Pricks and Self-Reflection

This is just my point of view on people as I see it now and is in no way, shape, or form endorsed (to my knowledge) by any humanistic, naturalistic or atheistic philosophy for the treatment of people around us. It simply points to the fact that I can now judge people clearly, and as I see fit, without having to think about absurd notions like the mythological satan with his pitchfork and hell as a repercussion in the process of coming to a conclusion about the character of others. Atheism frees us of worrying about being overly sympathetic and being victimized by people that love to belittle us or treat us like lesser than. This isn’t so much established in the Bible because the Bible is so noticeably contradictory on how we should treat others. Am I supposed to gouge their eye out if they gouge mine out, or am I supposed to expose my other eye to be gouged out as well? It’s really this whole modern misconception of who Jesus was, if he existed at all, that leads us to false conclusions on how Christians should treat others. Jesus is the one who told his followers that they have to HATE, and yes the Greek translation is hate, their family if they want to follow him. Luke 14:26. Jesus is the one who endorsed the infamous OT and said that we should follow it to the letter. Matt 5:18-19. Jesus is the one that said that he came not to send peace but a sword. Matt. 10:34. He told his followers to buy a sword, and to sell their garment to acquire one if they couldn’t otherwise afford it. Luke 22:36. He encouraged people to act in ways that brings about persecution. Matt. 5:11. He encouraged men to avoid women altogether. Matt 19:12. He elegantly called Jews the "sons of the Devil" which has resorted in untold numbers of deaths and further destructive ideology. John 8:44.

The 21st century Jesus is yet another made up figment of humankind’s imagination. This Jesus wouldn’t do anything that is unfair or immoral. This Jesus is all about love, acceptance, turning the other cheek, forgiveness, and bending over backwards to help others. He is nothing more than the reflection of our modern Christianized culture that has chosen to distort what the gospels say about Jesus to fit their mold of "goodness".

As a nonbeliever and freethinker, I can discard this whole notion of turning the cheek and allowing others to walk all over me as I offer forgiveness ad infinitum. As most believers think, I used to believe that I needed to be forgiving and understanding of those that treat me like garbage. They were just under the influence of Satan. I couldn’t just label someone as a prick even if all of the evidence was abundantly clear. Some people do have bad days, or even weeks, but then there are those who have been pricks for so long that they’ve made it a habit of living. Maybe this is bad logic, but I can just “smell” one within the first few minutes I’m around them. (You know the type) In my opinion, I find the most unfavorable personalities in the working environment. We really see what people are made of when the situations around them become quite stressed or just too monotonous. They are often very hypocritical, beyond criticism, narcissistic, belittling and patronizing towards those whom they view as little more than peons. I have a special contention for people that treat others as if they are better than them simply because of their education level, seniority, age, looks, or personal income. I don’t have to pretend to like people who demonstate such vitriol anymore. Obviously, in the work arena, I still have to be civil enough toward them, but I’m never going to be a brown noser. Call it a chip on my shoulder, but I’m willing to do things the hard way if it means that I don't have to go out of my way to be nice. Unlike others, I’m not motivated by prestige, fame, power or money. Call it the “introvert Advantage”. I don’t really have to play by their rules.

I can honestly say that I never try to bully others or make them feel incompetent because I know how it feels. I thank my newfound unbelief as a way of freeing me to see others for whom and what they really are. I treat everybody with a blank slate. As an introvert, I tend to mirror what they initially do and say to me first. I let the other person make the first move. If I come in contact with another introvert, the process of establishing a mutually beneficial relationship may take quite a long time to develop, if it ever develops at all. To make a fair judgment of a person, I gather information about their behaviors and interactions with myself and others. Are they respectful to me? In conversation, do they belittle me or treat me like chattel? Do they do what they say they are going to do? Do they treat me as well around others as they do when we are alone? Are they arrogant and smug to people around them that don't brown nose? Do they have unreasonable expectations for me that I could not possibly meet given the circumstances? Are they eager and anxious to criticize when the opportunity arises? Are they down to earth or are they on their own narcissistic planet? Do they act like their own feces doesn't stink?

I just like the fact that I don’t have to deal with people’s b.s. and worry about being continually forgiving no matter what. I generally reserve that depth of forgiveness for my family only. It’s alleviating to know that people can be measured by naturalistic and logical evidence. I don’t need a contradictory and outdated book, or Christian’s to tell me how to treat others. I treat them the same way they treat me, regardless of their status of “superiority”. The golden rule, which predated Christ’s teaching on it, is still a pretty good rule of thumb although there are some exceptions.

You're an Atheist!!!

Well, now my wife AND best friend know that I’m an atheist. My wife let my friend and his wife know about it despite not asking my approval beforehand. She told them that I have a blog, but none of them know how to access it. I didn’t come right out and tell her that I have a blog, but she figured it out as I was doing a lot of writing on my word processor. It was too much of a pain to keep that hidden from her if I wanted to really get a blog going. Plus, she has seen me reading other bloggers posts. Anyway, my wife and friend believe, like many people, that being an Atheist is akin to selling your soul to Lucifer and butchering a million babies. They use the A word like it’s a derogatory term but nothing could be further from the truth. I just don’t take things at face value any more without requiring some kind of proof in the process. Indeed, I believe that the Christian god should have extraordinary evidence to prove his existence. The Bible is laughably inadequate as a source of credibility. Blind faith is just a stupid concept, especially if it applies to believing in things which abandon any sort of credible reference point from which you can refer to. I haven’t seen any jaw dropping miracles in my life time, nor have I experienced many things that couldn’t already be explained by science. Admittedly, there are a few things that still boggle my mind. My mother recovered from a shoulder injury, which was going to require surgery, after we prayed together. Indeed, this does strike me as a bit odd. But, this doesn’t mean that we have to jump to the wild assertion that a supernatural deity must have been involved as a result.

My friend and I had an argument the other day which involved many factors including my lack of belief. It was a quick jab at my newfound disbelief but points to the issue that many atheists face as they break through the shackles of religious dogma. At one point in the argument, he stated, “you’re so smart, but now you’re an atheist”. Maybe, it’s more like, “I’m smart and being an atheist further proves the case”. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t consider myself to be the genius that I once may have been—not that I ever considered myself to be a genius. My mother said that my I.Q. was tested at 160 back in lower school but we know that most I.Q.s drift to the median as we get older. I dread to know what it is now as I can hardly do long subtraction or division by hand anymore. I’m out of practice and used to calculators doing my thinking for me. But I digress.

I think that being called an atheist is really a compliment in disguise. Your right, I don’t believe in a god that butchers children and infants. You can keep that kind of monstrous god all to your lonesome. You can keep the bigot who subjugates women to draconian laws to yourself, and the god who requires that people be burnt to death or stoned if their sexual preferences are contrary to the Hebrew god’s liking. You can have the god that requires rape victims to be stoned if they fail to cry out loud enough, and allows men to take women from other countries after killing their families. Eventually, they may very well end up having to sleep with the man who slaughtered their family. I don’t need to continue to follow a god that can only exist if science is some mass conspiracy that is hell bent on destroying this notion of god altogether. Science isn’t against Intelligent Design because it has a strong religious theme. They are against Intelligent Design because there is no evidence supporting it as it applies to the development of the species. We would have lost out on a multitude of discoveries if scientists would have simply said that god is the reason for everything and not sought out naturalistic explanations. No discoveries have ever pointed to a god once science has properly investigated these various areas of intrigue.

They can keep the god who has influenced so much unnecessary killing and violence throughout the ages. This is the same god who creates people whom he loves, but, then, purposefully destroys them for reasons that no rational being can understand. But, we’re told to just believe because his ways are greater than ours. He creates humans with the capacity to feel both physical and emotional pain. He purposefully created some humans with the foreknowledge that they would die a hideous and torturous death. Presumably, he didn’t try to numb any of the unnecessary pain they would feel in the process. Despite this injustice, he has them murdered for “sins” that they didn’t even commit. The Bible has many passages adhering to this absurd ideology of generational curses. Some passages are in favor of it, while other scriptures speak contradictorily against it.

So really, who is taking the moral high ground here? Call me a pacifist if you want, but I’m not going to kill anybody because someone tells me to. Especially, if he wants me to kill people that pose no immediate threat to my family or myself. In the Bronze Age, this was possibly a reasonable request from a heartless god. But, I think our morality has evolved and we have learned to get along with others despite their sexual preferences, gender or ethnicity. The Bible does not come across as a book that takes the moral high ground. A deity would surely have more sense than 21st century America. The famous Sermon on the Mount does not speak of a deity who has a supernatural grasp on wisdom. There are a multitude of passages that are disastrously ill-advised. Matt Dillahunty does a superb job of dissecting these passages at http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_mount. Jesus continues to assert that we shouldn't worry about our current circumstances and live for eternity. This sort of reasoning causes people to be lazy, lack foresight and encourages them to abandon concern as it applies to this life. He equates those that think lustfully upon a woman as adultery, and those that think angrily upon a brother as a murderer—otherwise known as Thought Crimes. Seriously, I’m to equate butchering a group of people with just being very angry with a group of people. I don’t think so.

Please continue to keep me in your atheistic prayers and reasonable thoughts as I continue to struggle to find resolution, clarity and genuine happiness with my position in this life. This life which is the only life we will ever know. Sadly, many will waste their entire life in hopes of a better one to come, but I don’t plan on doing that.

The New Atheism

Well, I just read through Victor Stenger’s book entitled, The New Atheism and must say that I was most impressed. This is not going to be a thorough review, but I will touch on some points of interest without doing the book the full justice it deserves. I’m not one to read a book in a single three hour sitting, but The New Atheism was simply too hard to put down. As a budding atheist myself, I’ve read some of Dawkins, Hitchens and others regarding multiple views on religious faith and the far reaching consequences religion has on humanity. I read Jerry Coynes, Why Evolution is True which is a very readable book on the facts of evolution, but I have yet to find a book as thoroughly digestible as Dr. Stenger’s. I viewed the majority of the debate between William Lane Craig and Stenger back in 2003 shortly after reading the book. I think Stenger did an admirable job, although I would say that Craig won stylistically. But, style without substance doesn’t add up to much more than bullshit.

Stenger does a good job of propping up his fellow atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett in the aforementioned book. Stenger has no problem including himself in the group as a “New Atheist”. The main thrust of the New Atheist seems to be this understanding that morality isn’t something that needs a god to develop and practice effectively. Also, religion is seen as a danger to society and scientific advancement. It hinders school children from learning factual scientific evidence for the existence of the universe, planet and ourselves. This is detrimental to America’s future as a scientific powerhouse. The fact that our last president based many decisions, including going to war in Iraq, on purely religious convictions is a frightening situation. Stenger argues that future presidents may do the same and ultimately lead America, and perhaps the world, into an irreversible and catastrophic situation. In a sense, the events on 9/11/2001 helped fuel the fire of the New Atheism agenda. They argue that the terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers were motivated purely by religious ideology. This is hardly a debatable point, though some would like to base their reasonings on politcal grounds to take the focus off religion as an unpeaceful way of living and viewing those around us.

Stenger argues that faith is a dangerous proposition which only gives people the excuse to harm others based on divine revelation from a god that is undetectable by any sort of scientific means of investigation. He desires to challenge people and their deep seated religious convictions regardless of the possibility of offending the believer. At the same time, he recognizes that all of these passionate debates can be done in a non-offensive and civil manner.

Stenger addresses the misconception of science requiring as much “faith” as religion. He makes it clear that science only allows itself to go where the evidence leads and holds no unsupportable biases. He discards the whole issue of ‘god of the gaps’ by appealing to a purely materialistic view of the universe, humanity and the mind itself. He addresses misunderstandings about The Big Bang that apologists often misinterpret to support their own blatant agenda. He shows that The Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe. He references Quantum Tunneling as a more realistic scenario and also appeals to a multiverse theory to counter Christian apologist ‘Fine Tuning’ arguments. Also, he points to the notion that other life may have formed under alternate conditions that didn’t under the present laws of this universe. In other words, other universes may exist or could exist with a different set of physical laws in place which allows evolution to take course in the given environment. Apologists will suggest that manipulating a single physical law will result in the universe being unable to function properly which points to this notion of fine tuning. Stenger argues that all parameters must be varied within a system to determine their effect as a whole which any noteworthy scientist should already know. It’s unreasonable to just adjust one parameter without adjusting the others.

I can’t remember if it was in the debate or book, but Stenger makes the observation that the Genesis account of creation is faulty because it gets the order of creation wrong. Scientists know that the earth was formed after the sun, moon and stars. Conversely, the Bible states that the earth was formed prior to the sun, moon and stars. This contradicts our current understanding of the development of the universe and planets-just an interesting tidbit I thought I would mention.

Stenger observes that the intelligent design movement, in an act of sheer desperation since science has filled most other gaps in, is trying to maintain that science can’t explain the mind so god still must exist. He argues that the mind is nothing more than the brain itself and simply consists of physical matter which I happen to agree. He points to various occurrences of seeing a “tunnel of light” as easily being mimicked by stimulating various regions of the brain or pointing to people who have trauma or stress applied to their brain. He believes that most of the out of body experiences people claim are basically scams. I think, under certain stressful situations, people can have out of body experiences that are easily recognized as naturally occurring phenomenon given the appropriate conditions.

He points to the inconsistency and barbarism of the god in the Bible as evidence against a divine author of morality. He argues that there is far too much suffering in the world for a divine and omni-benevolent god to be behind all of it; I couldn’t agree more. He gives a vivid analysis of Mormonism as it is one of the newer offspring’s of the Christian faith. He points to some grizzly events that took place in the not so distant past under the Mormon theology including the assassination of a rebelling woman and her, guilty by association, baby. They died because a Mormon decided to slit their throats as a God given directive via divine “revelation”. This illustrates the point that religion and violence go together and can evolve rather rapidly. A person can find it completely reasonable to slit a baby’s throat if God commands it. He also briefly points to some issues with Jesus and his failed prophecy found in Matthew 16:28 regarding him coming back before those who stood before him died.

He corrects the misconception that atheism caused Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot to kill massive numbers of people. He also correctly states that Hitler was not an atheist to begin with. He states that there simply are no atheist scriptures which ask its followers to kill others like the Bible or Quran do. He goes over the atrocities of the crusades, inquisition and other religiously motivated slayings like those perpetrated by Incas and Aztecs. The common denominator is always religion. Nobody ever kills because of their lack of belief in a god or gods.

He makes an appeal to some of the Eastern philosophies of living such as Buddhism, as does Harris, without taking the notion of reincarnation seriously. He calls it ‘The Way of Nature’, as a way of living for others and being less self-centered. This helps humanity accept the fact that there is no afterlife when they are able to take the focus off of themselves. But, he suggests that one should be free to live for themselves and how they want while they are still youthful and less focused on their own mortality.

He notes countries like Denmark and Sweden, who are 80% atheist, as examples of societies which are better off than countries which are primarily religious. Sweden doesn’t have near the police force that the U.S. has to have, yet it’s not uncommon for the some of their major cities to go a whole year with only a single murder occurring in that city.

Overall, an excellent read for the person trying to get a basic understanding of the atheist movement and many of the misconceptions Christians have about atheists in general. If anyone has any other book suggestions for someone like me, please feel free to enter them in the comment section. I've just started Robert Price's, Deconstructing Jesus so I’ll see if it’s worthy of posting about later.

Would You Schmucks Leave Darwin Alone

Let me start by saying that I’m not an expert when it comes to Biology or more specifically, Evolutionary Biology. I never had much interest in science until my faith was first put into question. Back in the day, I denied that evolution was true because I bought into what all the creationists and Fundamental Evangelicals had to say. A long lost buddy I recently got back in touch with, through the miracles of modern technology, helped lay down the facts of evolution for me. He helped me to see how there are volumes of research and peer reviewed evidence that consistently point to evolution as much more than just a theory. I came to understand that over 90% of scientists believe in evolution. I discovered that the world is not 10,000 years old but around 4.5 billion years old. The oldest living organisms are around 3.5 billion years old. I came to the conclusion that this is far from some mass conspiracy that these scientists are engaging in. In the last 150 years, there has been no evidence to suggest that evolution is not factual aside from the bald assertions of Creationist propaganda. There is the Intelligent Design movement, under the Discovery Institute’s helm, which makes claims that evolution is false, but fails to follow through with any valid research to back those claims. As a theist, I tried all the usual bogus creationist tactics like explaining that the Cambridge Explosion points to a creator, fossil records fail to point to evolution and no design can exist without a “designer”.

There is a disturbing trend among many Evangelical’s that really hacks me off. They refuse to look at scientific evidence and needlessly drag Darwin’s name through the mud in the process. Even as an admitted layman and newbie to evolution, I am really getting sick of certain segments of Christianity picking on Charles Darwin with a Red Herring. Charles Darwin has zero responsibility for what anyone does as a result of his theory, or how they use his theory to be applied in different areas of study. What Hitler did has no bearing on the truth or the lack of truth in regards to Evolutionary Biology. So please, stop trying to get people to hate evolution because of the fallacious assertion that Hitler exterminated millions of Jews based on Charles Darwin’s Theory.

I recently listened to a ridiculous podcast delivered by Hank Hanegraaff who is the president of the Christian Research Institute. I wonder if they understand what research means. He hosts the Bible Answer Man broadcast throughout the week and had Stephen C. Meyer on as one of the guests. The topic for the day was Darwin’s Dilemma which is a movie appealing to a supernatural causality for creation. Stephen C. Meyer, one of the founders of the Discovery Institute, states during the program that humans would seize to have moral responsibility or free will if evolution was true. Hank Hanegraaff goes on to state that Darwin’s theory is one of the most terrifying ideas in modern history. He blames many of the atrocities like Nazism on Darwin’s theory and believes that we are headed down a very slippery slope if we continue to embrace this “baseless theory”.

Creationists love to point to moral arguments, eugenics, Social Darwinism, and Nazism among other ideals as a way of demeaning Darwinism. None of these topics have anything to do with evolutionary biology. Furthermore, they conveniently leave out all of the atrocities directly connected to Christianity. They fail to point out that Anti-Semitism played a major role in the extermination of Jews under Hitler’s regime. They fail to point out that Hitler pointed to spiritual inspiration and Christian principles as a rationalization for exterminating the Jews. They fail to consider Martin Luther and his hatred for Jews as well. Here is a quote from Martin Luther’s On Jews and their Lies, “I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children, as related before ... However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly ... That is what I had in mind when I said earlier that, next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers”. I fail to see how Hitler, a professing Christian, was less influenced by messages like this than on Darwinian Evolution. Hitler’s biographer, John Toland, wrote that Hitler “carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God”. Although debatable, there is some pretty significant evidence that Hitler was inspired and influenced by Martin Luther’s writings.

We can point fingers both ways when it comes to the evil influences Darwin or Christianity may have on society. But, Darwinian Evolution doesn’t make the moral claims that Christianity does. It’s not a theory espousing certain moralistic views of how to live. It’s a theory explaining how we evolved and how the other animals around us evolved into the species we see today. Morality is something humanity learns and perfects through time. I believe that each human has to decide what is morally acceptable in their own eyes and what attributes positively influence society. If they fail to make a reasonable judgment, the justice system will generally catch up with them or they will end up dead. There are certainly empathetic traits that are passed on generation to generation, for these traits help carry on a species which benefit from the possibility of reproduction and survivability of offspring. Stephen C. Meyer and friends assert that we are all just machines that are incapable of making choices for ourselves. We would all surely act like wild animals that couldn’t control our primitive cravings if it wasn’t for god’s providential existence. I can happily testify that he is simply wrong in the matter. Of course, there are many people within civilized and uncivilized parts of the world who act like wild beasts regardless of god’s presence or lack thereof. But, this is generally a part of their culture, genetic disposition and/or chemical wiring. If anyone acts like a savage beast, it would have to be the god of the Old Testament. This point really needs no further explaining. A cursory examination of the OT with an “outsiders”, unbiased view would lead most anyone to the same conclusion.

Meyer also claims that the Cambridge Explosion was a rather sudden occurrence which points to a serious dilemma for those supporting Darwinian Evolution. On the contrary, the Cambridge Explosion was not a “sudden” process at all. It took a period of 5-10 million years and some estimate that it took as long as 80 million years to unfold, so it’s more aptly called the “Cambridge slow fuse”. Coincidentally, there were transitional fossils discovered in the Cambridge Explosion and ancestral species discovered before the Cambridge Explosion like different kinds of sponges. The Lobopods, found within the Cambridge Explosion, are a transition between arthropods and worms. They were basically worms with legs.

They also made the worn out, fallacious assertion that there are no transitional fossils showing the in-between stages of a species. Despite how understandably difficult it is for fossil’s to form, we actually have been fortunate to find many significant fossils which are beautiful intermediates between different species. Tiktaalik is a transition between fish and tetrapods. Archaeopteryx is a transition between dinosaur and bird. Homo Erectus is one of our own ancestors. We have nearly two dozen fossils which display the various intermediates between ourselves and a common ancestor.

Natural selection better accounts for what appears to be design than a supernatural deity for whom there is no evidence to speak of. Species continue to differentiate themselves through a process called speciation. Some species, like the cockroach and crocodile, have remained virtually the same for millions of years. Evolution is not based on some random chance as many Creationists espouse but through natural and artificial selection. In the case of natural selection, non-beneficial genes of a species are weeded out when they fail to prolong the longevity of the given species in the particular environment in which they live. Thus, a new species emergences and the process repeats itself. In the case of artificial selection for example, scientists can manipulate the environment and feeding habits of fruit flies, and end up with two separate species of fruit flies which can no longer breed. Fruit flies are used because their life cycles are so short, and scientists can see evolutionary processes at work in a relatively small period.

When all is said and done, I just wish some of these buttholes would stop demeaning Darwin and the FACTS of evolution from a biological standpoint. You do not succeed in devaluing evolution just because it doesn’t speak to issues of morality and your book does, albeit quite inadequately I might add. You do not succeed by discrediting a large body of scientific evidence without supplying any peer reviewed research of your own. You can't win with an argument from ignorance. And, you can't go from a hypothesis to a fact without putting in the work. Where is the evidence Creationists? Charles Darwin was one of the most brilliant biologists to ever walk the face of the earth, and he deserves better than to be made out as some hideous monster. When it comes to genocide, nobody covers that vehement act better than the god of the OT and groups who have used the same philosophy throughout the ages.

Emotional Attachment and Christianity

The final dilemma one must consider before relinquishing all ties with Christianity is this issue with emotional attachment. During my final months as a Christian, I kept telling a specific fellow blogger that I just couldn’t let go because I had this emotional investment put into god. The way I saw it, he was this big buddy that was “closer to me than any brother”. He would watch out for me, and make sure favorable situations and circumstances came my way. He would be there for me during periods of hardship, and he would always pull me through each circumstance regardless of its level of difficulty. Could I really afford to risk losing everything by telling god to get lost? I mean, things were already dicey as it was. I was unemployed for over a year and not collecting unemployment (long story). I was desperately seeking some form of work after my stock trading fantasy fell through. Yes, I spent loads of money getting “expert” teaching on how to trade stocks like the “pros” from companies like Better Trades and Prosper. After a year, I had done nothing but create more and more of a loss. In other words, I could have worked at McDonald’s for the previous year and came out way ahead. Despite this, I continued to try to be a good little Christian and restrain myself from sinful indulgences. I continued to witness and argue for god’s relevance and existence. I thought that the old saying, “if you want something bad enough and work hard enough you will eventually get it” would finally pay off. After a year, I waved the white flag of surrender. God never came through for me when I needed it the most. It’s not like I wasn’t putting in the effort or the money. But this experience isn’t why I left the faith. It wasn’t because god wasn’t willing to bless me. It was actually something far more personal.

It doesn’t help that I always had this preconceived paranoia about sin. That is to say, I always thought that harmful or stressful situations would arise if I gave into sin. This may tie in closely to my struggles with obsessive compulsive issues. I would immediately relate a problematic situation to a sinful behavior or thought that I gave into. I think this is reinforced for all believers when pastors question you about any “hidden” sins in your life. This whole notion that one must “die to sin” before they can truly experience the richness of a relationship with Christ. I began to wonder about people who speed. Let’s say the speed limit is 65. Does a person need to repent every time the speedometer goes over 65 by just a microscopic degree. My pastor and others always said that breaking the speed limit was sinful. But, they still admittedly did it despite the fact that it supposedly causes a riff between them and god just like any other sin. Sin apparently works that way regardless of how “big” or “small” it is. This is further supported by Jesus’ teachings on following the laws of the land and being obedient to the government. It becomes even more bizarre in nature when you consider the denominations that believe sin causes a loss of salvation. So, what happens if you break the speed limit by a fraction and then get into a lethal car wreck before you can repent? Are you bound for hell? Even if you don’t get in a wreck, do you have to spend the greater part of the evening in deep prayerful repentance for each and every time you went over the speed limit to and from work? It all becomes completely nonsensical when you start looking at it logically and practically. But I digress.

It was emotional attachment that was keeping me connected, and it was emotional issues that ultimately allowed me to discard the faith. Even though I’ve read it before, the OT reveals a dickhead of a god. He would kill 50,000 people just for taking a glance at the ark in which he lived-I thought he was omnipresent. I don’t know why I just read over stuff like that in the past and discarded it. But, once I started to think about it and think about all the other arguments that my fellow blogger was laying out, the decision became less difficult. I’m pretty passive by nature. I would never harm anyone unless I had to out of self-defense or for the protection of my family. I hate war and people having to die for the BS that goes on in the world. There would be no such thing as war if the world was perfect but it’s not. In the end, I just can’t relate to this kind of god. Yes, it may be a different definition of “good” that this god is, but it’s definitely not the definition of good that I would use to describe him. Could he not find more peaceful means to govern his people and to dictate his own actions? Killing other people just goes against everything I stand for. I hate violence outside of controlled violence like in MMA for example. What’s worse, I really hate violence inflicted on people that I love. Again, god has a funny definition that he uses when he says that he “loves” his creation. He has caused immeasurable amounts of physical and emotional pain to those whom he supposedly loves!

He is even appeased when people offer him human sacrifices and the appetizing aroma it provides him. In 2 Samuel 21, god answered prays regarding the famine in the land because David turned over seven different people to the Gibeonites for hanging. Saul’s two sons and five grandsons were murdered as a result, “before the Lord”. Never mind the fact that God sent a famine on the land that presumably wiped out hundreds of thousands of people for something that Saul did in the first place (he slaughtered the Gibeonites). People are getting murdered for things they didn’t even do or weren’t even alive to be responsible for! I love the commentary from this site, enduringword.com, in regards to the human sacrifice. It points to Abraham’s old peculiar saying as a crappy way of smoothing things over, “shall not the judge of the earth do right?” No, Abraham, apparently the judge of the earth will not do right I’m sorry to say.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a perfectly moral person and I do my fair share of hurting others. Sometimes, I am downright hateful and there are many things that I’ve done that I wish I could take back. But, I never have nor will I desire to kill anyone for bogus shit and would not do it if god asked me to right now. Maybe, I’m lacking the genetic gene that keeps people from losing their religious convictions regardless of how many logical arguments they hear. Looking back, I never really got into the “super spiritual” stuff and two hour long prayers. Honestly, I would get rather bored after about ten minutes of trying to pray silently in my room. But, I thought that it was always a good effort to try and be faithful. During church services, others would have these very emotional reactions to god but I wouldn’t feel much of anything. It’s not like I failed to say the prayer of salvation multitudes of times. I said it more than once to make sure and tried to mean it as much as possible. As a result, I bought all kinds of Christian materials, listened to Christian radio and even tried teaching the youth at church. But, in the end, I never had this feeling of being “changed” in any sense. Since leaving the faith, I still feel completely the same as when I was in the faith. Good things and bad things still happen to me. Some things are actually better and others are worse for me. For instance, I regret that I won’t get to see my family up in heaven and spend all eternity in paradise with them. But, I think most atheists probably regret that aspect of reality. On the contrary, Richard Dawkins says that it would probably get very tedious after the first 1000 years. Ultimately, I hope that it’s just like life before I was born, nothing.

If there is a god that isn’t a giant dick, I would be very happy to visit with him. But, he wouldn’t be an all powerful god because an all powerful god wouldn’t allow the shit that happens in the world to occur in the first place. Hopefully, he would have a sense of humor since this Christian god has none. I credit a good sense of humor and an attitude of love toward humankind. This is what helped me best to dissolve my dependencies upon god who turns out to be a tyrant.

Some Observations on Morality

Perhaps, I just don’t understand why Christians clamor on about this “absolute” standard of morality. More succinctly, why do Christians claim that morality needs this “ultimate authority figure” or we would all surely act like wild animals? Other religions and cultures predate Christ’s teaching of the golden rule by hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Apart from a god, is it really so impossible to conclude that society would find murder, rape, cruel and unusual punishment and slavery wrong? Many of the aforementioned atrocities were commanded by god himself. Our modern moral sensibilities have long since vanquished these barbaric acts with the exception of certain religious factions often sourced in the Middle East. We can give little thanks to the Christian god for this as he was the cultural conformist in many of these OT acts. I can hear the Christian saying, “Yes, but Christ perfected our senses of morality by living a sinless life and dying on the cross”. Some Christians have this bizarre theological stance that attempts to get the OT god off the hot seat by asserting that he reveals more and more of his nature as time goes by. The assumption here is that man could not possibly handle all of god at any one time, so he revealed little bits and pieces until Christ came as the “ultimate” revelation. This seems more like a case of special pleading than an honest look at what the characteristics of the OT god were. It certainly would not go over well in a court of law.

Besides, I think he did a very impressionable job of displaying his true nature in the OT. More than once, he commanded the slaughter of pesky neighboring countries via direct auditory commands to his prophets and leaders. I would also argue that god was more revealing in the OT than today. He certainly hasn’t been performing any noteworthy miracles that transcend the laws of nature lately. He hasn’t been leading people in a pillar of cloud, or discussing new moral laws on top of a mountain with his favorite followers of today’s time. We would quickly send such a person to the nearest mental health facility if they claimed that god had given them new moral instructions or laws. Or, we would simply dismiss them as scam artists such as in the case of Word of Faith teachers. Many Christians will claim that god doesn’t interact with humanity that way anymore. We have the canon of scriptures and that is all the revelation we need. Other more charismatic Christian circles will claim that god still performs miracles and point to subjective experiences and questionable healings as evidence.

Just recently, a story came out of a Somali girl being stoned to death because she was raped by three men at the same time. A militant Islamic group found that this went against their own religious convictions and commandments of Allah. The god of the OT made it clear that women deserved death by stoning if they failed to cry for help while in the city limits (Deut . 22:23-24). I’m not sure if this thirteen year old cried for help during the raping, but many women are threatened with certain death if they make any loud noises. Christians will assert that one must understand the cultural context of the time. Virginity was a very sacred thing and it would disgrace the family tremendously if a woman was a non-virgin on her wedding night. Another common rebuttal is that God had to be harsh with these stubborn people or they would fall into all sorts of irreversible life styles and perversions as frequently occured in the OT. So gods only means of disciplining his children was to kill them? Most parents give their children a spanking but don’t kill them unless their monsters like Andrea Yates. I’ve covered stoning in one way or another on previous occasions, and fail to see how killing a rape victim is any kind of “moral absolute” anyone could admire or wish to emulate.

As Richard Dawkins suggests, society’s morality has become increasingly better as time progresses and we learn how to deal with each other in more civilized terms. The interpretation of the Bible itself has changed due to the ever evolving census of morality. Most Christians today do not accept stoning, genocide, slavery or infanticide anymore. Paradoxically, they still support god despite their disapproval of his obviously immoral actions. Most people of European decent no longer support medieval torture as an acceptable practice. The rack torture device is no longer a public spectacle, nor are witches and homosexuals impaled or burned alive as supported by the church in the Middle Ages and virtually every other segment of European society at the time.

It really comes down to doing things for your social group and community that help prolong and advance it. We have altruistic genes that were selected through the evolutionary process that provide empathy. This can be seen in more than just human beings. In one particular youtube video, you can watch a dog help an injured dog off of a highway so that it wouldn't be killed by oncoming traffic. Some may remember the empathetic gorilla from Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo. A toddler managed to tumble into the enclosure which housed the gorillas. The on looking crowd gasped with horror as this toddler was sitting on the concrete surrounded by massive three to four hundred pound gorillas. The mother gorilla, Binti Jua, noticed the child and carried him back to zoo staff despite having a baby gorilla physically attached to her. Barbara king, an anthropologist, observed a male Chimpanzee who sat with a dying Chimpanzee for five hours in the wild due to a lethal bite to the neck delivered by a Cheetah. No one was allowed to get close to the dying Chimpanzee with the exception of her younger brother. There are undoubtedly many examples of animals behaving in empathetic ways that do not require a god or the Bible to direct their actions. These are instinctual behaviors built through evolutionary processes. We are different because our brains are significantly bigger and we are better able to distinguish positive and negative consequences for our actions. Humans are able to make decisions based on the long term impact it will have on them and society.

People do things directly or indirectly for others all the time and need no guidance from an old book to help them. It can be seemingly insignificant things like putting your used gum in the trash instead of on the sidewalk where someone else could step on it. It can be heroic acts like saving a child from a burning building, or sacrificing yourself by pushing a person out of the way of an oncoming car. These genetic tendencies have helped the human race come to a place in history where altruistic behaviors outpace demoralizing and harmful behaviors significantly. We might as well model Saudi Arabia for our morality if we are looking to find a society which mimics god’s morality in this day in time. The NT changes the scope of things some. People are told to “turn the cheek” instead of retribution through stoning or such nonsense. Ultimately, Jesus still supports the OT laws and didn’t come to abolish them. The big change is people are introduced to suffering delayed but prolonged in hell for all eternity. The concept of hell is strangely absent in the OT which makes up about two thirds of the Bible.

And, its not like there is any significant statistical data supporting the claims that we need god's absolute morality to function properly. Christians will admit that their divorce rates are every bit as high as non-Christians at a staggering 50%. Studies like the Global Peace Index (GPI) continue to reveal that societies who are primarily atheist do not fall apart and turn into warzones. On the contrary, the GPI continues to show that the state of peace among these secular/atheistic countries is among the highest. There is a strong correlation between peace and atheistic countries. Conversely, Muslim and Christian countries have a stronger correlation with non-peace. For more information, please visit www.visionofhumanity.org.

Wicked People

WARNING! This is not a story for the faint of heart. You may not find this story palatable if you love children or humanity at all for that matter. This is first and foremost a human interest story and has many themes, but was ultimately just something that I wanted to talk about.

"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6).

Matthew 18:6 is the verse that Andrea Yates used to give some rationale for drowning all five of her own children nearly nine years ago. At one time, she had four healthy boys and one beautiful girl ranging in six months to seven years of age. The age and names of the children were Mary the six-month-old, Luke age 2, Paul age 3, John age 5 and Noah age 7. The parents were forewarned by the psychiatrist that she would likely have to endure another long bought of post-partum depression before having Mary. Nevertheless, the Yates family insisted that they were “going to have as many babies as nature allowed”.

Over the course of time, Andrea decided that she had been a poor parent or a “stumbling block” to her children. Evidently, this was even reinforced by her non-denominational pastor. She decided that murdering them was the only way to ensure their place in heaven. We can put the blame on a number of factors and people, but the fact remains that there are people who actually believe god when he says some pretty ridiculous things in the Bible. Many people are just Cultural Christians, but we do have some imbeciles that actually take this nonsense to heart. I do find it rather peculiar that we don’t find more Christians cutting off their limbs or gouging out their eyes as Jesus commands for a remedy to recurrent sin as written in Matthew 5:29. But, we would like to think that rational Christians, whatever that means, won’t go against their own innate moral compass, and perform heinous acts because god said to, like in the case of Abraham and Isaac. Most honest Christians, and presumably all atheists, would tell a god to take a flying leap if he/she/it asked them to kill their own children. If not, then those people probably shouldn’t have children to begin with. The so called father of the faith, Abraham, nearly sacrificed his own son because god told him to. Undoubtedly, he would have followed through if the angel of god wouldn’t have intervened. Abraham rationalized the situation by thinking that god can raise people from the dead so Isaac will come back from the dead too. If you ever want to get a Christian on their heels just ask them if they would murder a child because god commanded it. But I digress.

Andrea had a long history of depression and delusional thinking, and was on several different medications that apparently weren’t enough to subdue her sickness. In all fairness, the DSM IV states that “infanticide is most often associated with postpartum psychotic episodes that are characterized by command hallucinations to kill the infant or delusions that the infant is possessed, but it can also occur in severe postpartum mood episodes without such specific delusions or hallucinations”. As previously stated though, Rusty and Andrea Yates were well aware of the risks associated with post-partum depression. They were also keenly aware that there is a 30% to 50% risk for reoccurrence of psychotic post-partum features according to the DSM IV and her psychiatrist. The psychiatrist told them that they shouldn’t have any more kids but they reasoned otherwise.

Andrea’s depression came back with a vengeance after having Mary. June 20th, 2001 was a day that made Andrea Yates infamous. In premeditated fashion, she waited for her husband to leave for work, and she even locked the dog in its cage so he wouldn’t interfere with the drowning. She filled the bathtub up nearly to the top; she made sure there was plenty of water to get the job done. Like a god ordained infanticide, she systematically drowned each and every child. In some of my research, I found that she wanted to ensure their passage to heaven, but other online resources put less emphasis on her religious convictions and more on her psychotic issues. If the biblical relationship is true, she drew from the teachings that children go to heaven automatically if they are still too young to be held accountable for sin. Coincidentally, the age of accountability principle is just an assumption Christian's make since they can't fathom that a god would send children to hell.

Andrea placed her six-month-old baby girl in the bathroom, who cried hysterically throughout, while these horrific events took place. Baby Mary saw each of her sibling’s die, with the exception of Noah, before being murdered herself. Paul was the first victim. “Perfect Paul”, as Andrea used to call him, was the one who always did what his mother said and caused very few problems. Andrea called for Paul to come to the bathroom. Being the ever compliant child, he eagerly made his way to his mother where she had just finished filling the bathtub. Without hesitation, she put him in the bathtub face down and proceeded to drown him for a “couple of minutes”, as she described it to the court. After struggling frantically, all movement subsided and Andrea pulled Paul’s lifeless body out of the water. She then took his body to her bed and pulled a sheet over it. The most rambunctious one, John, was drowned next and then Luke. John was hesitant to get in the water so his resolute mother helped him in and proceeded to drown him. Six-month-old Mary Yates followed her brothers. Even at six months, she was able to struggle for what Andrea said was “at least a couple of minutes”. Andrea didn’t bother putting her in the bed with her brother’s afterword. She left her body resting at the bottom of the tub. Noah was the last victim in this heinous crime. Noah, the eldest sibling, must have sensed that something was wrong because he tried to run out of the bathroom. He was no match for his overpowering mother. However, he put up a more tenacious fight than his four other siblings. Perhaps, the witch was getting fatigued as well. He tried to “come up for air” and “flip over” on numerous occasions before finally yielding to defeat. Immediately following, Andrea made a 911 call since she knew good and well that she had done something horribly wrong.

Sergeant David Svahn, a patrol officer with sixteen years on the force, was one of the first to respond to Andrea’s 911 call. Svahn described the residence as a typical suburban home. He saw family photos aligning the hallway, cereal bowls sitting on the kitchen table and toys on the floor. But the odious scene in the bathroom would change his perspective entirely, Svahn said he could have spent another sixteen years and never get used to the horrors he discovered. The child floating in the bathtub, surrounded by fecal matter, left a particularly deep impression that will undoubtedly haunt his dreams for some time.

One of the main problems experienced with drowning is that the body is taking in too much carbon dioxide. This rapid accumulation of carbon dioxide literally poisons the heart and causes it to stop beating. During the struggle, a person will often instinctively swallow a lot of water as much of it makes its way to the larynx. Also, the lungs will eventually burst in this whole grueling process. I can’t think of many worse ways a person can die in two minutes or less with the exception of burning to death. You would think that she could have thought of something a little less horrific if she “loved” her children so much. In my shamelessly biased opinion, Andrea has no business being in a low security mental hospital where she now lives out her miserable existence. This was premeditated murder.

Dena Schlosser, another diva of perversity, severed her 10-month-old daughter’s arms off with a kitchen knife and let her bleed to death while hymn music played in the background. She told the authorities that she was “giving her baby to God”. Her baby fought long enough to make it to the hospital before being pronounced dead. Apparently, Dena was also suffering with post-partum depression before the incident occurred. She was released from inpatient mental hospitalization after five brief years in 2008 and is now presumably just an outpatient. Does society really want this woman out and about?

One has to ask themselves, where the hell was god while all this shit was going on? Is he incapable of intervening in the lives of children? If so, then god isn’t omnipotent like the Bible suggests because he could have done any number of things to stop the situation. He could have given Andrea a heart attack for example. Perhaps, he could have given one of the children "Samson like strength" or the foresight to call 911 ahead of time. I never met any of these kids, but you best better believe that I would have knocked that bitch into another dimension if I could have been there to stop her. God supposedly knows the exact number of hairs on your head and cares about your every need, but wouldn't meet the need of these oxygen deprived children! The Christian will say that justice will be served but that doesn’t excuse what happened. The father would have been just as guilty if he was there and allowed this to happen. God was supposedly there, but the Christian refuses to place any guilt on him.

I have no sympathy for either of these two women. Both of them knew that they were dealing with issues before they killed their children. There are mental facilities conveniently located all over the United States for those who need help. Coincidentally, both of these pathetic excuses for human beings come from the great state of Texas. Texas has no shortage of mental health facilities and hospitals. We can see why! Hell, they both clearly knew that they did something wrong because they had the awareness to call 911 immediately afterword. Andrea demanded that policemen come immediately and wasted no time in confessing her crime. She even called her husband and told him to come home to see what she did. Does anybody really think that they didn’t realize it was wrong to kill their children as they were doing it? If I was in such a depraved state, I would chose to immediately call for help BEFORE I did something like that, or I would promptly kill myself. I certainly can’t put all of the blame on religious dogma in light of the advances in psychology and the various diagnoses under the DSM. But, I think that it must have at least played some part in the motivations or reasoning behind these killings.

I’m also writing about this because I simply find it fascinating. I find it fascinating that people actually have the capacity to do such purely evil acts, and I’m baffled by it. I’ve suffered from depression, anxiety and severe OCD in my lifetime. But, I’ve got to say that I never thought of harming anybody but myself. I’ve also worked directly with inpatients at various mental hospitals over the past five years, and have never heard of anyone of my patients doing anything remotely like this to another human.

Lastly, I’m writing this post because it really affected me and bothered me. When you have children, you immediately think about them when you hear of any other child being mistreated and it can be pretty traumatizing. Stories like this make me wish that I didn’t have anyone that I cared about. This way, I would never have to go through the emotional duress if something ever happened to them remotely like this.

Through evolution, we all have this instinctive desire to care for our offspring who may carry on the human race through reproduction of their own. I have no doubt that other animal species feel many of the protective emotions that humans do as a built in mechanism that prolongs the particular species existence. Evolution may do little to explain why a woman would do such a horrific act to her offspring. I believe in the innocence of children and that protection of children is essential. They are so impressionable and easily manipulated at that age. It makes me sick when people take advantage of their innocence for their own masochistic pleasures.

In closing, I hope Dena’s visit to the outside world is short lived. Perhaps, she will off herself before she gets the urge to kill again. In the case of Andrea’s story, it’s equally baffling that her husband places NO blame on her whatsoever. He simply thinks that she wouldn't have done this if she had the right medications. I wouldn’t be surprised if he takes her back and reproduces again. Mental illnesses that indirectly cause harm upon other people must be considerably rare. Nevertheless, they had the senses to call 911 after the killings.

Christians that are seriously wanting to ensure that they get their kids to heaven might find what Andrea did appealing. They can sacrifice their own life for the sake of their childrens. Thankfully, most people aren't quite so psychotic even if their faith reeks of irrational thinking.