Atheism & the Rationality of Deism

We want to avoid saying beliefs when talking about Atheism. Why are we afraid to label our non-belief as a belief? Because when you label something as a belief or belief system there are some negative connotations that come alongside it:

• The stench of religion
• The erasure of individuality
• Group Morals
• Easily Manipulated Political Agendas

All that being said, I find it illogical to place those without firm beliefs in any category. How can you slap a broad label on millions of individuals with completely different viewpoints? You shouldn’t, but as many of you know; it happens everyday. You wouldn’t label “not collecting stamps” as a hobby or “bald” as a hair color, but it would seem as though many others may not have the same scruples doing similarly. Are there any associations or assumptions that can be made about those which do in fact remove God from the equation of existence? The lack of religious belief is the lack of the Arguments from Supreme Authority which attempt to interfere in even the most personal and private pieces of our lives; instilling guilt and fear. There is no absolute about any group. There are exceptions to everything it seems. Just because one is an atheist does not even guarantee that they accept any scientific explanation of anything.

One could dismiss it all and remain content with the understanding that we cannot know or trust in ill-motivated and government owned men. We can hope at least that there are enough checks and balances and the requirement of verifiable evidence to protect us at some levels from the establishment. There is no way to know at this time what occurred prior to singularity, but surely even this must have originated somewhere. Perhaps it is my limited understanding of this topic that makes this such an unattainable answer. Perhaps it is because it cannot be positively known. And if religions are correct, perhaps it is not for us to know. If you consider this life an experience, and an opportunity to learn the difference of good and evil than philosophically you can rest easy. If you assume that everything will be explained upon death, than the now might just become more important because you realize that you will have eternity for cosmic pursuits. The now could be spent doing good for your fellow humans in the now and for the future. There are a few issues I have with this method of thinking as well.

Whether you admit it or not you are making assumptions. Religions, holy scriptures are all tainted by man. Men with motivations for power and control. As a lowly peon you are not privyed to truth. You are force-fed what is determined you can handle, because you are stupid and irrational; like stampeding buffalo. Who is to know what is real and what is manifested in our best interest? As one who has not researched all areas of discovery first hand, I could not with all honesty tell you I am certain of anything. I have not witnessed the birth or death of a star, galaxy, nebula firsthand. I have not reconstructed the human genome or split atoms in the storage room of my third floor apartment. I accept that I simply do not have the time or ability to encompass all areas of understanding in my lifetime. There are too many societal pressures that do not allow for a life of exploration and understanding. Here in the now we must focus on where we are and where we are going. America could eat you alive. Ask our homless millions. The forgotten and ill-labeled. The used and spent. The erased.

My Christian roots have certainly affected my way of thinking. A total disconnect has certainly not occurred for me. A desire for immortality, the need for greater meaning and importance still haunts me. Perhaps my thinking is too expansive because I require something more. If you consider existence at such an expanded perspective it is easy to feel small. If even our Universe must die than all pursuits are ultimately futile. But we do not exist on a timescale that large. In existence as we know it humans encompass less than 1%. But you could examine things from an alternative perspective. We are the universe. The same particles that have inhabited and explored the universe are within us all. Stardust. Organic elements such as carbon(from methane) carried here on comets whose reach stretch throughout our galaxy and farther are within us. When we die we shall return to such simpler places to perhaps become a piece of something or someone else. We become our parents because we are in some sense our parents, we are but an abberated clone of the combination. No matter how we attempt to disconnect ourselves from who our parents and even our society are we cannot escape because we are at some level, the same.

Deism, the belief in a god outside of religion. A personal relationship with whatever force is responsible for our creation, and what we are ultimately a piece of. To some degree this way of thinking is still illogical, because we cannot know. There is no verifiable evidence or any logical method with known evidence to assume that a creator exists. Where understanding stops, god is born. The problem is where in the chain, the equation, is god necessary? The more we know, the more we realize how little we truly know. The god concept, as far as I can tell, is the imagination of man in full effect. Internal debates wage inside many of us. Logic and desire conflict and struggle to overcome one another. Personally, there is no way to be 100% sure of anything; but as long as we remember to practice altruism and remember that we are just a piece of the whole we may just make our ignorance a little easier to tolerate. Irrationality on a theological or philosophical level is irrelevant unless it leads you to negative interactions with your fellow human. None are valid. All are valid. What’s the difference?

Banned From Church

Reviving an ancient practice, churches are exposing sinners and shunning those who won’t repent.

On a quiet Sunday morning in June, as worshippers settled into the pews at Allen Baptist Church in southwestern Michigan, Pastor Jason Burrick grabbed his cellphone and dialed 911. When a dispatcher answered, the preacher said a former congregant was in the sanctuary. “And we need to, um, have her out A.S.A.P.”

Half an hour later, 71-year-old Karolyn Caskey, a church member for nearly 50 years who had taught Sunday school and regularly donated 10% of her pension, was led out by a state trooper and a county sheriff’s officer. One held her purse and Bible. The other put her in handcuffs. (Listen to the 911 call)

The charge was trespassing, but Mrs. Caskey’s real offense, in her pastor’s view, was spiritual. Several months earlier, when she had questioned his authority, he’d charged her with spreading “a spirit of cancer and discord” and expelled her from the congregation. “I’ve been shunned,” she says.

Her story reflects a growing movement among some conservative Protestant pastors to bring back church discipline, an ancient practice in which suspected sinners are privately confronted and then publicly castigated and excommunicated if they refuse to repent. While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.

The revival is part of a broader movement to restore churches to their traditional role as moral enforcers, Christian leaders say. Some say that contemporary churches have grown soft on sinners, citing the rise of suburban megachurches where pastors preach self-affirming messages rather than focusing on sin and redemption. Others point to a passage in the gospel of Matthew that says unrepentant sinners must be shunned.

Causing Disharmony

Watermark Community Church, a nondenominational church in Dallas that draws 4,000 people to services, requires members to sign a form stating they will submit to the “care and correction” of church elders. Last week, the pastor of a 6,000-member megachurch in Nashville, Tenn., threatened to expel 74 members for gossiping and causing disharmony unless they repented. The congregants had sued the pastor for access to the church’s financial records.

First Baptist Church of Muscle Shoals, Ala., a 1,000-member congregation, expels five to seven members a year for “blatant, undeniable patterns of willful sin,” which have included adultery, drunkenness and refusal to honor church elders. About 400 people have left the church over the years for what they view as an overly harsh persecution of sinners, Pastor Jeff Noblit says.

Read the full article here.

That’s the Feeling I Get…

The following is a comment made by a “Christian” on a separate post. No, I don’t believe that all Christians feel this way, I just love to point out the nutters! Okay, here goes: Read more

Scamming in the Name of God

Perhaps you have received the same email that I was blessed to receive. Jesus said that his disciples would be “fishers of men.” I call this one “Phishing for Men.” Read more

What is a Skeptic?

Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: What is a Skeptic?
It can be hard being a skeptic sometimes. It seems like everywhere you turn there is more and more nonsense. Television shows like “Psychic Detective” pass off anecdotal stories as fact. Even so called informative channels, such as the History Channel and Discovery Channel have more than their fair share of nonsense. Shows about UFOs, bigfoot, and the supernatural seem to overshadow the good programing. These kinds of shows on such legitimate channels give an air of respectability to these claims that are often backed up by poor evidence. And the public’s knowledge about science, history, geography, and just about every subject seems to be getting worse. A Gallop Poll from 1991 shows the level of belief in nonsense in the US, and it isn’t pretty. Even though it is a somewhat old poll, I suspect that the numbers haven’t changed much. 52% Astrology 33% Atlantis 41% think dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously 65% Noah’s flood 35% Ghosts None of these have any solid evidence to back them. I think Michael Shermer put it best when he asked “What is a Skeptic?” “What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skeptics are from Missouri—the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, “that’s nice, prove it.” Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.” Skeptics should not be too closed minded, but instead base our knowledge on evidence. As Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence.” Skeptics should use the scientific method of observation, description, prediction, control, and falsifiability to evaluate claims. Sagan also came up with the Baloney Detection Kit, which skeptics should utilize. http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/baloneydetectionkit.htm Skeptics should also be able to tell a bad scientific argument from a good one. http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/arguments.html In Shermer’s book Why People Believe Weird Things he lists some tactics of pseudoscience. Even though he is talking about the holocaust denial movement, he describes the tactics as “eerily similar” to other groups. 1. They concentrate on their opponents weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. 2. They exploit errors made by scholars and imply since some of their conclusions may have been wrong, they all are. 3. They make use out of context quotes. One example is the Darwin and the eye quote often used by anti evolutionists. 4. The mistake honest debate over the details in a particular field as a sign of weakness of the entire field. 5. They focus on the unknown and ignore what is known. I also recently read about some research into Chiropractors who reject germ theory and vaccinations. The tactics are similar to what Shermer noted, but they deserve mention. 1. They doubt the science. Basically they claim the science to support what goes against their personal beliefs isn’t good enough, no matter what the amount of evidence is. 2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists. This is common in pseudoscience as many people believe there is a huge conspiracy among scientists to further some secret goal. For instance, the claim that climatologists who study global warming are in it for the money and are trying to bring socialism to the US is a serious claim, backed up by poor evidence, usually quotes. 3. Magnify disagreements and cite gadflies as authorities. This is similar to Shermer’s number four tactic. The citing of Gadflies is where someone ignores 99% of all scientists in one field but accept the one that supports their personal beliefs. 4. Exaggerate potential harm. This is like when creationists claim that teaching evolution in schools will lead to violence, which once again, is not supported by any good evidence. 5. Appeal to personal freedom. To use creationists as an example again, this is similar to when they want the schools to teach religion in science class and “let the students decide.” Of course they usually only want their religion taught and no others. 6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. This is when someone refuses to accept something, no matter how much evidence there is, because it will destroy their personal beliefs. For instance, germ theory deniers will not accept the fact that disease is caused by germs because it goes against their belief that disease is caused by other factors. The amount of evidence is irrelevant to these people. They are True Believers. Posted with permission from the author Gerald (Riptor) an author of http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/forum/index.php http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4881

RvF: Progress Report

As most of you know, our project, Reason VS Faith is in development.  How’s it coming along? Great, thanks for asking! The design is moving right along (as some of you that have gotten a sneak peak have seen). Now, I will be concentrating on the inner workings of the site. Here is what we have so far.

There will be two administrators (or moderators, if you will), one for each side of the discussions. We want this site to be as balanced as possible. As the site grows, we will add more moderators.

Each author will have their own RvF email address, so as to not plug up their personal email addresses with site related emails. (Gets annoying, really.  Especially when your name is Darque and you write a post that gets over 45 comments in a night…)

There will be a “Meet the Press” page with the authors’ blurb and a picture, if they wish to have it posted.

What would you like to see? Do you want a forum included in the site? Now is the time to bring up the wishlist!

Why are Americans so religious?

Is the separation of state and church is our downfal?

The separation of church and state allows religious freedom, whereas religious freedom was not allowed in any large country anywhere else in the world. It allowed religions to diversify and adapt and evolve and compete for adherents. The most persuasive ideologies like Catholicism, evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity won, and the other competitors were the losers.

Go to a large church in the United States, and the services are like rock concerts with thousands singing and clapping and dancing.

Keeping religious symbols also feeds the monster, as well as the commercialism of Christmas and Easter which perpetuates Christianity.

We are a nation of religious hypocrites, alongside very vocal fundamentalist extremists. The majority seem to be cultural Christians who like the warm, fuzzy notions that come along with a god belief meanwhile ignoring whatever they don’t like. Sure, they’ll profess to be Christians because it’s traditional and more socially acceptable, and then rarely set foot inside a church, read a Bible, engage in whatever extramarital sex they prefer, and go to the bar to get loaded. But still, they are good “Christians” who consider themselves to be believers.

Then, of course, we see the guilt of this hypocrisy when this majority of cultural Christians enable the radical fundamentalists, who seem to thrive in our government, through notions like removing evolution/teaching creationism in schools or a gay marriage ban. It achieves a false sense of piety when they get to persecute minorities via what they claim is a religious morality that they themselves often disregard. And they seem to keep getting nuttier and nuttier; it’s depressing, especially in the face of the next election and Huckabee so likable and popular.

Reason VS Faith: The Next Adventure

TJM will remain as it is; a place for atheists and agnostics to post their thoughts and essays. Anyone is permitted to comment but it will be run by AA’s and the posts will be from the perspective of AA’s.  I have received requests for a more open site that has a balanced group of authors from both sides of the fence; atheists and theists. Read more

Notice from INS

Luci sent me a scanned copy of the INS notification. At her request, I’ve redacted Erhard’s mailing address.

The notice is available, in PDF format, here: erhardinsnotice.pdf (2mb)

AskMeHelpDesk.com

Yippee! This is yet another forum where we can let our voices be heard. There are many other cool things on there as well, but I joined a couple of days ago and if nothing else it’s driving traffic to our site, just like some of the people on that site say. A lot of the talk about Luci’s issue is whether or not it’s legit, and I can understand their concern. However, I, as well as Luce and Rival, are trying to impress upon the readers there that this isn’t a ploy for Luci to get money nor is it something that we are using to get people to our site. Let’s get over there and give all the information that we have. The more the merrier!!