based upon his followers. I certainly do think it is fair, but I am willing to make a concession in this case. So, let us judge God based on what he commands. Appropriately let us start in the book of Judges. In Judges 11, Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to the Lord because of a military victory that God delivered to him against the Ammonites. Perhaps one will blame Jephthah for this, but one might want to cast an eye skyward to wonder why God did not stop this case of human sacrifice like he did in the case of Abraham. At the minimum, this points to an inconsistant moral absolute.

God's commands for Joshua are undeniably more direct. The wholesale slaughter of thousands in military conquest didn't require a human sacrifice this time, unless you count the victims. God instructs his followers, in an absolutely direct way, to kill the people of lands given to his people and to take their posessions.

Alright, alright...these were still things done by his followers. Perhaps they totally misunderstood God. God might have been watching the destruction of Jericho and shouting angrily at Joshua to stop. Let us grant that as well. It does nothing to rescue the argument of moral absolutism.

Let us take acts of God himself. Specifically, Jesus. Jesus was a human sacrifice, to himself, in order to cleanse the sins of everybody else. If we allow that Christ was sinless, then this is a vicarious execution for crimes commited by others. This is not justice, morality or even mercy. Taken to another level, what gives Jesus the right to forgive offenses not commited against him? If a man wrongs me and is forgiven in God's view that does not make him innocent of his crime. But given what I have seen of God's view, the standards for innocence are suprisingly low.

Justified Arrogance

A very good friend of mine made an excellent point the other day. Twitter and Reddit (my two favorite places for atheism topics) are both well-populated with arrogant, fundamentalist athesists. I don't disagree. There are plenty of self-rightous atheists who think that their non-belief alone makes them better than a theist. I truly believe that there are some atheists who wouldn't convert even if God himself were to make an appearance. I also don't think that makes their stance incorrect.
Just because somebody is arrogant about a subject does not make them wrong. My friend was kind enough to say that my personal arrogance is justified based on my experience and research. I am appreciative of his allowance in that respect. I know I am arrogant when it comes to my lack of belief. However, I also know what it would take for me to change my mind. I know this because I have done it before.
I was an arrogant Christian too. After all, I had God on my side. I had his book to fall back on to prove anything I needed to prove. Ah, the book... It was like a quick-reference of I'm Right and You're Wrong. Throughout my childhood I was told that the Bible was the completely accurate, inspired Word of God. Every word in it was handed down to those who wrote it exactly as God intended. There were no errors. For centuries the scribes who copied it by hand did so perfectly, guided by God.
I knew then what it would take to change my mind too though. Even as arrogant as I was, I always liked to have something to back it up...though I did so just so I could be more arrogant. For me the Bible was the keystone of my faith. It was perfect or it was not. While science made large dents in my faith by refuting the Creation myth and Noah's flood, I still held onto the Bible because the validity of the book itself hadn't been proven wrone. Maybe it just wasn't....detail oriented. That made for a good excuse.
Until I really studied it. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained versions of the books of the Bible we don't have today..and ones that are even different from one scroll to another. The book of James seems to be a favorite deviation. I once loved the part in John when Jesus saves a woman from stoning with his admonition that only the sinless may cast the first stone. Turns out that isn't in our oldest copies of the Bible.
I need not recount my conversion here, but a mountain of errors fractured my keystone under their weight. It turns out that evidence was able to overcome arrogance. And honestly, it still can. We atheists may be arrogant about our lack of faith, but you should not be proud of your lack of evidence.
I am arrogant, but I am not wrong. (See what I did there?)

Is Peace Possible?

    I want peace. Peace of mind, non-violent peace, social justice peace, world peace. I know that I won't ever witness a day of universal peace among my seven billion neighbors. The fact of this is bothersome to me, to say the least. The nagging question is..why won't we all be at peace?

    Our motivations and selfish nature are to blame. Sadly, I don't believe these are things we are capable of moving beyond as a species. We argue anonymously on Twitter or Facebook without fear of retribution for the vile things we say. I am not innocent of this. Theft often results in violence or the threat of it and leaves the victim quite without a sense of peace. Mugging is theft small-scale and war is theft large-scale. I know man will take issue with that over-simplification but before you do, find me a war that wasn't one country trying to take from another country.

     Some issues seem to build violence upon violence. I've noted in a previous blog how the pro-life movement is decidedly anti-life when it comes to doctors who perform abortions. You can think of many examples where violence, or the threat of violence, is used as a form of coercan. All terrorism is based on this idea. Fear is a weapon.

     All that being said, I think it is useful to focus on one issue that is worth objective study and discussion. In the Middle East a conflict of literally apocalyptic proportions is just waiting to happen. But does it have to? Why is peace in and around Israel so difficult to achieve? Radical self interest is so rampant that the inevitable loss for everybody will be seen as a win by some. Both sides claim a divine right from God to the land. This mandate apparently is the excuse for all manner of segregation, violence, hate and distrust on both sides.

     Even if I were to grant a directive from God for a people to live in a land, why does that mandate seem to dictate the extermination of those who already live there? For one thing, you might think god would choose an unoccupied area for his people. For another, the God of a religion of peace would seem to value coexistence over genocide. I mean, would seem to do so if one hasn't read nearly any holy text.

    I don't grant that either side has a mandate from their spiritual Father, however. As a secular humanist I desire equality and peace, even with those I disagree with. On many levels I am willing to have a disagreement and leave it at that. My sense of peace is not disturbed by that. That being said, I am part of the problem. I want people to see my way of thinking, passionately. I would not hesitate to use violent means to protect myself or an innocent. And I'm more than willing to beat a member of the WBC to death with a rubber hose.

    I'm caught in a trap of my own making. This is an issue that makes for a poor, rambling blog post. I need to dissect it further.

Why Creation is a Fact

     Intelligent Design, ID. I admit that the concept seemed relatively ridiculous to me for many years. It seemed like a sneaky way to insert God into a psuedo-science and get it into grade schools as a form of indoctrination. The examples of ID are literally every form of life on the planet. However, as an Evolutionist, I saw those life forms as simply backing up the theory I already believed in.

     Sure the eye was complex, but it wasn't perfect...so I could see how it was more likely created by chance than by God. The human eye is weak in comparison with that of many animals. We don't see as well in the dark as cats, or from great distances like an osprey. Our eyes can't see into the ultra-violet or infrared like some animals. Our optical nerve actually passes through the back of the retina and the image that is actually created by our eyes is upside down. It simply doesn't seem like the pinnacle of design to me. Also important to note is that many animals have eyes that are weaker than our own. The scale of eyes from imperfect or ineffective to exceptional and certainly superhuman, is easy to see.

     Cellular structure, muscles, skin, scales, lungs... we all can think of complex biological components that appear to be designed, but all seem to have more simple antecedents that challenge the simple wisdom of assuming supernatural guidance. I am not a biologist, but I couldn't seem to find anything that wasn't a building block or the result of such blocks. I searched and searched and earlier tonight I found something.

     Before I get into it, I have to tell you that what I am about to reveal will turn you into a die-hard Creationist. There is no going back. If you value your current belief system, please close this blog and go on with your very happy life.

     What I discovered was a form of life that could not have evolved. In ability and life expectancy, it outpaces us. It is surprisingly intelligent and simply has no classifiable family tree. With no ancestors, I can't see how this creature evolved. What's more, it is so perfectly designed to fit into its place in our world that it could not have happened by chance. Design has never been more apparent to me. Any less than the whole, and there is no survival for this being. It is an all or nothing proposition.

     I am, of course, talking about God. God is the most complex concept known to man. He is the Creator of All, the King of Kings, our Heavenly Father. There simply is no possible way that God could have occurred by accident. God must be an entity intelligent and powerful enough to shape the universe. Certainly a being like that couldn't just... happen. God couldn't just pop up out of nowhere. And as for God having existed eternally...can you think of something more complex than that? No way!

     God must have been created. He is just too irreducibly complex to occur on his own. The thought is simply ridiculous. Since we humans are the only species that seems to have a concept of God, it is inescapable to conclude that we created the concept of him. It is surprisingly simple when you think about it. We are intelligent. We did the designing. Evolution is real. We are primates. Get over it.

     End satire.

The Real Cost of Freedom

Freedom is not free. How many times has a cowboy-hat wearing simpleton drawled this to us as if it were the very height of wisdom? Pretty often. Too often. And how are we expected to react? Invariably a sacrifice is expected. Give up this or that so that we can be more free. I agree that freedom is not free. However, freedom is also not many other things.
Freedom is not clean, safe, or polite. Being free means that sometimes we will be the victims of "terror", as if that were an entity in and of itself. Freedom means that sometimes we will have our feelings hurt by things we see or hear. It also means we are free to complain about it.
Over the last ten years we have seen a dramatic loss of personal freedom in the name of security. If the terrorists hated us for our freedoms, our greatest defense has been to remove those freedoms. Flight is highly regulated in a all-for-show circus of personnel and technology. Our internet usage is monitored. Our phone calls and text messages are prone to recording. As we have seen with the Occupy movement, we are told we can't even peacefully assemble without the vague and abused phrase "public safety" being invoked to violently end such protests.
What that cowboy clad idiot does not realize is that we have had our freedoms stolen. I have watched the Occupy movement with curiosity and eager anticipation. I place much hope in the people who are demanding that our freedoms be recognized. We are deserving of equality, social justice, economic security and true freedom. Ugly, offensive, dangerous freedom

Occupied America

     Occupation is something Americans came to be familiar with over the last decade. We've been doing it to other countries for years. We saw it happen in the domino-effect revolutions of the Arab Spring. Standing your ground has been a powerful way of saying "no more". In Iraq and Afghanistan, we made that stand (correctly or not) against terrorism. In Egypt and other countries we saw citizens claim their land with little more than their feet, signs and sometimes, blood.

     I watched the scenes from Tahrir Square in awe. I was amazed that people would stand before the police while being gassed, run down with trucks and horses, beaten, arrested and tortured. It reminded me of the lone man standing before a column of Chinese tanks... but with thousands of brave souls doing the same. (On a side note: That one Chinese guy had courage that I don't possess in my wildest delusions. Much respect.)

     As I'm writing this, I'm watching coverage of the Occupy protests in Oakland being broken up with flashbangs and tear gas. I see reports that Atlanta might be on the verge of the same. We have seen New York cops using horses, motorcycles and mace on protestors. At first I wrote off the violence against the Occupy movement as overzealous cops abusing their power, sorta like LAPD does every time they stop a black guy. On reflection though, I realized why the response has been so violent so quickly. It's because I wasn't the only one watching with amazement what happened in Egypt.

     They know that Occupation works. And they're scared. More to the point, they should be. The movement will win because of the response. Average Americans won't stand for police violence. It will be the catalyst that helps the message of injustice spread.

     I can see it unfolding now. In the next few days or weeks we will have our first casualties. A protester will get hit with a "less than lethal" rubber bullet and will die. The public opinion, already swinging against the 1%, will gain momentum. Soon the polls will tell the story and the politics will follow. Scared of losing all power, the 1% will concede a few things. Once that starts, the protests will grow. The 1% will try to hold the line with another pushback. The 99% will stand firm. Eventually the 1% will learn that we can't be appeased or bought off. We demand fundamental change and we will get it. 

    I feel like I'm watching the start of something wonderful. The Occupation is here to stay and it's just what this country needs.

The Pro-Life Lobby, Isn't

    "We Vote Pro-Life" proclaimed the bumper sticker on the white Lincoln Town Car in front of me. The vehicle had seen better days and I was certain its vintage was such that those days likely took place during the first Bush administration. The sticker was significantly newer. The sentiment of one-issue voting was very old indeed.

    I frequently wonder, when I see this particular sticker, where the line of Pro-Life is drawn. I know the intent behind it is to protect the unborn. I respect that desire and even share it. I also observe that the very political advocates of seeing the unborn become the born, are those who stop caring once an embryo becomes a child. They are the same political block that would deny us universal healthcare, public education, after school programs, social security and even the small solace of end-of-life planning. To an ironic degree, the political wing that most supports pro-life sentiments is also a rabid fan of the death penalty, believing it should be applied both for murder cases and having a lack of health insurance.

    At a Republican debate late in 2011 Texas Governor Rick Perry was roundly applauded for his record of 235 executions on his watch over three terms. One person in Texas was put to death once every 2 and a half weeks. At the following debate the crowd was eagerly shouting "Let him die!" when a question arose about an uninsured individual. I suspect that if the question of reproductive rights had come up the phrase "Let him die" wouldn't have been part of the repertoire.

    In the news we bore witness to the down-to-the-wire drama of Troy Davis' execution. I browsed a half dozen pro-life web sites to see what their reaction to this questionable act would be. I admit to not being surprised that none of them even mentioned saving a potentially innocent man's life. On the right-wing, Ann Coulter's Twitter statement on the matter was "ONE TROY DAVIS FLAME BROILED PLEASE." The all-caps are hers. The disgust should be universal.

    At the heart of the pro-life movement lies the issue of abortion and by extension, reproductive rights. I strongly considered writing to Operation Rescue, the Army of God and other groups to learn their side of this battle. Thankfully, the entities I would contact have made their views loudly heard and blatantly displayed across the political landscape and, more to my purposes, the internet.

    I learned much while examining the pro-life side of the debate. For one thing, I learned that there is no debate. Life begins at conception. I also learned that since there was no debate, that extreme measures were often warranted and encouraged. There was frequent license for harassment and violence, including fake "wanted" posters, complete with a "Dead or Alive" subtitle. However, it should be noted that the main weapon used by the pro-lifers is legislative. Their target is almost universally an organization called Planned Parenthood. To hear the Pro-life lobby tell it, Planned Parenthood facilities are abortion mills. They depict dingy, unclean, unsafe and soulless abortion factories staffed by people who delight in the premature death of tiny babies.

    I decide to visit one.

    On what I believed to be a nearly perfect fall day, I sat down with Sarah Gillooly, the Kansas Public Affairs Manager for Planned Parenthood at their clinic near my house. I can assure you that what I witnessed there flies in the face of the concerns of the pro-life lobby. I can't help but note that to enter the clinic I walked past a parked patrol car and had to enter through a secure door. The pro-lifers would be proud that their campaign of intimidation has resulted in heightened security. I met with an intelligent, polite and compassionate woman who expressed passion for the organization that she defends.

    My first question may not surprise you, and I am certain did not surprise Ms. Gillooly. Why Planned Parenthood? Her answer: Planned Parenthood is one of the most visible providers of reproductive care in the nation. Now, this gave me pause. She didn't use the word "abortion'. This caught me somewhat off guard. Her focus was on women's health. Her emphasis when it came to Planned Parenthood was on the "parenthood".

    In the time she shared with me and in my research since then I learned some things worth thinking about that I would like to share with you. My view of the pro-life lobby quickly evolved into the anti-choice lobby. I hope your view changes as well.

    Even though Kansas is third from last in the nation for infant mortality among minorities, no bills were introduced in the 2011 legislative session to address this. Twelve bills were introduced to restrict reproductive services in the state. Planned Parenthood provides prenatal care for low income women. If the anti-choice lobby wins out, these women will have to rely on county health services at a greater cost to the taxpayer and at much reduced efficiency. Planned Parenthood supports sex-ed programs and awareness of birth control measures that reduce unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STDs.

    The anti-choice lobby isn't just targeting Planned Parenthood because some of their clinics do provide abortion services in a safe manner. As Texas Representative Wayne Christian said in a recent interview, "Of course this is a war on birth control and abortion and everything." The anti-choice fanatics simply don't want you to have a choice. This isn't about life, or reducing cost, or protecting women. If it were, Planned Parenthood would be their strongest ally because that organization does care about life, reducing costs and womens' health.

    The sad truth is that the allies of the anti-choice single-issue voters are the same people who won't reconsider the death penalty, won't end expensive and dangerous wars, won't protect not-for-profit healthcare, won't defend social security and turn a blind eye to the factors that regrettably force a woman to make the choice that they want to take away.

    I am not impressed by your bumper sticker.

Faithless

     David has done it again. He has written a wonderful blog post full of thought and intellect. And again, in my "wisdom", I'm going to disagree with him. As before, you should read his post first.

http://muirnin.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/armo/

     My first point of disagreement is that atheism is a religious belief at all. This is a common assertion and one that never ceases to bother me. The common response that rings through my head is simple. Atheism is a religion in the same way that "off" is a channel. To me, the very act, if you can call it that, of non-belief is something passive. It is not a choice, as any of the faithful will admit you must make to believe. Atheism is not the belief in the non-existence of god, it is the result of a lack of evidence to convince one to choose to believe.

     As an atheist, I am willing to admit that I might be wrong if presented with enough evidence. A believer, of any stripe, will not admit that they may be wrong despite any level of evidence. That is a fundamental difference and the main reason I am opposed to religion in general.

     Like David, I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. I was a missionary. I believed the planet to be 6000 years old. How that all changed is currently irrelivant. What matters is that it changed. Through sometimes painful methods, it changed.

     Faith is the roadblock on the way to change. It is the lock on the door, behind which lies real knowledge. Faith is the blanket we wrap ourselves in to shield us from the bitter chill that is the admission that we are ignorant. Those of us who embrace that first fearful moment break through to the other side where we can truly begin learning.

     I am willing to ignore almost all the evils of religion. The child rape, the murder, the ethnic cleansing, the genital mutilation, the abuse, the humiliation, the extortion, the gleeful anticipation of the end of all life.... However, the commandment to remain ignorant is the one I will not overlook because all the others eventually flow from it. The celebration of non-thinking stunts our progress as a species and allows for all manner of excuses for the wrongs we choose to do to one another. Why mourn the dead who are in a better place? Why end suffering when those who suffer will be rewarded in Heaven for their faith? Mother Theresa spewed forth this vile example.

     So why oppose those who believe and yet seem to keep their faith benign and private? What objection could I possible have? So-called moderate belief gives cover and acceptance to the extremists while still requiring the same practice of well-manicured stupidity. More to the point, what exactly is moderate belief when it requires the suspension of reason and honestly?

     We should all strive to better ourselves, even if that means facing hard truths about reality.

Why I, as a Straight Man, Support Same-Sex Marriage

     I do not have a Human Right Campaign equality sticker on my car. You've seen them around, I'm sure. They're the little yellow equals sign on the blue background. If I could find a red equals sign on a black background, I would have one on my car. But let's face it, blue and yellow would clash with my black car. Yeah, I'm shallow.

     But I also do support the cause of same sex marriage. You should read this excellent article before you finish reading mine: http://muirnin.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/haakellot/

     David makes a lot of amazing points. His reasoning for not supporting marriage is unassailable. However, I also find much of it irrelevant. While I'm certain he will disagree with me, and is the more likely of us to be correct, here is why I feel this way.

     Marriage has historically been a matter of legal contracts and subjugation of women. However, traditional marriage is already dead and it wasn't "the gays" the killed it. I've seen weddings performed during both sky- and scuba-diving. I've seen Klingon weddings and later this year a friend of mine is having a pirate wedding that I will watch via webcast. My cousin married a strong woman whom I wouldn't dare cross swords with and she kept her damn name. Perhaps nobody felt like it was safe to ask her to do anything else.

     David is correct to point out all the symbolism that he is appropriately scornful of. Straight couples are changing quite a lot of that symbolism these days and therefore, I don't find it important.

     I am a straight man. I am also single and will be the rest of my life. There is no reason I should have the ability to marry and a same-sex couple in love cannot. When I see two people in love, that is all I see, just two people and love. The marriage contract grants the legal rights we provide to those who have made that lifetime commitment to one another. The marriage ceremony is how they choose to express that commitment and love.

     To David and my many homosexual friends and to those of you I don't know but might read this in any case: I'm not going to give up on my efforts to see equality in my lifetime. You deserve all the legal and ceremonial recognition of your love for another. I agree that traditional marriage is traditionally distasteful. But do what the straights are doing and create your own traditions.

Aaaarrrgh! (Admit it, the pirate thing is a good idea)

Christian Leap Logic

    Christians, and by extension most theists, employ a wonderful tool of reasoning that I like to call CLL, or Christian Leap Logic. In short this means that if Item A is true, totally unrelated Item B must also be true. Once you understand how this reasoning works it is fairly easy to disassemble almost all arguments for theism.

     For example: Item A: the Bible mentions accurate geographical places. Totally unrelated Item B: Jesus performed miracles. This isn't an example I pulled out of thin air. It happens to be one of Lee Strobel's favorite arguments. Read it in More Than a Carpenter if you can stomach it.

     Another example: Item A: the universe must have had a beginning. Totally unrelated Item B: God is the creator of the universe and is imbued with all the attributes described of him in the Bible. This one if from Dr. Turek in his book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

     CLL accounts for the vast majority of arguments I've heard from Christians. To be honest, it saddens me. I honestly believe that if Christians would employ actual logic...well, they wouldn't be Christians. Other than the fact that I don't think Christians and other theists would stop believing if it weren't for CLL, I also think they would understand their place in the world somewhat better.

     Christians, if they applied normal logic, would understand their own beliefs. They would understand that people who want to live their own lives in a manner that is different are not a threat to them. They would realize that being the majority does not necessarily mean that you get your way. They would understand that other people expressing themselves is not a form of persecution. They wouldn't react based on fear, emotion, guesses or...faith.

The Why

    Lack of belief, on its face, is hard to justify. Put in any other context it almost seems absurd. Nobody would interrogate me on why I don't skydive or eat bananas. Yet, the fact that I don't believe is enough to bring frustration and tears to my parents. It is as though belief is the default position and straying from that is somehow abarrant and dangerous. I understand why. As a believer, Hell awaits those who don't think like you. But when you step outside that box, things look very different.

     We all share a certain level of non-belief. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of gods that you don't believe in no matter what your faith is. Why we find the gods of ancient cultures absurd is something I don't understand. The Greeks had as much reason to believe in their gods as we do ours, but for some reason one set of deities is taught as mythology and another is taught as fact. From a young age, I never understood this. I understand it better now, simply because I have acknowledged that it simply makes no sense.

     In the objections below I will refer to the Christian god since that is the one I am most familiar with due to my personal experience. Please apply them to the gods of your personal belief, whatever that might happen to be.

     Objection 1: Why is God any different than any other god? In other words, out of all the innumerable faiths throughout history why is yours the right one? Invariably when I ask this question I have a so-called holy book waved at me. Well, if there was only one such book, that might be a worthwhile argument, but there are many books to support many gods, so why is your book the book? I have heard many empty answers to this, but none are convincing. If you were to rearrange the names of any religious story even its adherents would find it absurd.

     Objection 2: Religion is so often wrong. Throughout history religion has been used primarily to explain the world we live in. The origins of life, the world, the universe, sin, pain, suffering and the very meaning of life were all under the purview of religion to explain. Religion has always been wrong on these subjects. Science has answered many of the questions that religion offered meager explanations for. In all cases, science has done better at solving these problems. In fact, invariably, religion constantly takes the best of scientific reasoning and them mutates it to fit their primitive ideas. Why should I believe the claims of miracles or eternal salvation when the claims of our origins or even basic history are incorrect? When science is proven incorrect, it is always by improved science. No scientific hypothesis has been proven wrong by an ancient text.

     Objection 3: Religion is immoral. I need not list the crimes of the followers of any particular religion here. For one thing, they are too extensive to possibly summarize. However, I mean that the religions themselves are immoral. In almost all cases, sectarian violence, segregation and discrimination of those who believe differently are all encouraged. In the case of the Christian god, sin is cured through the vicarious sacrifice of the only allegedly sinless individual of all time who also happens to be god himself. The mandate of self-hatred is unavoidable.

     I find it all fantastical and pathetic. I want nothing to do with it, and neither should you.

One Step Further

I've been told that I always take things one step beyond normal. I over-think. I over-analyze. I've been told that my train of thought veers way off the tracks and that people have a hard time keeping up. That might all be true. I certainly hope so.

See, I don't want to be normal. I don't want to have an irrational thought and grasp onto it thinking that it resembles Truth. I want to seek the patterns and currents of thought. I want to know the Why behind everything. Why do we do what we do? Why do we like certain foods and not others? Why do we date certain people? Why do we continue bad behaviors even though we know better? Why do people keep electing Republicans? You know... irrational stuff like that.

Earlier today I heard the author of the Chicken Soup for the Soul series on a radio show. It was a good interview. Except for one thing he said. Now, I may misquote him here, but: "There is a blessing in every tragedy".

I take issue with a statement like that. Anybody who wants to take 8-12 seconds of thought can disprove that statement. We can instantly think of tragic events that have not ended up as blessings. The Holocaust. The massacre of millions in Russia and China during the Communist Revolutions. Jonestown. Any music produced by Phillip Glass. You know... really really horrible things.

But see what we just did? We applied a few seconds of thought to something we were told. I know that perhaps hundreds of thousands of people heard that statement today and simply took it at face value. Some people may have even written it down to share with others. They didn't actually think about it.

It's that extra step that I think is important. I think if more people kept thinking about things, we'd be a lot less likely to spew crap like that. We'd just think to ourselves that it's not true and we'd let it slide. I think we'd be better off only passing on to others things that we've actually applied some effort into thinking about ourselves. It's called Food for Thought for a reason. You're supposed to think about it.