Humbuggery

My family is predominantly comprised of fundamentalist christians…

(more…)

Fun times were had this evening, on my way home from school. I got witnessed too.

I was walking toward the campus center of my school, to grab a coke, when two nice college age gentlemen (Joe and Tika, I don’t think they’ll mind me using their first names) asked if I had a moment. At first I thought, I would say no and call it a day, but then I decided that I should at least hear them out. Little did I know that they weren’t just hunting for blood for the upcoming blood drive, no they wanted something else, my soul.

Well, it started out with them inviting me to their bible study. I said, politely, that I wasn’t particularly interested. When they asked why, I answered. “I’m an atheist”

You could practically hear them thinking, “Oh shit, we’ve got a live one.” Immediately the questions started. They were, to their credit, among the politest witnesses (Joe especially, Tika had some of that zealousness on him) I’ve talked with in a while. They asked everything from why I don’t believe in God (not just a god, of course, but theirs specifically). I gave a standard reply, “I look at the world, and see nothing that is inherently unexplainable or in need of the invocation of a deity. It’s not so much that I don’t believe in god, I just don’t care, he isn’t a useful construct.” Apparently, this was a new reply for them, as they immediately moved away from questions about it. They asked about whether I thought there was life after death, I quoted one of my favorite Betrand Russel quotes, “I believe that when I die, I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.” All in all, it was pretty fun.

Tika was fairly agressive, made a number of arguments including the argument from design, the Kalam Cosmological argument, and etc. He also laid this nugget. “God is not logical, you cannot use logic.” I responded (in retrospect, somewhat poorly) by concentrating on Joe’s questions.

While Tika stuck me as a more– let’s say, “flamboyant” type, lots of energy, passionate about his beliefs. Joe was – what his, or my former, pastor might call the “John” to Tika’s “Peter.” That is, while Peter would go out on a soap box and preach to the masses, John would work quietly, one by one, talking to individuals in a private way. I was a “John” back in my day, so it makes sense that I’d identify with Joe a bit more.

The arguments, not to insult the two would-be prophets, were wholly unconvincing. Lots of ethereal talk about Faith and such. I did some “reverse witnessing” of a sort- asked them some tough questions about what they believed. One of the most interesting ones, which we again, quickly moved off of — They have the Gish Gallop down pretty good — was the idea of the “source” of morality and ethics. I contend that they are fundamentally an evolutionary advantage, particularly a socio-evolutionary advantage, in that altruism allows stronger societies to form, and a stronger society will in turn benefit every member of said society. They argued that their had to be a divine origin, since every law needed a lawgiver. In this case, the equivocation fallacy (while present) is somewhat hard to see, so I offered the following question. “What if God wrote in the bible that you were to murder all muslims on sight, no questions asked, just shoot them in the head and kill them. Would that be morally acceptable?”

Usually, this garners a head-scratch and blank-stare…

Joe said, “Yes”, and moved on to a new topic.

Wisely so- because I would have tore in on that one.

In any case, I don’t intend to make fun of these guys, they were nice people. I had an interesting conversation about how science really works, how we explain things like abiogenesis and evolution and the big bang. I even provided them with some ammo- making sure they understood the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory, and that evolution and abiogenesis are different. They were willing to talk about their beliefs in a (somewhat) critical way. I think I may have even given them some really tough questions to think about. The point is that these are (more or less) the kinds of christians I don’t mind talking to. They are fairly rational, they aren’t zealots, they aren’t hyper-fundie-jerry-falwell wannabes. They’re just people with some ideas I don’t particularly agree with. It’s no different than differing political views.

So, I suppose I just want to encourage any reader, if you run into christians, talk with them, if they’re crazy fundies, do as you will, they don’t deserve your respect or your time.

But if they’re like Joe or Tika, talk to them a bit, lay out a few positions, give them something to think about. Talk to them about their view of fundamentalism, chances are they don’t even realize things can get that bad. If you convince enough of the moderates and the liberals to not accept the fundies anymore, then they’ll go away…

And I’d really like the fundies to go away.

Antitheism is a spectrum of beliefs which have the following in common, they are all fundamentally against the concept of religion in some form or another.

I consider myself a weak antitheist, I think that there are some limited aspects of religion that are broken, namely fundamentalism, evangelicalism, hyper/neoconservativism (more of a political doctrine, but it’s prevalent in religious settings), tribalism/xenophobia (a symptom of some of the above), etc.

This also means that I think there are bits of religion which are good. Religion provides a frame-of-reference for us to connect with other people, it provides a social setting which has ritual- which in turn provides structure and predictablility to the lives of people who need it, it provides- even if nothing else- interesting stories and ideas that represent bronze/iron age thinking. I don’t dream of a world without religion, I dream of a world without stupid religion.

Many people, on the other hand, are much more extreme, feeling that religion is uniformly bad. This is strong antitheism. I won’t comment much on it, because I believe it is possible to be a strong antitheist without being a fundamentalist antitheist.

Oh dear, I used that nasty term “fundamentalist” to describe nonreligious types. Fear not, I’m well prepared for the inevitable shitstorm of hatemail.

Heres my problem with Fundamentalist Antitheism, besides it’s status as being as narrow minded and utterly silly as Fundamentalist Theism; I think that it’s also utterly ineffective, and actually counterproductive to both the atheist and weak antitheist goals, not unlike how fundamentalist theism is counterproductive to liberal theist’s goals.

Let me say this quickly, so there is no confusion, I do not support any legal or social benefits that are afforded to the religious any more than I support legal or social benefits for the non-religious. If an organization is doing real charitable work, then it is eligible for legal benefits, and social respect, no matter their stance on religion.

Heres why I think the extreme antitheist view is counterproductive. Consider the following hypothetical, I am trying to get an oil company to donate money to an environmental project. I think the oil companies are horrible, horrific, evil entities out to destroy the planet. Do I approach the company by saying “I think you people are stupid, misguided morons, so give me some money for my project?” Of course not, I butter them up, I shmooze, I finagle, I figure out a play up how it will be good for PR, etc. Moreover, I wouldn’t go to the hardest-hardline oil mogul, I’d find someone who’s already somewhat sympathetic to the cause. Every organization has someone who is least indoctrinated. This is not dissimilar from arguing against fundamentalism, we shouldn’t antagonize the people who are most capable of helping us. We shouldn’t yell at the liberals and the moderates, they’re the ones most amenable to rational thinking. If we make our case against fundamentalism to them, It’s generally well recieved, at least, with the liberals I know. Moderates too, they may be less inclined to do something about the “weak” fundamentalists, those who are closer to their own beliefs than the “strong” fundamentalist, those who have drank the proverbial kool-aid, as it were.

The reason I’m in favor of appealing to moderates and liberals is this. Part of the fundamentalist dogma is that every atheist, every dissenter, everyone who is not a fundie is a liar, and of satan. Put simply:

Anything you say or do will fall on deaf ears.

They are the quintessential true-believers, and some- only some- are beyond hope. Because most fundamentalists are not fundies. Most fundamentalists are simply followers, they do what their told by their preists and pastors, and think that that makes them right. If you want to end fundamentalism, you need to get those people to follow something else. A follower will always follow, it’s part of their nature, the issue is, they have a shitty leader. People like John Hagee or Pat Robertson are beyond hope, many pastors and preists who are fundamentalistic in nature are beyond hope- but their followers are most often normal people, who are all quite capable of rational thought, and just need to be told to think critically about what they believe. Most of the people I knew as a fundamentalist are like this.

So, how do we convince these closet moderates to come out? Simple, get the moderates and the liberals to make it unnacceptable in the respective religious circle to be a fundamentalist. This is what we need to aim for, the most powerful force in the religious social world is loud liberal, if the sentiment of the liberal relgious world becomes “We won’t tolerate this anymore.” and the liberal religous world actually follows through, then you will see the following happen. The core fundamentalist, puritanical, hyperconservative, xenophobic groups- eg the WBC, etc- will splinter off and be social outcasts, and die off within a generation or two, and the majority of the religious world will be a bunch of rational moderates and liberals. I would happily take a world full of clear-thinking moderates or liberals than a world which tolerates extremism. It would work simply because the other religious people would have some standing to say that the fundies are not to be tolerated, it would work because the people who were saying “this is wrong” would be saying it in the same language, mindset, and social world as the people who they were saying it to.

It’s not dissimilar from how one fights extreme patriarchy. In america, the method was “Be a strong woman, be loud, and demand equality”, and because of the kind of patriarchy that was in america- a weaker kind, more amenable to change- this worked. I know it seems blasphemous to feminists, but the only reason you have the rights you have (which you definitely deserved and should have been yours from the start) is because the patriarchy capitulated to you. That is, you convinced the men to give up the power they had. Now, this works in the weak patriarchy of america, but it doesn’t work in the extreme patriarchy of somewhere like the middle east. Consider what being a strong woman means there, it means that if you speak up, if you become a strong woman, you get killed. It means that demanding equality is demanding your own death writ. It’s horrible, I hate it, you hate it, I’d daresay all rational people hate it, but it’s the truth of the matter. It’s because the patriarchy declares you have no rights, no say, no standing. If you speak, they ignore you, if you continue, if you annoy them, they “solve” the problem, in the worst way possible.

So, we are left with two basic plans of action, one, all the women rise up and fight (physically) all the men, and there is a massive civil war, lots of people die, and generally shit hits the fan. No one wants that. The other option, is for the feminists of this country to use the patriarchy they have, to get the patriarchy they want. What I mean is, you know how to fight for your rights, and how to get what you want in a weak patriarchy, and you have a weak patriarchy handy, doesn’t it make sense to have the weak patriarchies of the world get together and say, “Enough.” The men have standing, the women do not, so- use the men. It’s the right tool for the job, and I like to think that the men of this country are evolved enough mentally to see that it’s a worthwhile cause. The analogy is this, the feminists are like the weak antitheists, the weak patriarchy is like the liberal and moderately religious groups, and the extreme patriarchy is the extreme fundamentalists. The same tactics ought to work on both sides.

Even if you are and extreme antitheist, it behooves you to carry out the weak antitheist plan first. After the real problem of extremism is solved, then you have a group of (hopefully) highly rational, clear thinking people to have a real argument with. Why wouldn’t you want that? The options I see are these; Either, you don’t really want to have a good argument, because you’re not sure how you could win it, you’re much more comfortable making the “lol, ur dumb” style argument which seems so prevalent. Or you’ve never thought about it in these terms. In the former case, you’re as bad as the people you purport to fight, not wanting a real solution, because you like the problem too much. In the latter case, then hopefully you find this idea, at the very least, a good starting point to getting to a better, saner world. There may be other cases, I freely admit, this is likely a false dichotomy, but I’m hard pressed to find them.

In any case, I just want to end by saying this. I dislike the term “weak antitheism”, it’s too easily confused with being against all religion, which I am not. I much prefer the following, (technically more general) term, “antistupidism”, that is.

Stupid is Stupid, no matter who’s spouting it, and stupidness cannot be tolerated in a modern, enlightened world.

Have you ever been so incredibly annoyed, so frustrated, so viciously upset that you simply want to spit fire.

Thats about how I feel right now. It’s interesting- I’m rarely this emotional about anything, I’m simply not this kind of person, but here I find myself fire-filled and furious as such. My rationality tells me not to write anything right now, as it will likely not only be crappy, but devisive and hurtful.

I’ve decided to do what the religiots do, ignore reason, forget rationality, and go with my gut.

(more…)

Jesus and Mo is a webcomic which I enjoy on occasion, the most recent comic involves Jesus and Mo talking with the barmaid about how, while they have exhausted every argument for their religious beliefs, they are still right for having them. Because even though logic and reason have shown those beliefs to be invalid, Logic and Reason is based on Faith as well. So the Barmaid’s arguments are circular.

What follows is the single most brilliant bit of logic ever. I simply must explain it.

(more…)

Ah, the erstwhile slogan of everyone’s favorite software megagiant, but what does it have to do with skepticism, atheism, and religion?

As always, dear readers, I bring to you the most complicated controversys ever contrived by humankind, today we talk about death, and what happens after it.

(more…)

In this final post in the Series on God, we consider omnipotence, the power to do anything. Possibly the most famous of God’s supposed powers, we’ll see how even God isn’t powerful enough to stop logic.

(more…)

So- I missed the boat when this was a hot item, my sister told me about it, I hadn’t been able to sit down and (attempt) to watch it till now.

I’m 16 minutes, 47 seconds in, and already I have to stop it, There is just so much that makes my brain hurt. For instance, one of the kids in the beginning ‘got saved’ because he was missing something in his life?!

Get this, he was five years old when he came to the conclusion that he was missing something in his life. For FSM’s sake, all I remember from when I was five is shooting a bubble-gun off of the cess-pool cover in my front yard[1]!

Then, it gets better. “Creationism Adventures”, in which an archaeologist-looking man[2] asks whether we came from “goo” which he promptly plays with some combination of xanthan gum and borax, to be sure[3]. He further places a triceratops reading the news, the earth exploding in the “big bang”, and numerous other horrific misunderstandings of solid science.

But minutes 14-16:47 are the best, when the mother — who homeschools her lovely, born-again-from-5-years-old-cause-he-was-missing-something son science. But Science notsomuch, it is in fact science falsely-so-called. Ranging from global-warming denial, “The average temperature has only gone up 0.6 degrees over the last few years.” To “Creationism is, when you look at it, the only possible answer.”

Ma’am, I direct you, if Creationism is the only valid argument for existence, to the creation myths of the countless religions preceding and post-dating your own dogma. Ma’am, global warming is more than just an increase in temperature. Global warming is about an increase in carbon emissions, every region of the world doesn’t necessarily get “hotter”, it’s about the average temperature of the whole planet. Your data is probably okay, the average temperature of the US has gone up a little, but we’re in a temperate zone, the average temperatures of other parts of the world have gone up much more.

And in any case, even if global warming isn’t a problem now, why not do something to prevent it? Doesn’t your God give a shit about the world? I mean he supposedly created it, you’d think he’d want to keep it clean.

I can’t watch any more of this right now, I think I’m going to start working on a commentary for it. The documenters, from what I’ve seen so far, seem to have a fairly balanced look at this whole thing. There is no commentary in the actual film, it’s simply recordings of these peoples lives.

Astounding that I managed to crawl out of that kind of thinking.

[1] that is my actual first memory, it informs much of my life, I think…

[2] Why an archaeologist is explaining evolution, I know not. Maybe he was a paleontologist, but he looked like a fat Indiana Jones

[3] Thank you “Home slime kit” I won from my VBS at the ripe old age of 8.

This time, it’s omnipresence. I happen to like this one, it’s probably the most practical ‘power’ people ascribe to the deity. To be everywhere at once may seem to be a completely benign power, but as we’ll see, it really implies much more than might be thought at first glance. Without further pause, The Omnipresent God.

(more…)

So, many say god is an all knowing entity, and with his infinite knowledge, he guides us in his perfect plan through life. In this entry in the series on god, I’ll disassemble The omniscient god, and show why it’s simply not possible to know everything.

(more…)