Series #3

Part 3 go go go!

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

This is just a waste of a spot, a complete waste of the third place; but, what would you expect from some humans authors back in the iron age. They weren't concerned about passing on morality, they have to put the people in line first!

What kind of image does it present when you're the Greatest Conceivable Being, perfect and all knowing, but you have to order your underlings to not mess around with idols? Does Chuck Norris have to remind the workers at subway to go light on the mayo? No, There's a thing called presence, well, I suppose you have to be real to have presence.

I wonder why none of the objects in space were mentioned? I mean, the cosmos is MUCH bigger and contains MUCH more matter than our little spec of a planet, why weren't the stars, planets, nebulae, black holes, comets, moons, galaxies, or any of that stuff mentioned by god? Probably the same reason that the germ theory of disease and the atomic theory of matter are not mentioned; the writers of the bible didn't know about this stuff, so they couldn't act like god knew about them.

Series #2

More of the "ten" commandments, and a dose of rationality. moving onto the second:

"Do not have any other gods before me."

This stinks of authority based leadership, if you were the one "true" god, why would you have to command it? We trust our doctor's abilities not because they demand we do, we choose to, based on their track record and accomplishments. If I walked into a doctor's office and he commanded me to trust/believe in him, and to not take any other doctor before him, I would trust/believe my ass right out the door and find a non-retarded doctor. Seems pretty sensible to me.

I think it revealing that god would command us about like children. Religion takes this even further, using the same kind of relationship type. We call our religious leaders "father" in the same way we call our gods "father"; it's also fitting since women were not allowed (and still are not allowed) to hold high office within the church, same with blacks -- until the churches had a "revelation" right about the same time as the civil rights act. Humans are far from perfect, and still need some kind of structure, but it doesn't follow that they need to be treated like children and have right action commanded to them.

Lastly, and this will be a recurring critique: is this really important enough to occupy the spot it was given? (at least, in some versions) Don't you think rules about murder, rape, theft, torture, or child abuse, would be more fitting for the first or second position on the list? Do the first couple/few commandments have to be about a seemingly vain and jealous god demanding you fall into line? I might suggest a results based approach, or one based on relevancy; because the current mafia style strong-arm tactics is one of the reasons religions and gods force themselves into the margins.

Series #1

I'll be doing a series on the nature of the core christian beliefs. I've noticed that barbed criticism from society can illicit change in the parties of god; take the example of stoning people to death for undeserving reasons, like women not being virgins on their wedding night, or children that are being unruly. One reason we don't see people being stoned every time the breeze blows is because secular society has pointed out how ridiculous the practices are, and broke the religious by demanding moral behavior. I'd be thrilled to see some more change, so I'm contributing criticism and potential solutions to iron out some of our problems.

I'll be starting with the ten commandments. Actually, one of multiple versions of the commandments. You'd think since god took the time to write these commandments himself, the faithful could at least get them right; but you'd be wrong.

So onto the list:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;"

If I take this to be true in it's entirety, I would feel a debt of gratitude for god being such a nice guy to the early Jews. He saw some people in a bad situation, and decided to help them get out from underneath it; how cool is that? It's a far cry from the same god that commands the killing of babies later on.

Sadly, the statement can't be held as a truth. Israeli archeologists have not only failed to confirm the exodus, but they say it's highly unlikely such a thing ever happened. This leaves us to disregard the credibility of the claim if we're honest; you can only accept this claim as an article of faith or wish thinking. I'd say, since you're wishing, why not cut to the chase and wish that people wouldn't have to be slaves in the first place?

God doesn't seem to show an aversion to slavery as a rule. He seems fine with it. Not only does he allow it, he endorses it; and so does jesus. Fact is, the old and new testament are totally fine with owning other human beings, they even give you tips on doing it; say goodbye to the claimed moral high ground.

Lastly, is this really the first thing we should know? Is this really the best choice for the first commandment? A sort of "I saved your asses and therefore you owe me" approach? A clear attempt to make you a surf; to get you in the pockets of the lord, so you have to obey. I call shenanigans; how about you use your magic powers to inspire men to not own other men? Why choose to free only this one group? God, you're kind of a dick, don't all people deserve to be free? Lowly humans have began to rise to this level of morality, what's your excuse? I thought you were a sort of "high-water mark" for us to strive to achieve? It seems that in the very first round we've found a moral deficiency in god; let's see if he can recover as we sort through the list!

Question...

What seems to be the more immoral act:

Teaching children that they can cast responsibility for their actions onto another,

Or

Teaching children that by uttering simple words one can be forgiven of the most heinous acts -- repeatedly.

For me, this question is too close to call. Both are terrible teachings, and not deserving of one moment of consideration when forming morality lessons. I was taught to accept responsibility for my actions, good or bad. I was also raised to understand that forgiveness cannot come from an unrelated third party; forgiveness must come from the party directly affected. I was taught these values in a very secular fashion; I was introduced to a religion, but the structure and enforcement of morals did not follow the religious guidelines.

I try to think of a situation, outside of organized religion, where a parent would be right in teaching their young these precepts; I haven't found one yet.

All bark, no bite.

I have heard it said that religion can impair the thought process, but every now and again, a real standout example floats to the surface of Lake Fallacious. This time, some clown over at "atheist central" has managed to provide some pretty good chuckles.

Sauce: http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art14.shtml

Ok, let's go.

"An atheist is someone who believes that nothing created everything.”

First, Atheism does not define one's views about the beginnings of space and time; it is only the rejection of supernatural claims, in this case the rejection of your claim that "magic man done it". Theists often use some twisting logic and spoonfuls of stupid to assert that Atheists believe X or Y, and normally they are really silly sounding things. Secondly, even if you managed to find an Atheist or two that did believe the nonsense you claim they do, it does not follow that all Atheists do. This joker managed to pack two facepalms into one sentence -- straw-man and composition fallacies.

"... So he defaults to the predictable 'Well, who made God then?' "

He is using his brain. If someone asks me how my car came into existence, and I reply with "I picked it up at the auto dealer." Have I answered the question? No, of course not – we have to deal with the next logical question: "where did the dealer get it?". Stopping the line of investigation at the dealer, or god, would be silly – you've solved nothing. Of course this kind of thinking would seem odd to a mind poisoned by religion, and so you attempt to downplay his response, and only make yourself look daft. Chalk up another facepalm for failure to seek causality.

"... but he somehow knows that the Creator wasn’t a “who.” How does he know that?""

PZ is pointing out that there is no empirical evidence to conclude that the universe was created by a who, and he's right. A buybull doesn't count as evidence for anything – aside from the believers own credulity. More importantly, PZ is not the party with the burden of proof, as he has made no assertion that requires it; he has merely called out someone else who has claimed something very specific – that the universe was created, and this clown claims to know by whom. You can't prove a negative, therefore it is not PZ's duty to dispel every claim made by retarded people, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim. I've noticed this kind of attempted deflection before, and I'm sure to see it more; though sometimes I wonder if it is purposeful, or if the jabbering idiot is so far out that he doesn't realize he is being illogical.

For all his puffing and posturing he demonstrated he is only full of fallacious hot air. A person like this NEEDS religion.

Attack on science

Ever seen the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

Good, don't.

It is fabrication as only the religious can deliver. The premise is that we should be teaching alternative theories to evolution in our public schools, and we should stop bullying a minority of people that want to see other things being taught. I always get a kick out of Christians that claim persecution, it is just amazing to hear people make idiots of themselves. I'm all for alternative theories, but they have to be, you know, real theories.

I won't go into all the flaws with the movie, I'll just call out a few. First, teaching "intelligent design" in public schools is flat out unconstitutional. Period. The ID folks were thrown out of court, and the classroom, in Kitzmiller vs Dover. Their "new idea" or "alternative theory" of ID is nothing more than creationism repackaged; pseudoscience at best, illegal at least. Science does not accept "magic man done it" as an explanation, it treats it the same as we all should -- with dismissal. As the judge of the case summarized: ID is religion, and religion has not place in public classrooms. No matter how much you lie and break the law in attempts to include it.

Secondly, I oppose the way the ID folks are running their shop. If you want to change science, you have to do it like everyone else; you start in the lab, working within the realm of natural science. You don't start by adding wish based thinking to high school textbooks. Aside from being morally bankrupt, it is just not how science works. I know that the religious feel quite a lot of entitlement, but you have to play by the same rules as everyone else, if you don't, you have zero right to complain about consequences -- you don't get special treatment just because you're mentally handicapped. Theories are developed and tested in labs within the bounds of the scientific method; not involving delusional claims spawned from a church. Keep your religion to yourself, and out of science, thanks.

Third, I have to call shenanigans on the parallels drawn from evolution and Nazism. This is enough to make a cat laugh. It is nothing more than another attempt to throw mud while lacking an intellectual leg to stand on. What the fascists did in Nazi Germany, and what we are teaching in schools today, are two extremely different things. One demonstrates how nature has shaped our form over many years, the other shows how human can tamper with nature and change the outcome. Basically, one is nature driven, the other is human editing of the natural process to get unnatural results. To compare evolution with eugenics is to admit you are cracked, irrational, and willing to lie. Another baseless smear, a throw away line; no intelligence allowed indeed!

Also, like other documentaries, the producers and staff lied and misled to get material that suited their ideological purposes. In the same fashion as Michael Moore and Bill Maher, they are not interested in showing the clash of ideas, they are only interested in gathering ammunition for their point of view, and they are willing to go to immoral lengths to get it. People like PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins, that appeared in the film, were tricked into appearing in the first place; then later escorted from a screening of the film! Yeah, they were tricked into appearing in the documentary, then booted from the showing of the movie. How is that for expelled? What happened to that open and honest philosophy that they won't stop talking about in the movie? It must be reserved strictly for those sharing the expressed view. Hypocrisy much guys? It further demonstrates the christian line of thinking -- our agenda above all other factors. Morals, laws, decency, all that stuff is forgotten in pursuit of their goals, and the ends will justify the means.

All in all, another fine piece of work from the crippled brains of the religious: False assertions about the reasons for people being fired, reframing of an issue to try to make it look legal, double standards and hypocrisy, dismissal of reality and facts, guilt by association fallacy (among others), lies and mischaracterizations about people and issues, all laced with a tone of imagined persecution and pleading to pity and emotions as well as a strong dose of do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do mentality. I'm sure it's a hit among some people lacking a pulse, for those of us with both feet planted on earth, it's worthy to watched once at best, then thrown directly into the trash -- or filed under "garbage" with the rest of the Discovery Institute's nonsense.

More Freshwater...

I can't believe this, Christian idiocy and dishonesty just keeps on rolling! John Freshwater's defense called a witness named Dave Daubenmire to testify; Brother Daubenmire was previously sued for not being able to separate his religious views and his job responsibilities (much like Freshwater), though he was cleared of "most" of the charges.

As if that isn't bad enough, check out what Daubenmire has to say about the case:

“The foundation of our country is Christian,” Daubenmire said. “It is a religion, but atheism is a religion and secular humanism is a religion and they are taught in school.”

Source: http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/09/10/29/daubenmire-testifies-at-freshwater-hearing

What planet does this man live on? I won't waste time debunking his false claim about the foundation of our nation, I will just move onto the parts that makes me want to mail him a dictionary and a new brain -- evidently his don't work.

Atheism is not a religion. At all. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It can't be a religion, it lacks the critical elements: Gods, the supernatural, faith, and beliefs. Atheism is simply a response to someone's claims about Gods, or the supernatural. Atheism is about as much a religion as Daubenmire is honest.

Same goes for Secular Humanism, it's not anything close to a religion (again lacking the criteria). Furthermore, one can simply Google the terms and read for themselves how incredibly wrong Daubenmire is. Once again, the faithful have demonstrated to us all that reality and religion are incompatible. They really make this too easy at times; they build their own cases against themselves.

This caliber of propaganda is truly outstanding, I would rank this kind of lying in the same echelon as Joseph Goebbels' work. It seems that Daubenmire and the former Nazi official have more than politicized lying in common; they share the same religion too.