Heaven for the climate?

I'm sure we've all heard the phrase "Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." Well, I've recently run across an infographic that very much throws the favorability of Heaven's supposed climate into doubt. In fact, it concludes that Heaven is hotter than Hell! Let's take a look and examine the claims...

To make the case on how hot Heaven is, the verse Isaiah 30:26 from the Bible is referenced:

Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.

This means that the light in Heaven will not only be much brighter than on Earth, but 50 times greater! The graphic then goes on to say that if you use the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation (H/E)⁴ = 50 where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven as 977°F.

Does this look like Heaven to you? Well, Mercury has one
thing going for it... It's a bit cooler.

A quick look at the math shows that the calculations are accurate. So given no atmosphere, that would mean that the minimum temperature of Heaven would be 977°F. Throw an atmosphere into the equation, and the temperature just goes up depending on the composition and density.

To put that into perspective, Mercury has a very very thin atmosphere and reaches 800°F during the day. Meanwhile, Venus is 863°F. While Venus is further from the Sun, it's thick atmosphere makes it warmer than Mercury. We have sent landers to these tortured worlds, and they certainly don't look like Heaven. We have mapped them as well, and no pearly gates to be found.

So what did it have to say about Hell? Once again, it turns to the Bible (Revelation 21:8):

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

 A lake of sulfur is pretty easy to check out. On Earth, sulfur is liquid from 239°F to 833°F. So that puts the minimum temperature of Heaven as 977°F and the maximum temperature of Hell is 833°F. So Hell is a minimum of 144°F cooler than Heaven. Or is it?

The truth is that the numbers for Heaven are solid, but Hell... There's some gray area there. Remember, the numbers for Hell are based on the melting point of sulfur of Earth. If the pressure were lower (like in the atmosphere free example for Heaven) the melting point of sulfur would drop. So, an apples-to-apples comparison would mean that Hell would be even cooler. Conversely, if the pressure were to be ramped up, the melting point of sulfur (and temperature of Hell) would rise above 833°F.

And at least one apologist realized this pressure variable and claims to have proven that Hell is hotter than Heaven after-all. They cite the estimated number of damned, claimed size of Hell, and the pressure of the average body once reduced to vapor. But there are a few problem assumptions here.

For starters, why would the composite vapor created by a human body matter? After all, it's not the body that supposedly goes to Hell (and Heaven), but the somehow immaterial 'soul'. If it's immaterial, it's not going to be raising the pressure any. This alone destroys the claimed refutation. But there's more to consider. Suppose we grant the premise that souls = pressure. That means that the souls that go to Heaven also make Heaven hotter.

But there is one final thing to mention... Suppose that pressure actually made Hell hotter than Heaven... Would it even really matter? Heaven is still a minimum temperature of 977°F according to the Bible. Does that sort of temperature sound like an eternal dream vacation to you?


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Heaven... For real?

Seriously... Someone asked Billy Graham is Heaven is real again? Sigh...

What is heaven like? Is it an actual place, or is it just a state of mind? How do we know what it's like anyway?

How do you define Heaven? If you are referring to the Christian version, there's no real way to know. But the fact is that there is no evidence that it exists, so there's no good reason to think that it is a physical place.

The Bible doesn't answer all our questions about heaven because it is far more glorious than anything we can possibly imagine! But it does give us glimpses of heaven and what it will be like - and those are more than enough to make us want to go there!

Like the fact that the Bible describes Heaven as unending worship and not hanging out with your family? Or the fact that Heaven is actually described as a place that is actually hotter than the Bible describes Hell (more on that tomorrow)? Sorry, doesn't sound at all glorious to me...

One important truth about heaven is that it is real. It isn't just something people dreamed up because they hoped there might be something beyond the grave. Nor is it just a state of mind (like a dream), with no reality behind it. Heaven may include dimensions we can't even imagine, but it is real, and we'll even be given new bodies so we can enjoy its reality.

No, the truth isn't that Heaven is real. Sure, it could be true (highly unlikely)... But the time to say something is true is after it has actually been demonstrated to be true. Is that so much of an ask?

But equally important is another truth: Heaven is the place where God dwells. His glory and majesty will fill heaven, and we will see Him as He truly is. I can't begin to imagine what that will be like, but it will be glorious! Centuries ago, Job declared, "I know that my redeemer lives.... I myself will see him with my own eyes" (Job 19:25,27).

 Again, truth doesn't mean what Billy thinks it means. So a god that has not been shown to exist dwells in a place that has not been shown to exist, yet he talks as if these are well documented and verified facts. They are nothing of the sort!

The greatest truth about heaven, however, is that we can go there! Sin cuts us off from heaven, and unless we're cleansed of our sins, we have no hope of ever sharing in heaven's glory. But Christ came to take away our sins, and He did this by His death for us on the cross. Have you trusted Him alone for your salvation? If not, or if you're unsure, ask Him to come into your life today. God's promise is for you: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36).

Ooh, ooh! Let me play! The truth is that Valhalla is real, and after Ragnarok Thor, Odin and the other gods will dwell there. But the best part is that you can go there too! But being a wimp cuts you off from Valhalla's glory. Ah, but die gloriously in battle and the never ending feast and merriment of Valhalla shall be yours! How'd I do?




-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Protecting children from TV

A concerned parent writes Billy Graham curious if they are doing the right thing by limiting what TV they let their children watch...

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: Our children get upset at us because we won’t let them watch some of the TV programs their friends do. Are we just being narrow-minded? We’re appalled at some of the things their friends watch, and yet their parents don’t seem to care. — S.J.

Is SJ being narrow-minded? Well, it's really hard to say... SJ doesn't say which shows they are disallowing, so it's quite difficult to pass judgement as to whether SJ is being reasonable or unreasonable. 

DEAR S.J.: No, you aren’t being narrow-minded (although some people may label you as such). One of the responsibilities God gives us as parents is to guard our children from harm, including moral and spiritual harm.

But our responsibility isn’t just to keep them from harm. It’s also to help them develop their inner moral character, including their ability to decide what’s right and wrong and learn to make wise choices as they grow older.

Good character doesn’t just happen, nor do children have a natural instinct to do what’s right and avoid what’s wrong. They have to learn them, and their parents should be their main teachers.
The Bible says, “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6).

But what if parents neglect that responsibility or don’t even care? What if they allow the media to become their child’s main teacher about right and wrong? We may think it doesn’t matter, but it does.

Know what your children watch, and be wise in what you permit them to do. When you have to say “no” to them, explain why. Above all, make Christ and his word the foundation of your lives.

Let his joy fill your home, and encourage your children to give their lives to Christ. And remember the Bible’s admonition: “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure … think about such things” (Philippians 4:8).

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/07/5006173/limiting-what-your-children-watch.html#storylink=cpy

 Okay... So Billy thinks that SJ is doing the right thing even though he isn't told what shows are being censored, but thinks that the Bible is just great for kids? Am I missing something here? Okay, some TV shows do contain language, violence and suggestive themes that may be inappropriate for young children. If that makes the shows in question a no-no for kids, then in the case, the Bible is very very bad for them as well.

After all, the Bible promotes the slaughter of cities of people that believe differently. It glorifies a worldwide genocide (Genesis). It's pages depict children and babies being dashed to pieces and pregnant women torn open (Hosea, 2 Kings, Psalms), children being torn to pieces by bears(2 Kings), commands the stoning of disobedient children to death (Deuteronomy), actually cooking and eating children (2 Kings), incest (Genesis) and parents willingly handing their daughters over to be raped (Genesis). Want more? How about this suggestive talk in Ezekiel? "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." 

What about slavery? Is that a good topic for kids? Because the Bible justifies the enslavement of other peoples, as well as beating them (so long as you don't beat them too much... how generous). Forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy)? What could be a better bed-time story! Jesus saying to hate your family and love him more than any other (Luke)? Talk about good old family values... Scary and terrible monsters? They're in there too. And then there's the Bible's big story that we are all born as terrible broken people and that if we don't kiss God's behind and hold Jesus' hand, we are cursed to be terribly burned and tortured for all of eternity. Ah, what kid wouldn't love reading that just before bed? 

Oh, and I almost forgot... There's the get out of jail free card that the Bible teaches that you get if you are Jesus' BFF. Believe in him and you are set for Heaven no matter what you do in life. So is that really a teaching conducive to good behavior. Hey, it's easier to just ask forgiveness than ask permission...


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/07/5006173/limiting-what-your-children-watch.html#storylink=cpy

New Atheist Truthiness?

A fellow blogger called Eric Mader wrote an entry the other day that really seems to miss the mark at every step. Reading it, I leave myself asking one question... Is he basing his entire argument on a single interaction, or simply building a straw man?

The New Atheists have been with us for some time. Shrill positivists who've made public careers out of fashioning the same straw man over and over, their impact on our culture is getting harder to ignore.

Really? I'm an atheist. When the vocal atheists speak up I usually take notice to see what they have to say. Considering that this stuff interests me, I feel like new news from Dawkins and Harris doesn't come across my news feed very often.

What straw men are they fashioning? Bacause I can tell you that in my experience, it's the believers that tend to throw around the straw man arguments much more often.

Their few talking points have been absorbed widely and are regularly regurgitated any time one tries to discuss Christianity or either of the other two Abrahamic faiths. The results for serious discussion of religion have been reprehensible: a substitution of soundbites for thought.

Have you ever heard your average Christian apologist?  I don't think I've ever debated a Christian that's ever presented an original argument.

One need only raise religious concepts in almost any mixed company and immediately there pops up one or two bright-eyed keeners with: "So I suppose you believe in the Tooth Fairy too!" Or: "There is zero concrete proof that God exists! Period!"

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that someone led with either of those quotes. I have known atheists to mention the Tooth Fairy, but not in that accusing tone. Say someone asks me why I don't believe... I'll likely say that I don't believe because there is no evidence that God exists. Maybe one would continue that you probably don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, and the same reasons we don't believe in her, are the same reasons I don't believe in God. Nothing malicious or jumpy in that.

I especially like the line, traceable to Richard Dawkins: "You can believe that nonsense if you like, but don't think you have the right to teach it to children!"

I'd have to look it up, but I think you have the quote incorrect. The jist of it is that most believers believe only because they were indoctrinated as children. They didn't really get a fair chance of making up their own minds on the subject. Thusly, parents should educate children in a way that they can be educated on many religions and let them choose, or wait until they are old enough to make a sound decision on religion.

But try to take such debaters seriously, begin to engage actual argument with them, and they typically come back with things like: "Look, I'm not really interested enough in this topic to continue. It's not my concern."

Honestly, I must say that finding a theist that will take such a debate seriously is rather rare. I can't remember a time a believer presented a decent argument in debate. Typically it's a dance of regurgitating Bible verses and sound bytes, and rephrasing the same things over and over.

I have given up on a debate before, but only when it becomes a futile exercise. The theist will often ask me what would change my mind. I tell them that all it will take is evidence, and ask what would change their. The reply I always get back is that nothing will ever change their mind. They will never consider they could be wrong. These people are the definition of close-minded, so unless I have onlookers that seem to be appreciating what I'm saying, the entire exercise simply becomes a massive waste of time.

Just like Dawkins himself. Not interested enough to actually study what he claims to refute.

I don't know the extent to which Dawkins has studied religion. I'd say he seems to know it quite well. And I dare say he knows it better than most believers I know. In fact, studies have shown atheists to know religion much better than your average Christian.

In my mind the saddest part of the rise of Dawkins, Harris and Co. is that a New Atheist theology has actually taken root. Yes, it is a theology.

Um... How does that make any sense? Theology is defined as the study of the nature of God and religious belief; religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed. Atheism has no god, so it's not theology. Many atheists are interested in theology, but that doesn't make atheism a theology.

This little clique's arguments only hold water to the degree that their portrayal of Christian and other monotheistic theologies is accurate. But it is not accurate in this least; it is laughable. Thus even as they forge their neat bullet points they're compelled to project a theological target at which their bullets can be fired. And since they haven't studied actual theology, they draw the target on their own. 

Examples please... You can claim straw man all you want, but without an example it's a rather meaningless accusation. I also find it laughable that Eric prevails with the claim that atheists haven't studied actual theology. Most of us were believers once. Most of us have read the Bible. More often than not, the average atheists has read more of the Bible than your average Christian. I know that I've more than a few times told believers about verses that they had no idea where in the Bible. What about ex clergy who are now atheists? Did they somehow teach theology without actually studying it? And what of the many atheists that used to argue for God prior to losing faith?

Since no serious theologians subscribe to the kind of thinking they project, it is all their own: an in-house project.

Except for atheist theologians of course.Or is Eric not counting them as 'serious theologians' (No True Scotsman fallacy)? What, all the Christian theologians don't agree with atheism? Gee, what a shock!

Trite, shallow, grade-schoolish--of course this theology they revile is easy to take down. They made it for that purpose. Voilà the whole New Atheist project in a nutshell.

Him: "So I suppose you think you think Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs, right?" Me: "Actually I think evolutionary theory is correct about the rise of species."
Him: "Well then you're not a real Christian, are you?"
Me: "Uh. Sorry if I suggest that you're not the one to tell me what a real Christian is."

What an absurd example! First of all, we are usually the ones pointing out the widespread use of the No True Scotsman fallacy by Christians. In fact, Eric just committed that very error just prior to typing this laughable example.

Why is it absurd? For starters, I've only know atheists to pull out the Adam and Eve dinosaur shtick when they are debating a believer that is actually advocating the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. A perfectly valid statement in that context. As for the 'you're not a real Christian' claim... I have a hard time believing it, because I've lost count of how many times I've had a Christian call another Christian 'not a real Christian', and I'd have to point out the relevant fallacy.

The tedious arrogance of these people! It's lucky most "real Christians" are reluctant to resort to violence. There'd be plenty of broken noses out there by now.

Arrogance? I, and most atheists will admit that we could be wrong, and will change our mind if given evidence. Meanwhile, almost every believer I've debated has said there is absolutely no way that they  could be wrong, and that they would refuse to consider any evidence that counters what they believe. It sounds to me like that shoe is actually on the other foot. As for violence... Are Christians really reluctant to resort to violence? After all, the majority of prisoners are Christians, and former president Bush decided to invade Iraq because he said that God told him to...

An example of how NOT to debate.

I'd like to suggest three new words we may use when writing of this gang and their rude followers. Instead of the cumbersome "New Atheist" or "New-Atheistic" or "showing a shallowness similar to that of the New Atheists" I will use:
newther
newthy
newthiness

Or you could just use the term 'atheist'. After all, the only thing different about 'new atheists' is that we are no longer staying silent and in the shadows. We are quite simply speaking our mind and fighting back when religious liberties and the Constitution are under threat or being violated. Rude? Pray tell? What is rude about simply having an opinion and refusing to be silenced any longer?

Newther: This term is good in response to people who immediately feel it their duty to insult you when they learn you're a believer. As in: "So you think that the earth is ten-thousand years old, huh? I bet you think God hates fags too."

Again, I have never known an atheists to open discussion in such a manner. Are there some asshole atheists? No doubt. Go out in public on any given day and it should be clear that assholes are everywhere, and in every walk of life. But presenting the straw man that this is typical atheist behavior is far from productive. Oh... and it should be no surprise that none of the other proposed names really work either. All very strained and could easily be reversed to label a theist, or slapped on to any group.

With my new term newther I can save my breath next time. I can just say "Fucking newther soundbites" and walk away.

 And everyone would look around confused having no idea what you're talking about...

Which is more or less meeting the newther on the level of debate he (and it always is a he) prefers.

 Actually, that's the exact opposite of the kind of debate the average atheists wants.

(Indeed--why are New Atheist converts so overwhelmingly fat, white and male? Is it straight from Dungeons and Dragons to Dawkins and Dennett or what?)

Wow, just wow... I can tell you that atheists aren't all fat white males. I am a white male, but I am quite slender. When I was at the Reason Rally, I saw atheists of all different sizes, shapes, genders, and races. Why do most atheists you may meet tend to be white males? For one, we're in the United States, so that stacks the odds far more in favor of meeting a white atheist than one from a minority group. The same is true for other countries. Where atheism is catching on in Europe, the majority of the population in those countries tend to be white as well.

Just a refresher... This is a wonderful example of a straw man
argument, because it fabricates an ugly stance that isn't atheist
but claims it is. Way to take down that imaginary enemy!

Sometimes culture plays a part as well. Some cultures are just more religious than others, so finding an atheist in that group may be more difficult. As for female atheists... They are certainly out there. I've talked with some, and saw plenty at the Reason Rally. But for various reasons female atheists just seem to be less vocal about atheism (sometimes there's a different issue that is more pressing to them). Atheists all being fat... That's just patently false and smells a bit like an as hominem...

Oh, and it's definitely not 'straight from Dungeons and Dragons to Dawkins and Dennett'... I've actually never played D&D in my life, and have almost no idea how it's played.

After reading this whole article I find myself wondering one thing... Suppose that all of Eric's claimed interactions with atheists actually took place in some semblance to how they are presented here. If that's the case, I'm forced to ask the uneasy question of if Eric has considered that it could be him. Because if his every interaction with an atheist is the rude coarse behavior that is actually quite abnormal for atheists, something is amiss. And reading the tone of this article makes me think that the possibility has to considered that Eric provoked it, because this does read in parts like a person with a hostile/provocative personalty. Is that the case? Who knows... But what is sure, is that this was quite a caricature of a blog.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Science changes

Sometimes when I'm talking to someone religious online, my love for and reliance on science will come up. A few try to claim that science actually confirms their faith... It actually doesn't, for if science proved one faith to be true, I would believe in that religion. But the other response is the one that really gets me. The first is simply a carrying over of  selection bias. But the latter makes me stop and shake my head.

I've had people stop dead in their tracks and say, "But science changes." Yeah... so? Why do they say this as if it's a weakness? To me, the fact that science changes is what makes it so reliable. Well... not so much just because it changes, but because of why it changes.

Science draws conclusions based on the data that is available. When scientific investigation was young, or when a new field of research is pioneered, the data set from which to draw conclusions can sometimes be very small. Let's look at the geocentric model for the solar system for example. At first, the only data that was available was the fact that it sure looked like the Sun orbited around the Earth. And Earth sure doesn't feel like it's moving, so it must be stationary.

As anyone that somewhat scientifically inclined can tell you, small data sets can sometimes lead to incorrect conclusions. Luckily though, science doesn't stop. Science is a cumulative enterprise. As new data comes along, old conclusions are tested. Does the old conclusion still work, or is there a problem? If there's a problem, is there a new conclusion that better fits with all the data at hand? This self correcting mechanism allows science to get the conclusions more and more accurate over time.

See, they have the right idea!

Yes, science changes, but always for the better. Every change is a triumph. It's a step closer to knowing the world as it is. An old idea being discarded isn't a chink in science's armor, but rather a testament to the fact that science works. Tirelessly edging closer and closer to the most accurate understanding of the universe possible.

But what about those that think science changing is a weakness? Is that to suggest that steadfast rigidity is to be the answer? I sure hope not! There are still people today that stand firm to belief in the geocentric model. Should we view their ability to ignore the evidence as strength rather than ignorance?

Church's usually have a habit of not changing as well. Or at least not until they don't have much choice but to change. Case in point... In 1616 the Catholic church ordered Galileo Galilei to abandon promotion of the heliocentric model. For a while he complied, but when he once again began to do good science he was ordered to recant and threatened with torture. When he refused, Galileo was found to be suspect of hearsay in 1633 and remained imprisoned until his 1642 death.

Flash forward to 1992, when the Catholic church finally got around to admitting their errors regarding to Galileo's handling, and he was finally pardoned buy the church. So the church changed too, but it took them a ridiculously long time to do so. 300-odd years to admit they made a mistake (and a rather large one at that) is pretty bad. In a way, it would have been better for them to hope it was all forgotten, and for smaller matters that would likely be the case.

Oh hey, Galileo... We know you've been dead for over 300 years
but it turns out you were right. Sorry about imprisoning you
until your death. No hard feelings?

But the church standing against something that is now so well known to be the truth just looks bad. A church that denies something so obvious begins to loose credibility with those that are paying any attention. In this case, it's change or die. This is why the Catholic church is no longer officially against evolution or the Big Bang as well. Much like the current pope, it's PR spin to whitewash over the deeper problems existent within the church.

I will give the Catholic church some credit for changing, I just wish they did it for the right reasons. They changed because they had too, while science changes along the never ending path of collecting knowledge and understanding. If that's a weakness, I'd like to be an invalid.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Why do atheists care?

Ryan Fraser wrote an article in the Jackson Sun where he simply doesn't understand why atheists care about religion at all. But of course, there are plenty of problems in what he wrote...

I recently had an online discussion with an atheist. Have you ever tried to reason with an atheist about matters of faith? It can be a frustrating experience.

Really? Because I usually find debating with some believers to be frustrating.

When I asked him (atheist) about that, he replied that he was passionate about “truth.” Interesting.

Why is that 'interesting'? The truth is that I feel the same way as an atheist. I want to know the truth no matter what it is. Why is that so hard to believe?

First of all, believers choose to believe because they want to believe. Though we may not possess all the physical or historical evidence regarding creation, theology and Scripture, there is an underlying desire to believe in God.

I wouldn't so much say that believers choose to believe, since belief isn't voluntary. Most times people are brought up in religion and are indoctrinated into it. Because they are attached to it, and want it to be true, there is a choice that is often made. But it's not to believe, but the choice to never question what they believe or consider they could be wrong. Also, believers don't just not have all the evidence for God, they don't have any!

Second, agnostics perhaps want to believe in a higher power, but they get tripped up on requiring scientific and/or philosophical proof of his existence. They often cannot bring themselves to taking the leap of faith, which is necessary to accept some things at a spiritual level that often defy human logic and secular reasoning.

Ryan doesn't understand agnosticism properly, since it has nothing to do with belief at all.  But whatever, I feel like I know where this is going...

Third, atheists simply refuse to believe in any god. Though they are often highly intelligent people, they are spiritually bankrupt. They cannot understand why anyone would believe in an invisible God and consider those of us who do to be willfully ignorant. Atheists are unprepared to accept the metaphysical or miraculous of the

unseen, spiritual world.

Wrong! Atheists do not refuse to believe anything. Remember, belief is not a choice. I no more choose no to believe, than I choose what foods I like and dislike. Also, atheism is not a refusal to believe, but a lack of belief. There are many ways to lack belief, but in my case it's the lack of evidence. Despite what Ryan says, I am prepared to accept the claims of any faith... Provided you prove to me that the claims are true.

OK, so I’m left scratching my head. If someone does not believe in a god (capital “G” or not), opposes the Bible’s account of creation (and thus disputes intelligent design) and propagates the theory of evolution, why all this passion and fervor? Quite frankly, why would they even care? In my view, if I were a non-believer, it would represent a colossal waste of my time and energy.

If there is no such thing as God and no life after death, why bother to enter into a debate about it? I don’t get it! If I were nothing more than a highly evolved animal with no eternal soul or existential meaning beyond this life, I would want to live it up while I had the chance.

Why do we care? Why do we debate? Because it matters! Throughout history, religion has stood in the way of new knowledge. In fact, it often tells us not to ask questions and to be satisfied with not truly understanding the world. It has lead to horrors, and continues to today. Religion drove the witch burnings. Religion has inspired wars. Religion to this day still drives some to burn people at the stake, stone others to death, and mutilate the genitals young girls.

Then you have people that want to push their religion into politics and make their faith the law of the land. They want to misinform children about the truth of evolution. They want to deny homosexuals rights and marginalize them. To have the power to force what they believe on all, and count anyone who doesn't as second-class.

When religion is too intertwined with the law, it can and does oppress any who don't hold the official view. Holy wars can also be a reality once more. Former president Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. A war that cost so many lives, and was fought on false pretenses. What more, Christianity tells it's believers to look forward to the end of the world because Jesus will return. I don't want someone that can't wait for the end to be in change of decisions that will impact the well being of our planet, or to have the nuclear launch codes at their disposal.

That's why we care about religion. Because it can affect everyone's life, regardless of what they believe personally. I don't care what a person believes in for their own life. But some believers aren't satisfied to stop there. Instead they want to dictate how others should and can live their own lives. So I don't see why atheists talking about religion is such a mystery.

Here’s what I think: If atheists are right about no God, they stand nothing to gain. On the other hand, if they are wrong, they stand everything to lose. By way of contrast, if believers are right about God, they stand everything to gain. But, if they’re wrong, they stand nothing to lose. Let’s face it — in the end, it all comes down to faith.

Wow, Pascals Wager... I am so underwhelmed. This is an incredibly poor argument that has been decimated through the years. But instead of me wasting space explaining why here, follow this link to a separate blog I wrote about this incredibly weak argument for belief.

When I look at the marvels and majestic beauty of the created universe all around me, I cannot help but see the fingerprints of God — the powerful and benevolent Creator. When I consider his amazing grace, I’m brought to my knees in awe and gratitude.

Cartoon by Chaz Braman

I felt similarly when I was a believer. However, there is nothing in nature that actually points toward the need for a god to have created it. Nature is quite amazing, and not given the credit it deserves. And furthermore, now that I don't believe, understand the natural processes at play, and understand that probability, I actually find myself so much more amazed, and full of so much more gratitude than I did when I believed.

But, you can’t make someone believe in a God they’re unwilling to accept — no matter how hard you try. There are many scientists who don’t believe in God, just as there are those who are Christian believers — though there is much variation in their basic propositions regarding the origins of life. It’s complicated — I know. But, in the final analysis, faith is a choice!

And you can't get a believer that is unwilling to consider that they could be wrong to change their mind no matter how reasonable your argument. But here's the thing... Most atheists are willing to believe. All you have to do is show us the proof. And some atheists even want religious claims to be true. I'm one of them in fact. I would like Buddhist reincarnation to be true. If fact, I wish is was true. But even in light of that, I don't believe it to be true because there is no evidence that it is.

Since faith is belief without knowledge, faith is a choice. You can choose to not ask questions, or research things. One can remain willfully ignorant. The actual belief isn't a choice though.

I choose to believe (in God)... What do you choose to believe?

I don't choose to believe anything. But what I do and will believe is whatever the evidence tells me is so. I am honest in my beliefs. But the question is, is Ryan being as honest?


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

Atheist racism?

There is a fellow called Dan Caplis who hosts a radio show in Colorado, and last week he made a pretty ridiculous and insulting statement about a very serious issue. During a discussion about racism, he had this to say:

The roots of this kind of racism, this kind of attitude where somebody really thinks they’re superior to somebody, just because of the color of the other person’s skin? First, what it tells me, you know, my constitutionally-protected opinion about that person, is: they don’t believe in God. Nobody who believes in God can be a racist, in my view, because once you believe God made us, you mean, God made junk? God made somebody lesser just by virtue of the color of their skin? So my starting point is always: All racists must be atheists. They can’t possibly believe in God.

What!? How does that make any sense to anybody? First off, he's committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Secondly, he is either quite ignorant or being deliberately obtuse. After a lot of complaints, this is the closest he came to an apology...

I apologize if it was taken that way, but never could’ve imagined somebody would think I was saying that all atheists are racists. That would be a goofy thing to say. I was just saying all racists are atheists…

Um, that doesn't really make things sound any better Dan. But while we're on the topic of goofy things to say, how about his entire commentary on this topic. And why is it that only atheists are in his cross-hairs? Why not anyone who believes in any religion other than Christianity as well? Then again, maybe he's at least smart enough to know that saying "all racists are Jews" would have gotten him in a lot more hot water.

But what of his claim that there is no way that believers can be racist? It should be pretty obvious that believers can be racist. I know that when I was a Christian, I was pretty prejudiced. Was that due to being a believer, or my political leanings at the time? Who knows... but I was a prejudiced Christian none-the-less. But after I left religion, and better understood evolution, I realized that we are all related and so very much more the same than we are different. So the opposite of Dan's claim is true of me.

I find Sterling's idea that Christian's can't believe that God can make 'junk' as pretty baffling. What about Sodom and Gomorrah? Or everyone that was supposedly drowned in Noah's flood? God deemed them to be 'junk', so why wouldn't a Christian?

And can Christians be racist? Of course! How about just a few examples...

• The Westboro Baptist Church: Seriously, who don't they hate?

• The KKK: They are a Christian organization and their website reads, "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!"

• Church of God’s Chosen in Alabama: They hold white only events.

• Then there are schools who were in the news the last few years for still holding separate white and black proms. Oh, and they are in very religious areas.


• Hate Crime and Racism: When you consider that atheists only make up about 4% of the US population, there's just not anywhere near enough atheists, and far too much racism and hate crimes.

• Interracial marriage: Studies have shown that believers are more likely to oppose interracial
marriage than non-believers are.

While Dan thinks Christians can't possibly be racist, I actually think that it's perfectly easy to expect that Christians (and people from any group) can be racist. I also don't think he knows his Bible very well, because some parts actually could promote racism...

• God selects the Israelites as his only chosen people: God himself is dividing races or groups as inherently good vs bad. The Israelites are special, and everyone else is not. Sound familiar?

• Who can be a slave: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. -Leviticus 25:44 Okay... So those other people, you can own them and treat them as sub-human. Wait, I feel like I remember something similar to that...

Christians? You think these assholes are Christians? It's not like
they're meeting in a church, with a priest and have a huge
"Jesus Saves" banner on the wall. Wait a minute...

• Mark of Cain: After Cain killed Able he was cursed with the inability to grow crops, a required nomadic lifestyle, and a 'mark'. Admittedly, the Bible doesn't describe the mark, but some sects of Christianity did (and still do) teach that the curse was that of 'black skin'.

• Curse of Ham: Ham was cursed by God for seeing his father Noah naked while he slept and not covering him up (Genesis 9:20-27). As a result a curse was bestowed that Ham's decedents (through Canaan) shall be slaves. Interestingly, the Jewish Talmud adds that Ham's skin was also 'blackened' as part of the curse. This was also a popular interpretation in 18th and 19th century Christianity. 

Considering that Christianity and Judaism did (in still do in some pockets) consider blackness of the skin to be part of a curse, is it really that hard to believe that believers can be racist after-all? It makes sense to me. Obviously not all Christians are racist, but they certainly can be (atheists, and everyone else too). So it would be nice if Dan Caplis would resign from slinging mud (and showing his own prejudices) and instead stick to the facts and the real issues at hand.


-Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter