Sunday, October 21, 2012

Out of touch!


Maybe I should have started writing a pro-god and pro-religion blog. It's so much easier! The problem with Christian and religious reasoning is that it has no overlap with objective reality. You can't test for the existence of god, but there are ways to evaluate the proposition. We are intelligent agents operating in an environment that we do not have complete information about. So assumptions are used to balance the lack of information. If you adopt the christian world view your set of assumptions are influenced by it. And that explains the last 2000 years of human error. I'm not blaming Christianity for all of the failures of human civilization, I'm blaming stupidity. And you could say that religion is a subset of stupidity.

If you want to write a blog to promote reason you need to know stuff in order to accurately represent reason. Plus, you need to be reasonable. I can make half thought out attempts at simple insults to religion, but that won't help anybody. I can try to promote science but I am not a scientist. I read a pro evolution blog-post written by a person who accepts evolution but doesn't know the first thing about it, it was painful. A person who has made the right choice in accepting evolution but missed the point that it's not a matter of choice. I don't accept evolution because I want to, I accept it because I understand how the world works. I don't accept string theory, I don't understand string theory.

And this is today’s contention, being religious puts you out of touch with the real world. Let's say that all religion is creationism, as it actually is! Then we have people with competing views on reality, some will accept the methodology of creation as explained by science. Some people will want to be literal and will attempt to chuck science out the window. The first group will argue who sparked the big bang, Elohim, Mithra or Cthulhu. The second group rejects the big bang as it's not described in their texts. So we have a discussion on reality, but not on reality's terms. If we accept that type of discussion it doesn't matter who wins, because reality has lost. I have seen a lot of debates about different topics, I have never seen a debate on gravity. If we have these debates on things from the realm of science, will we have the same debate in the realm of philosophy. Lets take Islam, there is currently a debate about Islams views on society. We know a lot about human behavior, and how individuals fit in a larger group. And we know that by studying societies. But by studying Islam people get to positions on social issues that are demonstrably wrong. The most obvious one is the women’s rights issues in Islam. It dictates that a woman is not equal to a man. On the other hand women are more than capable of outperforming men. A society that doesn't utilize half of the assets available is crippled compared to an open society that does. Another issue shared in Islam and Christianity is homophobia. Homosexuality occurs in nature and has no adverse effects on species. It also has no adverse effects on societies. Leaving aside the utilization of assets argument. There is actually a social issue that occurs from homosexuality, and that is homophobia. It is a product of religious social engineering. It promotes hate and violence against a segment of the population. And if we look at it on the individual level it is demonstrably immoral. All religions have a sexual repression element, the most unforgivable one is circumcision. Circumcision is the act of mutilation of the genitalia of children. And just in case you are retarded look up mutilation in the dictionary. Religion has taken a position that sexuality is part of a dark side of people that needs to be conquered. This is why religions have provisions to control behavior that occurs naturally. Children's genitalia maimed to suppress pleasure from the sexual act. Teenagers that are genetically programed and hormonally controlled to start having sex A.S.A.P. are kept in the dark about contraception and STD's. And it is carved in stone, teenagers will have sex. There is no running and no hiding from it. Biology explains that behavior and society can make sure that when they do, they are protected from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. But you go explain that to the religious.

The world makes sense when analyzed objectively. And it makes sense with a little effort to understand it. The world makes no sense if you look at it and try to interpret it with the religious context. It is obvious that religion was not made to have a healthy society, but to dictate what somebody wanted society to be. On top of that some good ideas that religion had adopted from society centuries ago no longer apply. And yes, we can't disprove god. But we can positively prove that the proposition of a divine arbiter for humanity isn't compatible with reality. And we can do that simply by arguing how broken the dictates from the divine are.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Who is in hell?


In this section the guy from forpersonalhelp answers imaginary questions. The question presented is "God is VERY merciful. But mustn't He also be just as just?". The given answer is "No. That would leave us all teetering between heaven and hell. It is an official Doctrine of the Church that God's mercy is always, in all cases, greater than His justice. We still have free will, and He still allows us to reject Him. But no good person would do that."!

It's amazing how they can't write a single line without getting something wrong either in their logic or understanding of science or in their own theology. And not only are the consistently wrong but also extremely offensive to other people. We are going to go sentence by sentence and make fun of them.

"No." - That's just wrong!
"That would leave us all teetering between heaven and hell." - Which would actually be consistent with your theology.
"It is an official Doctrine of the Church that God's mercy is always, in all cases, greater than His justice." - I love Doctrine, doctrine means that the fish-hats at the church had a vote on what god's opinion is.
"We still have free will, and He still allows us to reject Him." - We don't really know if we have free will or not. And no, he doesn't allow us to reject him, he sends us to hell if we do.
"But no good person would do that." - As in no good person would reject god. As in you just said that people who don't believe in god are not good people. And we know that it's even worst because people who believe in god but not your god are also in that category. Congrats, you just offended Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists and since you are a Catholic you just offended all types of American Neo Christian Evangelical and Old World Protestant Christians. You go girl!

Let's ramp up the objectionable a bit. There are questions about Jews and Hindus and people in ancient India who according to the doctrine will go to hell. And the answer is "But at some time, perhaps in the last instant of your life, God is going to ask you if you want to accept the sacrifice that He made for you. Of course at that point you will have no difficulty saying that of course you will!". Of course I won't! It is possible that god exists, it really is. But the Christian view on god is demonstrably false and proven to be fabricated. Even so if in my last moments I am presented with the opportunity ta accepts his grace, he will get the finger. God as portrayed in the Christian belief is the number one enemy of freedom and morality. Christians believe that he has setup a system, normal people find that system repulsive. I'm not worried about not going to Heaven, God should be worried if Hell will be able to hold all the good people he is sending there. Because if it doesn't, we will set the Kingdom of God on fire!

"Hell is reserved for those who make a conscious and deliberate act of will to reject God. Therefore there are no babies or children in hell."

Who is in hell? I am.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

For Personal Help???


Of-course there is no way to start a blog about rationality and reason without hitting religion in the face. Do you remember going in for an x-ray and the doctor comes back with the question:
-Have you sold your soul? Because I can't see it on your x-ray, do you work for the devil? You work for the devil, don't you? You working for the devil piece of...
Probably no. But as I found out I have sold my soul, but not to the devil. I sold my soul to Google, they pay more! On my Google sites website site I saw an ad. The ad was for http://forpersonalhelp.com/ and it was so bad it was awesome. I couldn't click on the ad because my soul was at stake, so I entered the URL in the address bar and I found god. Imagine finding god on an atheist's website, there is something really wrong with the way Google selects ads for my websites.
If you have been irresponsible enough to click on the link, just look at the text in the beginning. These people actually claim to be able to answer the toughest of life’s questions. So lets enlighten ourselves.

What Is The Meaning of Life?

I'm listening. I'm reading actually. Nothing on this page can surprise you, and you will not read anything relevant to the real world. It is a long plea to love your fellow man in the name of God, which I have no problem with! Benign proselytizing that couldn't be convincing to a thinking person. All up until the point "We are to forgive our worst enemies of everything that they do to us that is mean or hurtful, and return their hatred with kind words and cheer.", which is incompatible with survival. Surely if this is true, then there would be no more Christians on the planet since the European Christian theocracy would have been destroyed by the Muslims centuries ago. The real prophet for Christianity is the emperor Constantine who was baptized in the blood of his enemies, so... This whole page portrays Christianity as "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek", very positive and inspirational. Unfortunately even if Jesus was a hippie his father was a fascist, they make the point that you must not only believe but also obey.

"Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not do the things I command?"
(Luke 6:46)

And we have a serious contention here. If it is boiled down to a simple message this whole page says that the meaning of life is to serve the lord. Unfortunately we don't have contact with the lord. If I had The Lord Jesus Christ on speed dial I would obey, but I don't. The pope does, should I just obey him?

Is There a God?

This feels a little backwards to me! I am used to getting a misguided attempt at science followed by a personal story that is divinely miraculous. But the writer a.k.a. "--Website Editor" has decided to start with his anecdote advocating for his own faith, probably recognizing that there is no way to avoid this humiliation so he has decided to get it out of the way. But do read on, because he makes a great mind reading trick at the end:

"If you are thinking that a coincidence about a piano is not a good enough reason to have faith,"

And if you think this is funny, try this:

"There must be at least some arguments that my reason can understand. It is not our nature to accept anything on blind faith."

Yeah, you would think there must be. The reasoning is the same as in a William Lane Craig style frame that allows for deism and then tries to argue that the will to create somehow implies that creation was especially for humanity. Thus reaching Christianity’s personal God. To get to deism he tries the "nothing comes from nothing" move, but words it carefully as if to avoid ambiguity about the singularity. The words used are "absolute total nothingness". Congratulations, you are now in the position where a premise of your argument isn't demonstrated. For clarity I will point out that the words used to describe nothing (absolute total nothingness) are intentional because a few years ago nothing was the absence of matter. But physics now shows that even in a vacuum you still observe quantum activity, potentially universe creating quantum activity. So to avoid that counter argument the writer has painted himself into a corner, and now needs to demonstrate that absolute total nothingness is even possible. It hasn't been observed or studied, it's not understood by modern science so what is the argument. If this was a conversation it would have ended there because he can't move forward from that point. For the sake of argument lets grant him that premise and move on to the second sentence. Here he comes to the conclusion that an entity external to the universe caused the universe itself. William Lane Craig at least takes the step to go from cause to entity, this guy just says entity and calls it good. Obviously neither science nor reason are among his strengths. In the third sentence he declares victory but at the same time gives the game away by saying that god exists by definition. Yes you can define a god into existence, but more on that later. These are the first three sentences in his scientific attempt, and all three have some sort of a fallacy. It doesn't get any better as you read on. It's rocks not being able to create themselves and then the universe not being eternal, natural processes not being intelligent enough.

"The only way out of this is to define God as an entity that exists outside this universe. Then "God", as we have defined him, cannot have the same nature as the rest of the universe that we see. If he did, our argument is circular and we must still search for a first beginning."

And this is where the writer reduced me to tears. It's not important how good your arguments are if you aren't interested in arguing, the goal here all along was just proselytizing. He could have just wrote something like "We have defined God to be compatible with the universe so you can believe if you want to!", god of the gaps.

It is funny when the spiel is presented unopposed and still manages to be unconvincing. When apologists realize that the pseudoscience they are peddling doesn't work they try emotional extortion. Since this post is getting very long by my standards I will end on this. Go to the "But the best argument is this:" and read it for yourselves. I ask you, is this the position of somebody who wants to search for truth and a better understanding of the world? Is this a position that promotes efforts for the betterment of the world? Or, is it just a way to feel good and lie to yourself that it is ok?

There is some truth on that page.

"Assume there is no God: then this world, and happiness in it, is extremely important. Indeed, it is all there is. So it is a great tragedy whenever anyone does not have a long and happy life here. The death of a child, or a painful life in a third-world country, is an unimaginable tragedy, which nothing can mitigate. "

Retardism

Retardism, it's a word. The root of the word is of-course retard, a medical term used to describe a mental disorder or in common usage somebody really really stupid. When I hear the term retard for some reason I associate it with the idea of falling behind, as in not being able to keep up with the "norm". Although I don't aim at insulting anybody by using the term, it is a good description of the philosophy, views and opinions discussed. The definitions for retardism in the urban dictionary  do not fit with my usage of the term. I tend to look at it as a description of an "ism", as in atheism or fascism. Retardism to me is the philosophy of not being able to progress in a human civilization context. When defined in that way retardism can be an overarching philosophies that has within itself theism, capitalism and racism. In this blog I will try to point out how human civilization should be progressing and how it actually is progressing. Thus my goal is to show how religious, political and social views are retarding human civilization as a whole.
To that end I will be analyzing events, both current and historical. I will be scrutinizing views and opinions that have missed the mark. I will be attacking philosophies that are so wrong that their effects are detrimental to humanity. The world is engulfed by a plague of stupidity and the simple common sense that would greatly improve the world we live in is fighting a losing battle. I am here to give my 2 cents on the simple issues.