Freethought Quote Time Thursday, January 31st, 2008
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, politics.add a comment
Seems Giuliani and Edwards pulled out. So now, got just basically Clinton and Obama for the Democrats (which, maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t think the Religious Wrong will vote for a woman or a black guy) and Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Ron Paul for the Republicans. Weird, thought Giuliani was winning for quite a long time with the Republicans. Really hate seeing Huckabee and Romney in there, McCain’s just a bit better, and I’d love to see Ron Paul win, but unless something crazy happens, don’t see him getting the vote after the primaries — then again, who knows? I mean, I’m voting Ron Paul in the primaries, of course.
Anyway, some good quotes from freethinkers of the past and today:
“It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public, and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.” — Charles Darwin
“Faith is the commitment of one’s consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof. A mystic is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition. Faith is the equation of feeling with knowledge.” — Ayn Rand (from The Fountainhead, I believe)
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” — Richard Dawkins
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” — Benjamin Franklin
“Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness… It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light … by contrast.” — Mark Twain (a.k.a Samuel Clements)
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” — Thomas Paine
Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? Thursday, January 17th, 2008
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism.add a comment
There’s this great site (with a great name), called WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com. Here’s a really good video on YouTube called 10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer: here. Great video and they have a whole bunch more, care of the Rational Responders (I think).
Some people (even atheists) claim the anti-theism position won’t get people to convert. This is simply not the case. There have been many people that have written in to Richard Dawkins, the FFRF and others, talking about how just this type of position made them give up their faith.
Here’s another good video, Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?: here. The part about it being illegal for atheists to testify in court in seven different states was a new one for me.
Back to work…
I Deny the Holy Spirit Wednesday, January 16th, 2008
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, funny, life, religion.3 comments
So, a while back, the Rational Responders (I think) issued this “Blasphemy Challenge” along with Brian Flemming, director of the great documentary, The God That Wasn’t There, that provides a strong argument that the Jesus of the Bible didn’t even exist (after all, Paul, typically considered the one that really got Christianity rolling, didn’t make any mention of his existence on Earth, the myth of Mary, any of the miracles or even the crucifixion). The idea is that in one part of the bible, it calls denying the holy spirit an unforgivable sin:
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. [Mark 3:28-29]“
Anywho, the concept was the first 1001 people that posted a video on YouTube stating that they “deny the holy spirit” would receive a free copy of the DVD sent to them. Some people that denied online include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.
So, Jilly and I have got in the habit of saying this every so often, just for kicks (and, well, because we do *not* believe in that superstition). Jilly mentioned the other day about getting that tattooed on us. That’d be pretty funny, I think. I’m *almost* tempted to take her up on that.
So, officially: Carlton Stedman II forever denies the holy spirit. Also, Jesus is a smuck (if he ever even existed).
Thoughts on the Santa myth for parents Monday, December 3rd, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, religion.1 comment so far
I’ll preface this with a reference to a great article I just read: Santa Claus: Should parents perpetuate the Santa Claus myth?
So, with X-mas approaching, I was thinking about parenting and teaching the Santa Claus myth. Someone at work was talking about it and said “at some point, I think it’s unhealthy for children to believe in Santa Claus.” I certainly agree with that statement, but it begs the following question: should parents even teach the myth of Santa to their kids?
The more I think about it, the more I think that parents should *not* teach the Santa myth to their kids. Here’s my abbreviated list of reasons why:
1) I believe it is morally wrong to lie to a child, continuously, not for their protection but just over some fairy tale.
2) The Santa myth can instill a warped sense of morality.
3) The Santa myth discourages skepticism.
First off the bat, I think it is just *wrong* to keep lying to a kid about something like that. I shall try as hard as possible to never lie to my kids, but I can understand that sometimes a small “white lie” to protect them is acceptable. But a continuous big lie just to perpetuate a literary character is ridiculous.
Secondly, and this is a huge one with me, I don’t like how the Santa myth promotes a very warped sense of morality. This is a huge problem I have with the Abrahamic religions (especially). This myth, as the heaven/hell myth, teaches that you should be good just for a reward. It’s difficult to get less moral. Children should learn to be responsible for their own actions not only because of potential reward or the threat of punishment, but because it is how they would wish to be treated by other people. This is a difficult concept, we know that children don’t even develop a sense of empathy until a certain age, and surely many “adults” don’t even get this (sadly), but I truly believe this should be the aim for true morality.
Don’t get me wrong, I think you should punish inappropriate actions that children do (subtlety different from punishing the child directly, but important). And certainly, there’s nothing wrong with giving your child a reward of some sort to let them know that you are proud of them on some special occasion. The point, however, is not to promise them something nice if they behave, not to teach them that good actions *have* to be rewarded or to be good *just* to get a reward.
Lastly, I don’t like teaching children to believe in anything supernatural. This is ridiculous. Children will easily believe, up to a certain age, anything you tell them, no matter how impossible it seems and even if it contradicts other knowledge they may have. This can easily develop into the virus of faith. Children should be taught the tenets of skepticism, questioning and a true curiosity for the world around them; they should not be taught simply “this is how it works – don’t ask questions!” I find it very said when a skeptical child asks how Santa could do this or that and the parent just makes up imaginative supernatural lies to fill in the gaps, squashing a truly beautiful moment in the child’s development.
It is beautiful to see a child question how Santa could possibly fly around the entire world in one night and give everyone presents. A child gradually figures out that it’s just ridiculous and thinks “how could anyone believe this?” Beautiful skepticism. And the next question is obvious to many as it was to me: well then, if Santa is fake, then what about god? I was told that he was, in fact, real, but was never so sure.
After all, I thought, god is just as ridiculous as Santa.
Love is Natural Monday, November 26th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, life.3 comments
Love is simple, natural and real,
Not some mystical magic so surreal,
But utter devotion ever true,
Shared by entwined hearts of two.
As fit a god, a level of worship,
Through all good and all hardship,
But lacking that faith ever blind,
Instead thoughtful commitment in kind.
A paragon, my life is worth,
Adored for mortality so terse,
But cry not at eventual end,
Lest true love never wend.
Happy three-year anniversary, Jillian!
Be wary of the Democrats, too! Thursday, November 8th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, politics, religion.2 comments
So, my last post I talked a bit about religion in politics, specifically the Republican party with Rudy and Huckabee. From a recent Democrat debate (source) we get some scary stuff, too. Definitely need to watch out for Obama and Biden, but Edwards and Clinton might be okay (at least as far as religion in politics goes, although Clinton does have a lot of “respect” for religious “tolerance” which isn’t necessarily good — read Sam Harris). All in all, on the topic of religion, the Democrats are bad, but not nearly as bad as the Republicans (as a group, maybe not Ron Paul) seem. Still, we need to be wary about their religion/politic intertwining tendencies.
Let me preface this by saying no editing of the quotes have been done by me and they are as found in the transliteration of the speech, as is, with no cutting out of specific quotes or “quote-grabbing.”
First, Obama:
“OBAMA: I am proud of my Christian faith. And it informs what I do. And I don’t think that people of any faith background should be prohibited from debating in the public square.
OBAMA: But I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, and I think that we’ve got to translate…
(APPLAUSE)
By the way, I support it not just for the state but also for the church, because that maintains our religious independence and that’s why we have such a thriving religious life.
But what I also think is that we are under obligation in public life to translate our religious values into moral terms that all people can share, including those who are not believers. And that is how our democracy’s functioning, will continue to function. That’s what the founding fathers intended.”
He pays lip service to separation of church and state, but not until he says that religion tells him what to do. Very scary. He then later says that religion should dictate morals that everyone has to follow — aka, regulate morality by criminalizing what religion deems immoral. Very scary, indeed.
He may actually be saying that we should all agree on moral terms to dictate law, which is what I agree with. But it must come about through reason alone to really be as our “founding fathers intended”.
Now, Biden:
“BIDEN: Religion informs my values.
BIDEN: My reason dictates outcomes. My religion taught me about abuse of power. That’s why I moved to write the Violence Against Women Act. That’s why I take the position I take on Darfur. It came about as a consequence of the reasoning that we’re able to do it.
You know, look, I don’t think they’re inconsistent. I don’t find anything inconsistent about my deep, religious beliefs and my ability to use reason. I think the coin’s got it just right. I think I have it in perspective.”
Values from religion is scary. But he might not be that bad — he may actually live his life by reason and just think he’s in-line with religion; maybe he’s a moderate, which doesn’t really follow religious creed. Still, that quote is pretty scary.
As for Clinton, she has talked quite a bit about religious “tolerance” in the past (not a ton in this speech). But why be completely tolerant? Why is that such a virtue? Why should we tolerate the criminalization of prostitution and drug use, which hurts no one? Why do we tolerate Christian beliefs so much so that we criminalize medical procedures? Should we really be “respectful” of the common Islamic practice of female castration, aka clitorectomy? What of “honor killings” of unfortunate women which have been raped and therefore are to be put to death to get rid of the “shame” they bring on their families? Where does it end?
Clearly, we should not allow any child or spousal abuse, whether or not the religion allows, or even encourages it. As a government, we cannot “tolerate” these religious behaviors. But why should we allow belief to dictate any law?
Let people go off and do whatever they want, privately, as long as it does not affect their neighbor, but don’t let them preach in government run places, like the Pentagon. Don’t force me to pay taxes to “faith-based initiative.” The government should have zero tolerance for religion as an institution — that’s the idea of separation of church and state. The citizens must not stop people from praying to God, Allah, Zeus, Thor or whoever and let them do what they want, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.
I don’t believe we should have any tolerance in the public sphere for irrationality. All laws must be made from reason, from rationalism — these are the true tenets of our founding fathers.
Wikipedia does "ID" Friday, October 12th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, funny, religion.add a comment
“Intelligent design,” better known as “Creationism” or just plain dumb, is the featured article on Wikipedia today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Some parts I thought were funny:
“Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory,[8] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[9]“
“[Intelligent Design] stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection.[24][25]“
“No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.[31]“
“Although intelligent design itself does not name the designer, the leaders of the intelligent design movement have said that the designer is the Christian God.[46][27][47][48]“
“Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, however, the court held that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”[65]“
“Asserting the need for a designer of complexity also raises the question “What designed the designer?”[88] Intelligent design proponents say that the question is irrelevant to or outside the scope of intelligent design.[89]“
“Critics have asserted that intelligent design proponents cannot legitimately infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically, since they have not shown that anything supernatural has occurred.”
“In light of the apparent failure of intelligent design to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying “Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.”[167] “
“In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying “intelligent design is not science” and called on “all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory.”[168]“
The whole ID movement would be uproariously funny if it weren’t so big. It would be put aside with the Flat Earth Society, which fortunately seems to be much smaller.
It’s just so ridiculous that so many people can believe in this blatant “god of the gaps” concept where evolution through natural selection has so much evidence. There is no evidence of a designer, period. I particularly like the statement above mentioning that the number of articles pro-ID published in scientific journals is zero.
Well, back to work.
The End of Faith Thursday, October 4th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, books, religion.add a comment
“Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse — constraints like reasonableness, internal coherence, civility, and candor.” — Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, p. 65 (paperback).
Kathy Griffin just got a bit funnier in my book Monday, September 24th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in atheism, life, politics, religion.1 comment so far
If you haven’t seen it, here’s Kathy Griffin’s Emmy acceptance speech: youtube.
You will *not* be seeing in on E!, since it is being edited. Certainly, they have the right to do that, as a private organization, but I find it both laughable and sad that they are editing out what they have deemed “hate speech.” As Dan Barker of Freethought Radio points out, what has more hate speech than the Bible?
If she had simply replaced “Jesus” with a director or producer’s name, no one would think of editing it out — it is, in fact, rather tame, as I was surprised to find. Kathy Griffin is, as she calls herself, a “fallen Catholic.” I am glad to find out that she is not going to apologize or retract her comments from her acceptance speech.
I’ve been listening to a couple of good podcasts lately, as listed below:
* Freethought Radio: XML
* The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe: XML
Just add those to your feedreader of choice. Mine? Google Reader. Fricking rocks.
Everyone should listen to Freethought Radio’s “Christianization of U.S. Military” episodes. Ridiculous stuff, I hadn’t even heard of it. Apparently, in the army, right now, “protecting our freedoms,” you are *required* to have your Christian affiliation listed on your dogtag! If you don’t have a particular affiliation or are non-Christian, you are listed as “none” and are subject to having to walk the most dangerous parts of town and doing other stuff, because you don’t fit into the evangelical world-view that the army is now abiding by.
In one case, a non-affiliated Christian was given a Dixie cup and pair of tweezers upon arriving after his commanding officer saw the “none” engraved in his dogtag. For two weeks, he was instructed to use the tweezers to pick up pubic hair in the latrines, until he had filled the Dixie cup. Absolutely insane.
It’s blatantly a crusade, and it is horrible foreign policy. Troops are given papers about the Rapture and other Biblical bullshit in English and Arabic. Troops don’t read Arabic; it’s for the troops to give to the conquered nations. Even our Islamic *allies* are getting angry at our evangelical crusade. We are just building up the Jihadists with this Christian propaganda, empowering them and giving them further reason (as they see) to attack us. It makes me sick to think of it.
In light of this, I have officially joined the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), for a small tax-deductible (a.k.a. free) $40. Definitely worth it.
On a related note, just Netflixed “The God Who Wasn’t There,” a short 1-hour-long documentary, including the great Sam Harris. Very funny, including a part where they show The Passion of the Christ (with the note at the bottom, “Used without permission”), showing how Christians just love blood and going through the movie minute-by-minute with a list of the violence in it; after the first 10 minutes, only 6 minutes of the next hour-and-a-half contain no violence.
It is, as of this date, the most realistically violent movie I’ve seen to this date. I remember, seeing it with my friends, and Tyler and I were laughing at this one seen where it looks like these hobbits are chasing Judas, just couldn’t help ourselves, and this old lady in front of us turned around, looked at us angrily and actually “shooshed” us. Of course, that just made us laugh at her.
