Starving yourself for Jesus Friday, February 8th, 2008
Posted by carltonstedman in religion.add a comment
This is just utterly ridiculous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TPnAn6Nx88&NR=1
They are blatantly starving themselves. They aren’t losing weight through change of diet and exercise — it’s just glorified anorexia. It’s frigging insane.
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.
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.
Criss Angel is awesome and Republican genuflection Wednesday, November 7th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in funny, life, politics, religion.2 comments
So, clip from the new show “Phenomenon”: clip. Just ridiculous guy, and look how that asshole Uri Geller gives him respect (I’d call him a fraud, but I don’t want to be sued like James Randi). Really getting tired of all this supernatural “psychic” mumbo-jumbo that’s been getting more and more respect on TV.
That’s why I love what Criss Angel did! Absolutely awesome! I was really worried when I found out he was going to be on this show, with that litigious bastard, Uri Geller (just see Wikipedia). However, clearly, he is adding the skeptic view on this show, and that’s great!
Really need more skepticism in the mainstream. People need to use reason instead of just believing all this supernatural junk.
Also, Mindfreak is awesome and Criss Angel is a crazy good illustionist/”mentalist” (whatever you want to call it) that does *not* purport to have any supernatural powers, but just amazing talent (with a lot of hard work) at sleight of hand, misdirection and trickery. That, combined with his skepticism and apparent desire to attack supernaturalism really makes him seem like a modern Houdini.
On a completely separate note, the latest Freethought Radio podcast from the FFRF had excerpts from a recent event that had all Republican presidential hopefuls genuflecting at a big baptist (I think) church. All of them talked about gods and being a “Christian nation” (which is just a huge lie) and “family values” and such. It almost brought me to angry tears hearing the thunderous applause after Rudy’s and Huckabee’s religious-filled speeches.
These are people who have called the Constitution “quaint” and deprecated and advocate the use of torture on war criminals (which has been shown to offer no reliable data, of course, but that’s really beside the point). These are the same hypocrites that cry fowl when someone wants to remove a bit of undeveloped tissue called a fetus, yet send hundreds to their death row and countless others over to die in a fruitless war where they literally hand out Christian propaganda, only making the situation worse.
Of course, the Democrats are not without their religious ideologues. They aren’t much better, many not saying anything one way or the other on issues like abortion, just tiptoeing around the issue like a coward, begging for votes by just saying whatever they think the crowd wants to hear. And they let the Religious Wrong (they are not right nor Right, really) just keep on doing on the bullshit that they’re doing. It’s obscene!
Ron Paul was the only one to denounce federal involvement in religion and a respect for separation of church and state, at least on a federal level: he’s not against states having rights to make decisions on abortion and all — while certainly better than the federal government unconstitutionally making decisions on it, I still think any government should not be allowed to say what citizens do privately. Notably, he also has opposed the war in Iraq since before it began and was and is against the “PATRIOT” Act (which couldn’t be a worse misnomer).
I really like most of Ron Paul’s ideas, but I worry about his religious background on issues like abortion. Religion really should have no place in politics, as JFK says in this great speech. Really gave me a lot of respect for this man that I don’t really know much about. How could it happen that in 1960 we had a president with such very different ideas (like respecting the Constitution) and now have Bush and Rudy and gang?
I’ve been thinking a lot about it, and as much as I despise liberalism/socialism and their ilk, I can’t help but think that maybe, just maybe, it’s better than theocracy, which is what the large percentage of many so-called “right-wing” politicians, the “neo-cons” and such are pushing for. And it’s really scary when they talk about “Islamo-fascists” and atheists in the same vain and use phrases like “War on Religion” while denouncing people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. We should not forget what they are doing right now to the “Islamo-fascists” in Gauntanamo Bay and their other “War on Drugs” and “War on Terrorism”.
I really wish that the “conservatives” were conservative and kept the government free of religion as the Constitution clearly outlines. But I can’t help but think that the liberals will, indirectly, make it worse too, by further empowering the government so that when the theocratics finally do get to power they have a stranglehold on our Freedom. Then were just a couple of “PATRIOT” acts away from imprisoning atheists.
The failing war on drugs Tuesday, October 16th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in politics, religion.5 comments
First, full disclosure. I have never smoked anything in my life — not even one puff. I have had less than a literal handful of alcoholic drinks in my life and not a drop of it after my 21st birthday (ironically). I will turn 23 this coming May. Nonetheless, I believe it is everyone’s right to use whatever drugs they please, with no government intervention, as long as they do not harm anyone else.
Consider this: tobacco and alcohol are both very potent and dangerous drugs. They have a high addiction rate, contribute to the deaths of thousands of people each year and offer no medicinal effects (tobacco may actually help with constipation, but a less dangerous laxative is probably a better idea). If the government is protecting it’s citizens from the danger of drugs, why are these two legal? Simply, the government could care less about protecting it’s citizens from drugs; these are just institutions which have become ingrained in our economy.
Now consider this: marijuana has no known lethal amount, has been shown to offer a number of medicinal benefits in controlled doses, has very small physical addiction rates and impairs the user no more than alcohol. Why is this drug illegal? Simply because it has not become ingrained in our economy and the religious folk seem to ban anything of pleasure. The same is the case with prostitution, which hurts no one (at least, if it was legal, as in parts of Nevada, this would be the case — sadly, if a prostitute is raped now, they fear going to the police for support that they probably won’t receive).
This all is less important than the fact that the government simply does not have the right to concern itself with anything one does which does not hurt others. The blame is on the socialists and left-winged liberals that would have the government run every aspect of our lives if they got their way.
Even worse is the $20 billion spent annually on the war on drugs at a federal level. Some estimates have said that $100 billion is spent nationally on a combined federal and state level each year. America arrests 1.5 million of its citizens for nonviolent drug crimes each year. Some evidence even suggests that by criminalizing drugs, instead of regulating them (through the private sector, of course) has led to many more drugs falling in the hands of children. This is just absurd.
And, in all this, the amount of drug users does not seem to diminish. Just look at arrest and imprisonment statistics since this drug war has started — no noticeable result.
Also, the decriminalization of drugs includes all drugs — recreational or otherwise. This makes everything an over-the-counter drug. If anyone could sell Prozac, then Prozac would be a hell of a lot cheaper. There could actually be competition among pharmacies. If someone won’t sell you the morning after pill, you can go down the street and buy it from someone that will. You could even buy it off Amazon. And it could still be regulated in the private sector by groups giving some sort of seal of approval for drugs and pharmacies.
The fact of the matter is, if drugs are criminalized, criminals still have no problem getting them. If they are legalized, the rate of use will not necessarily increase — this has been shown to be the case for usage of cocaine and heroine in countries that have ceased prohibiting them.
The war on drugs can be summed up as such: the government shouldn’t have the right, it doesn’t work and it costs tons of money.
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).
Man sues god Tuesday, September 25th, 2007
Posted by carltonstedman in funny, politics, religion.add a comment
Although I’m sure the majority of my blog constituency (all three of them) have read about this, it’s just to hilarious not to mention: God sued over pestilence and terror.
Mr. Chambers was recently interviewed on Freethought Radio, talking about this suit and more. Also, recently they talked about a teacher in Wisconsin (I think) who has caused some stir about the elementary school sending home Jesus flyers. These flyers are for a local Sunday school, are stuffed into the kids’ backpacks and are really pernicious, basically letting it be known that the kids better get right with Jesus if the parents know what’s good for them. Very inappropriate, and the FFRF is fighting the school, as they should.
Well, back to work.
