Archive for October, 2011

Recently I’ve been looking into the fibonacci sequence, I’m not a theist and I personally believe that religion is the biggest bain on society however (…Why does there always have to be a “however” here?…) I think it is odd how often this sequence pops up throughout nature etc. I am quite cynical but like to think I’m open minded and I think although I couldn’t believe in any god that already exists but the fibonacci sequence does seem to hint maybe at some possibility of something. I was wondering if you could let me know some arguments you have thought of to explain the fibonacci’s sequence throughout nature to give me something to think about. Response below the fold. Read more

The 16-year-old who wrote to us with many proofs of god, featured a few posts below, has replied via e-mail. I wanted to share the reply, and my response, interspersed below: well, to reply to you very first paragraph, lol.. does George washington exist? well, you know he does in fact exist because of documents, and history books. You know, he said MANY quotes, JUST like Jesus did. No, it’s not “just like Jesus,” because Jesus never wrote anything himself that we know of. We have no autographs. And we have no records of Jesus supplied to us by reliable eye-witness, contemporary authors. So, it’s not “just like” what we have for Jesus when it comes to George Washington. The mountain of records available for the existence of George Washington, and the specific records by contemporary peer sources for his actions during his lifetime, and his personal correspondences, make George a historic person, where Jesus becomes more myth than man. And when we’re given events that sound even a bit “iffy” about George, we don’t accept them as accurate. So “he never told a lie” is discarded as myth. And with Jesus, so many of the claims about his life are outlandish, far beyond “he never told a lie,” that we have to reject quite a lot of what is recorded about him by even the second-hand sources. So, it’s not comparable at all. how can you believe one side of history, like George washington, when you don’t believe in the history side about Jesus, doesn’t make sense AT ALL. Because I already explained that history rests on evidence available—realizing that what we claim to “know” must be supported by what we can actually reasonably support. With Jesus, again, not one reliable contemporary eye-witness account. That means what we have are stories about stories. That’s not the best to work with in trying to piece together facts. The “historic” Jesus that is put forward by historians is nothing like the Jesus recorded in the...
Read more

Slacktivist pointed out that no less than four Republican candidates have claimed that God called them to run.  Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain all state regularly that they are in the race at least partly due to the wishes of the Lord. I know this is never actually going to happen, but wouldn’t it be magnificently awkward if reporters would start asking the candidates about each other’s divine mandate?  You know, “So, Governor Perry, Representative Bachmann here has said that she regularly receives assurance from The Lord that she is meant to run.  Do you feel that she is incorrect?” We all know that there is a big social taboo against questioning any candidate’s deeply rooted personal religious opinions.  But personally, I feel like the omniscient ruler over all creation ought to be a little bit more decisive about guiding an election, don’t you think?  In a world where God really existed and actively desired the election of one particular candidate, there might in principle be a single right answer to the question of who’s really God’s candidate.  It might, of course, be an undiscoverable answer; but if all these candidates are going around claiming they know they have God’s endorsement, at least three of them must be lying or mistaken, yes?  That ought to be a fairly obvious statement even for the most hardened theocrat. And I’d like some follow-up questions, too.  Mitt Romney the Mormon is presumed to be the likely front runner right now; suppose he wins the primary?  Is somebody please, PLEASE going to go up to Rick Santorum and ask “So, Rick, you said that God wanted you to run, but that Mormon guy sure did kick your ass.  Why did that happen?”  And if Obama is re-elected, I’m dying for all four of them to answer the question about what the heck God was up to.

Got a PM on Facebook today from a fellow heathen who presented me with the following. Hey Martin, I have a dilemma and was hoping for some quick advice on how to handle a situation. I am a part of a theology group here on FB and during one of these exchanges a Christian (fairly fundy) said he would die for his god and asked what I would die for. My response was that it sounded like jihad. Was this a good approach I guess is my question? I’m pretty sure (with the fundy part) he’s just not going to get where the similarities are between jihad and fundamental christianity but I can try right? lol Any advice is appreciated. Bringing up jihad isn’t a bad point, but an unnecessary one. Why would this dude die for his God? What has convinced him that this being is real, and so important, that such a crazy act might be required, and would be acceptable if required? If this God is all powerful and can do anything, as most Christians believe, what would be accomplished in this God’s benefit that He could not accomplish just as easily without this person having to die? This kind of expression strikes me as a prime example of the irrationality of religious belief. No one would be so quick to say he would die for his God if he had truly considered the above questions. It is possible there are things I might die for — like defending my family, or my country if it were invaded — but so what? The whole issue is beside the point. His willingness to die for his God, on top of being irrational, does not in any way constitute evidence God actually exists. It only proves what a fanatic this guy is.

This is one of those e-mails where, if I’m going to take the considerable time it will require to answer it, more than one person should benefit. So, rather than reply directly to the correspondent, I think the blog is a better venue for this sort of information. A lot of what “AS” has to say below is the same disinformation I was handed as a young person growing up in a fundamentalist, literalist church. At least two items are pretty much exactly what I was told. And so I feel compelled to respond. First of all, nothing below matters in the least unless a god exists. If no god exists, then there was no sacrifice. If no god exists, there was no deity who walked among us. If no god exists, the Bible is not divinely inspired. And so on. In the same way it makes no sense to say “Fairies make the flowers bloom, and if you doubt me, I have but to show you a blooming flower,” it makes no sense to say “God is responsible for X, and if you doubt me, I have but to show you X.” And X can be filled in with “coming to earth as a man,” or “inspiring the Bible,” or “creating the universe,” or whatever your heart desires. Whatever you think god has done, until you demonstrate a god actually exists, you haven’t made your point. That being said, a lot of the refutation below becomes moot. BUT, it may have significance to theists who care about whether or not the church is lying to them, or whether or not what they believe and promote is even likely to be true. And so, I put myself through the pointless paces below because it’s possible someone, somewhere might benefit. First of all the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t for God himself, it was for His Creation. because God is a holy and righteous God He CANNOT look upon sin, because he gave His Creation free will, we’ve ALL chosen to sin, and because of that we can’t be in God’s presence. If we’ve accepted Jesus Christ God CAN then and ONLY then look at us as sanctified, and...
Read more