Hi! I'm a tech guy, skeptic, feminist, gamer and atheist, and love OSS and science of all stripes. I enjoy a good bit of whargarbl now and again, and will occasionally even seek it out. I am also apparently responsible for the death of common sense on the internet. My bad.
I have opinions. So do you. You want to share them with me. I would like to do likewise. Please don't expect a platform for proselytizing that will go unchecked and unchallenged, though. Contact me via the clicky thingies under my banner.
The commenting rules are simple: don't piss me off. This rule has worked for me for a decade; I have never found a need for any other rule, because any other rules leads to rules-lawyering. Just remember --
this is my property, not yours.
I wish you religious folks would make up your minds. Either we’re targetting Christians specifically and not including non-Christian religions when we talk about how stupid religion is, or we’re not talking about Christianity exclusively.
Religion and science conflict more often than you’d care to admit. What about evolutionary theory, with which the Catholic Church eventually agreed in the face of the staggering evidence available? What about archaeology, chemistry, atomic theory, genetics, and biology, out of which the evolutionary theory is made (and if evolutionary theory itself is wrong, then at least one of these fields are necessarily wrong — so which one do you choose to eliminate)? What about stem cell research, where fetuses that were due to be incinerated from fertility treatments where an implantation was already chosen from the multiple created fetuses, are rescued from being incinerated and used for research into how to save people’s lives instead? What about Copernicus, to whom the Catholic Church eventually apologized? What about cosmology, the evidence for which suggests that the universe started out as an unevenly distributed mist of hydrogen that eventually coalesced and became stars, which eventually went supernova and seeded the nearby areas with the higher elements? What about the time scale necessary for this?
I live in Canada. Thankfully, it is insulated somewhat from your country’s attempts at eliminating the separation of church and state, after which I doubt anyone in the States will be allowed to dissent from the Christian dogma. If a politician in Canada makes any statement of faith, they are thrown out of office. You are not allowed to bring religion into your politics. That way, anyone of any faith is allowed to run the country, as long as they don’t try to use that faith to cudgel other faiths or religions or lacks of faith (e.g. Muslims, Jews, atheists), or ways of life (e.g. gays), out of their rights. You know, the way you tolerant religions always do.
And fuck you very much for suggesting that you and your religious ilk are “allowing” me to post what I post. This is an implicit suggestion that you might one day decide to revoke that right because your tolerance has run out — as though your tolerance is the only thing protecting me from a Christian mob lynching me. I’d like to think the fact that religious zealots are not allowed to gang up on us heathens comes more from the laws and societal morals in place right now, than from some misplaced “tolerance” on your part. If you were to do such a thing, it would classify as a hate crime. Except, you don’t like hate crime laws either, you want to be able to bash gays as much as possible. How long before you extend this to the right to bash atheists? How long before you extend “bash” to also mean “beat the shit out of?” Or eventually, “kill?”
You sure are a tolerant lot. The fact that we secularists allow you “tolerant” folks to water down or kill hate crime laws so that you can feel free to bash whomever you want and implicitly encourage violence against these people (think back to Sarah Palin stirring up the base about how Obama is an evil Muslim foreigner, and how many conspiracies against Obama were busted by the Secret Service as a result).
I already talked about Russia’s orthodoxy. It fell apart because the USA outspent it in the Cold War. lern2history n00b.
North Korea replaced unflagging belief in a religious deity, with unflagging belief in their Dear Leader. If you want an example of what would happen in a theocracy with a supreme leader that’s allowed to rule your country for life by the Divine Will of God, look no further than to Kim Jong Il and his dictatorship.
Some proof otherwise.
Let’s also not forget Lot.
Genesis 19:6-8
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my
friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
He was trying to rescue two angels sent from God, to keep them from being raped, offering his daughters to be raped instead. For this sacrifice, Lot was spared during the later nuking of the whole damned city. Seems like a condoning of rape to me, so long as it’s not God’s emissaries that are being raped. The fine for rape was also a mere 50 shekels at the time, and this was codified into the Bible; despite that the woman will never be able to marry since she is no longer a virgin, and will probably later be killed by stoning for being impure.
So, we’ve proven that the Bible says rape is okay. Where does that leave “forced love” which is indeed a form of rape as you say?
You are allowed to talk about God and Jesus and whatever else you want, wherever you want, except on government property. You are not allowed to post the Ten Commandments at a City Hall, you are not allowed to make laws or declarations stemming from your faith against the best science of the day, and you are not allowed to prevent people from being taught real, provable human knowledge in schools, just because the fact that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, conflicts with your belief that it is only 6000 years old.
I want you to know that, despite you never ever reading any of the replies, you will NEVER go unanswered here. Your ridiculous protestations will NEVER gain any footing here. Your freedom to swing your fist only goes as far as the point of my nose. You are not free to hit me, nor likewise are you free to suggest that I am sub-human and therefore worthy of being hit.
Only one problem with your illustration…these were not Christians. When you look at Christianity as a whole, you can see the massive increase in scientific knowledge in the Western world. Christianity has been the heart of the Western World. It is just a fact that Christian nations are progressing nations. Secular nations cannot even begin to compete such as Communist Russia which finally fell apart. N. Korea is a great example of another secular country which is falling apart and abusing its people through starvation.
I know it is hard to accept this fact, but Christianity and it embrace of tolerance is the reason you are allowed to even post on this web-site.
Christians do not believe in forced love which is a form a rape. The founders wrote free speech and freedom of religion into the Constitution because they knew a person couldn’t legilate the Love of God into society; rather, if a society relied on the love of God, the only thing that could stop it was for selfish men to legislate and limit the free expression of Christianity in the public sphere which is happening today unfortunately.
Christians are strong supporters of free speech and freedom of religion as evidenced by Christians putting it at the top of the list in our Constitution. In fact, the apostles gave their lives for this very freedom.
ZDENNY said:
I’m certainly glad I hadn’t taken a drink just before reading this or I would have sprayed it all over my monitor. You can’t actually be serious about that statement, can you? Christianity embrace tolerance? My ass! YOU PEOPLE were among the reasons things like free speech and freedom of religion were made a part of the constitution. No, it wasn’t because Christians wanted it there. It’s because others wanted to be certian that Christians were not allowed to tell everyone else what they could say, and what they could believe. Those things are there to protect the rest of the nation from theocratic assholes just like you.
If you travel to North Korea which is a non-Christian country or to China a non-Christian country or to Russia a non-Christian country, you will then know the difference between a totally secular country and a Christian dominated country. Since 1960 the seculars have dominated our society and as a result America has ended the lives of 60 million kids through abortion. Secularism is dangerous!
Traveling outside the U.S. will sometimes give you a broader look at the big picture by comparing countries.
In addition, our founders almost all believed that he Bible was the Word of God. It is these men that gave you freedom of speech.
The reason for freedom of speech is because you can’t make a law the forces people to love one another; however, you can pass a law that keeps people from shutting down those who are preaching the Love of God in our society.
The founders really believed that Christianity would always win in the arena of ideas because it is based on the Love of God!
“So, we’ve proven that the Bible says rape is okay. Where does that leave “forced love” which is indeed a form of rape as you say?”
Classic mistake! The Bible descriptions of what happened are not prescriptions for us. If a newspaper records a rape, does that mean that the newspaper is recommending it?
Your being a dishonest with Scripture.
“we secularists allow you “tolerant” folks to water down or kill hate crime laws so that you can feel free to bash whomever you want and implicitly encourage violence against these people”
Great example of how Christian love stands on truth. I don’t know of any Biblically based organizations that encourage violence. It would be in direct violation of the Word of God which says we are to love our enemies. Christianity is based on love and so we warn people that certain lifestyles are destructive.
No one can argue that homosexuality is not destructive to the individual themselves. They have very high suicide rates. We don’t wish this lifestyle upon anyone because it is opposed to God’s design for their life. We even say this out of love for them based on our common humanity.
Hate Crimes Law is not about hate…It is about speech…In your post you said, “feel free to bash…” I think this is a perfect example that Hate Crimes Bill is about limiting and censoring speech! This is what seculars do!! They want to stop the advance of the love of God in our society by ending debate. North Korea does the same thing.
While I am grateful for the attention you pay to my blog, I must insist you pay as much attention to the actual counterarguments we put so much time and effort into writing. You do nothing but reiterate your point again and again, regardless of what evidence we present that contradicts it. I truly wish you’d learn to listen.
But despite the fact that you will ignore yet again, I will yet again counter your arguments in hopes that someone who comes after you will see how flawed these arguments really are. I really do hope you continue to link to me, and point your fellow believers to these pages where your arguments are eviscerated and you are proven to give very little thought to what is said outside of what you see through your Bible Goggles.
Here are some assertions that you have to prove in order to have any credibility with this claim. First, prove that these abortions were done by secularists. Second, prove that these abortions were unnecessary (or at least in what percentage they were not medically indicated). Third, prove that these abortions would not have happened otherwise (e.g. by illegal abortion methods). Fourth, prove that these fetuses that were aborted were viable to begin with (as in, they weren’t aborted for medical reasons, such as because they had no brains or no heart or no head). Fifth, prove that this abortion rate is at all on the increase (as evidence suggests abortion in the US has declined since the 1960s significantly). Sixth, prove that this supposed increase in abortion rate is due to secularism (which will be hard since abortion is on the decline). These assertions are for you to prove. Not us.
Additionally, what does the bible say about abortion?
And that’s not even showing all the instances on that page where God His Damn Self either ordered the abortion or caused it by his own magical sky hand.
Do you even know what site you’re on? Or are you functionally retarded?
How many times does it have to be said that YOUR founding fathers founded the nation such that anyone is free to practice any religion they want, including a lack of religion? And that they wrote the Constitution both to prevent your rights to practice whatever religion you wanted from being abridged, and to prevent any one religion from going out and trying to destroy any other religion or way of life. Including yours — you’re not allowed to go around abridging other people’s freedoms.
Prove it. Here’s my counter-proof.
Lemme get this straight. God rewarding and sparing Lot for allowing his daughters to be raped, substituting his innocent and defenseless daughters for God’s holy soldiers that are probably ethereal and not able to be cornholed to begin with, is not proof that God’s okay with rape? How about, then, the bible setting out the rule that if a woman is raped, she is to be afterward married by the rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? How about Deuteronomy 22:23-24, where if a woman who is married, is raped inside a city, both she and the rapist are to be stoned to death, the woman because she obviously must not have screamed loud enough to get rescued (seriously, what the fuck?). How about Judges 5:30, where God approves of the taking of women as spoils of war? How about Zechariah 14:1-2, where God actively assists in women being taken and “ravished” as spoils of war? Or Exodus 21:7-11, where God sets out the rules for selling your daughter as a sex slave?
Who’s being dishonest with scripture? The fact that we atheists do not believe in any revealed scripture as being unvarnished truth and are capable of seeing these passages for what they are, and yet you, who believes in your Bible as inerrant revealed truth, make apologies for and claim dishonesty in others who point out what your God condones and condemns, suggests to me that you have to be on the outside of your religion in order to be honest about it.
If you were told all your life that what you are, your very nature, is evil and sinful and wrong, you would have the same level of cognitive dissonance that causes suicide to be higher. I think that puts religious folks like you at fault for the higher suicide rates. Imagine for a moment that one person’s interpretation of an ambiguous Bible quote, considered blonde-haired folks to be sinful and claimed that God said they must dye their hair brown in order to be right with the Lord. Of course, dying one’s hair doesn’t change the fact that their hair is naturally blonde — they are merely pretending to be brunettes to appease you. And I say you, not the Lord, since the Lord if he exists loves everyone equally regardless of how he made them, and since he made them blonde, it’s kind of his own fault.
Now, in my example, imagine that being blonde felt good and right, but being brunette felt false and wrong. Yet, you scrupulously died your hair every single morning to keep any hint of roots from showing. Then one morning you were tired of it, and you decided to skip a day. On that day, someone noticed your blonde roots, beat the hell out of you, tied you to a fence and left you to die. All because you have naturally blonde hair. This is what’s happening to gays. They are being discriminated against, hurt, and killed, all because they are naturally something different from you. This is what that hate crime law is for — not to keep your preachers from standing at the pulpits and saying that blondes are evil and sinful, but to keep people from going out and hurting and maiming and killing everyone who has blonde hair just because they have blonde hair. The fact that any blonde is equally a target makes it a hate crime.
And guess what? People only get the idea that being blonde is bad because some guy is standing at the pulpit flogging his interpretation of an ambiguous Bible quote that suggests that blondes are bad. While I’d argue that hate speech is horrible, I’d never argue that people who perform hate speech should be thrown in jail just for that. Otherwise, pretty well every one of us who disagrees with another’s position could be thrown in jail for daring to speak out against one another. That bill that you’re fighting so strongly is about people hurting others physically. It is about stopping the terrorism (by which I mean, hurting a member of a group to make the rest of the group fear the same violence) that intolerance breeds. It is not about stopping the intolerance itself.
I’d suggest you read this before you make yourself look ridiculous trying to defend your church’s attempt to defend terrorism.
I’d also suggest you read my counterarguments for once. Or, go away. Either way works. You seem intent on trolling this place and ignoring that which is said against you. This is an annoying habit, I have to say.
Shorter Zdenny: blah blah secularism is evil yadda yadda I don’t need proof homina homina common sense says I’m right.
Whatever. You’re not even trying.
I’m going to bed. If he posts anything ridiculous, could someone kindly kick his metaphorical nards?
Jason, “Here are some assertions that you have to prove in order to have any credibility with this claim. First, prove that these abortions were done by secularists. Second, prove that these abortions were unnecessary (or at least in what percentage they were not medically indicated). Third, prove that these abortions would not have happened otherwise (e.g. by illegal abortion methods). Fourth, prove that these fetuses that were aborted were viable to begin with (as in, they weren’t aborted for medical reasons, such as because they had no brains or no heart or no head). Fifth, prove that this abortion rate is at all on the increase (as evidence suggests abortion in the US has declined since the 1960s significantly). Sixth, prove that this supposed increase in abortion rate is due to secularism (which will be hard since abortion is on the decline). These assertions are for you to prove. Not us.”
I don’t think it is necessary as the burden of proof is on the secularist who control the courts, schools, and government. The current condition of our society is their responsibility and they are failing! The schools started teaching evolution as truth around the 1940 and by the 1960’s prayer was taken out of school. Since the 1960’s, the seculars who controled the courts made abortion a right. Now we have 60 million dead with the vast majority of them being done out of convenience.
When Christianity dominated society, abortion just didn’t happen because society was centered on love of ones neighbor. Abortion in vast majority of cases is done out of convenience and certainly not done in love. If a person knew the love of God, they would give their child up for adoption and let them have a chance at life.
With secularism, you don’t have love as the centerpiece of society; rather, self is the center of society with everyone demanding their rights with a disregard for ones neighbor.
You can see how secularism is moving us toward socialism. In this day and age, everyone is asking what the government can do for them.
In North Korea, the government is controlling everything and you can see the result. Secularism which lacks a heart moves people towards bondage and loss of freedom.
A person with common sense can simply compare Christian dominated nations with Secular nations. The contrast is stark!
It is like biting into an apple or an orange. You don’t have to do an indepth study on the fruit in order to taste the difference because the contrast is so stark.
“Religion and science conflict more often than you’d care to admit. What about evolutionary theory, with which the Catholic Church eventually agreed in the face of the staggering evidence available? What about archaeology, chemistry, atomic theory, genetics, and biology, out of which the evolutionary theory is made (and if evolutionary theory itself is wrong, then at least one of these fields are necessarily wrong — so which one do you choose to eliminate)? What about stem cell research, where fetuses that were due to be incinerated from fertility treatments where an implantation was already chosen from the multiple created fetuses, are rescued from being incinerated and used for research into how to save people’s lives instead? What about Copernicus, to whom the Catholic Church eventually apologized? What about cosmology, the evidence for which suggests that the universe started out as an unevenly distributed mist of hydrogen that eventually coalesced and became stars, which eventually went supernova and seeded the nearby areas with the higher elements? What about the time scale necessary for this?”
Cosmology is certainly not settled science. In fact, we have not even observed a star being formed in the universe. With billions upon billions of stars, you think we would have observed one by now, but we haven’t so I am very, very doubtful that hydrogen clouds create stars. The age of a star is based on presuppositions that haven’t been proven.
I am the first to admit that we really don’t know much anything about Astro-Physics as of yet. I love science and am amazed by it and I look forward to the future in this field. The evidence of magnetic field decay, the distance of the moon from the earth, the fact that only a few stars are dying after 14 billion years is strange if the universe is truly 14 billion years old. In fact, the spirals on the galaxies still maintain their shape which is really strange because the outer stars travel slower than the inner ones which means that after 14 billion years, their tails should be all mixed up but their not. Their is a ton of evidence that the universe may be young and everyone is working on presuppositions at this point…but it is developing. We just need more freedom to think outside the box which our current system doesn’t allow in the Universities.
Stem cell research. Christians support adult stem cells; however, they are against ending the life of a fetus who has a unique sequence of DNA by which it is defined for life. Since life is a gift from God, we don’t want to end that gift for anyone.
In archaeology, there never has been a finding that disagreed with the Bible. Still hitting perfect in this field.
Copernicus was a Christian. I am not sure what the issue is here. So the church had to make a correction…this is done all the time in science.
I am not aware of any evidence for macro evolution. I am aware of evidence for micro evolution by which you have variations within a species. However, variations are always due to loss of information rather than the addition of information in the gene pool. Variations are things like Chinese people as compared to African-Americans. Variations take place within a context but have never been shown to go outside of their species or to go beyond the capability of the current gene pool.
Atomic Theory is at a dead point right now because they are unable to observe the sub-atomic field. They have set up Stern to observe atom collisions but they haven’t got much farther than that at this point. I look forward to seeing what develops in this field.
Chemistry? I am not sure anyone has a problem with chemistry.
Biology? I am not sure anyone has a problem with Biology
I am not sure what your point is. Christians love science. It was the Catholic church that first started all the Universities and got the ball rolling. Christians love science because we love to examine the design in nature. God has given us science to pursue for intellectual pleasure and His design is awesome and beyond our full comprehension. We simply believe it should be done ethically and that you shouldn’t destroy a human DNA code which contains a unique design for a human being. I think that is noble.
In fact, I am also not against teaching evolution; however, I think we should teach it critically because we have a ton of people who accept it uncritically. I think we need to also be open to an act of Creation as a possibility because an act of Creation is a real possibility and it should not be ruled out. We need to remain open minded and follow the facts; however, until all the facts are known, a final decision cannot be made on a rational level.
The fact is that the paradigm may be wrong because evolution does not explain all the facts. I find it interesting that the fossil record does not contain a clear record of evolution. The fossil record is highly disputed and it shouldn’t be which tells me that something else happened. We need to continue to seek the answer to this rather than just accept something uncritically and just leave the problems unanswered.
ZDENNY
Deleted my original two-part rebuttal… I’m promoting this to its own post.
[…] I’m promoting my own comments elsewhere in conversation with Zdenny to a post proper, because they are large enough and have enough links as to merit their own post. The main reason I promote this line of argumentation is that the fronts on which we battle are so varied and diverse as to cover a hell of a lot more ground than the original post, which was a mere Youtube video. That earlier post is here. […]