Bits and pieces.

Yes, Christopher Hitchens (a well-known figure in the atheist community) died.  All I did in response was to keep living my life as I always have and bought his book God is Not Great in hopes that proceeds from the book are serving some worthy cause that he championed.  I once saw him in a debate on C-Span with some religious figure and they were debating Pascal's Wager.  Watching the man evicerate Pascal's Wager was like watching lions feed on a gazelle.  There was hardly any contest and Hitchens scathing wit made it all the more better.  He never let up.

If you've been looking at the blog wondering why there's been no new posts it's because I've had hardly any time with which to write new posts (mostly due to work).  Also, I didn't want to post atheist related stuff and start a kerfuffle during the holidays.  The last thing I need is my inbox flooded with bible verses.  But in the meantime I think I'm going to quote a bible verse here.  This one is for all the religious anti-gay marriage folks out there.  If you're going to protest homosexuality then I think you got to include all of the laws of Leviticus in there as well.  Which at dinner tonight I broke one of those laws, so I guess I am an abomination unto the Lord.

 
Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
⁹ These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
¹⁰ And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
¹¹ They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
¹² Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

The shrimp was really tasty.

I love hypotheticals...

Alrighty, now it's been a while since my last post (I've been doing a lot of working lately) but I have been reading different articles and have found that I want to pose a few hypotheticals about religion.

1.  If heaven is eternal bliss, then why don't religious people find some way to have themselves killed to get there sooner?  Honestly, if you could get to a place where there was no stress, everything was super-easy, and you could have everything you ever wanted wouldn't you want that sooner than later?

1a. If you want to get to heaven sooner (without committing suicide) then how do you go about it?  Do you ask a stranger to kill you at some random time that you won't know about?  Because if the stranger does then it was the stranger's decision to kill you (the ball was in his court at that point) and theoretically it wouldn't be your fault.

2.  Why does the god Christian people believe in happen to agree with whatever that person believes?  If so, it seems to me that different Christian people's beliefs would contradict somewhere.  I've had Christian people tell me they believe in God, but they don't think homosexuality is a sin.  It states in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord.  So, which is it?  If you disagree with God, then that makes no sense.  Or maybe God doesn't exist and we are just forming our own beliefs based on where, when, and how we were raised and the peers and mentors we have and our own biological make-up as human beings.  Oh, but that couldn't make any sense right? :)

3.  Why does God almost always talk to people individually and not as a group?  The pastor says, "God spoke to me last week and I've got news for you."  Well, if so, then why he didn't just get everyone together and tell us the same thing?

4.  Why does God work in mysterious ways?  If he wanted everyone to believe in him, it doesn't make sense to have left a book behind thousands of years ago to be translated and transcribed many times over by ancient peoples and civilizations to get the point across.  If I were God, I'd do worldwide public appearances and leave behind actual evidence.

5.  Why didn't God just create everything perfect from the beginning?  I personally feel that adding the conflict and adding a bad guy just made the narrative a little more juicy if you ask me.

The boring argumentative post.

While I not an extremely political person (even though some of my friends would disagree), I do have opinions on things just like everyone else.  Also, in life, we tend to surround ourselves with people that we agree with.  This is why we have sub-communities and sub-cultures.  We identify with whatever that group stands for and join as a way to reinforce our ideals.

What stands in the way of compromise and progress usually occurs when two or more groups disagree on fundamental ways that one should live their life, spend their money, raise children, and even how they should act sexually.  As an atheist, I prefer that we all base our decisions based on facts and evidence.  The downside to this is when the facts aren't always clear or when people disagree on what evidence is relevant.  A popular idea of this is the abortion debate.  Is abortion murder?  Do living creatures have a "soul"?  Any many other questions that do and don't have solid answers.

In debates I have seen and heard analysis of between theists and non-theists and there tends to be two types of argumentation.  Argumentation based on unwavering pricnciples and slippery-slope arguments.  I believe that we should always inform our decisions based on facts as the highest moral imperative.  If we don't live by the things that are proven to be correct then we are in essence living a lie.  This is a way in which I do not choose to live.

Yet, life is not black and white as many theists would have you think that it is.  God's rule trumps all they say.  I disagree.  This is why I love arguments that have a slippery-slope.  They put the theist into a position in where they have to defend unthinkable atrocities.  Such as when God tells Abraham to kill his own son.  If anyone told me to kill my own child even if it was just a "test" (something a benevolent god wouldn't do in my opinion) I would have them arrested on the spot.  Yet, the "test" excuse is one you hear a lot from theists.

Next time you hear a theist speak about moral arguements, do this little exercise.  Try to think of a situation where that moral argument doesn't apply.  If it fails in even just one case then it is not a perfect moral argument.  There is a slippery slope.  Almost every moral argument ever presented has a situation in which the argument fails. It's just a matter of finding the best slippery-slope arguement that works in most cases.

This is a fuzzy moral world we live in.  It's not defined in black and white terms.  The day I learned that was the day that being an atheist became a lot easier for me and a lot tougher as well.  I live my life one situation at a time and apply the moral argument that works for that situation best.

Just a link today.

Note:  While I would like to share a story I heard yesterday, I just finished watching this video and I think it's recommended viewing for anyone that considers themselves a Christian or a believer in Jesus.  I'm an atheist now, but I remember scenes in the churches I attended, just like the ones Seth presents in this video:

Blind Spots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ZIZ-Upalk



If you enjoyed this video or want to learn more check out Seth's other work which includes well-made thought-provoking and comedic videos at http://www.youtube.com/TheThinkingAtheist

Are you willing to change your mind? I am always willing.

When it comes to making big decisions in our lives: having children, getting married, changing careers, etc. we tend to take our time weighing the pros and cons.  Lately, I've been asked if I'm going to buy a new car.  This starts a flurry of questions in my head (if I do end up deciding to buy a car):  What kind of car should I buy?  A gently used car?  A brand-new car?  Does the car have good gas mileage?  Can it handle rough terrain well?  Is it a car that will last?  How big of a car do I need?  These are all questions I should have answered before I decide what kind of car to buy.  These questions are not based on my emotions, they are legitimate questions every potential car buyer asks themselves.  Yet, once you get to the dealership something strange usually happens.  Unless you are properly prepared, you don't get to ask all those questions you had about your potential purchase.  The car salesman immediately greets you with a warm smile and friendly demeanor and soon enough you're doing a lot of listening and not a lot of asking.

When I was religious, I found myself in the same position as a potential car buyer, if I had questions they were dismissed with responses such as: "It's God's will" or "Just pray about it & God will answer all your questions", and one of my personal favorite useless responses "You're not supposed to question God".  To which I would always ask more questions.  If God gave me a brain that is naturally curious about the world, then why am I not supposed to ask questions?  Am I supposed to be obedient no matter the consequences?  That sounds like a god I don't want to have a relationship with.  I was taught that the best results occur through cooperation and mutual respect and not subordinancy.  For this reason alone, I am a doubter in this all-powerful God that so many speak so highly of.

Yet, that does not mean I will be a doubter for life.  Most freethinkers at one point or another in their life were religious; some very deeply so.  I have found that most freethinkers are ones who listen to all arguments, are most willing to change their minds, and suspend belief in anything until rational justification and evidence are presented.

The conversations I have had with religious people usually end up involve people being offended.  This blog probably offends some people but you don't have to read it.  As much as I have the choice to not listen to the believers.  I have found that a lot of believers out there don't read my blog just because of the topics presented inside.   If you're entire worldview is based upon saving my "soul" from eternal damnation wouldn't you want to know what I believe and why as an insight to my moral code, my personality, and my beliefs in general?  This is why I read blogs of people from the other sides of the religious spectrum.  When you talk to someone that is open-minded, then your conversations can be mneaningful even if no one changes their mind in the end. Yet, if you go into a religious discussion not willing to change your mind, then why listen to the other side at all?

I have changed my mind many times when it comes to matters of faith or lack thereof.  How many times have you?

God Bless America? What about the rest of the world?

I was at work today having a chat with a co-worker and we were discussing his hat, which had the blue UK emblem on it.  While this was something we had in common (I am an alum and he is a fan), he immediately followed up our discussion by saying that UK is "God's country".  I thought about that a bit deeper as he walked away.  It took me back to a conversation I had many years before.

When I had just graduated college, I moved back home and became a substitute teacher.  Income was sparse so I began driving my dad around to make a few extra bucks.  My relationship with my dad has not always been the best as we only speak probably about once a year, but during that time I saw him weekly and not having him around growing up (my parents divorced when I was 5) we had some interesting and sometimes weird conversations.  One time I was with him, we were talking and we came up on the subject of God.  It wasn't a particularly deep conversation, but he brought up something I had never thought about up to that point.

He said, "You know how people say "God Bless America?"
I replied, "Yeah, you hear it a lot."
He said, "God created the whole world and even John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world..." Isn't it a little weird that you hear people in the US say God Bless America?  Shouldn't they say God Bless the World?"
I said, "I guess it does seem pretty arrogant, to think that God only cares about this country and not any others."

 How many times can you recall someone saying "God Bless America"? In America, especially amongst the political right you will find that we are bombarded with messages saying America is "God's Country" and "God Bless The USA".  Now while I could start up a discussion about how national pride is way overblown in this country, and is a primary reason for people saying the United States is "God's Country", I won't go into it except for mentioning it here.

So, what about the rest of the world?  Why do we (supposedly) have it so bad that people ask God to bless us?  Last time I checked, living in the United States in the financial definition of "poverty" is nowhere near living in real poverty in Africa.  Last time I checked, people living with HIV in America have access to medication that people inflicted with it can live for decades after being diagnosed, while thousands in Africa die of AIDS every day.

Now to be fair, there are churches in the US who do a lot of good doing missionary work in impoverished lands around the world.  On the contrary I don't agree with spreading some of the harmful the doctrines of Christianity, such as not using barrier devices to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (a proven way that actually prevents the spread of STDs).

To my next point, I want to propose a hypothetical situation.  Let's say there is a twelve year old girl in an impoverished nation who has no access to electricity and has not been educated (it's more common that one would think), I tell her that she needs to tell me the name of five American professional baseball teams or else she will be tortured for life. Most likely she has no idea what baseball is.  Am I a bad person for proposing this?  I hope the reading of this paragraph has told you that I am probably a sick individual for suggesting such a situation.

Now I am going to apply this to a Christian belief using something I like to call logic. Most Christians would say that accepting Jesus into your heart is the only way to get into heaven.  So, is someone who does not know anything about Jesus going to hell?  I've actually heard people in my life say yes to that question, which to me is quite disturbing.  Does everyone who has never heard of Christianity go to hell even if they were rasied in a completely different religion? How can God punish someone for something they don't even have a sliver of knowledge about?  It just seems so unfair, or maybe religion and the idea of hell is just a ploy to scare and intimidate people into following into a set of ideas without letting them think for themselves and making their own choice.

In conclusion, ever since that conversation with my dad I have came to this conclusion:
Whenever someone says "God Bless America" (or the like) in this country, it somehow reeks of an overblown sense of pride that permeates our society.  Like the famous quote says, "Two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Perfection: a non-existent proposition.

I wrote a very recent status post on my Facebook page which has made me think about how religious people claim their particular holy deity is "perfect".  Now, I am no theologian or philosopher but I do have a few thoughts on the idea of perfection.

First of all, I think perfection is impossible.  Even so much as for the basic concept that to call something "perfect", we must have something dichotomous that "isn't perfect" with which to define what perfection is.  Perfection implies something that has no flaws whatsoever.  How does one go about deciding that something is a flaw?  In most Christian communities, to live a "perfect" life is to live the life that Jesus (if he ever existed at all) led.  Yet, differing Christian sects disagree on very basic information about the life of their "savior" and what he taught. 

In our daily lives, we are bombarded with what advertisers want us to perceive as the perfect diet, the perfect physique, etc.  Sometimes they aren't far off.  Science has shown that people that excerise regularly and follow a proper diet have longer life capacities.  Yet, even the most athletic and healthy person can't avoid death altogether.  I think this is why that when most people define something that is "perfect" it has the attribute of eternal existence.  How many times have you seen products that promise to make you stronger, live longer, and become happier?   How many times have you heard Christians say that God is perfect and eternal?

Religion promises all of these things, but it comes with a catch.  In most cases, especially with religion, the idea is to capture the essence of the fears and insecurities people have and capitalize on them.  As I've heard quoted from a few atheists: "Religion tells you you've been doing something wrong and then offers you the cure."  It's like those informercials at 3 in the morning that try to tell you you're out of shape and need to buy their exercise machine to get the perfect body.  How can you tell that the machine will really give you a perfect body?  How do you know religion will make you a better person?

Perfect has never existed.  Religion is not perfect or else God would have created everything perfect from the beginning.  Perfection is one of those things that truly is relative.  This is why I try to live a life based on analyzing the evidence and using science as a major tool to inform by beliefsThe scientific method has never preyed on my fears and insecurities.  Science has never told me that I am living the wrong way (it does suggest ways to extend my time here on Earth though)  Why would I want to live in a perfect way?  Because I can guarantee that I'd fail.  Without failure, there is no improvement.  With no improvement you can't define perfection.  I will keep on failing and I will keep on improving on my own terms.  This is a big reason why I am a freethinker.

Another personal seed of freethought.

In my first post, I wrote about seeds of freethought.  I figure I'd share another today.  I get messages from time to time asking, "Why did you choose to be an atheist?"  To me, this implies that the asker thinks I have some sort of agenda.  A lot of religious people think that atheists choose to be atheist.  I can assure you it really isn't a choice at all.  It's usually a long, arduous process where one analyzes the evidence for and against the existence of a deity and accepts the conclusion the evidence suggests.  That no god/s exist.

Like many other scientists before me (whether they were religious or not) for the past thousand years have used the scientific method by running experiments to test hypotheses.  I remember learning about the scientific method when I was in grade school.  It was nothing extravagant to me at the time, but in my current life its implementation means volumes.

I remember when I was in grade school we had an officer come in and teach the D.A.R.E. program.  There were statistics being thrown at us left and right: mortality rates, rates of use, incarceration rates and so on.

I wondered to myself, "How and where did those numbers come from?"  They could have been just made up to make a point, or there was someone whose job it was to count all the deaths from drugs (which would take a while) each day.  I really couldn't make sense of all the numbers, but once I learned of the internet a couple of years later, I decided to look these numbers up.  I searched a few websites and found the statistics that the officer had talked about.  They were a bit outdated, but they had citations and links to the places involved in doing the studies: and a big one popped out at me, the National Institute of Health.  Apparently, they had doctors and other scientists who did all the work and calculations to generate the numbers presented to me in class.  Also, I could go to the library and find these studies published.  You could say I became the Encyclopedia Brown of drug statistics that day.

Now the part where religion comes in.  Religion as it was presented to me growing up only came with one book: the Bible.  (I don't count the hymnal.)  Here it was presented to me as the "ultimate knowledge", the "guide for life", the "Eternal Word".  So, if all the answers were there then why didn't someone use the Bible to explain the drug statistics or any other answer to a multitude of questions I had as a child.  I still find today religion leaves me with many questions.  If you ask the same question to different sects of any religion you will most likely get different answers from each sect you talk to. (And you'll always hear how everyone else has it wrong.)  If the religion is based on one book, shouldn't everyone's answer who follows that book be the same?  I can go on ad nauseum with questions.

Yet, almost every holy book presented in the world today has not the single thing that would probably convince me to look a little further into the subject.  That one thing is citations.  Those little tidbits that say:  Where did this information come from?  Is that information reliable?  Is the holy book corroborated by any outside sources?  How was this information compiled?   These are questions every religious person should ask about their own holy book and others.  If the holy book is the "ultimate knowledge" then it should stand up to honest inquiry.  When it doesn't even stand up to even the most basic standards of evidence then one should hold it in suspect and not follow blindly.

What's in a miracle?

miracle - noun

1. A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.

2. A highly improbable or extraordinary event.

Have you ever heard a story of a tragedy in which there were many deaths and only one survivor?  We've all heard of a story where this occurs: a plane crash, a natural disaster, a mass murder and so on.  We hear and read the story on the news with the headline "Miracle Survivor of (insert disaster here)".  Religious groups claim that the person who survived must've been given a divine miracle, because who could survive such a circumstance?  I used to receive stories about such events when I went to church in my youth.  I was amazed along with everyone else that God was on the lone survivor's side.  Since people love a good human interest story, we eat it right up.  Yet, when you dig a little deeper into the actual "miracle" claim, it really isn't a miracle at all.

Let's do a little thought experiment.  If a plane with 250 people (crew and passengers) loses part of a wing and is about to crash (for example) then we know that the probability of survival will be very low.  You can look up statistics of almost any large plane crash on Google and the death rate is 100% (no survivors). A single survivor or even a couple of survivors is quite close to 100% death rate.  This is NOT the definition a divine miracle.  A divine miracle should obtain the complete opposite result of what the statistical probability predicts.  Being lucky is not a miracle. In this example, a divine miracle would be something that would cause everyone or almost everyone to survive the crash.  There has been no recorded case (to my knowledge) of this ever occurring. (To clarify: Captain Sully saved all those peoples' lives on his flight on his own merit. He controlled the plane's descent without help from a deity.)

Think about this the next time you hear a story of a "miracle" survivor.  It can be explained by probabilities of which we have a vast knowledge.  No god needed to explain what should be obvious but sometimes you got to dig a little deeper.  Luck really does explain miracle survivors.

Guilt (of the unnecessary kind) and its consequences.

Do you remember doing something bad wishing you could take it back?  Did you feel like what you did was really wrong?  Were you afraid of the punishment you'd receive?  We've all been at this point in our lives.  We've all felt guilty.  Yet, a lot of people have felt guilty for reasons that they shouldn't.  A kind of unnecessary guilt, if you will. 

This has been shown in prime examples of the teen suicides related to homosexuality.  People use religous logic (an oxymoron) to burn into these teenagers heads that homosexuality is evil.  They hear it from the pulpit, peers, even so-called friends and family.  To someone in a vulnerable emotional state, they begin to feel like they are the problem.  This leads to a lot of unnecessary guilt and even depression.

I found a video that illustreates this point perfectly..  This real satirical review of a movie that about a simple case of unnesessary guilt going to an extreme.  The reviewer points out many things about the unnecessary guilt religion causes and illustrates my point perfectly.

Link to video:  http://blip.tv/the-cinema-snob/dvd-r-hell-rock-it-s-your-decision-5248679

Post your thoughts in the comments.

How can this be? But you're such a good person!

I've always wondered how prejudices form.  We all have a personal story of someone in our life that we got a bad first impression of only to find out that they weren't so bad or mean to begin with.  The feelings of guilt and regret and the questions start to run through your mind, "Why did I judge them so quickly?  What made me believe this person was bad?  Why does everyone feel so negative about this person?"

Recently, a friend of mine said that even though I'm an atheist, she still considers me a great person.  On first glance, it's a very nice thing to say, but at second glance there's a connotation that being an atheist implies being a "bad person".  Almost all of my friends, family, and co-workers would say I'm a good person.  How do they know this?  Because they have gotten to know me.  They have known me long enough to know I wouldn't steal, maliciously kill, intentionally lie (in most cases), or harm others.

I know that I don't need a deity that watches over everything I do and say and who will send me to eternal punishment if I break one of his rules that comes from a really old book.  I am a good person without a god/gods.  Most believers are good people with a belief in a god/gods.  Most of us are good people.  Why do most americans think I need a god to be the person I was raised to be?  I am a good person, period.  Why?  Because it's the right thing to do, not because I fear eternal punishment or have selfish want of an eternal life.  I am good for the sake of being good.  If that's enough for me, shouldn't that be enough for everyone else?

Why do we sometimes stay quiet when someone needs to speak up?

My basic answer to this question is that we stay quiet for different reasons.  This most often happens when someone doesn't really want the attention or is afraid of the backlash of getting the attention or is just uncomfortable.  In the case of atheism, it's usually a mixture of all of the above.  We all remember back in school when the teacher would write a problem on the board and ask the class if anyone knew the answer.  Usually the response would be that of total silence until one to three brave souls would try to answer or an immature classmate would say something stupid.  Until no one raises their hand, it almost always stays quiet, doesn't it?  At this point the teacher gets frustrated, asks again, and then finally a couple of hands will go up.  I do reserve an exception for those who believe it not to be safe to come out to remain closeted freethinkers until the believe it is safe enough.

If you are a part of the freethought community, you've no doubt heard by now of freethinking students around our country protesting religious displays at their public school, prayers at public school graduations and so on.  These brave students (such as Damon Fowler and Jessica Ahlquist) are the couple of freethinking hands going up in a classroom that are standing up against a continuing problem in public schools today.

While attending my little brother's graduation in eastern Ky over the weekend, there was a Christian prayer opening.  The person giving the invocation, a faculty member, referenced Jesus twice so there can be no question that the prayer was definitely Christian.  Also, at the end of the ceremony (and another prayer to Jesus), the principal addressed the students to tell them that the last thing he wanted them to hear as students of the high school was that he wanted them to follow the bible as their only guide. Now, I know most Christians may think this was wonderful and were proud to have this blatant disregard for the US Constitution on display. Yet, most Christians aren't the parents of a Muslim, Hindu, or any other non-Christian religion (or of an atheist).  Think about it, if your son/daughter is/was any of these, would you want a Christian prayer recited to them at their graduation?  I hear some of you screaming "YES!" in your heads or out loud right now.  (I really can't hear you, you know.)  I honestly believe I was the only one in that entire gym saying to myself, "Does anyone else not know that this prayer and others like it at public school events are a violation of the Constitution? (Lee v. Weisman 1992 & Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe 2000)

Now let's flip the problem around.  What if the majority of US citizens happened to be Muslim and your Christian sons/daughters were subjected to a Muslim prayer at graduation?   I can most definitely predict that there would be a Christian uprising demanding that either the Muslim prayer be stopped or that a Christian prayer be included along with the Muslim prayer. That is the problem I am trying to highlight here.   In our country, non-Christians are the minority and a few of them around the country are demanding that their public schools stop with the school-sponsored prayers at graduations and also take down displays of the Ten Commandments and prayer displays in their school.  These students have took the lead in raising their hands and voices up for something that they they should have been taught (or was taught) in US history class: the Constitution and the Establishment Clause. 

In the case of Lee v. Weisman, Justice Stephens said it better than I can: "school sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. 'School prayers,' whether recited, or silently but prominently displayed by the government on school property in school locations where students are required to be, violate this core First Amendment principle."

We have all felt like an outsider in school at one time or another.  So, why do most people in the US want to keep the outsiders on the outside?  This is a melting pot of many people of different religions and non-religious people alike.  When will the Christian majority learn that the Constitution stands up for both them, as in Lee v. Weisman, and the "outsiders" they want to leave in the dust?

(Note: This post was written in haste.  If I made any factual errors, please let me know.  Please do not include grammatical errors.  I'm sure I've made enough of them.)

Did you hear? The world came to an end!

The past few weeks in the grander smorgasbord of news we had some pretty interesting things happen.  Yet, in the background of the news at the beginning of the month, a man named Harold Camping claimed that Judgment Day would be May 21st.  There were billboards, websites, radio broadcasts, and signs on buses proclaiming that we better prepare or be doomed for eternity.

Reaction to this from most rational people was that of laughing, just plain ignoring the guy, or taking a minute to say how crazy the guy is.  Yet, in the back of my mind, I knew that someone, somewhere a follower of Camping would take his message to heart and do something horrible.  This is one of the horrible things that was done:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110524/sc_livescienc/faileddoomsdayhasrealdeadlyconsequences

While I am not going to say all of Harold Camping's followers are mentally ill, all it takes is one person with enough money and influence to force someone in distress to think that forcing their teenage kid and their pre-teen kid to slice their throats with box-cutters will save them from the torture of "judgment day".

Now, throughout this run up to "judgment day" and the fallout after, mainstream Christians have been distancing themselves from Harold Camping's predictions.  Most do this by citing a bible verse (Mark 13:32-33) that says no one can accurately predict "judgment day".  Problem solved, right?  So, really what mainstream Christians are saying is that the end times are still coming but the date can't be known?  So, that brings up a couple of questions:

1.  Since Harold Camping's rantings are not true, how does still saying the end times are coming by mainstream Christians make the situation any better?

2.  Second, if mainstream Christians are using the bible to cite where they think Harold Camping was wrong, then why is it when a non-believer cites the bible to show where God either kills people directly or sets them up to be killed (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-does-god-kill-people-let-me-count.html) or when it is stated in the New Testament that slaves need to stay with their masters even if the master is evil (1 Peter 2:18)?

It's moving the goalposts (a basic logical fallacy) when Christians cite the bible to prove their point in one case and then in another say that "Skeptics misinterpret the bible all the time" or "the Old Testament doesn't count".

Many people these past few days have learned their lesson the hard way by believing a man who made a prediction about the end of the world.  Interestingly enough, he has already shifted his goalpost and now predicts that the real "judgment day" to be October 21st.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
I assume that most people will not be fooled this time.

Finally, how many more people losing their lives and possessions will it take to show that making a doomsday prediction (whether predicted to be an actual date or an unknowable date) really does actual harm?

Post your responses in the comments if you like.

A little food for thought.

Are you the type of person who generally follows the rules?  I like to consider myself someone who is not a rule-breaker by nature or nurture.  Yet, almost all of us are breaking the "law" everyday, two to 6 times a day.  I know you're thinking right now, "I haven't broken the law today."

Answer yes or no to the following questions:
Have you ever eaten a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich on your way to work?
Have you ever eaten a cheeseburger?
Have you ever drank a glass of wine with your chicken florentine for dinner?
Have you eaten during the holy month of Ramadan in the daytime?

If you've answered yes to any of the above questions, then you've probably broken a religious food law (or laws) somewhere in the world.

 For every religious law against homosexuality, spreading of menstrual fluids, and blasphemy, there are many more laws telling humanity what we can and cannot eat.  Why is almost every religion involved in something that every human needs for survival?  It has never made any sense to me.  While I do understand that most vegetarians and vegans make their food choices based on health reasons (a few atheists and agnostics I know are vegetarians and vegans), a lot of religious people eat certain foods because they believe it was commanded on the human race by a deity.

To counteract this strange line of logic (which most religious logic is anyway), I posed the following question to a Catholic friend of mine a while back.  Imagine you are stranded on an island where there are no major sources of food to be found.  There is a steady supply fresh water but after a week of only eating a couple of edible plants and small insects you really have a craving for a substantial meal.  The only major source of food is birds and fish.  Do you make a fishing pole and start fishing?  Or do you starve?  The answer I was given was that, "In an emergency you can break the food law to survive.  God wouldn't ask me to starve if I were in that kind of danger."

This poses multiple questions:
1.  What constitutes an "emergency" bad enough for God to let you break his law to survive?
2.  If you chose to starve to death, then wouldn't God reward you in heaven for following his "perfect" law in such a difficult circumstance?
3.  If God's laws are "perfect" and he is all-knowing, to ensure your survival (to spread his message, of course) wouldn't he answer your prayers for food and then know to send you what "correct" food to eat so that the food laws aren't broken?

Overall, I believe that religious food laws are just another level of control to keep the herd in line.  Any deity or deities that think humanity needs to follow rules about one of our most basic needs has some serious vanity issues.  I could go on about how religious food law impacts our economy.  Yet, it is getting late and I need sleep.

Post your thoughts, comments, and/or rants in the comments.

The garden of knowledge and my first seed of freethought.

A question atheists get asked often is, "What led you to become an atheist?"  It really can't be answered in a sentence.  We atheists all have a story of how we discovered (or were nurtured into) our freethinking selves.  For atheists in a majority religious America, we all started with seeds of freethought.  I like to think of it as a garden.  Let me explain.

In every atheist's mind, there is a garden that flourishes with the flora of knowledge. This knowledge has been throughout the years nurtured (through active participation in learning), weeded out (reviewed and questioned), and strengthened (by repeated experimentation) from all kinds of different sources.  At the root of this knowledge is the evidence that gives the knowledge power to rise and be seen by the world.  These gardens of knowledge are the most valuable tool any atheist possesses.  At the heart of each active freethinker's garden was once a seed of freethought, of questioning, of wonder, of curiosity.

I remember my first seed of freethought.  I was in second grade.  The teacher made the class fill up small, clear cups with water from the water fountain with our names on them.  We each had to mark the level of water in the cup with a marker and lay our cups on the window sill when it was sunny outside.  A couple of sunny days passed and then we had to check the water level in each of our cups.  The water level was now below the line that we drew with our markers.  I was astonished.  Where did the water go?

At first, I thought the teacher had poured a little bit of water out of every single cup.  Then she told us that the cups weren't touched the whole time.  I still couldn't figure out where the water went to.  It drove me crazy.  It just didn't make any sense.  Then the teacher explained to us that it was called evaporation.  The water turned into a gas and was now part of the air.  I couldn't believe it.  The water just magically disappeared!  I still wasn't satisfied though.  Was the water gone forever?  Could the water come back?

The water could come back, but only through a process my teacher called condensation.  The water molecules could (if it was cold enough) collect on the cup and form droplets.  Then she told us that our bodies were made up of almost entirely water.  Then I heard a question I will never forget.  It came from somewhere in the classroom, one of my fellow students asked, "When Jesus came back, was that because of condensation?"  

The question (an completely forgivable one for a 7 year-old) didn't surprise me that much.  It was the answer that did.  The teacher said, "No, Jesus didn't come back through condensation.  He just did."  

I raised my hand, "How did he come back then?"  The teacher replied, "I don't know."

The thoughts jumped into my head, "WHAT???  The teacher doesn't know???  It can't be!!!  How can the teacher not know?  If the teacher doesn't know, then that means that I don't know."  Teachers were supposed to know everything, or so I thought.  If Jesus was almost all water like me, then that could've been the only way!  

It didn't make sense.  I had heard two contradictory things:  Jesus came back from the dead and the only way water can come back after it's disappeared is through condensation.  I wrestled with that thought for days.  I was determined to find the answer.  I needed to know.

My first seed of freethought, of curiosity, of wonder, and of questioning had been planted.  The first of many I've tended to over the years.  Freethought is something I've grown to value more than anything else in my life up to this point.  And I don't think there's anything more valuable than that honestly.

What was your first seed of freethought?  Did it come to you naturally?  Was it a friend, family member, teacher that helped you find it?  If you are religious, do you have questions that bug you about your particular religious tenets?  Leave your stories and thoughts in the comments.  I can't wait to hear them.

Terry