Assaulting Science-Islam's Claim: "Science Alone Is Not Enough for Humanity"

This article I am referencing can be found at Science-Islam

Mehdi Golshani [MG] claims that Science is not enough for humanity, we need religion (Islam).

This is based on 5 points which he laid out nicely so that I may deal with each in turn.  Thank you!
His points will be highlighted in blue

1) Science and technology have been used for the destruction of our fellow human beings and the pollution of our environment, and a large number of scientists have been working in military research establishments producing means of mass destruction, and unfortunately the scientific community has played a passive role in this regard.

   Well crap - political and religious affiliations and greed have forced us to use science and technology to harm other people/environments?  How is he defining science?  Science has really been in existence so long as man has possessed creativity.  We owe our houses and our clothing to scientific progress.  Surely MG enjoys being clothed.  Science can be used both constructively and destructively, but we need to advance our scientific understanding if we ever want to live in harmony with nature.  We must conduct studies and develop technology to know how to and to be able to interact properly with nature.  Good technology can be used to 'heal' nature and to reduce our impact on the earth.  Before modern technologies mankind still tore up the earth, made land infertile, and altered ecosystems.  Our scientific understanding has taught us how to treat the earth better.  For example we could farm land and then when the fields become depleted of nutrients clear more land and more land and keep moving.  People used to do this.  But we have learned about crop rotation and can figure out what crops to grow and when to keep the soil nutrients balance so that only one plot of land is used.  Genius!

Unfortunately military organizations do employ people to conduct research.  Is this 'sciences' fault?  Do religious people not believe in warfare?  Their holy books are filled with war and violence, so that can't be correct.  On its own pure science is not a weapon, different divisions must be in place for science to be used improperly.  Often the division are political, economic, or even RELIGIOUS.  No man made weapon has ever slaughtered more living creatures than did God when he flooded the earth - and no technology has ever been used to target only babies and slaughter them by the thousand as did God when he smote the first born of every Egyptian.  Not that I believe those things ever happened (they are not documented by any culture outside of the bible), but religious people believe they have occurred.  A true scientist performs research out of curiosity - it takes someone else to twist his work into a monstrosity.  Pure science operates outside of political and religious bodies - just look at all the global experiments in modern physics, for example the LHC brings together people worldwide to learn together - peacefully.

Science provides a way for us to help the earth and to live better - it is up to us as a race to choose how to use it. 

2) The goal of scientific activity has changed. Before the dawn of modern science, there were two main goals for the pursuit of scientific knowledge:

   For some people, scientific activity satisfied their sense of curiosity about nature and its mysteries and beauties.

   Another old popular view about the goal of scientific enterprise is the outlook of the monotheistic religions towards nature. Here, scientific activity is for the sake of understanding God’s Handiwork in nature and to make care of essential needs of human individuals and human societies.

During the twentieth century a third attitude toward science became prevalent: seeking science for its practical or material benefits. This view has become dominant among many of the contemporary governments of the world.

Stop. MG is clearly no scientist.  I been involved in scientific research at national laboratories, I have conducted research on the LHC with an international group of scientists.  Why do they work all day, go home, keep working, and get underpaid for their level of education and incredibly difficult work?  Because they are curious and love knowledge - they thirst to understand nature.  The first goal of scientific knowledge is still very much THE goal.

I am not convinced that the second goal MG lists was ever a goal of science.  To understand God's handiwork?  I guess the take care of humans part is a goal of science.  Hence modern medicine, even crop rotation aids humanity.  A lot of modern science is devoted to energy research so that we may secure a clean energy to aid future generations.  I don't understand how anyone could think scientific activity is no longer used to benefit humanity.  MG's idea that only monotheistic religions employed science is naive.  The Chinese were in no way monotheistic and they made the first great scientific advancements.  Many polytheistic cultures have used science (Think Greek).  Clearly his Islamic history lesson was distorted;  he is assuming that  understanding God's handiwork is different than a curiosity to understand nature (are the two not the same thing for a religious scientist?).  This portion of the second goal is then the same as the first goal.

MG's qualm about modern science is that it is used for practical or material benefits.  The scientist, that is, the researcher, is still conducting research because of his curiosity.  Only after the science is developed can the material products be made.  The material products are typically produced by engineers and they are made because of their benefits (one of which may be happiness).  Practical benefits are not a poor goal to work towards.  Because developing a cure for cancer is a practical benefit is MG suggesting that doing research towards such an end is wrong?  Many scientists do not even feel the field of medicine is a science however, in which case science is still typically a pursuit of knowledge because of curiosity.  Governments may invest in developing a certain item, be it weapons or clean energy, but this practical approach is not the scientists fault and many of the practical uses are beneficial.  Weapons will be developed because of outside pressures or backwards individuals - just as religious extremists will do extreme things, humans are not perfect.

3) Before the development of modern science, scientists had a more comprehensive outlook towards the study of nature and were after giving a unified picture of the world. All parts of science had to be accommodated within their holistic world view. We can see this attitude among all of the eminent Muslim scientists of the Islamic civilization and among the pioneers of modern science ( Galileo, Kepler , Newton, Boyle,…).

In our time, however, scientists have become specialists who are mostly concerned with their own specialty rather than being after a holistic view of nature.

One reason for the development of this attitude has been the absence of philosophical concern among scientists and the prevalence of an instrumentalist attitude among scientists ,being content with empirically adequate theories. The existence of some conceptual problems in some empirically successful theories, like quantum theory , has intensified this outlook.

First off - Modern Science -> arbitrary cut off point.  At what point does science become modern?
Anyway, is seems that scientists no longer are after giving a unified picture of the world, nope science does not need to holistic, or relate to the whole.  WHAT!? All the different areas of active science research are after the same overarching goal, a complete picture of nature/the universe! Does chemistry relate to physics and do both relate to biology?  Why yes.  All parts are necessary and all scientists care about the whole.

This poor man, MG, is upset because "modern science" requires so much education that scientists must specialize.  By the time graduate school is done with we are some where around 25 years old at least!  Science has progressed so far that there is a lot to learn, of course scientists specialize.  That does not mean that they are not longer working on pieces of the same whole.  That means that lay people may not understand intricate contemporary theories and therefore make crude assumptions, like MG's assumption that scientists have no philosophical concern.  Almost every lab has a research department and a theory department.  Theorists love to theorize, that is all they do!  They can do so without needing empirical evidence.  Philosophers interact with the scientific field too.  I suspect that MG idolizes scientists of the past because they did not have to specialize as much.  Science was not as advanced.  However, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all specialized to an extent - for none were biologists!  All of them also used empirical evidence when it was available.  Theories often start without evidence, they were philosophical then and they are philosophical now.   This third point was absurd, someone needs to brush up on his philosophy of science*.

4) Modern science confines itself to the material real, and confers reality only to those things that can be rooted in sense data. 

Empirical verification is the court of ultimate appeal. Therefore, spiritual realities are considered either as unreal or reducible to physics. This has led to the negligence of God and the spiritual dimension of humankind and the separate development of science and culture, and it has led to the confinement of human beings to the material realm, with no higher aspiration than fulfilling their material needs.

What is this point addressing? Science is not enough for humanity was his thesis.  Science considers spiritual reality unreal.  Therefore, science is not enough?  So here MG is making the unmentioned and unwarranted assumption that either spiritual realities are real and/or humans have spiritual needs that need fulfilled.  This no longer even an attack on science but rather a bold assertion.  If humans cannot live happily without a sense of spirituality, than we should not find many atheists and certainly not any happy ones.  But many philosophers and scientists (...and probably other people too) are atheists and are content.

Empirical verification is our only means of verification.  As flawed as our senses are, we must still employ them.  We just cannot over rule reason with sensory data and should not be surprised when theories or past observations are shown to be wrong or misleading.  For example when we drop a rock we see it fall straight, it land directly beneath the point of release.  If the earth was rotating the rock should fall parabolically and land elsewhere, for the earth will have moved during flight.  Our senses tell us the rock fall straight, because we share the rotational motion with the rock therefore, we cannot observe it.  The rock really is falling parabolically, just not within our reference frame.  Our senses can easily be wrong.  Just because science neglects God or reduces his impact on the world/evidence to scientific standard does not at all imply that science is not enough.

5) It is a commonly held view in the scientific circles that science and ethics are two independent spheres of human concern.

...Depending on who you ask. If you ask a physicist what his study of super conductors says about ethics or whether he knows of physics research that makes a statement of ethics he would probably be confused and reply that ethics is not related to his study of inanimate material.  If you ask a biologist and/or a neuroscience researcher if there research is related to or makes statements about ethics they may tell you that it does.  The biological correlates of human ethics and behavior are becoming increasingly studied.  Just reading "Why We Feel: The Science of Human Emotions" by Victor S. Johnston, or Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values" will open your eyes to this growing field of research.

Atheists can be moral, religious people can use ethics to decide which parts of their holy books to ignore (typically the parts about killing people).  Ethics seem to come from an outside source.  The Greeks did not need gods to determine ethics.  Plato and Aristotle wrote brilliantly without the God of western religions.  This 5th point is an assumption.  An assumption that is becoming increasingly false.

If MG wishes to claim that Science is not enough for humanity than he must show what it is missing.  He is claiming we need God.  Science does not provide God.  Therefore, Science is not enough.  Well he must first demonstrate that we need God.  So far as I am concerned his argument was weak.

In his conclusion he states, "I don’t think that the commitment of Muslim scientists to the Islamic worldview would dissuade them from being equal partners in the world scientific community. The history of the glorious Islamic civilization is a good witness to this claim."  Is he talking about how the Islamic civilizations begun developing slower than the rest of the world?  The Islamic culture stagnated after the crusades both ethically and scientifically.  Where western civilization has yet to pervade the Islamic world they still stone people to death and fail to properly employ science.  I do not know what glorious civilization he is speaking of.  The most glorious portions of the Islamic community are those where the governments have at least partially shaken off the shackles of religious doctrine.


*The philosophy of science may be discussed in a later entry.

God's Omniscience and Free Will

Do we have free will? Do I have any choices in life? Am I writing this because I want to, or because god is forcing me to do it? Most of us would like to think we have a choice. Most of us believe in "free will" where we actually effectively choose our fate.



We must be careful where we place our beliefs. Is god omniscient? If he is truly the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creator god, he must be omniscient. Omniscient meaning all knowing. By all, I mean god must know what is, what has, and what has not yet come for all eternity (past, present, and future). If that is the case, god knows what you will do before you do it. Since one cannot contradict god, you must choose as god has determined you will choose. Then, do you have free will?



Let us look at it from another perspective. You have the choice to continue reading this passage, or to stop right now and do an infinite end of other possibilities. For the sake of argument, we will leave it to either keep reading, or not. You have that choice, that fork in the road right now before you. If you are still reading, you have chosen as such. In the same instance of time, god knew you would choose as you did. God knew you would keep reading, and he has known this forever if he is a truly omniscient being. In that context, the fork you believe you are seeing is no fork at all. You cannot choose otherwise, or you would be defying god's omniscience. To do that, would deny god's existence.

I will end now, but I will most likely resume this post at a later time.

Godlessness

We can all agree that Greek, Roman, and other ancient extinct gods are nothing more than a humorous story that we point and laugh at. How so many people could believe that stars and planets were actually gods, and could dictate what happened on Earth. Since then, the term "Greek Theology" has been changed to "Greek Mythology", for it has been proven and is widely believed that no such gods exist. Both the Greeks and Romans had different names for their gods, and later the Romans took some of the Greek gods since they were better; they were all grouped and denied. A series of gods who were believed in by most religions at the time, were abandoned.

Afterward, another series of religions were created. They each had their own belief's on how the world worked, but all agreed that they came of one central god (again, with different names). These, however had their own books to spread the religion. Since my focus is on Christianity, I'll confine my story toward it.

The Christian god was first noted in the Book of Genesis, which is "the direct word of god" though written by man. Basically, some guy ran out and said, "Everyone listen! God has come to me in a vision, and told me to write this book. You too can have a copy for only $19.95 plus shipping and handling!" Okay, so the infomercial part probably didn't happen. Anyway, god's words were now on paper for all to learn. Fast forward a few years to "the virgin Mary", a woman who told a great story about how "an angel came from heaven, and told me I was to bear god's child" rather than confessing she had pre-marital sex. Thus, Jesus was born "of a virgin". After spending 20 some odd years of his mother telling him he was the son of god, Jesus believes so. One of my favorite stories is of Jesus restoring sight to a blind man.

Jesus walks up to an old beggar sitting by the street. He kneels down next to the man, and spits into some dirt, creating mud. He then smears the mud in the beggars eyes and the old man screams, "I'M BLIND! PLEASE HELP ME!" Jesus then tells the man to wash the mud from his eyes with water from a nearby stream. The man returns and exclaims, "You have cured me of blindness. You must be the son of god."

Another good one is when Jesus walks across water. I walk across water all the time. It's called a bridge. If that isn't good enough for you, I still walk on water all the time. Ever heard of ice? That's water buddy. For real, I'm not lying. I'll bet as Jesus walks across the ice, some fat guy broke the ice and fell in. Then it's a miracle. There are plenty of other "miracles of god" that are just as amusing, but I'm not going to get in to all of them.

Here's another thing I don't understand. God creates the world, universe, everything in it, including humans and all that in 7 days. If Adam and Eve are around then, when did the dinosaurs exist for centuries, and were after wiped out. All that came before Adam and Eve were around. Aside from that, if Adam and Eve were here on earth, knew god existed, why did they not tell all 600 or so kids they supposedly had to believe in him? There were the two of them who knew and conversed with god himself, and yet failed to convince their children to pass down that knowledge from generation to generation. After so many years there were hundreds of gods, from many different religions, when all their ancestors going back far enough were the direct creation of the one, Christian god.

Throughout history people have been brainwashed to the point that they have nothing but blind faith. At no point in their life do they even question anything about religion. I was born and raised by a catholic family. I was forced to attend church every sunday until I entered college. I am even friends with the priest. I've tried to figure out how all these people have been caught by what I believe is a tragic lie. Then it hit me. Like almost all catholics, they were born and raised into it. Forced to go to church, to got to church school, where they worked their way from baptism to confirmation. The catholic church has a perfect design to capture believers for many years to come. They mold children's minds, and teach them not to question, and not to actually think about what is said and what is happening. Better yet, the parents reinforce those ideals put forward by the church because they were brainwashed as children too. My mother and sister are perfect examples of this. My mother was raised much the same as I have been. Church was a commitment from birth, including church school as a child. In all her life, she has never questioned her faith. No matter what argument is put forth, no matter what is said, there is no thought. She ignores the question, and keeps on believing. Now, my sister went through the same thing. She has been going to church and church school from baptism to confirmation. She has since passed confirmation, and has no doubt in the existence of god. She is a strong believer in the catholic religion, and yet she knows almost nothing about the catholic religion. She is completely oblivious to any real text from the bible, and has no idea what I'm talking about when I argue against the existence of god.

There's a guy I used to work with, his name is Todd. Todd is another believer in god, however he only had one argument for the existence of god. His only line was "the bible says there will never be peace in the middle east. The proof is in the pudding!" Well, Todd, you're fucking retarded. because the real question is, will there ever truly be peace in the world at any point? The closest thing to true peace is Canada. They never get into any kind of international trouble, and the only thing keeping it from being labeled a truly peaceful place is the everyday crime. Todd says "there is peace right here in the U.S." No, actually the U.S. is in two wars right now. Just because the war isn't on American soil doesn't mean we are at peace. Even without the wars, there are thousands of murders, rapes, and robberies taking place daily. I wouldn't call that a peaceful nation. The day that nobody in the world is harmed in any way by another person is the day we have true peace. sadly, that day will never come.

Yet another thing; if god is up there, and has been forever, why doesn't he do something? If he is the omnipotent god he is believed to be, then why doesn't he show it? People pray for everything, but most of the time their prayers aren't answered. If this omnipotent god is up there, why does he kill so many innocent people? Natural disasters kill thousands, and he is the one who makes it happen. A big story breaks out, buried under the rubble people found a child alive after 4 days. A hundred thousand died, but that one is god's miracle. People die horrible deaths from diseases. God created those too. God created cancer, an incurable disease that kills almost everyone it touches, from the wicked to the kindest gentlest person you have ever met. God created cancer, and he gave it to millions of people. My grandmother died of cancer, and a good friends mother is currently battling cancer. She is one of the nicest people you have ever met, and she deserves to die of cancer? The answer is no. But hey, god's got a plan right? Just like the terrific planning he has for stillborn children. After a couple has a stillborn child they say "god planned on us getting through this" or "god didn't want to give her up yet, so he called her back." Wow. God had a plan for you to get over the stillborn child, but he had a terrible plan for that child. What is wrong with this picture? Yea sorry kid, you won't make it out of the womb alive. Too bad! There is a family that had a stillborn child, and it strengthened their faith in god. How does that make sense? Yea, sorry about giving you false hope in having a child, she won't live to see you. I personally was born 6 1/2 weeks early, and was taken straight to an incubator. I was given a 50/50 shot at life. My parents faith was strengthened when I came through alive. I wonder, had I died would they feel the same way?

I was forced to go to church weekly by my mom, in hopes that one day I would "come back" to god and believe whole hearted. listen, the only way I will ever believe god exists would be if god himself came down from heaven, walked across a lake that wasn't frozen, and gave me a swift kick in the balls. Then yell, "I EXIST ASSHOLE!" turn around, walk back across that lake, and then fly back up to heaven. Then, once I have made sure it wasn't some Hollywood scam, I might believe in god. Aside from that, it won't happen until I die and see him for myself. Just to let you all know, I'm faithful that neither will happen.

Now, I know this hasn't convinced all of you to become atheist, but I do hope that you now question your faith. I would rather have you think and believe than thoughtlessly submit to either belief or atheism.

Big Fish and Life Lessons

Recently, I have seen a lot of talk about how atheists respond to death, how they grieve/cope, and the advantages of religious beliefs. Many people, not myself, think that religion gives people any easy way to cope with the loss of loved ones. Religions typically prescribe the conditions of an afterlife and everyone assumes that their loved ones end up in the "good" portion of the afterlife. "Knowing" that the deceased have gone to "a better place" gives religious people solace - supposedly. I think most atheists overrate how placated believers are by the existence of a pleasant afterlife. We all still feel a vast sense of loss and thinking that your loved one is in a better place does not yield any less tearful nights (In my opinion). The sense of loss is still there, and nothing but time really closes the pit. If an afterlife does exist, then most people end up in the "bad" portion - irregardless of anyone's thoughts.

Big Fish, the movie, actually lays out an incredible concept: you are a sum of your stories. Just as the father lived on, so too to each of us go on to an afterlife consisting of the legacy we left behind, stories, memories, physical objects, anything. We live far past our life-spans in the "collective consciousness" of mankind. When an atheist losses a loved one we still need to grieve, but no more than our religious brethren. We posses the memories and the stories of those who passed. Simply remembering or sharing them brings the deceased to life and we can learn (over much time) to appreciate the joy they gave us and come to terms with the fact that they left their mark - their story is written, they have become the big fish. They will no longer grow and over time their stream will dwindle, but there is no reason to be more hurt by a loss than a religious person would be.

Of course if there was an afterlife that was paradise everyone would be ecstatic, we'd cherish death. However there is no good evidence for one and almost everyone is skeptical, otherwise we would happily embrace death and celebrate the passing of loved ones (some eccentric people do).

I may expand this later.

Leaving Jesusland

My last quick post.

NOFX hit home with their 2006 song "Leaving Jesusland", which luckily you can listen to below!
The lyrics are located immediately below that.  The current Mosque outrages across America really highlight the homogenized close minded country that Jesusland is creating.  The John Stewart post and this post go hand-in-hand.  



Lyrics:

We call the heartland not very smartland, IQ's are very low but threat levels are high
They got a mandate, they don't want man-dates, they got so many hates and people to despise

In the dust bowl, cerebral black hole, the average weight is well over 200 pounds
I hate to generalize, but have you seen the thighs, most haven't seen their genitalia in a while

Maybe that's why they're so pissed at us
They're all jealous we're having better sex

Queers, transgends, and lesbians, vegans and vegetarians
All you brownish red and yellow ones come out and join us on the coast

No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt
They've blown out the fire under the melting pot, the red blood of America is starting to clot
No compromise, no sight thru others' eyes, they're just flies spreading pieces of shit
You gotta emigrate, stop living in hate, what makes this country great is dwelling on either side

They don't want visitors in Jesusland
They want life bland and canned in the fatherland

We want people with college degrees, drug use experience and STD's
People with open-minded philosophies, come hug California trees
Cultural revolution now, neo-conservatives run outta town
We're gonna burn Orange County down,
And then we're off to Riverside, Bakersfield and Fresno too, then we're comin' after you

The fear stricken, born again Christian, they got a vision a homogenized state
Texas textbooks, Bibles, and prayer books,
They want them memorized, but don't want you to think

They don't want visitors in Jesusland
They want life bland and canned in the fatherland

Punk Rockers and emo kids, people doin' things the church forbids
Buddhists, agnostics, and atheists we're moving out of jesusland
Art students and thespians, (excluding country) all the musicians
We want all hookers and comedians, nihilists are welcome too

No longer svelte, they gotta punch new holes in the Bible belt

John Stewart - I Worship You

I will be short on time/energy for these next two posts, so both are going to be incredibly simple.
Hooray for me.

I have been a fan of John Stewart for quite some time.  He may be on comedy central but he criticizes important parts of American society and shares his views (in a comical manor).  John Stewart is usually brilliant and I wish more people would take watch/listen to him instead of the awful real news they feed off of.

Watch this brilliant clip where John addresses the 'Mosque at ground zero' and elsewhere in America for that matter.
Let me know what you think.

www.thedailyshow.com

The Soul Problem

Do you believe humans have souls?
Have you ever seriously considered the ramifications of such a belief?

For starters I would assume:

• Everyone has one unique soul
• Your soul can and does interact with your body
• Your soul is within you from the time you are a zygote

I assume the first point is the most readily accepted by the religious community.  The second point is vital because otherwise your soul does nothing; it just is.  A soul that simply exists and never interacts is a useless entity containing no information about your personal self that many people attribute to souls: personality, morality, emotional response.  The third point is important to what I will be saying, here it is interesting to note that religious people are unclear on when the soul enters the human body.  Since many people oppose abortion because it is taking a life and the fetus 'has a soul' I decided that the zygote stage was a good time to obtain your soul.

Soul Arithmetic
1 + 1 = 1     -------     The case of the chimera and the vanishing twin: 
  Sometimes two zygotes merge and become one, a chimera, or one fetus is absorbed by the other or by the mother, the vanishing twin.  In both of these situations it seems two souls are moving into one body.  Can one person obtain two souls?  Or does one soul disappear to go to limbo or heaven or hell?  That soul didn't get to experience anything and clearly should have never been created; unless it fuses with the other zygote/fetus' soul.  Perhaps the fetuses do not yet have souls, maybe a soul is endowed at birth - this is the only easy remedy to this crazy soul addition.
 
1 + 0 = 2     -------     The case of the monozygotic twin:
  Monozygotic, identical, twins emerge from one single zygote.  The zygote splits in two - does one soul become two, are they each one half? Maybe a new soul is suddenly conjured up, but one of them received a soul first.  Why wouldn't god simply avoid the whole awkward situation and avoid creating identical twins?  Maybe souls are not placed into zygotes, but fetuses can be re-absorbed.  Man, soul addition just makes no sense!

If souls are not obtained until the fetal stage, then they follow a funny rule of waiting until a stage arbitrarily defined by man and abortion is fine until the fetal stage.  If souls are absent until birth, then abortion at any stage should be acceptable, I mean the developing human has no soul!

Soul Meets Body
 How does your soul interact with your body?
Typically we assume the interaction point is within the brain - I mean a soul might interact with your hand, but to what end?  (It would certainly be amusing to coin the term 'soul-job',  Are you looking at porn?  Nah, just getting a little soul-job!).
Back to the issue at hand (no pun intended) - the soul must change something in the body to interact or there is no interaction.  For you soul to guide you, either in action or in thought, then it must cause some neural movement.  No conscious/subconscious action takes place without brain activity.  For the soul to interact, something material must be influenced by something spiritual.  The spirit must supply energy to move a material part (even if it is only some neurons).  In doing so the soul is adding energy to the physical universe.  The most basic principal of physics, conservation of energy, has just been violated.  Over time and over the entirety of the human race this soul/body interaction would lead to a lot of additionally supplied energy.  I side with physics on this one - sorry.

Maybe the soul doesn't do anything?  Well congratulations, you have a useless soul.  It's ok though, you probably don't have a soul.  If the soul was the center of personality, morality, emotional response, of all that makes you - you, then we would expect that brain damage would not significantly alter all of those areas.  However, brain damage can significantly alter all of them, it can make you think you are an entirely different person with a different background who will sincerely have completely different emotional responses.  It would seem that such a person's soul has even become drastically confused/damaged.

I'm sorry (not really) but there is just no solid foundation for the naive belief in a soul.  Besides, when you talk about your soul - you sound dumb.

Everything Begins with Banging

Animals, plants, the universe - in a way they all start with banging.
I am only going to talk about the universe for the time being. The universe is thought to have begun with the big bang. I for one believe that most aspects of the inflationary big bang model are correct. However, our public school system does a piss poor job of explaining it and I feel the need to explicate the subject.

The Inflationary Big Bang Model:

About 15 Billion years ago the Universe was extremely condensed with all mass and energy compressed to some type of singularity. The Big Bang is thought to have been an expanding singularity or it could have been a planer event like an expanding horizon. We cannot possibly observe the state of the universe before the big bang. We can view light far enough away to see about 13.5 Billion years into the past.

We know the universe is expanding, this can easily be tested. Extrapolating backwards from an expanding universe gives us the infinitely condensed start of the universe. The big bang started - possibly due to an instability in the Higgs Field (See Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos"). When the big bang started, the universe was homogeneous. It was a collection of high energy and high temperature exotic particles. The universe rapidly cooled and hydrogen could form. Hydrogen was the only element until the universe cooled further and nuclei could form (this took about 3 minutes). There were small local inhomogeneities which had a slight gravitational pull and started developing the clumpy universe that slowly evolved toward the universe we have today.

There was no space for the universe to expand into, the expanding universe is the space. The inflationary model says that the universe expanded rapidly, all distances increased by a factor of over ten to the ten million! The rapid inflation helped spread energy differences and make the universe more homogeneous overall. It also lowered the energy density of space so high energy particles like gravitons could no longer form. Inflation also gives an explanation for the small inhomogeneities that lead the the first clumping of the universe. Quantum uncertainty principles dictate that there will be small fluctuations in say energy or position. The incredibly rapid inflation essentially stretched the quantum fluctuations to create small inblances in the uniform universe where gas begun to clump.

The clumping gases eventually lead to stars and galaxies etc etc.

Inflation is perhaps the most important part of the big bang and it is not mentioned in school. If you absolutely need a reason for everything and ascribe god to anything science has not yet explained, then all god or gods are needed for is perhaps setting off the big bang and maybe (doubtful) starting life. A god that has only done that is very hands off and does not fit the description of any god(s) praised by humans.

People ask, "what was here before the big bang?" This question is nonsensical as the big bang created our time. Before the big bang there was not time; time's arrow started pointing forward from the big bang. Sorry.

Nature: The Goddess

Sometimes you witness something so profound you stop and gaze in awe.

Nature constantly astounds me - I revel in her beauty.

What is even more incredible is that such beauty arose without a creator. Such beauty is inherently natural, it is a property of matter to form beauty.

Or maybe as a creature constructed from matter and part of nature I am bound to be drawn to her. Anyway, here is some porn for your natural self:

 

Fun Fact: Contradictions

     According to the Skeptics Annotated Bible website [See Links Page] the Bible contains 456 contradictions within its text.  These are not counting any contradictions that the bible may have with historical texts or reality in general (for example the value of pi).  Many contradictions are little things, such as the number of sons Abraham had:

Hebrews 11:17

By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son.

Genesis 22:2

Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering.

Genesis 16:15

And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Genesis 21:2-3

For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac.

Genesis 25:1-2

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

Galatians 4:22

Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman.

 
     The Koran on the other hand contains 31 contradictions.

     The book of Mormon contains 3 contradictions.  However the book of Mormon is shorter and is also fairly new to the website.  It may not be done racking up contradictions.

     Seems as though the writers of the Bible didn't care to closely read the rest of the Bible.  Funny, I thought the writing of the Bible was guided by god?  Maybe he enjoys contradictions, like reasonable faith.  Did I just type that?

Curse of the Imaginary Friend

Many children playfully create imaginary friends, but these friends tend to only last a couple minutes. Many adults create a permanent imaginary friend, god. To an atheist our world seems stricken by a massive mental disorder in which people project their desires onto an abstract being in order to give their life guidance. Our species is so imaginative that people become bitterly afraid of the unknown and feel lost without a grand purpose. To quell their fear and assign purpose people create an imaginary friend, but at what cost?

Looking at history we can find instances in which religion/god(s) have both helped and harmed humanity. Perhaps religion has played a strong role in bringing people together to build civilizations. However, humans have progressed to the point where their imaginary friend(s) are no longer a necessary glue and are rapidly becoming burdens. How many people turn to a god because of their ineptitude in dealing with reality? How many people place a spiritual entity before their fellow man and their family? God is never seen he interacts mysteriously, mysterious in that we must first assume belief in him before being able to see his hand in the world. If we assume no god exists the world appears in perfect agreement with us. God functions in the same way as an imaginary friend or many scientific views, by changing the theoretical assumptions we completely alter the results.

If god(s) exist, why would they choose to remain so amorphous? If the god(s) honestly love humanity they could live amongst us or at least regularly appear to offer guidance. Humans would still have free will - god(s) would merely offer input on important topics, helping us provide food/shelter for all, avoid war, and combat disease. However, it seems that any god(s) is(are) not all powerful or intrigued by needless suffering. If we assume god is an imaginary friend he can only act through people. Delusional humans feel empowered by their projected friend and harm humanity by slowing important progress (medical, scientific, moral) or even reversing progress (banning gay marriage, overthrowing governments an enforcing inhuman policies leading to poor quality of life - as in Afghanistan).

When cured of the imaginary friend we can put humanity before spiritual entities, leading to an enriched quality of life. If god were real you would expect those of us who do not recognize him to suffer in some form. But without an imaginary friend we still have motivations, morality, love for one another, everything a religious individual has - except for valuing faith over reason. Without a god we do not feel empty or lost, we do not need additional solace when we lose loved ones, we do not need a meaning for life. I would argue that my life has greatly improved since abandoning faith.

There are people who do good in the name of their imaginary friend. That good is coming from their own decisions and convictions. Without god they are still fully capable of doing the same good. Doctors Without Borders is a secular organization that gives medical aid to impoverished people in underdeveloped nations. God fearing people do the same, only they spend a lot of money on scriptures and a lot of time preaching. They go seeking to convert while healing and they may spread inaccurate information about STDs by not delivering honest information about condoms and slowing the spread of AIDS. Think about what god has done for you, think about how your god compares to the biblical god. Everyone forms a god that fits their life and who helps them in ways that they could have helped themselves (really you do help yourself). Why do you feel that someone with a different holy book and different god(s) is less correct? Do you not realize that they observe the same healing, the same amount of 'miracles' that your god provides?

Those of use without imaginary friends are frightened by the amount of you who do have them. Presidents, Generals, Senators, all these people have power and responsibility and yet many believe creationism over evolution and seek god's approval more than their constituents. How do we build a better tomorrow while clinging the the superstitions of 2,000 years ago?

The Search for God

I recently spent the day attending a massive concert based event, called The Warped Tour. The day was pretty normal for the event, but the thing that stuck in my head-and caused me to write this article-was a little insert by a vocalist between songs. He suggested we should constantly "...Search for god in our lives." According to him, we can and will find our own personal connection to god if we search long enough. I believe this idea is a pleasant fiction, as is religion itself.

It is easy to wish for something. The idea of having a greater being that is always smiling down on you, will always forgive you, and has given your life a meaningful purpose is great. Also, the thought that after you die in this life you will go on for eternity in total bliss is appealing to most. Those are great reasons to want to believe in a god, and religions give you a structured belief system to make all that wishing easier.

Problem? I'd say having to search for a connection to god is one if them. Besides blind faith in something drilled into your mind by both a church and your parents from the time you were born, or in a book written thousands of years ago (which i could go on about but that is for another post); you have to search your life for something that you do not wish to rationally explain via science to connect to god. Some may bring up "miracles," but that is large enough for another post as well.

Why do we have to search for god? Why doesn't he show himself, or make evident his existence? We are to believe he exists, based on hopes and dreams rather than actual evidence. What is the point of hiding his identity? Is this great being too shy, or too pompous to show himself to us? Why do people believe that god has given our life meaning beyond our comprehension? Why do we not accept the fact that when we die, it is over? Why must we create something to look forward to after death in order to be happy today in life?

In reality, any connection you may make with your god is a fallacy. You wish to believe there is a solid connection to your god so you have a greater meaning to your life. You want to find that connection so badly, that you are blinded to the truth and create the connection in your own fantasy.

Alms for the Poor

I recently visited St. Pats cathedral in NY and was struck by the hypocrisy of the church asking for money for the poor when the cathedral was incredibly opulent - everything seemed to be marble and gold. There was a huge (>10ft tall, ~3ft max radius) chandelier completely covered with gold. Now I have no faith that throwing money at the poor is much help, but if the church wishes to raise money maybe they should re-evaluate how much god enjoys luxuriant cathedrals.

I have always been aware that the church is a wealthy, greedy entity. Sometimes I am just astonished at how wealthy some cathedrals really are. Talk about the ultimate hypocrisy. If the churches could be more humble and merely the bare necessity of a structure for large congregations, then a vast wealth would be available for the poor. Unfortunately, businesses don't operate that way.

I think aiding the poor requires building infrastructure, strengthening economies, and providing better education - not simply throwing money at the poor. However, so long as humans can grasp the idea of ownership there will always be poor.

Anyway, here are some pictures are hypocritical christian institutions:
Quick question - do Muslim's raise money for the poor at mosques?

A Short Story Called Bullshit

Let me tell you a story:

      You get a phone call.  A man informs you that the government has deposited $5000 in your bank account.  He then informs you that you must put in 40 hours of work at a government facility because they paid you. 

How do you react? 

You ask why the government paid you and than man responds, "they are kind." You tell the man that you don't want to work at the government facility.  He then tells you that you will serve life in prison if you do not work.  You then ask the man to remove the money from your bank account.  He says that taking the money back is not an option.  You have only two choices, do a weeks worth of work or go to prison.  

 How do you feel?

This story is analogous to a tale called the bible. 

In the the bible a power-hungry god creates man.  This god, if he exists, created you.  Once you were created, god demanded that you praise him.  

How do you react?  

You ask god why he created you and he responds, "I am kind."  You inform god that you do not want to spend eternity praising him.  He then tells you that you will spend eternity in hell if you do not praise him.  You then ask god to un-create you.  He says being un-created is not an option; you have only two choices, praise god for eternity or go to hell.

How do you feel?

I feel pissed.  As humans we realize that it is wrong to force a 'gift' upon someone and then demand something in return.  Linkin Park summed it up, "The sun doesn't give light to the moon assuming that the moon is gonna owe it one - so find another place to feed your greed while I find a place to rest".  That is exactly my attitude towards god - piss off and feed your greed else where.  If god did exist, is he really the type of entity you wish to praise?  Do you really want to go to heaven only to spend eternity praising a pompous spirit with an inflated ego?  When measured by human standards, god is a jerk.  

Of course I am well aware - we can't impose human morality upon god because he is god.  Or maybe it is because Christians don't enjoy their god being a tool. 

Denny Burk, a Christian, wrote: 

God is love. Therefore He must exalt Himself so as to draw people into worship. This is not narcissistic because it is no vice for Him to exalt the beauty of His own perfections for His creatures’ enjoyment and blessing.

I totally forgot that god is love!  Sorry, I must have lost the loving somewhere along the story of the great flood, no wait - it must have been when I was reading about god killing the first born of each Egyptian - No! I know, I forgot that god was love while I was reading my old favorite, the bible, and these two girls got their father drunk so he would have sex with them and they could bear offspring!  Silly me.  It cannot be narcissistic for some being who was here before us to conveniently label himself as the definition of perfect and demand that we praise him for being the epitome of love.

Try finding god's love in a hospital room where his plan for a newborn was to strangle to death on its umbilical cord during delivery.  Think about all the Christian mothers who had stillborn babies.  God is love.

Re: Cordoba House / Park51

I looked into the Cordoba House - which may have been been renamed Park51 - and learned some more.

An article from the New York Daily News mentioned that the Cordoba House is a community center and also a prayer space.  Now I am typically not for building a prayer space as I am completely against praying in the first place.  However, as much as I wish religion to dissipate, being unreasonably tyrannical will not make it so.  I truly hope Cordoba House turns out as more of a community center than it does a prayer space.  Since the goal of the project is to build better relations between Islamic people and Western culture and to help Islamic people feel accepted - something they are not in many American's minds - I would except the community center to play a large role and that Christians and others could also pray. 

A meeting about the property where Cordoba House would be built got out of hand and ended with people revealing their strong feelings on the project (NY Daily News Article).

"People were murdered on 9/11 because the terrorists believed in the power of Islam," said Sierra Rose, 19, of Manhattan. "Anybody who is an American knows what caused those people to attack us on 9/11 was their religion," Rose added.

Why is this news story quoting a 19 year old girl?  Out of all the people with opinions on the topic the reporter picked a loud mouth 19 year old girl who should have been in 5th grade when 9/11 occurred.  Good job.  While this girls may be correct - the "terrorists" where followers of Islam - she is demonstrating the need for a community center aimed at showing not all Islamic people are crazy.  The director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, Daisy Khan, made clear that her organization responsible for the Cordoba House consisted of moderate Muslims who wished to show that the extremist ideology is not their way.  Khan also stated "For us it is a symbol..that will give voice to the silent majority of Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists. A center will show that Muslims will be part of rebuilding lower Manhattan" (Wiki).

I am not sure as to how "mosque-like" the center will be.  I do not think it matters, besides what kind of mosque has a pool?  This project is and will continue to bring out the bigotry of Americans who naively blame the entire Muslim community for 9/11.  They need to relax and be more tolerant even though I enjoy seeing Christians making themselves appear very unchristian. 

In the long run the project will either (1) allow expression for moderate Muslims, leading away from extremism which is always good.  To eliminate religion it needs to slowly be watered down.  Unlike many Christians, most Muslims seem to be intensely devoted to their faith and actually center their lives around it.  This project may help develop an Americanized watered down Islamic faith where the community no longer practices what they preach - Hallelujah!  The project may also (2) gather more Muslim people together and lead to a group of extremists Muslims who want to influence political decisions with their faith.  In this case the Muslim group will show Americans exactly what they were afraid of and bring down further intolerance for their faith.  Hopefully the political disputes that would break out would highlight the error of letting Christian faith sway our politics as well.  Seems like a win-win situation for me.  

Holy S**t: Terrifying Political Ad

Check out this lovely Republican political ad against building a mosque at 'ground zero'.
I am absolutely terrified by this video:



First the video claims that all the Muslims declared Jihad on us - freaking crazy!!

Then the video goes on about Muslims killing us and shows some awful clips of fighting.  My guess is some very christian people made this video.  The whole video is made as if we are in a situation where we have America vs. Every Muslim on Earth.  If we let them build their giant mosque at ground zero, then they have won! Oh no!

The republicans forgot to mention the part where the mosque isn't really a mosque and how by ground zero they actually meant not ground zero!  You see this building is being built a couple blocks away from the world trade center site and looks to be in the center of a block where it will not even be in view of the site (depending on its size).  Also, the building is not a mosque, it is called the Cordoba House.  The Cordoba House is a Muslim led project to help build better Muslim-Western world relations.  The Cordoba House is actually a large community center.  The website states:

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture.  Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture[...]  The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants...

Oh man, that sounds like an awful place to have in New York.  Especially not at ground zero.  We really need to stop this project!

Kudos to the Republicans on belligerently lying and making a nightmare inducing propaganda fest out of their 1 minute bullshit story.

Sceintific Theory: Fact?

What is a scientific theory?
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.  So... that means evolution is theoretical, it is just an idea?  Not something that has been proven?  In which case creationism is just as viable a theory right?

ABSOLUTELY NOT

I sat through a 15 minute power point presentation from some kid about how evolution was just a theory and creationism is on equal foot and has better evidence.  Too bad he was speaking to a philosophy class and everyone besides him knew the truth.  Evolution has been proven - many many times over again.  In fact, evolution has never been disproved.  If something is shown to be wrong, then it cannot be a scientific theory without being remodeled.  Scientific theories have withstood intensive testing and have only ever been shown right.  As quoted from the University of Rochester:

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests[...] The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Evolution has not been put to trial  nearly as many times as gravity, but it has been and is continually tested.  Creationists often try to knock evolution by saying, "It's only a theory."  Now you know a little better what being a theory means.  Only being a theory is damn impressive.  Very few things every make it to the status of Law.  Almost all scientific facts are actually theories.  Creationists will try to put creationism on equal footing with evolution and claim that creationism can be a scientific theory too - it is not and cannot be a scientific theory.  Creationism evokes supernatural claims which are not testable.  However everything creationism describes about the natural world is easily falsifiable.  The world is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old, try 4.5 billion.  Creationists come up with 'clever' ways to make people who know little to nothing about real science believe that science is deeply flawed; they quote stupid radiation experiments to disprove evolution and claim that carbon dating is drastically wrong and go on and on.

There is a reason creationists' evidence and theories never make it to scientific journals and why their work is so easily set aside - and it is not a big conspiracy by all scientists to discredit creationism.  Evolution happens - hence many creationists concede to micro-evolution but not macro-evolution.  Micro-evolution means that animals like dogs can change - but they never become a totally different animal, for example horse don't become whales.  Oh, wait - primitive horses did become whales.  Oh shit!  The problem people have is grasping time spans of millions of years.  Wolves have been bred to become chihuahuas in only some thousands of years.  Millions of years passing is unfathomable - a wolf could easily be imagined to become a frog in the time span.  If a being from another planet were to show up here on Earth he would clearly see wolves and Shih Tzus as different species - Macro-evolution.  

For you science types out there - string theory is another example of bullshit dressed up as a theory.  String theory has not been tested and is in no way at the level of a scientific theory.  It cannot currently be tested experimentally.  Also, always remember that science is not above criticism and nothing can be proven 100%.  Calling something a scientific fact ensures that it has been reliable but not that it always shall be or that it is perfect.  Often science rests on empirical observations that could be wrong for a host of reasons, the most powerful of which is that our mind constructs our sensory experiences.  Evolution is a scientific theory and like most science, it has only ever proven right; this does not imply that the theory of evolution will never be modified or that no alternatives could exist.  However, there is not other explanation that can stand on equal footing to be compared to evolution - which will probably only undergo very slight modifications in the future.

Perhaps god created everything as is including fossils and the carbon levels and the layers of rock and vestigial body parts.  Sounds like a lot of unnecessary work for a universe with a god and it sounds like he deliberately wishes to fool us but alright.  So he's a tricky son of a gun who wanted to create a world that would appear to be completely godless... so why does he want praised then?
-------
If I hear someone discredit evolution as just a theory again - or when I read about public schools wishing to teach creationism I'm going to snap.

If you don't believe me read "The Origin of Species" dang it.

Honor Killings are Pathetic

Question: What do you do when your daughter refuses to follow through with the arranged marriage you set up when she was ten?
What do you do when your daughter wants a divorce?

Answer: You kill her for dishonoring you.

Do you agree with this answer? If so you are probably religious and more than likely Islamic and absolutely deserve the death penalty. If you do not agree - congratulations! you are not among the most pathetic group of humans. Although you are pretty far down there if you inoculate young children with religious teachings. Right now the focus is honor killings. I have seen multiple news reports popping up lately regarding honor killings. According to Fox News honor killings may be on the rise in the U.S.

The United Nations estimates that as many as 5,000 women are murdered in such honor killings each year for offenses like immodesty or refusing an arranged marriage

5,000 women. That's a lot. It is absolutely disgusting that some people put their own "honor" before the lives of their family. There is nothing honorable in killing and god is not going to suddenly smile upon you because you killed an adulterer. I think when people commit an honor killing in America they should be killed in return. Why keep such a pathetic excuse for a human alive? The Fox News story highlighted a couples reports of honor killings:

On July 1, Kanwal filed for divorce, a prospect her father, a 52-year-old immigrant from Pakistan, would not entertain. Investigators say that after an argument on the night of July 5, he strangled Kanwal with a bun-gee cord.

Are you disgusted? There are more killings mentioned in the news story - feel free to read at your own leisure.

The Last Psychiastrist wrote an excellent piece on the story of Noor Almaleki, a 20 year old girl who was killed by her father in Arizona. She didn't marry a suitable Iraqi man and after being abused my her parents moved in with another Iraqi family. Her father just couldn't handle the MASSIVE shame. So he ran her and her friend over with his Jeep - twice. As The Last Psychiatrist said:

He doesn't care that she's Americanized or even an adulteress. He cares that people are laughing at him. This is narcissism, and here I do not hesitate to spell it out explicitly. The obvious is that he sees her only as an extension of himself, only as she impacts his own existence and not as an independent entity. He's not better than her, she's just not a fully formed character, she's an extra. But the more telling and scary part of the narcissism is that he thinks that by killing her, he has not merely stopped her but fixed things, erased his shame, as if it never happened. As if the people back in Iraq aren't still snickering, as if human nature and reality are subservient to the magical thinking of a man who believes a Jeep can alter what God already saw.

The same article goes on the mention some more killings in America:

In Texas, teen sisters Amina and Sarah Said were shot dead in 2008, allegedly by their father, because they had boyfriends. That same year in Georgia, 25-year-old Sandeela Kanwal was allegedly strangled by her father for wanting to leave an arranged marriage. Last year in New York, Aasiya Hassan, 37, was murdered in perhaps the most gruesome way imaginable: She was beheaded, allegedly by her husband, for reportedly seeking a divorce. And this past spring, 19-year-old Tawana Thompson's husband gunned her down in Illinois, reportedly following arguments about her American-style clothing.

I don't think honor killings are going to be come an epidemic - they are not going to be common place. However, they occur an despite what people may wish to say - the killings occur for the most part in Islamic communities. Some people say we (non-Islamic) cannot understand because, well we're not Islamic! There is nothing to be understood here - no matter what your religious affiliation is killing your family members because of your narcissism is wrong. Even if your religion sanctions honor killings, they are still wrong. Morality exists outside the realm of man made religion and no matter what a group claims, honor killing is pathetic and it is wrong.

People who engage in honor killings are only hurting their own religion by giving the world a clear example of what can happen when the religion is followed too strongly. If too much of your religion leads to violence - you have yourself a pathetic religion. Not that other religions are not pathetic - yours is just worse.
If that last remark made you mad - just refrain from killing. Besides you deserve it, your religion makes me mad.

Wave Goodbye to Your Children

A recent article from a CNN blog claims that the religious right is losing its children.

Rev. Jim Wallis, an evangelical leader, said the children of ultra-conservative Christians are deserting their parents’ theology in droves.

Hooray! But seriously, Wallis claims the children are tired of the fighting over abortion and homosexuality.
I'm not sure if I agree with him because evangelical christian groups appear to be popping up everywhere and many children are leaving the older traditional sects of Christianity, like Catholicism, and turning to new christian communities with radical, outspoken leaders. Just recently gay marriage became outlawed almost everywhere in the United States. We shall see if the "leaders of tomorrow" really stray from their parents view and let homosexual couples be legally wed. The Creationist movement seems to be chugging ahead and many government policies seem to be based more and more off faith.

I truly hope the Religious Right had lost its children (though I don't believe it). It is amazing that as our culture progresses, religious fundamentalists will hold it back, fighting to keep homosexuals unequal, keep evolution taught poorly, discredit science, and halt medical progress. If religious people could forget about god's stupid rules and put humanity first such as letting missionaries in Africa accurately inform the populace about STD (AIDS) prevention and distribute condoms. Telling people that god wants abstinence is not slowing the spread of AIDS or benefiting the impoverished people who are still going to have sex - it is natural! If god were so concerned, then sex would not be so pleasurable. Sadly religious people have to put god first, unless of course they are a very poor believer - in which case they might as well stop believing.

Anyway, to cheer you up, check out this news article about women with two Uteruses - Uteri if you will.
Oh, did I mention she is pregnant in both!! Wha-bam!

"Less Money for Dead People"

Yahoo! News was headlining an article that said:

President Barack Obama on Thursday signed legislation intended to slash by $50 billion the taxpayer money improperly paid to dead people, fugitives and those in jail who shouldn't be getting benefits.

According to the news story $110 billion was spent last year (yikes!). I'm always happy to see the government cutting the money they spend on stupid things - but there far more cuts the government should be making. That is another story though. To see the full article about how Obama wants to give less money to dead people (oh yea - and fugitives and those in jail) click here.

This article reminded me of just how much money people blow on death. According to Funerals with Love , many funerals cost over $10,000 not including the burial! Caskets easily cost from $1-5,000 dollars. Holy crap! Cremation is a cheaper alternative, running from $800 to $2,000 - just don't get a fancy urn! Why are people so obsessed with death and burial? What good is a dead corpse?

A dead corpse can actually do a world of good - but not when buried or cremated**.
If everyone would get over themselves and donate their bodies to science / medical facilities, their families could save money and our society could reap the benefit of more science / medical research and more organs available for transplants. An average of 18 people die each day from the lack of available organs for transplant! These are needless deaths. Many religious people think they need their bodies for the rapture. I would think people would only care about their soul, but no. Churches always have a cemetery. Church goers should be humane right? So maybe churches should stop letting people use their cemeteries and demand that people donate their cadaver. You don't need your corpse, your family doesn't need your corpse, and god doesn't need your corpse.

If you want to a) help people and b) save loved ones a possible $10,000+ then donate your corpse!

Christian sects for the most part no longer oppose cremation - praise Jesus! - but most people still pick burial. The body is not sacred, and if god exists, then he can resurrect you without your decomposed corpse. The church and all people should stop devoting so much time and energy to the dead. Catholics pray incessantly for the dead - something which many of their other christian brethren do not comprehend. Catholics will pray for a deceased person to go to heaven or to be happy with god etc. Excuse me? If god and heaven exist in the biblical sense, then your dead family member is immediately either there or not there - permanently. This is irrevocable. Not even Moses gets to go to heaven - why would your prayer change the big G's opinion?

Let's celebrate life - use death to help those living.

**Cremation could have benefits if the heat produced from burning bodies was used to produce electricity. Sadly though, no one would go for that choice. Fossil fuel is running out, but human fuel is increasing.

The Bible: A Cultural Myth

As an atheist I think the bible is fictitious. Fictitious because the bible describes a spiritual side to reality which does not exit and does not accurately describe historical occurrences (as far as I know). However, I would proclaim that the bible is ‘based on a true story’. That true story is a tale of a culture and of history. The Old Testament describes many things like the tower of Babel which can be defended as historically existing. However, the Old Testament was passed down via word of mouth for thousands of years and the stories are exaggerated and warped versions loosely based on the true tale. The Hebrews originated from nomadic tribes of which many were enslaved to different cultures or merchants and saw much of Mesopotamia and northern Egypt. Many historians think when the Hebrews arrived in Babylon the great tower already lay in ruins. Babylon was the trading hub of Mesopotamia so many cultures and many languages came together there. Hence the Hebrews witnessed diverse languages and remnants of a great tower. Over generations they formed the tale which wound up in the bible to explain the tower of Babel. In my opinion a majority of the Old Testament is composed in similar fashion. There are also tales such as the great flood, which seem to be based on other myths, in this case The Epic of Gilgamesh.

The bible is a novel text for portraying a cultures world view and assimilation of ideas from other interacting, ancient cultures. Reading through the bible we can see a progression of the Israelites’ culture. Their way of life, laws, morals, and world view are all catalogued by the bible. Studying the personality of God in the bible reveals a change in the Israelites’ attitude and morality. The bible starts with a jealous, powerful, spiteful god. His morals seem backwards to the modern Western world, but coincide with the older eye for an eye philosophy. Many of God’s punishments are stoning to death. The early God does not appear omniscient and behaves like an emotionally unstable pre-teen. As the bible progresses we see God slowly change into a more forgiving, caring entity. In the New Testament the Israelites in ancient Rome have a different sense of justice and morality than their Hebrew ancestors. God begins to encompass the idea loving one another and being humane instead of being obsessed with rules involving worshiping himself. As man’s morality and culture changed so did their description of God. A long essay could be written on this topic, but the important point is that God changes and does so due to changing cultures. If God was perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and helped dictate the bible he would be a stable character and would have a static morality – likely not mirroring that of his followers. Instead we see an embodiment of cultural values that changes through the exaggerated collection of tales we call the bible.

I am not aware of any other text which provides such a detailed an interesting view of the dynamic nature of human culture. If one were to follow up the bible with current religious writings he would find God has again changed his morality and his personality. Interesting.