April 18, 2009, 6:45 pm by dc-agape.

I have recently been asked what attributes a Supreme Being/God/Force would have from my perspective as a Gay Atheist.

First, the question would have to be constrained to the difference between a personal God/Divine/Force and an impersonal one.  For the impersonal “Force” one already exists: Nature.  I don’t mean Gaia, even though the image does fit.  But I mean the nature of gravity, space, time, and relativity.  In the past I have made jokes about worshipping the “Gods of Chemistry”. 

Biochemistry is the god of life; it controls all the functions, actions, and consequences.  For example, overpopulation causes starvation, disease, and predation.  Within the body, hemoglobin carries oxygen and carbon dioxide because of a core of iron and the iron’s electronic state.

Analytical chemistry (my favorite) is knowledge.  We can learn the make-up of any substance due to the power of analysis.  We can also learn how to put the pieces of knowledge we have together to form a full picture using analytical techniques.

Physical chemistry is the creating force of the universe.  Without it we would have nothing…no atom would form, not star produce heat, no gravity to hold us on the earth.

The other chemistries all play a part as well (polymer, inorganic, textile, wood, soil, organic, etc).  I have also joked at the cruel sense of humor these “gods” have!  I am on the cusp of my most hated topic in chemistry: organic.  For a while I actually worked in a position as an organic chemist.  That I tried my hardest to avoid the topic and then to find myself making a living do exactly what I hated most…truly a cruel, cruel joke! 

If on the other hand the question is asking about a personal Devine Being …this experiment of mine is related to that question.  Ever scientist will tell you “give me the evidence, and I will believe”.  Two things might help explain how this is relevant.  First, all hypotheses, theories or Laws of science can have a chance of being wrong, some as small as 99.99%, but new evidence can disprove any of them.  Just as the Theory of Relativity changed the Newtonian Laws (but did not break them), these things happen.  An Atheist feels the same way about Theism.  The difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is that an Atheist has seen enough evidence to disprove the existence of a god.  The Agnostic only doubts the existence of a god.  Enough evidence can be as great as 99.99% but is usually only above 95% confidence.  But at the 95% confidence level extraordinary evidence must be supplied.  Second, a hypothesis is only a “working guess” until it is tested.  Even though I am above the 95% confidence level, it is still a hypothesis and not a theory or a Law that no god exists.  My hypothesis is being tested by this experiment.  By reading the Holy Texts of the Ancient Religions (starting with the Abrahamic ones), recording my observation, and allowing peer review of my “data”, I am doing exactly that: testing the hypothesis.  I of course cannot, in a single lifetime, read all the religious documents, nor can I become a scholar in any single one of them.  I also cannot remove my bias (existence of god), I may be able to limit it or soften it, but it will exist.  But in experimentation one must always battle bias, everything is open to interpretation.  Some people see things in a different light or at a different angle, and some people use a different measuring device.  Science is not cut and dry and there lies another one of my biases.  The world is not black and white; how can the Truth be only one thing? 

A personal Devine Being would have to conform to (or at least obey) the Laws that govern the known forces of existence.  The connection between natural and supernatural would have to be reasonable without arbitrary boundaries and without the whimsical nature of the Biblical God.  The Sky Daddy concept of modern Christianity would not work.  The concept of “I love you, but I am still sending you to hell (your room)” is just not appropriate for a Supreme Being.  The concept of “I give you freewill, but if you don’t do what I want…I’m sending you to hell (your room)”, just cannot fit a proper concept of a Supreme Being.  You will notice the “your room” concept in both of these.  A Supreme Being of the entire universe is not just a bigger and more powerful Father.  Such a creature would have way more important things to do than watch every living (and past living) human being and record all of our actions and intentions.  But then, maybe, I am expecting a more perfect Supreme Being than the one that exists.  Maybe I expect too much, like actually communicating with us instead of leaving bread crumbs to follow that have been eaten by scavengers.  Or maybe I expect too much, like thinking that if humans were so important (and loved) by “Him”, he would have sent the same message to all of us from the beginning of time, instead of allowing some to grow into huge nations with a false “Truth”.   But most of all, a personal Supreme Being would have to fit the evidence.  Instead, what I see is many different people attempting to make the evidence fit the Supreme Being. 

The evidence I see today is that everything has a cause and none of those causes need an exterior supernatural source.  Yes, the Big Bang and the formation of Life are not answered by scientific evidence.  But even emotions and motivations of the human mind are being revealed as having physical natural causes.  Little in this world is left that does not have a natural explanation, a personal Supernatural Being would have to prove first why it was needed and second what purpose it had in the greater scheme of existence.  Is there more out there than we puny humans have measured, seen, or experienced?  Certainly.  Is love for your enemy better than killing your enemy?  Without doubt.  But are concepts like these (Spiritual Truths) supernatural?  Why do they need to have an external source?  Yes, humans are puny in the sense of the size of the universe, and it should keep us humble.  Individual humans are miniscule, but our collective ability is overwhelming.  We, as a species, are intelligent enough to send people to the moon, cure polio, and be curious enough to explore the entire planet…what would a personal Supreme Being bring to us, personally, and the universe, in general?  Answering that question would be the attribute that a personal Supreme Being would have if one could exist in my perspective as a Gay Atheist. 

Posted in My Beliefs, Atheism, State of Mind, Introduction | Print | 59 Comments »

April 18, 2009, 10:26 am by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

Surāh 88 – Al-Ghāshiyah: The Overwhelming Event

I will start each post on the Qur’an with a link to M Mohammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an with his commentaries.  

 Three separate things occur (or messages) in this surāh.  First, is a description of the Day of Judgment with its following punishment/paradise dichotomy.  But in verse 17 we jump back to a time before this Day.  I say this because in surāh 89 the on the Day of Judgment (verses 21-23) describe the destruction of the earth.  Yet this section of surāh 88 is not describing how they will remember, it is using the present existence of the planet to prove that a Creator exists.  The third part of this surāh is to remind the followers of Allāh that only he can judge and that they cannot force people to believe.  Yet then the last two verses confuse that concept.  Is Allāh and the royal “Us” the same or is the “Us” the followers of Allāh?  For there is no doubt that many followers believe that it is their right and duty to either convert or kill the non-believe.  Just recently an Imam in the US has gotten into trouble for implying that killing an apostate (h/t to Dr Myers @ Pharyngula). 

Of course, the fear of hell and the carrot of heaven are powerful incentives to believe in religion.  Death is a difficult concept to grasp.  The hope that we continue after death is strong.  But what proof is there that life exists after death?  And the deeper question, where are the eternal souls kept before they enter a body?  If we exist after we die, then we must also exist before we are born.  And hence, the trouble Atheists have with religion begins.  Why are some brought to earth earlier than others?  Why are some born in the US and others in Africa?  Why are some born to riches and others to starvation before they reach puberty?  Why are some allowed to hear the message of “Truth” and others a different message of “Truth”?  These questions only bring one answer to an Atheist:  heaven and hell are carrots that community leaders have used for eons to control the masses.

What of the questions asked in verse 17-20?  Was the earth created for humans or were humans created because the earth existed?  This planet and the universe, in general, are a hostile place.  In a design perspective this is far from even a good design for human life.  We have limited resources, dangerous environmental forces, and delicate eco-systems.  In fact, the earth is so delicate (for human life) that some reports claim that the sever draughts in northern Africa are due to pollution (sulfur dioxide) from the Western nations.  If this is the case then Allāh/YHWH made a very tenuous condition for us to live in.  Some interpretation of verse 17 describe domesticated animals others the rain fall I just pointed out.  Looking at domesticated animals does not give strong proof of a Supreme Being either.  We know how dogs and cats were domesticated.  If carnivores/scavengers were this easy how much easier would cattle, camels, and even elephants be?  No domestication of animals is no proof that a Supreme Being exists.

So that leaves mountains and the earth itself to carry the burden of proving Allāh exists.  Well I already pointed out the concept of whether the earth created the proper environment for humans or “God done it” in the last paragraph.  But we know how mountains are formed and for that matter oceans, lakes, plains, and all the other environments.  Many of these environments are not healthy for humans.  Freezing ice caps, swamps with insects carrying deadly diseases, and crushing deep sea pressures are certainly not human friendly.  The earth itself does not help the argument that Allāh/YHWH exists.  And the dangers of mountains certainly do not: avalanches, impassible terrain, lava, and mudslides are just a few of the hazards these brutes deliver.  These are certainly not a good sign that they were created with humans in mind.

It is nice that at least the Prophet himself remembers that it is not other human’s responsibility to make people change their beliefs.  Unfortunately, zealots of both Muslim and Christian faiths forget this “minor” detail.  Here in the US it causes horrific acts like bombing abortion clinics, research facilities and of course, 9/11.  In other countries, it causes civil wars and oppression.  It’s nice when religions claim to allow non-believers freewill, but so often that freewill is illusionary.  One must be a member of the prominent religion or suffer great deprivation due to not belonging.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Extremism adviser accused over email (guardian.co.uk)
• Saudi Scholar Nixes Biofuels as Un-Islamic (danielpipes.org)
• Prophet Mohammed: A Pioneer of the Environment (teabreak.pk)

Posted in Holy Qur'an, Freewill | Print | 1 Comment »

April 18, 2009, 8:54 am by dc-agape.

Image by afagen via Flickr

Recently the Republican Party has brought its followers to a state of panic that the US has not seen in a long time.  Even one of my research group members has fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.  And I do mean sinker!  The argument goes that you can only save the economy and the government budget two ways: raise taxes or cut spending.  Neither party (Republican nor Democrat) what their special interests cut.  So cutting military spending is out and so is cutting social services.  With only two options (cutting or taxing) that leaves raising taxes as the only way to continue funding the juggernaut that the US government has become.  Yet two interesting things have occurred during this Teabagging party.  First, the Congress has passed a bill to give themselves and all government workers a 6% raise.  That alone is a good enough reason to talk about why we need to increase taxes!  But secondly, the main concern about raising the taxes is that everyone (especially the rich) will be taxed higher than they ever have been in history.  This is complete rubbish!  It is propaganda.  Just look at this chart (provide by the Tax Foundation and the US Internal Revenue Service:Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2006
(Percentage of AGI paid in income taxes)

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Notice that in no way have we become the most taxed year since 1980.  The entire nation would have to have an average increase in taxes of over 2.5% just to reach the maximum in 2000.  Greg Mankiw has statistics showing just how low the taxation rate here in the US truly is.What truly gets me is that our government claims that there is only two ways to fix the problem: taxation or cuts.  What about the third way?  How about getting rid of inefficiencies?  We all, here in the US, know about how inefficient the government is.  Do we truly need to pay Senators $169,300 per year + the 6% raise?  Do we really need to pay the members of the House of Representatives $174,000 per year?  With 535 members between both houses that comes to $77,484,580 per year.  Talk about a top heavy bureaucratic money bag!  That money does not even cover the cost of the war in Iraq ($864,000,000,000 since 2003) or Afghanistan ($439,100,000,000 since 2001).  This of course does not include the loss of life (both military and civilian), the cost of creating hostile sentiment towards the US, or the cost of Veteran Affairs – the soldiers coming back “alive” will suffer many medical condition for the rest of their lives.  What about other US government “business”?  Read this article on the Post Office.  Or read this article on the US Mint.  Talk about big government, let’s cut the fat from the rich instead of cutting the heart out of the middle-class and poor!

Related articles by Zemanta

• taxes on my family’s income this year (schansblog.blogspot.com)
• Despite “tea party” tempest, tax burden down, dropping (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• The Real Duckies (oliverwillis.com)

Posted in State of Mind | Print | 3 Comments »

April 18, 2009, 7:30 am by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

In Gnostic Christianity YHWH is not the Supreme Being and Jesus is not his son.  Christ’s purpose is to being knowledge to humans.  He has done this twice.  The first time was when he told Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The second time was when the Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism.  Now that I have your attention and you are completely confused…The Highest Supreme Being is both male and female.  One is the Father of Light the other is Sophia, the Mother of Knowledge.  In her desire to create, she made YHWH, but because she did not include the Father of Light YHWH was incomplete.  YHWH, in fact, is Satan!  YHWH did create the Garden of Eden (and Earth, the animals, etc).  But when he attempted to create humans he failed, he could not breathe life into Adam.  Sophia, feeling guilty for her mistake of creating YHWH, and seeing the inert body of Adam lying in the mud, came down to earth and breathed life into him.  When YHWH saw this he was enraged and attempted to defile Sophia.  She did two things to thwart YHWH: she made a duplicate of herself (Eve) and hid in what would become the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (because of her existence in the Tree).  When her son, The Christ, saw what had happened he came down to rescue his Mother.  But then he saw Adam and Eve and felt pity of them because of the ignorance that YHWH had left them in.  He instructed Eve (not tempted) while in the form of a snake (to avoid YHWH) to eat from the now infused Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  He then rescues his Mother and both leave YHWH to continue to bring ignorance to humanity until his second return.

You see that is why YHWH is a Jealous God; he knows that he is not the Supreme Being.  But he wants his creation to believe that he is by leaving humans in ignorance of the Truth.  Basically, the Gnostic Christians explain every detail of why YHWH is such an evil god.  Since creation he has attempted to keep humans from knowing the truth, but when the Christ descended upon Jesus for a short period of time humans knew the truth.  YHWH has continued to malign Christianity so that the Truth that Jesus taught was buried under the lies that YHWH whispered to the leaders of the Church. 

To an Atheist this story does an excellent job of explaining why so many Christians ignore or rationalize away the teaching of Jesus.  Love thy neighbor, give to the poor, turn the other cheek, humility, and serving others before yourself, all these teaching are ignored for the “more important Christian teachings”. These more important ones are like pleasing YHWH, teaching “creation science”, stopping abortion (which would only create more poor and miserable children), stopping homosexual marriage, and slow (or stop) scientific research that would create knowledge.

With many of the Gnostic Gospels having been written in the 1^st century CE, it is obvious that someone or something did intervene in the teaching of Jesus.  Call it Satan or the Gnostic Christians version of YHWH, but something happened to Christianity prior to the 3^rd Council of Carthage (when the Christian Bible was complied).  An entire (possible three) Christian sect(s) were deemed heretical.  But the question comes were they heretical because they were the false teachers or was the more popular version of Christianity (Constantine’s) actually the false religion?  Now that we have the Nag Hammadi Library I hope this will shake the Christian arrogance to the core.  If you are a Christian, are you sure, not in faith, but in reality that you have the one True Faith?  What proof can you provide that you are right and the Gnostic Christians are the heretics?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Walking in Christ (chasingthewind.net)
• Why the Brights Fear the Light: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• For Kids and Grown-Ups (Part 2) (justanotherclaypot.blogspot.com)
• Eve - Biblical First Woman (biblestudies.suite101.com)
• Hell- Why it matters what you believe (thebeautifulheresy.com)
• “I Took It To Mean”: An Ethics of Textual Intimacy (motleyvision.org)

Posted in The Nag Hammadi, Inerrancy - My Ass, Tree of Knowledge, Readings | Print | No Comments »