Well, I finally got this reply thrown at me... and pretty much from one of the people I expected it from.
The setup - Facebook, of course. Sending a link to the Senate chaplain's daily berating of congress in the prayer. Now, as an atheist, I don't think this should start with a prayer - but I appreciate and applaud what this guy's doing with the seat he's given. And I say as much, pretty much that way.
The reply I get? Nothing to do with what's shown. Nope. "Sad to hear the atheist part."
*Tactfully,* I just reply, "Should never be sad for that."
What I want to say?
Why would you be sad that I've chosen to live my life no longer enslaved to bronze age mythology and a book run through with hatred, racism, sexism, people being rewarded for lying and deceiving?
Why should anyone be sad I choose to actually DO something whenever I can as opposed to mumbling at the voice in my head when someone needs help?
Why should anyone be sad I give credit to the police, the soldiers, the doctors and other professionals, other PEOPLE, who do something nice instead of giving credit to a nonexistent being? You know, the people who ACTUALLY put the time in to learn their profession?
Why should I be sad I no longer carry Christian guilt for the "sin" of being human? Or the christian "never good enough, only God is" complex?
Should I be sad I have to take responsibility for my own deeds, as opposed to "praying the guilt away" if I do something wrong?
Should I be sad I do believe in the equality of all people, man, woman, regardless of race or sexual orientation?
Hell no. I'm not sad. If anything, I'm sad you've decided to stay chained to that ancient bullshit.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Religion and its effects - Documentary BBC - A History of Syria (2013)
Just watch this. This region is complex, but how often do we hear this same thing - religious hatred fueling conflict.
Why? Because of two different religious leaders hundreds of years ago.
Because of a 700 year old bias against another group that "isn't really Muslem."
... If we get rid of religion, how many conflicts like this can we lower or eliminate completely?
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Let them believe.... no.
Why can I not just let the religious believe whatever they want?
It's a fair question, you'd think. And it's usually followed up by "what harm does it do" or "how does it affect you?" Answering the second answers the first.
What harm does it do?
Every Sunday, millions go and listen to one person they've given authority give their opinions based on a non-scientific, disproven book (or, rather, their interpretation of it.) These opinions then circulate out into the rest of society and affect the way we treat each other, the way we run our schools and country, the way we view the rest of the world. And every sunday they go back to be *re*indoctrinated. Bronze age myths that no longer jibe with how we know the world works are taught to children before they reach school age.
(Not to mention the economic impact of all that money *not* going to take care of food, bills, etc. 10%? Wouldn't you call that a bit of a drain on the economy, both nationally and personally?)
There's a specific directive in our bill of rights that prohibits government endorsement of any religion. That, unfortunately, is being worked around by many groups - to the detriment of equality and education. Religion makes a society *less* just. Religion forces an "us vs them" mentality on its adherents.
How so?
Personally, many Christians will demonize an Atheist. Literally, ignoring (as typical) the inherent contradiction in the statement, they'll call an atheist a satan worshipper. They'll do their best to portray their holy book, and only it, as the source for morality (a sure sign that they haven't actually read the thing,) and imply - or state outright - that if you don't agree with it, you're probably out stealing, raping people, feel free to murder and the like. And instead of actually teaching the difference, religious leaders perpetuate it. Some don't know any better. Some do.
In society? Recently we've had a lot of debates over same-sex marriage. There's no logical reason to deny it - it would make all couples of consenting adults equal, despite a genetic difference. All the arguments against it come down to "God says." Quite honestly, "God" says to murder homosexuals - which is done in some religious countries officially, and here, well, at least we label it a hate crime. Mixed-race marriage, slavery and other bias also tends to have a religious component when laws that restrict general freedom (forbidding mixed race marriage, propagating slavery) are passed.
And let's not get into the religious smokescreens in the classroom. They don't like evolution, despite the fact that it's been tested and proven repeatedly, so they try to get creationism forced in, even relabelled as "intelligent design," yelling "Teach the debate." There is no debate. Yet this wastes classroom time and forces incorrect information on students, hampering their intellectual growth in favor of a fact-free, religious viewpoint.
Imagine if this were done with astronomy. Teach what stars are, the distances involved, how they actually work - then "teach the debate" that they can fall to earth, or that they are *beings* that can come to earth and fight alongside people in battles. (Yes, those are in the bible.) Would you want that?
Religion is NOT a benefit to society, and putting mind-space aside to believe these fairy tales, to vote and support politicians who base their decisions on these fairy tales and affect local, state and national laws, hurts *everyone.*
That is why I can't just "let you believe what you want."
It's a fair question, you'd think. And it's usually followed up by "what harm does it do" or "how does it affect you?" Answering the second answers the first.
What harm does it do?
Every Sunday, millions go and listen to one person they've given authority give their opinions based on a non-scientific, disproven book (or, rather, their interpretation of it.) These opinions then circulate out into the rest of society and affect the way we treat each other, the way we run our schools and country, the way we view the rest of the world. And every sunday they go back to be *re*indoctrinated. Bronze age myths that no longer jibe with how we know the world works are taught to children before they reach school age.
(Not to mention the economic impact of all that money *not* going to take care of food, bills, etc. 10%? Wouldn't you call that a bit of a drain on the economy, both nationally and personally?)
There's a specific directive in our bill of rights that prohibits government endorsement of any religion. That, unfortunately, is being worked around by many groups - to the detriment of equality and education. Religion makes a society *less* just. Religion forces an "us vs them" mentality on its adherents.
How so?
Personally, many Christians will demonize an Atheist. Literally, ignoring (as typical) the inherent contradiction in the statement, they'll call an atheist a satan worshipper. They'll do their best to portray their holy book, and only it, as the source for morality (a sure sign that they haven't actually read the thing,) and imply - or state outright - that if you don't agree with it, you're probably out stealing, raping people, feel free to murder and the like. And instead of actually teaching the difference, religious leaders perpetuate it. Some don't know any better. Some do.
In society? Recently we've had a lot of debates over same-sex marriage. There's no logical reason to deny it - it would make all couples of consenting adults equal, despite a genetic difference. All the arguments against it come down to "God says." Quite honestly, "God" says to murder homosexuals - which is done in some religious countries officially, and here, well, at least we label it a hate crime. Mixed-race marriage, slavery and other bias also tends to have a religious component when laws that restrict general freedom (forbidding mixed race marriage, propagating slavery) are passed.
And let's not get into the religious smokescreens in the classroom. They don't like evolution, despite the fact that it's been tested and proven repeatedly, so they try to get creationism forced in, even relabelled as "intelligent design," yelling "Teach the debate." There is no debate. Yet this wastes classroom time and forces incorrect information on students, hampering their intellectual growth in favor of a fact-free, religious viewpoint.
Imagine if this were done with astronomy. Teach what stars are, the distances involved, how they actually work - then "teach the debate" that they can fall to earth, or that they are *beings* that can come to earth and fight alongside people in battles. (Yes, those are in the bible.) Would you want that?
Religion is NOT a benefit to society, and putting mind-space aside to believe these fairy tales, to vote and support politicians who base their decisions on these fairy tales and affect local, state and national laws, hurts *everyone.*
That is why I can't just "let you believe what you want."
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Why a "christian" conscience?
I hadnt' realized it had been a month since updating this. My apologies.
Still, I came across this video - http://www.upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply?c=ufb1 with an australian politician explaining how, as a christian, he can support gay marriage.
Frankly, I love his response. The pastor that asked him the question seemed wholly unready for his reply. And he makes many good points, such as that he can change because society changes - or, as he puts it another way, if they should get everything from the bible, slavery is a "natural condition" and the Confederacy should have been supported in the US Civil War.
I can't help but applaud that man.
However, one thing bugs me. He keeps talking about how he supports it with his "christian conscience." Now, I understand it being a sort of.. socially acceptable way of speaking, it's a nation with a christian majority among the religious and so forth.
But what he's saying goes against Christianity and the bible as he himself points out.
Why can he not just say "in good conscience" or "in good, moral conscience?" Or just say "It doesn't make sense?" Why should Christianity be brought in and given credit for something it's flat out against?
Admittedly, and rhetorically, it does avoid the "Christian vs Non-Christian" argument that could be brought up, as he's saying he approached it from his Christian perspective, or as a Christian. But it's not a Christian point of view in the least, strictly speaking.
How long before we can just say it's the correct, moral thing to do without having to refer to religion - especially with the assumption that religion is actually the "good" side of the argument?
Still, I came across this video - http://www.upworthy.com/a-pastor-asks-a-politician-why-he-supports-gay-marriage-it-seems-he-wasnt-prepared-for-his-reply?c=ufb1 with an australian politician explaining how, as a christian, he can support gay marriage.
Frankly, I love his response. The pastor that asked him the question seemed wholly unready for his reply. And he makes many good points, such as that he can change because society changes - or, as he puts it another way, if they should get everything from the bible, slavery is a "natural condition" and the Confederacy should have been supported in the US Civil War.
I can't help but applaud that man.
However, one thing bugs me. He keeps talking about how he supports it with his "christian conscience." Now, I understand it being a sort of.. socially acceptable way of speaking, it's a nation with a christian majority among the religious and so forth.
But what he's saying goes against Christianity and the bible as he himself points out.
Why can he not just say "in good conscience" or "in good, moral conscience?" Or just say "It doesn't make sense?" Why should Christianity be brought in and given credit for something it's flat out against?
Admittedly, and rhetorically, it does avoid the "Christian vs Non-Christian" argument that could be brought up, as he's saying he approached it from his Christian perspective, or as a Christian. But it's not a Christian point of view in the least, strictly speaking.
How long before we can just say it's the correct, moral thing to do without having to refer to religion - especially with the assumption that religion is actually the "good" side of the argument?
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
It's not black and white.
I've bounced this post around a bit. Abortion has been on my mind, not because I know of anyone thinking of one, but because of the silly laws being put in place in the name (publicly or not) of religion.
See, religion WANTS you to see things in black and white. Us vs Them. It makes for a much simpler narrative (if you don't scratch beneath the surface at all.) Good vs Evil. It's a simple to grasp duality. This is right, that's wrong.
Except, of course, that that's not the case. There are infinite shades of grey, nuances to consider in order to make a thoughtful decision. That, however, is not what religion is after. Religion is there to calcify your mind. And divisiveness only helps it fortify itself.
But let's get back to abortion.
The Religious Right has what seems like a simple to understand view. I'm not going to call it "pro-life," because in reality it isn't. The view is this. Abortion is murder. Some will (here come the greys!) put in exceptions for rape and incest. Some of the hardcore will not. And some (most) will give the "Life begins at conception" view. With that, they want to make abortion illegal, or at best (for everyone else) hard to get.
In a soundbite world, this sounds good, I suppose. No murdering babies! But you also need to look at the other positions that often go along with this.
First, they also don't tend to want sex education in school. (It's immoral!) Either leave it in the hands of the parents, or teach abstinence only with abstinence pledges.
Second, they're against birth control in many instances. Including family planning. They often hate clinics like Planned Parenthood, putting up their own versions that are little more than guilt-shops. They certainly don't want birth control - condoms, the pill, anything - easily handed out.
Now, I say all this in context of "the religious right." And I mean this as the fundamentalist block. Religious *people* are going to have stances all over the map on this. I just want to make it clear that, yes, I understand this.
Because I condemn the view, held in the name of "morality," as decidedly immoral. There are recent cases of women *losing their lives* over being denied an abortion - even of a non-viable fetus, even of a DEAD fetus going septic - in the past few years. And abstinance-only education has proven itself to be the worst thing you can do - Texas, for instance, one of the bastions of this sort of thinking, has the highest *repeat* teen pregnancy rate in the country. Guess what sort of stuff they've been pushing.
Some absolutely insane individuals - and yes, I can't help but question their sanity - would even hold a woman responsible, essentially for murder, for a *natural,* as in spontaneous, abortion. This would put every woman who's ever been pregnant in jail. Spontaneous abortions happen all the time. Sometimes the woman isn't even aware - she might be a little late, but picks up not long after.
Over on Yahoo Answers, a question about atheists and abortion came up, and I'm going to be repeating much of my answer, just to show how grey things can be, and how a personal view can still be held even though it may, on its face, seem to contradict a legal want.
*Personally,* if someone I knew were considering an abortion, my first question would be "why." I would, unless they had very good reason, try to talk them out of it (ignoring rape, non viable fetus, etc.) As an atheist, I believe this life is the ONLY life we have. We have to make the best of it, make the world as good as we can for everyone, help each other out and be good caretakers of the only world we have - and the only world we're 100% sure harbors complex life in the universe. (Yes, mathematically, it's very likely others do. But Earth is the only one we can point at, because we're here.) Life is precious.
However, on the question of its legality? I believe abortion should be a private decision, between a woman and her doctor. One with sound medical council. If she wants to bring her family or clergy into it, it should be her choice. There should be no government-mandated, medically unneeded procedures (like the invasive ultrasounds.) There should be no punishments, such as forbidding emergency care at a normal hospital if something goes wrong, or insurance shenanigans. It should simply be freely, legally available.
Some would have you believe women would just go in and use it as quick after-the-fact birth control - where, in reality, it's a heart-wrenching, hardly EASY decision. (Many of these people seem hostile toward women in the first place - after all, women brought sin into the world thanks to Eve, right? Just read the bible's attitude toward women and their attitudes become very easy to understand.)
But along with its availability come other steps.
Sex education MUST be taught. You cannot rely on parents to teach it! I'm sure some would, and do a wonderful job of presenting actual facts. Others won't - I'm sorry, but not all parents are good parents. And not all good parents are good at everything, and can pass on false information. (Such as some of the same things you'll hear in school by kids if you asked what they thought or heard - you can't get/get a girl pregnant your first time, pulling out works fine, etc.) Nor does it cover everything (while vaginal sex might be decreased, they'll try oral or anal... with no idea about safety.) And some parents - such as mine, who I love dearly, and who did a pretty good job with me - won't ever broach the subject for whatever reason. I don't know if they had "the talk" with my brothers or sister, but they never did with me. Possibly because I *did* have sex ed classes in school. I don't know.
But mandated classes can be reviewed and held responsible for what's taught. Kids will get the proper information to know how to protect themselves, what CAN happen and the like. Yes, abstinence is still 100% for not getting (or getting someone) pregnant or (at a higher rate) for getting various diseases, but if that doesn't happen - they need to be informed.
And condoms, the pill and the like need to be made available, discretely and without shame or judgement. How anyone who claims to be "pro life" can be against this - measures to prevent pregnancies in the first place, or to put it more simply, no pregnancy = no abortion - I don't understand, yet so often they *are.* Not to mention condoms can prevent (or, yes, they can fail, so severely reduce) STDs. This is protecting children! (And the poor, who, being human, will have sex - but may not have room in the budget for the pill or condoms or other birth control. And will thus add more mouths to feed, increasing the food stamp rolls, and so forth and so on. Unfortunately, many of these "moral" people have no problem demonizing the poor.)
So, my view is this:
- Personally, I would want to talk someone out of an abortion.
- But, it has to be kept legal, and discrete, for the safety of the woman involved. Other than licensing to make sure the doctor is qualified, there should be no legal or government interference or mandates of testing and the like that are medically unnecessary.
- Sex education must be taught for the health of our youth and population in general, and for knowledge that will reduce pregnancies and disease in the first place.
- Condoms, the pill, and other birth control measures (and clinics) must be discretely available, again for the safety of the population and because, quite frankly, they're cheaper in the long run than the pregnancies they would have prevented.
Isn't that far more comprehensive than just "Abortion is wrong?"
Which set would you actually call thoughtful or moral? Which *actually* addresses the problems?
See, religion WANTS you to see things in black and white. Us vs Them. It makes for a much simpler narrative (if you don't scratch beneath the surface at all.) Good vs Evil. It's a simple to grasp duality. This is right, that's wrong.
Except, of course, that that's not the case. There are infinite shades of grey, nuances to consider in order to make a thoughtful decision. That, however, is not what religion is after. Religion is there to calcify your mind. And divisiveness only helps it fortify itself.
But let's get back to abortion.
The Religious Right has what seems like a simple to understand view. I'm not going to call it "pro-life," because in reality it isn't. The view is this. Abortion is murder. Some will (here come the greys!) put in exceptions for rape and incest. Some of the hardcore will not. And some (most) will give the "Life begins at conception" view. With that, they want to make abortion illegal, or at best (for everyone else) hard to get.
In a soundbite world, this sounds good, I suppose. No murdering babies! But you also need to look at the other positions that often go along with this.
First, they also don't tend to want sex education in school. (It's immoral!) Either leave it in the hands of the parents, or teach abstinence only with abstinence pledges.
Second, they're against birth control in many instances. Including family planning. They often hate clinics like Planned Parenthood, putting up their own versions that are little more than guilt-shops. They certainly don't want birth control - condoms, the pill, anything - easily handed out.
Now, I say all this in context of "the religious right." And I mean this as the fundamentalist block. Religious *people* are going to have stances all over the map on this. I just want to make it clear that, yes, I understand this.
Because I condemn the view, held in the name of "morality," as decidedly immoral. There are recent cases of women *losing their lives* over being denied an abortion - even of a non-viable fetus, even of a DEAD fetus going septic - in the past few years. And abstinance-only education has proven itself to be the worst thing you can do - Texas, for instance, one of the bastions of this sort of thinking, has the highest *repeat* teen pregnancy rate in the country. Guess what sort of stuff they've been pushing.
Some absolutely insane individuals - and yes, I can't help but question their sanity - would even hold a woman responsible, essentially for murder, for a *natural,* as in spontaneous, abortion. This would put every woman who's ever been pregnant in jail. Spontaneous abortions happen all the time. Sometimes the woman isn't even aware - she might be a little late, but picks up not long after.
Over on Yahoo Answers, a question about atheists and abortion came up, and I'm going to be repeating much of my answer, just to show how grey things can be, and how a personal view can still be held even though it may, on its face, seem to contradict a legal want.
*Personally,* if someone I knew were considering an abortion, my first question would be "why." I would, unless they had very good reason, try to talk them out of it (ignoring rape, non viable fetus, etc.) As an atheist, I believe this life is the ONLY life we have. We have to make the best of it, make the world as good as we can for everyone, help each other out and be good caretakers of the only world we have - and the only world we're 100% sure harbors complex life in the universe. (Yes, mathematically, it's very likely others do. But Earth is the only one we can point at, because we're here.) Life is precious.
However, on the question of its legality? I believe abortion should be a private decision, between a woman and her doctor. One with sound medical council. If she wants to bring her family or clergy into it, it should be her choice. There should be no government-mandated, medically unneeded procedures (like the invasive ultrasounds.) There should be no punishments, such as forbidding emergency care at a normal hospital if something goes wrong, or insurance shenanigans. It should simply be freely, legally available.
Some would have you believe women would just go in and use it as quick after-the-fact birth control - where, in reality, it's a heart-wrenching, hardly EASY decision. (Many of these people seem hostile toward women in the first place - after all, women brought sin into the world thanks to Eve, right? Just read the bible's attitude toward women and their attitudes become very easy to understand.)
But along with its availability come other steps.
Sex education MUST be taught. You cannot rely on parents to teach it! I'm sure some would, and do a wonderful job of presenting actual facts. Others won't - I'm sorry, but not all parents are good parents. And not all good parents are good at everything, and can pass on false information. (Such as some of the same things you'll hear in school by kids if you asked what they thought or heard - you can't get/get a girl pregnant your first time, pulling out works fine, etc.) Nor does it cover everything (while vaginal sex might be decreased, they'll try oral or anal... with no idea about safety.) And some parents - such as mine, who I love dearly, and who did a pretty good job with me - won't ever broach the subject for whatever reason. I don't know if they had "the talk" with my brothers or sister, but they never did with me. Possibly because I *did* have sex ed classes in school. I don't know.
But mandated classes can be reviewed and held responsible for what's taught. Kids will get the proper information to know how to protect themselves, what CAN happen and the like. Yes, abstinence is still 100% for not getting (or getting someone) pregnant or (at a higher rate) for getting various diseases, but if that doesn't happen - they need to be informed.
And condoms, the pill and the like need to be made available, discretely and without shame or judgement. How anyone who claims to be "pro life" can be against this - measures to prevent pregnancies in the first place, or to put it more simply, no pregnancy = no abortion - I don't understand, yet so often they *are.* Not to mention condoms can prevent (or, yes, they can fail, so severely reduce) STDs. This is protecting children! (And the poor, who, being human, will have sex - but may not have room in the budget for the pill or condoms or other birth control. And will thus add more mouths to feed, increasing the food stamp rolls, and so forth and so on. Unfortunately, many of these "moral" people have no problem demonizing the poor.)
So, my view is this:
- Personally, I would want to talk someone out of an abortion.
- But, it has to be kept legal, and discrete, for the safety of the woman involved. Other than licensing to make sure the doctor is qualified, there should be no legal or government interference or mandates of testing and the like that are medically unnecessary.
- Sex education must be taught for the health of our youth and population in general, and for knowledge that will reduce pregnancies and disease in the first place.
- Condoms, the pill, and other birth control measures (and clinics) must be discretely available, again for the safety of the population and because, quite frankly, they're cheaper in the long run than the pregnancies they would have prevented.
Isn't that far more comprehensive than just "Abortion is wrong?"
Which set would you actually call thoughtful or moral? Which *actually* addresses the problems?
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Questions of origins - religion vs science
Ahh, I've been slacking off on writing. Well, less slacking than
wanting to find good topics and not doing so on time. Still, one came up
(and another, and a third which may or may not see the light of day.)
I was watching an interview with Richard Dawkins on Al-jazeera (on Youtube) - I do recommend looking it up, it's quite interesting. Prof. Dawkins expressed incredulity when the interviewer assured him that yes, he did believe Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse, and didn't quite understand why he felt that was so hard to believe.
Later in the interview, near the end, things like the big bang and multiverse theory were brought up - also as "things you can't prove to me." A very common tactic was used - to try to portray the two as equivalent.
This, of course, is a false equivalency, often tied to saying atheism is a religion as well. But, of course, there are problems with this.
In various holy books, extraordinary claims are made. There is no evidence outside said holy writing for these tales - So and so split the moon, walked on water, turned water into wine, parted the red sea, went to heaven on a staircase or on a winged horse. When asked for proof, two responses are typically given - "I don't need it, I have faith" and "Why don't you disprove it?"
These, of course, are nonanswers. "I have faith" has no bearing on reality - I can have faith that if I spin really fast, I can take off like a helicopter, but it doesn't bear fruit. (And, of course, the rejoinder there is "If it didn't work, your faith must not have been strong enough!" An unmeetable burden.) And of course, you cannot disprove things like those 100%, just provide a great enough degree of uncertainty to make it not rational to believe in. I cannot, for instance, disprove a T. Rex didn't walk past my apartment complex five minutes ago. I can point out the lack of any signs (footprints, witnesses, video footage, droppings, noise,) and that T. Rex has been extinct for millions of years... enough to give 99.99999% certainty that one did not. But, sure, I'll grant there's always that very miniscule chance that one did and happened not to leave any signs.
With the winged horse (taken from the interview,) no, we can't prove Mohammed didn't fly to heaven on it. But we can ask questions. Where are these winged horses? Why have there been no other incidents of winged horses? Where are their remains? How big were the wings? How was their biology arranged to allow it to be a four-footed herd animal with the strength to lift both itself and a rider - horses are certainly not *light* creatures. Where is "heaven," and how did the horse reach it? Would the trip be survivable? The more you ask, the more uncertainty has to come in for this claim (or just "taking it on faith," which, again, is no answer.)
Religion starts with an "answer." It provides further "answers" that don't need to be consistent or coherent - just taken on faith.
Science, by comparison, goes by evidence. Someone may come up with a hypothesis. That is then tested and proven or disproven. Those results are then tested by others and verified. These tests, combined with observations and fact, are brought together as laws and theories. Science actively works to disprove things. Things that prove hard to disprove (heh) or have certain conditions (Humans can breathe normally while on land on Earth, but not underwater without assistance) are used to build further hypotheses and ask other questions.
So when science says the universe came from "nothing" (and there's actually varying definitions of that, much like "theory") it does so after observing how the universe is NOW, testing how things are NOW, and working backwards, testing and proving or disproving observations and hypotheses. It can prove and demonstrate each step back to show why it came to this conclusion.
In other words, if we compare the two and question, we'd get these sorts of results:
Religion - "God spoke, and the world came into being."
Skeptic - "How do you know this?"
Religion - "My book and my faith tell me."
Skeptic - "Where is your proof?"
Religion - "My book and my faith..." (ad infinitum.)
Skeptic - "Could you be wrong?"
Religion - "No!"
There is no proof, it just sort of "poofed."
Science: "The world coalesced from a cloud of gas and dust as the sun was forming."
Skeptic: "How do you know this?"
Science: (provides chemical models, scientific models, observational evidence.)
Skeptic: "Where did that come from?"
Science: (provides evidence, math, etc. rewinding the universe, showing proof for conditions met.)
Skeptic: "OK, but you dont' have an answer for this point...."
Science: "We have theories we're currently testing. These theories were disproven, here's why. These still seem to explain things well, and are still being tested."
Skeptic: "Could you be wrong?"
Science: "Sure. In which case we'll take the results of testing and build theories from those, and test it some more."
Result: "It may have 'poofed' from our point of view, but these are strong candidates with the evidence you yourself can verify and test as to how and why."
The two are just not equivalent - but it won't prevent the theist from trying to make them look the same.
I was watching an interview with Richard Dawkins on Al-jazeera (on Youtube) - I do recommend looking it up, it's quite interesting. Prof. Dawkins expressed incredulity when the interviewer assured him that yes, he did believe Mohammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse, and didn't quite understand why he felt that was so hard to believe.
Later in the interview, near the end, things like the big bang and multiverse theory were brought up - also as "things you can't prove to me." A very common tactic was used - to try to portray the two as equivalent.
This, of course, is a false equivalency, often tied to saying atheism is a religion as well. But, of course, there are problems with this.
In various holy books, extraordinary claims are made. There is no evidence outside said holy writing for these tales - So and so split the moon, walked on water, turned water into wine, parted the red sea, went to heaven on a staircase or on a winged horse. When asked for proof, two responses are typically given - "I don't need it, I have faith" and "Why don't you disprove it?"
These, of course, are nonanswers. "I have faith" has no bearing on reality - I can have faith that if I spin really fast, I can take off like a helicopter, but it doesn't bear fruit. (And, of course, the rejoinder there is "If it didn't work, your faith must not have been strong enough!" An unmeetable burden.) And of course, you cannot disprove things like those 100%, just provide a great enough degree of uncertainty to make it not rational to believe in. I cannot, for instance, disprove a T. Rex didn't walk past my apartment complex five minutes ago. I can point out the lack of any signs (footprints, witnesses, video footage, droppings, noise,) and that T. Rex has been extinct for millions of years... enough to give 99.99999% certainty that one did not. But, sure, I'll grant there's always that very miniscule chance that one did and happened not to leave any signs.
With the winged horse (taken from the interview,) no, we can't prove Mohammed didn't fly to heaven on it. But we can ask questions. Where are these winged horses? Why have there been no other incidents of winged horses? Where are their remains? How big were the wings? How was their biology arranged to allow it to be a four-footed herd animal with the strength to lift both itself and a rider - horses are certainly not *light* creatures. Where is "heaven," and how did the horse reach it? Would the trip be survivable? The more you ask, the more uncertainty has to come in for this claim (or just "taking it on faith," which, again, is no answer.)
Religion starts with an "answer." It provides further "answers" that don't need to be consistent or coherent - just taken on faith.
Science, by comparison, goes by evidence. Someone may come up with a hypothesis. That is then tested and proven or disproven. Those results are then tested by others and verified. These tests, combined with observations and fact, are brought together as laws and theories. Science actively works to disprove things. Things that prove hard to disprove (heh) or have certain conditions (Humans can breathe normally while on land on Earth, but not underwater without assistance) are used to build further hypotheses and ask other questions.
So when science says the universe came from "nothing" (and there's actually varying definitions of that, much like "theory") it does so after observing how the universe is NOW, testing how things are NOW, and working backwards, testing and proving or disproving observations and hypotheses. It can prove and demonstrate each step back to show why it came to this conclusion.
In other words, if we compare the two and question, we'd get these sorts of results:
Religion - "God spoke, and the world came into being."
Skeptic - "How do you know this?"
Religion - "My book and my faith tell me."
Skeptic - "Where is your proof?"
Religion - "My book and my faith..." (ad infinitum.)
Skeptic - "Could you be wrong?"
Religion - "No!"
There is no proof, it just sort of "poofed."
Science: "The world coalesced from a cloud of gas and dust as the sun was forming."
Skeptic: "How do you know this?"
Science: (provides chemical models, scientific models, observational evidence.)
Skeptic: "Where did that come from?"
Science: (provides evidence, math, etc. rewinding the universe, showing proof for conditions met.)
Skeptic: "OK, but you dont' have an answer for this point...."
Science: "We have theories we're currently testing. These theories were disproven, here's why. These still seem to explain things well, and are still being tested."
Skeptic: "Could you be wrong?"
Science: "Sure. In which case we'll take the results of testing and build theories from those, and test it some more."
Result: "It may have 'poofed' from our point of view, but these are strong candidates with the evidence you yourself can verify and test as to how and why."
The two are just not equivalent - but it won't prevent the theist from trying to make them look the same.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
What does religion hurt? - Christian guilt
I know I skipped last Thursday. I had something I was writing up, but it just wasn't jelling the way I wanted to, and I didn't manage to get something else up in time. Mea culpa.
But the apology does lead into another subject, part of a series of things I was thinking of looking at. Namely, "What does religion hurt?"
Now, I don't mean wars and the like - though it needs to be held accountable for that, and it's very much a problem when people kill each other over ancient stories. I mean everyday life. What does it hurt?
One thing that's a staple of Christianity is guilt. One of the foundations of Christian belief is that you're born a sinner, thanks to Adam and Eve. You deserve punishment. You deserve the bad that comes your way. And you're not good enough, no matter what you do, to deserve heaven. (Whether heaven's an actual reward is another subject all together.)
This message is reinforced every sunday. Christ died for YOUR sins. YOU deserve to go to hell. YOU are unworthy. YOU are born a sinner. "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me."
Watch TV, watch a football game, and what happens? The winners - or even after a good play - point up at the sky, saying "I have no ability to do this on my own, it's God!" (Which, really... how does one not feel worthy of taking credit for their abilities, yet have such an ego that the supposed creator of the universe is that invested in your touchdown?)
This, too, is one of the hardest thing for one of the deconverted to shed, as well. At least, in my experience it is. From childhood, your self worth is beaten down and stripped away - because you, of course, are *unworthy!* And someone gave up their life for you! (Never mind that they're immortal... kind of. Or at least came back from the dead, which kind of cheapens it.... or that they didn't have to in the first place.)
How does this affect your worldview? When you're told, over and over again, that you're not good enough, that you have to carry your guilt over everything - including *perfectly natural, human reactions,* as the Bible does basically legislate thought crime! - until you fall to your knees (or see a priest) and confess it all?
It's like a drug dealer's dream. You get the little high of being "clean" again... but, being human, within the day you've fucked it up. You wanted something that wasn't yours. You had an "impure thought." And so it builds up until you have to go get your confession fix again.
We have whole nations, generations upon generations of people, with this drilled into them. Take only the blame, assign credit and praise to God. How utterly sick is this?
And that's without people taking it to extremes. Fasting to "cleanse" themselves. Or the flagellants of the middle ages. Have you not heard of these people? They went from town to town *whipping themselves.* I've seen images of this from some Islamic countries today, as well (I don't recall what the event was.)
When you're raised on self-loathing and guilt... it's also very easy to turn it outside. Is it any real wonder that so much racial, religious and other hatred (and need for control) is from the religious? That they can't see the worth of each human being (other than someone to be converted or condemned) for what they are, but that all are unworthy?
And, of course, that can feed on itself very nicely, too. "I'm unworthy. They're sinners and unworthy, they don't deserve the good. They deserve that tornado! Oh, I feel guilty for saying that, I'm unworthy..." And on and on the cycle goes, and is passed on from generation to generation.
What does Religion hurt? This kind of guilt is perennial psychological - and, at times, physical - abuse. It's far from healthy to be told you're guilty and unworthy over and over, to be told not to take credit for your accomplishments (pride goeth before a fall!) but assign it to god because you couldn't do it on your own....
It's just sick.
Of course, this also helps keep religion in such strong positions in our society. And discourages people from doing what they need to do, what they should do in every aspect of their life - their finances, government policy, everywhere. Namely, question. I compared it to a drug dealer before. But unlike a drug dealer, what higher power is going to come and arrest it?
Well, that higher power is reason. And reason is discouraged - after all, you need to just "take it on faith!" when it comes to religion. What a racket.
You're not good enough. You're guilty. So you need god. You need to confess, and talk to the priest. While you're there, give money. Since you're not good enough, you obviously can't understand this god's plan for you or anyone else, no matter how good you are, how much you pray or give, something shitty is still going to happen to you. Of course, if it's good - thank god and give some more! But since you can't understand the mind of God (the religious would say because it's vast and unknowable, the skeptic because it's contradictory, insane, schizophrenic thanks to all the authors,) you shouldn't question and should feel guilty if you do... which loops right back to the beginning.
It's a sick, sick racket. And when people do it to other people outside of religion, we call it dysfunctional. Even criminal.
Add a church, and it's religion, and untouchable.
What does religion hurt? Self esteem. Reason. Self worth, and the ability to see the worth in others as fellow human beings.
But the apology does lead into another subject, part of a series of things I was thinking of looking at. Namely, "What does religion hurt?"
Now, I don't mean wars and the like - though it needs to be held accountable for that, and it's very much a problem when people kill each other over ancient stories. I mean everyday life. What does it hurt?
One thing that's a staple of Christianity is guilt. One of the foundations of Christian belief is that you're born a sinner, thanks to Adam and Eve. You deserve punishment. You deserve the bad that comes your way. And you're not good enough, no matter what you do, to deserve heaven. (Whether heaven's an actual reward is another subject all together.)
This message is reinforced every sunday. Christ died for YOUR sins. YOU deserve to go to hell. YOU are unworthy. YOU are born a sinner. "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me."
Watch TV, watch a football game, and what happens? The winners - or even after a good play - point up at the sky, saying "I have no ability to do this on my own, it's God!" (Which, really... how does one not feel worthy of taking credit for their abilities, yet have such an ego that the supposed creator of the universe is that invested in your touchdown?)
This, too, is one of the hardest thing for one of the deconverted to shed, as well. At least, in my experience it is. From childhood, your self worth is beaten down and stripped away - because you, of course, are *unworthy!* And someone gave up their life for you! (Never mind that they're immortal... kind of. Or at least came back from the dead, which kind of cheapens it.... or that they didn't have to in the first place.)
How does this affect your worldview? When you're told, over and over again, that you're not good enough, that you have to carry your guilt over everything - including *perfectly natural, human reactions,* as the Bible does basically legislate thought crime! - until you fall to your knees (or see a priest) and confess it all?
It's like a drug dealer's dream. You get the little high of being "clean" again... but, being human, within the day you've fucked it up. You wanted something that wasn't yours. You had an "impure thought." And so it builds up until you have to go get your confession fix again.
We have whole nations, generations upon generations of people, with this drilled into them. Take only the blame, assign credit and praise to God. How utterly sick is this?
And that's without people taking it to extremes. Fasting to "cleanse" themselves. Or the flagellants of the middle ages. Have you not heard of these people? They went from town to town *whipping themselves.* I've seen images of this from some Islamic countries today, as well (I don't recall what the event was.)
When you're raised on self-loathing and guilt... it's also very easy to turn it outside. Is it any real wonder that so much racial, religious and other hatred (and need for control) is from the religious? That they can't see the worth of each human being (other than someone to be converted or condemned) for what they are, but that all are unworthy?
And, of course, that can feed on itself very nicely, too. "I'm unworthy. They're sinners and unworthy, they don't deserve the good. They deserve that tornado! Oh, I feel guilty for saying that, I'm unworthy..." And on and on the cycle goes, and is passed on from generation to generation.
What does Religion hurt? This kind of guilt is perennial psychological - and, at times, physical - abuse. It's far from healthy to be told you're guilty and unworthy over and over, to be told not to take credit for your accomplishments (pride goeth before a fall!) but assign it to god because you couldn't do it on your own....
It's just sick.
Of course, this also helps keep religion in such strong positions in our society. And discourages people from doing what they need to do, what they should do in every aspect of their life - their finances, government policy, everywhere. Namely, question. I compared it to a drug dealer before. But unlike a drug dealer, what higher power is going to come and arrest it?
Well, that higher power is reason. And reason is discouraged - after all, you need to just "take it on faith!" when it comes to religion. What a racket.
You're not good enough. You're guilty. So you need god. You need to confess, and talk to the priest. While you're there, give money. Since you're not good enough, you obviously can't understand this god's plan for you or anyone else, no matter how good you are, how much you pray or give, something shitty is still going to happen to you. Of course, if it's good - thank god and give some more! But since you can't understand the mind of God (the religious would say because it's vast and unknowable, the skeptic because it's contradictory, insane, schizophrenic thanks to all the authors,) you shouldn't question and should feel guilty if you do... which loops right back to the beginning.
It's a sick, sick racket. And when people do it to other people outside of religion, we call it dysfunctional. Even criminal.
Add a church, and it's religion, and untouchable.
What does religion hurt? Self esteem. Reason. Self worth, and the ability to see the worth in others as fellow human beings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)