August 22, 2009, 7:47 am by dc-agape.

I was going to post on the topic of how the teachings of Jesus and Pauline Christianity have enough differences that it is a source of why some people turn away from modern Christianity.  But from recent posts from BJ Olson I have determined that I am missing a crucial step between that post and the present.  Confidence is another reason that needs to be discussed.  I mean in the mathematical definition of percent confidence and the margin of error.

I have chosen the NIV Translation to read from for numerous reasons, but % confidence is one of them.  More of my reasons for this decision can be read here (my second post).  But maybe I should discuss what % confidence means.  Four levels of confidence occur.  I will briefly cover each one.

At the highest level of confidence is the 99.9% level.  This one is that almost on evidence is supported that disagrees with the hypothesis.  Gravity, the speed of light, the existence of sub-atomic particles, and other Theories of Science are at this level of confidence.  You now see that 100% confidence does not exist, it cannot exist.  If it existed humans would have tested every possible condition for the theory/hypothesis not to exist!  To say the least, religion (in all forms) does not reach this level of confidence.

The next highest level of confidence is the 99% level.  There would seem to be little difference between these two levels.  But in actuality there is a very large difference.  In fact, it is a ten-fold difference in confidence.  Many drugs on the market today use this level of confidence before the FDA allows the drug to be sold to the public.  To say the least, 99% confidence level is rigorously tested before anyone accepts it.  And, as with pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer is not the one that calculates the results…their own bias would influence the result (the desire to sell the product).  But this same level of confidence allows errors to occur 10 times as often. 

The next level of confidence is the 95% level.  This is the acceptable “gold standard” of most statistical data.  Pharmaceuticals need to prove that they are less than this level is reached in the effectiveness and safety of a new drug.  The state of Utah even explains this concept with great detail.  Robert Niles explains this quite well:

“Don’t overlook the fact that the margin of error is a 95 percent confidence interval, either.  That means that for every 20 times you repeat the poll, statistics say that one time you’ll get an answer that is completely off the wall.”

Anything below the 95% confidence level is what remains.  It is also considered to have a lot of uncertainty.  Just as the change from 99.9% to 99% increases the odds by a factor of 10 of error occurring, at the 90% level that increase is again 10 fold.  This means that at 90% confidence the chance of an error occurring is one in 10 tries. 

How does this relate to Atheism and religions?  It’s simple actually.  And an example is the Synoptic Problem.   Is there any reason to believe that one hypothesis is more likely to be correct than another?  No, each has strong reasoning and weak reasoning.  If you have up to nine different competing theories that means that only 1 in 9 is correct.  One out of the nine correlates to 61% confidence.  True you can weight a specific hypothesis, but will your criteria be for that weight?  Will you use your personal feelings?  That’s not good enough!  And “YHWH told me” indicates that you need to be on medication, because he did not tell everyone that.  In fact, “YHWH told me” is no better than a “gut feeling”.  Many people believe that the War in Iraq was a “YHWH told us to” scenario.  Was it?  Is war ever a “Christian” thing to do? 

I choose the NIV because of the larger a population the higher the percent confidence.  The NIV Committee on the Translation of the Bible held over 100 people from at least 13 denomination and five countries.  As a result this is the largest body to evaluate the translation of the Bible ever used.  It eliminates (or at least minimizes) the likely hood of personal bias.  One bias out of 100 people makes a confidence level of 98%.  Too say the least that is an acceptable risk that bias has taken place.  Of course, other bias can occur but this is off-set by the fact that more than 100 people were actually involved in the translation of the NIV.  Can any other Bible give that level of confidence?  The King James certainly cannot. 

Personal experience can also not be used for the reasons of confidence levels.  How confident are you that someone has told you the full truth?  That they have not left out even one iota of their own doubt, their own misgivings?  Sure they have remembered the events “clearly”, but does that mean that their memory is perfect?  Or was their memory influenced by the events prior to and after the event?  This of course, is why a single testimony is insufficient in the court of law!  Why should it be enough in religion?  Everyone seeing the same miracle works, if there is no natural explanation…but then we would have records of this happening.  Instead, when a miracle is investigated we find scams, miss-directions, and hopeful thinking.  That does not mean that miracles don’t happen (confident levels, remember) but it does limit the chance and the source!  How confident is the source of a “said” miracle?  Can we be certain that it is YHWH?  How certain? 

When you add that every religion believes in miracles and personal experiences, the confidence level drops even lower.  Which one is right?  Are any of them right?  How do we know, with any confidence which supernatural being is responsible?  There hinges the Atheist argument.   How confident are you and how can you prove your confidence level?  Atheism is the lack of belief (actual definition).  If certainty cannot be provided to a level of confidence that minimizes mistakes, then trust has not been developed, or worse trust is lost.

PS – One must prove the existence of their claim, for one cannot prove a non-existence.  Those making the claim that supernatural forces exist must not only prove the existence but must make the percent confidence level high enough that error does not exist.

Posted in My Beliefs, Inerrancy - My Ass, Becoming an atheist | Print | 7 Comments »

August 4, 2009, 2:41 pm by dc-agape.

August 3, 2009

I promised one of my readers to go into more detail about how I over came my Southern Baptist indoctrination.  In previous posts I have mentioned my love of science (specifically chemistry), my loathing of hypocrisy, the lack of evidence that prayer works, and even my distrust of the proofs that the Holy Ghost exists.  But there are certain characteristics of my upbringing that I should point out that were essential to my de-conversion.

I am not sure if the first one comes from my romanticized image of the rebellious nature of the Southern Rebel or if it comes from my parent’s obsession with explaining everything to me as a child.  I know that many Southerners do not question everything…i.e. the Southern Baptists.  But I do know that I have always questioned everything.  Since a very early age I have been told the answer to the questions that I asked my parents.  They were always patient with my “Why?”  Only the church leaders told me “take it on faith”.  This annoyed me from as far back as I can remember.  My thought pattern went something like this: “If everything else has a reason…that can be explained to me, why does religion have to be so vague?”  Answers like “you’re not ready for that”, “your too young to understand”, or “it’s too complicated” would only make me want to know the answer more!  And my curiosity was insatiable. 

Another factor from my childhood was my father’s job.  This may sound strange but the nature of his work influenced my perception of the world.  Both my parents were well educated.  My mother graduated top of her class with a BS in Education, and my father was a civil engineer.  His job was with the US Geological Survey.  As a result, we moved a lot.  By the time my parents divorced (when I was 12) I had already lived in NC, FL, SC, and TN.  To a preteen each of these experiences was true “culture shocks”.  I struggled after each move to make new friends, but most of the time they were “transplants” just like me.  As a result, the moves themselves made me more accepting of differences in people.  Since most of my friends were also not from the new state originally, I accepted an even greater diversity of opinions.  But I was always an outsider, a misfit, a geek, and of course the worst insult possible “a fag”. 

Being a “fag” without actually being attracted to boys or girls was another factor in my childhood that influenced my outlook on life and religion.  The same children that called my “fag” were also the most religious!  So my irritation at the blatant hypocrisy grew.  These religious kids were judging me, when their own religion specifically demanded that:

Matt 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Of course, I acted different than them; I was not from the same town, the same church, the same background.  I even remember thinking at one point: “If they really think I’m gay…maybe I should try it”.  I certainly did not know anyone who was gay.  Not until I reached high school was there anyone who was even remotely “flamboyant”.  So all I knew was what other ignorant children told me about homosexuals.  As it turned out one of my best friends in high school was gay…and I did not even know it until after I “came out”.  In fact, when I did finally go to a “gay club” one of the first people I met was the football captain from my Junior year (and I studied him and one of the cheerleaders in our Trigonometry class)!  We did not “hook-up” both of us were so shocked to see each other we barely spoke.

The biggest blow, in childhood, to my acceptance of Southern Baptist (and religious) tradition was the Southern Baptists themselves.  There are two jokes about the SBs that truly reflect my opinion of them.  I will give the punch line to save time, but if you want to read the jokes in full here are the links:  Visiting Heaven and Sinning on Saturday.  In the first joke, a man is visiting heaven…when Peter takes him to where the SBs are worshiping, Peter tells the man to be very quite.  After leaving the area the man asks why and Peter tells him that the SBs believe they are the only ones there.  The second joke is about the difference between Catholics and SBs.  Catholics go to Mass on Sunday so they can be forgiven of their sins…SBs sin all week long so they have to go to church on Sunday.  It’s a subtle difference, but one that I quickly learned…and despised.  Every summer the SBs have “Revival”.  It’s a time in the year where people “re-dedicate” themselves to YHWH.  I never understood why rededication was required…once your dedicated (by a supernatural being no less) shouldn’t you stay dedicated.  I mean seriously isn’t that the meaning of the word dedicated!  If YHWH and the Holy Spirit couldn’t keep these people dedicated for at least 365 days, what type of supernatural being is YHWH?

I have posted before about one specific incident in TN before, but it is worth repeated here.  When I moved to TN I was not like the other middle-TNers.  In 6^th grade I was completely ostracized by my growing personal opinions.  Due to my curiosity and my parent’s willingness to share their knowledge my responses to specific topics were not the same as most of the other students in my class.  I trusted in evolution, I agreed that women were equal to men, I knew that computers were going to change the future (this was 1981), and since I was never going to have one I could not understand why I had a right to deny a woman the right to an abortion.  To say the least, I was a complete outsider and made many enemies with these opinions.  But I also made some friends who thought I was foolhardy but brave for standing up for what I thought.

All these experiences culminate into one life lesson (well actually many) that influenced my de-conversion.  I learned early in life that what other people think about me really does not matter.  This also lead me to learn that most people are easily “herded” by tradition and/or charismatic people due to the desire to accepted.   Having grown up in an agricultural society, I knew being considered similar to a cow (heard-able) was considered equal to be being stupid.  I certainly knew that I was not stupid.  I might come across as arrogant, but I was certainly not stupid.

Posted in The Usual Suspects, My Beliefs, Traditions of Men, Family Values?, State of Mind | Print | 7 Comments »

May 9, 2009, 11:18 am by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

While part of the Oahu Church of Christ all night prayer sessions were not uncommon.  I’m serious we would stay up all night long and pray for specific things like: saving family member’s souls, protection from our worst sins, guidance in decision making, etc.  At that time we were also “evangelizing” campus, malls, and beaches.   This “evangelizing” was cold contact marketing of our church: just walk-up to a stranger and invite them to church.  This was also very much part of our daily prayers.  If you are an Atheist, you can probably already see where this post is going.  If you are a Christian or other Theist that believes in prayer, I have an interesting proposition for you.  Keep a pray diary, and see how many of your prayers are answered with a “yes”.

Over the two and a-half years that I belonged to the “Kingdom”, I did not keep a pray diary.  What I did notice was that most of my prayers went unanswered.  I was doing everything expected of me, I was going above and beyond the call of duty, yet my prayers were not answered with a “yes”.  For example, I was reading the Bible daily (in fact, I read the whole thing twice), I was giving more than 10% in tithing, and I was confessing my sins daily, and I was evangelizing up to 100 people per day.  But the only prayer that has been even closely answered was that I wanted to be like Paul.  Paul was single and a great influence with his writings to the churches.  I got half the pray answered!!  People that I begged YHWH to save were not saved.  My struggles with sexuality were not lightened.  Knowing what the Word of God says about prayer made these results quite suspicious to me. 

Knowing what the Word of God says about prayer only lead me to understand that prayers are not answered with “No”.  Two very important verses in the Bible clearly contradict this Tradition of Men.  First, let me show you about belief and prayer:

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

This verse is very straight forward:  all you have to do is believe (have faith) and the prayer will be answered…no matter what you ask for!  To say the least I had faith, but the prayers were not answered.  And even more critical verse about prayer is this one:

Matt 18:19-20 “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.  For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

You see, it is not even the weakness of one person that makes the prayer not answered.  When more than one person asks for the same thing…it is guaranteed to be done.  Well you can quickly imagine how this almost never worked.

I slowly began to see that whether I prayed or not, the result was the same.  Sometimes I got what I asked for and sometimes it just happened by circumstance.  It dawned on me that prayers were not answered by a supernatural being but by sheer coincidence.  Even worse, I realized that if you did the same thing enough times the odds favored a positive outcome on random occasions.  Worst of all, I started to realize that prayers got answered very similar to a phenomenon here in the US called the 100 year flood plain.  You see, statistically, prayers are just like the 100 year flood plain.  Instead of guaranteed results (as the Word of God promises), they happen only statistically on an average enough so that people believe that they have their prayers answered.  People, who believe in YHWH and prayer, have too low an expectation of YHWH.  A promise has been made that is not kept.  Why believe in a being that does not keep their promises?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Did you skip the National Day of (Conservative, Christian) Prayer? (dvorak.org)
• What does it take to be a Saint? (madharasan.blogspot.com)
• One Man One Woman? (tuibguy.com)
• American Religion and Torture (theotherjesus.com)
• Not even the enemy of his enemies (masbury.wordpress.com)
• Pope Benedict’s prayer intentions for February (americanpapist.com)
• Culture Of Corruption: The Need for Prayer (eagleviews.org)
• National day of prayer (levite.wordpress.com)
• Culture Of Corruption: The Need for Prayer (journeyacrossthesky.com)

Posted in My Beliefs, Traditions of Men, Word of God, State of Mind, Becoming an atheist | Print | 11 Comments »

May 3, 2009, 6:08 pm by dc-agape.

Here is the question that truly makes one question the existence of YHWH.  Where is the Holy Spirit?  Think about that a minute.  Really, where is the Holy Spirit that was promised by the writers of the New Testament and Jesus himself?

In three places Jesus tells the disciples that the Spirit will be given to his followers, not just the apostles.  After Jesus’ death the Spirit acts three more time.  I will be starting a Biblical Topics on the Holy Spirit after this post, which I plan to write on Sundays.  The Biblical Topics will be extremely numerous, as the Spirit of God is in both the Old and New Testament.

The Gospel of Luke seems the most concerned with the “gifts” of the Holy Spirit.  In fact, the Gospel of Luke is the only Gospel that describes the Holy Spirit as something that will be given to all believers!  The other three Gospels only tell of how Jesus and the apostles used/received the Spirit.  So I will start here:

Luke 11:13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

This comes from a passage where Jesus teaches all his disciples how to pray, again not just the apostles.  It’s as simple as that; all a Christian has to do is ask for it!  Then the question remains: why do we not see the Holy Spirit in the Church?  Where is it?

Here is an even more straight forward verse:

Luke 12:11 “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers, and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Well isn’t that wonderful.  But notice, when a defense is needed the Holy Spirit will take over.  I guess responding on Atheist blog sites is not included in “brought before synagogues, rulers, and authorities” or “don’t worry about how you will defend yourselves” because some of the worst comments on those blogs are from Christians.  They have horrible spelling, hideous sentence structure, and those comments have very little ability to sway opinion.  But twice now the jury system of the US has struck down the Christians as well.  I am speaking about the Monkey Scopes Trial and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area Schools.  It would seem the Holy Spirit doesn’t care if children are taught evolution.  Or those in defense of Christian values were left speechless by the Holy Spirit.  So again the question is raised:  Where is the Holy Spirit?

The one verse in the Gospel of John that is universal to all Christians is this one:

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

So where is this Spirit?  If one “Spirit” teaches the disciples what Jesus taught, why are there 46,000 denominations (and growing)?  Shouldn’t one source create one Church?  There is only one Jesus and he taught the same message to everyone, why are there so many different opinions on what is Christian?  Where is the “Counselor”?  Why do so many Christian forget the teachings of Jesus for their own beliefs?  Christian hate crimes are definitely not what Jesus taught!

But maybe the Spirit does not enter everyone who is a Christian?  Wrong!  Here is a verse that proves that all Christians have the Spirit:

Acts 10:44 When Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 

You have to understand Peter was talking to the entire family of Cornelius and his friends.  All of Cornelius’ friends may have had an “open heart”, but his entire family?  No, this is an example where the Holy Spirit entered everyone, not because of Peter, but because that is what the Holy Spirit does.  Where is this Holy Spirit?

Finally, for the Atheist, this is the one that kills any possibility that the Holy Spirit exists:

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.  Be shepherds of the Church of God, which was bought with his own blood.

So the Holy Spirit chooses the leaders of the Church?  How many examples do I need to bring up to show that the Holy Spirit has done a lousy job at this?  Kip McKean, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Bakker, Priestly pedophilia (not just in the US), etc I believe those will be enough.

So where is this “Counselor” that Jesus promised?  It is certainly not in the church leaders, it certainly does not appear when the defense of Christianity is required, and it does not enter those who ask for it.  As a Christian, I struggled over those questions.  I also struggled over my own “sin”, which I never received comfort from the Spirit in dealing with.  The Holy Spirit is missing from today’s Church.  Did it ever really exist?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Archaeologist: Jesus took a different path (cnn.com)
• Jane Williams: The debate over the status of non-Jews in the early church was lengthy and vicious (guardian.co.uk)
• Believing the Unbelievable: He is Risen Indeed! (highcallingblogs.com)

Posted in My Beliefs, Biblical topics, Becoming an atheist | Print | 8 Comments »

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 | 60 Comments »

March 28, 2009, 9:52 am by dc-agape.

Image by ϻicκγ via Flickr

Surah 107: Al-Mā’ūn: Acts of Kindness

The overall meaning of this revelation is something I wish more religious people understood.  Both the concept of helping others, like Hamas (LA Times) does for the sick, poor, and uneducated and the concept of hollow worship are important to more than religion.  But I do have a major bone to pick with how the Prophet defines religion. 

In the Qur’an, at least in this surāh, the definition of one who rejects religion (all religion) is someone who does not support the orphan and does not feed the needy.  There can be no misunderstanding here…by rejecting Islam one is also rejecting social services which Atheist and Humanist believe are critical to maintain.  So does this make Atheist and Humanist Muslim?  Of course it does not.  Both Atheist and Humanist do not believe in Allāh.  Yet both believe that social services are important.  This is at the cornerstone of my bone to pick.  The Prophet here is implying that non-religious people are also those who do not serve the downtrodden.  But one does not have to be religious to serve the poor.  So the link, that the Prophet was attempting to make, is incorrect. 

At the same time, if religion was about serving the poor and the orphan, Atheist would have no trouble at all with religion.  Instead many of us Atheist would flock to it.  But that is not the case; religion is not about serving the poor and helping the needy.  Religion is about saving your own personal soul by serving a supernatural being with arbitrary rules.  No matter how you “paint it”, that is the bottom line.  As a result, any good action done in the name of religion is hollow.  I can say this because the act was done due to a commandment you were told to follow.  You did not do it because it is the correct action to take.  There is no freewill under these conditions.  In religion you either do what you are told is the right thing to do or you suffer the “spiritual” consequence.  No wonder so many people are “unmindful of their prayer”.  In the US that is the same thing as “lip service” or “going through the motions”. 

Doing what is right, doing what is good for society must come from inside a person.  No religion or supernatural being can be the source of that desire.  When the source is exterior, then the action is based on false pretenses, it is hollow.  There is an ulterior motive for the action, in the case of religion; it is to “save your soul”.  Only by dumping the religious attitude and doing the act on your own freewill, without receiving the “get out of Hell” card, can any act truly be called good.

In the end, the Prophet was headed in the right direction.  Unfortunately, the link between religion and doing good does not exist.  And this leads to hollow acts done in the name of religion.  The true meaning of doing good is lost and people like me, a gay Atheist, are turned off by religion.  As the old Nike add use to say, “Just do it” (BlogSounds). 

I must admit reading the article I linked to at the top of this post does put Hamas in better light than most “Christian” social services.  Due to Hamas’ need for money they have separated their military/religious actions from their social services.  In doing so, they have also removed the proselytizing from their service.  Further, it has won the hearts and minds of the people, as the Hamas political victory shows.  Something that Christians might want to think about.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Your Reactions to Rick Warren’s Invocation: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Respond (usnews.com)
• Creationism is bad religion (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Los Angeles - Mayor Still Catching Flak Over Gaza - LA Daily - LA Weekly (angryindian.blogspot.com)
• Religion, spirituality, and personal growth (paceandkyeli.com)
• “Sullivan Group Think” (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

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

March 28, 2009, 7:36 am by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

Since I am a gay Atheist it is useful to write and explain my personal beliefs as part of this experiment.  Having a balanced life is one of them.  Growing up three things strengthened this belief: family experiences, laws of the Southern States, and Dungeons and Dragons.  True I was a D&D™ fan.  I was also a Star Trek fan.  That show influenced other beliefs that will deserve a post to its self.

I grew up in a Southern Baptist/Presbyterian house.  One of the two is much more balanced than the other.  My mother was good at using daily experiences to show me the errors of actions (mine and other peoples) in an attempt to explain both forms of Christianity.  One of the first lessons on balance was about the difference between Southern Baptist (SB) and Presbyterian.  You see, in the early 1900’s SB went off the deep end: no drinking, no card playing, no dancing.  As with the Prohibition of the 20’s this was unsustainable to society.  After awhile the SB relaxed (a little) and began to allow these “sinful” acts.  But knowing the history made me question the “extreme” conditions of that religion, and later all religions.  Alcoholism and workaholics were two more of the lessons I learned about.  I was reminded on many occasions that my family had a history of both these conditions.  I was taught from an early age that I would be forced to confront those conditions and may even have to fight them my entire life.  I saw first-hand the damage workaholics can do to themselves and their families.  The 70’s had a few economic crises of its own.  As a younger teenager I was constantly warned about the damage that alcohol could do to the liver.  As I became an older teenager the first cases of “date rape” were becoming sensationalized.  I saw that in both the case of workaholics and alcohol abuse it was due to not keeping an “even keel”.  I also was able to recognize that religious fervor was similar, simply by the fact that it lasted only a slight bit longer than the effects of alcohol or throwing yourself into work.  During high school I got to “enjoy” the SB revivals that occur each summer.  And each summer the same people re-committed themselves to the exact same “promises” that they had the year before.  For those unaware of SB revivals it is a spiritual New Year’s Day resolution that is required if you don’t want to go to hell.  In the end I saw that all three did not solve the daily or the life problems that one faces.  All three just cover it up and let their “victims” forget about those problems for short periods of time.  Unfortunately, those problems have to be dealt with.  Forgetting them does nothing but postpone the inevitable confrontation.  I recognized that all three were forms of procrastination.  Two of the three were acceptable forms of procrastination but all three were the same.  All three required the same approach: a balanced life.

The Southern States (and many others) have some very archaic laws on their books (dumblaws.com).  During high school I was introduced to some of the laws that no one had bothered to remove.  It was exceedingly funny, until I realized that if someone wanted to pursue legal action, based on those laws, nothing could stop them.  This line of thought brought me to realize how humans try to control each other by arbitrary definitions of law.  Just take a look at that link to dumblaws.com; some of those laws are exceedingly precise to the point of it could only have happened once.  These laws were obviously someone’s pet peeve and that someone was powerful enough to make it a law.  In the end it taught me that you cannot control a society simply by writing a new law.  Using alcohol again, Prohibition is one of the best examples of this being true.  By this time I had also been exposed to both George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  The concept of a totalitarian society was a catalyst for me to recognize that again balance was required.  These two separate but similar experiences, the dumb laws and the totalitarian society, could only be challenged by learning to live a balanced life.

So how does D&D™ fit in?  In the game there are 9 “alignments”.  Think of them as steps from being purely lawful and good to purely chaotic and evil.  At both extremes even one “falling of the boat” is disastrous.  I slowly learned the concept of “neutral” was not avoiding confrontation.  In fact, in the game pure neutral sometimes required as much work to maintain as the purely lawful good or the purely chaotic evil.  But in the neutral alignment you had the opportunity to re-align.  Using that alignment you were allowed to do both good and evil acts and both lawful and chaotic acts.  This made sense to me; it hit a deep nerve that resonated throughout my young mind.  But at the center of the concept of neutral was also the concept of balance – a balanced life. 

So I combined all the experiences I that I saw and recognized how each was damaging not just to the individual or family but to society as well.  The extremism of religion, alcohol, and work had major consequences.  Each avoided the “here-and-now”.  The dumb laws and the concept of totalitarian society did the same thing, except on a larger scale.  These were where the government avoided the “here-and-now”.  The concept of neutrality, not as avoidance, but as something to strive for could eliminate the consequences of these extremisms.  To say the least, living a purely “neutral” life by balancing both good and evil and law and chaos is not the optimal choice.  Today I lean towards what the game calls neutral good.  Some laws need to be broken, others should be held up at any cost.  But doing good for society and for individuals is always preferred.  Defining what is “good” for society, well, humankind is still trying to figure that one out.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The fundamental value of a book (thestar.com)

Posted in My Beliefs, Atheism | Print | 12 Comments »

March 19, 2009, 12:03 pm by dc-agape.

Image via Wikipedia

The “god bias” is another topic from my personal beliefs.  I am a gay Atheist and a Scientist (analytical chemistry PhD grad student). As a result, I have found the “god bias” to have a few weak points.  I have also found that this bias is detrimental to scientific progress and, hence, human progress.  In this post I will attempt to demonstrate why I have this belief and how it is based on actual facts (not blind faith).

True, being gay does turn a person off from the whole “god” thing to begin with.  Even thought the Word of God does not treat homosexuality with any more enmity than theft, lying, or adultery, “christians” have a tendency to over play the “god” card on this lifestyle.  Let me be very clear on the subject.  Homosexuality is only condemned in the Bible three times (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, and 1^st Cor 6:9).  But sexual immorality is much more broadly covered by the Word of God and it includes every heterosexual act imaginable (read Lev 18 and Lev 20).  So from the very beginning, anyone with the “god bias” specifically against homosexuality is mistaken.  YHWH despises all of humankind’s sexual acts, equally.

But there is so much more to the “god bias”.  This bias brings us concepts like: YHWH is Love, YHWH is mysterious, and YHWH created the world in seven days.  I can erase the YHWH is Love concept with two verses:

Ex 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

1^st Cor 13:4-7 Love is patient, love is kind.  If does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Now if those two verses do not completely wipe the “god bias” YHWH is Love off the table, someone is living in an imaginary world.  Is it not completely obvious that YHWH is not Love?

What about YHWH being mysterious?  He certainly was not to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph.  Do I even need to make references to when YHWH spoke directly each of these Patriarchs?  If you need help with that just read the Book of Genesis starting in chapter 15.  YHWH was not mysterious to a single prophet throughout the OT.  I certainly won’t make references to those stories, if you need help understanding that YHWH is not mysterious read about Moses, the Egyptian plagues, the book of Deuteronomy, both Samuels, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel or any of the minor prophets.  YHWH was not mysterious in the OT, why would he be mysterious today?  Unless, we are talking about two separate beings!

Now let me get to the fun one.  How did YHWH create the world (universe) in seven days?  He didn’t.  First, notice that in Gen 1:14 YHWH created the sun after the earth.  That was the 4^th “day” without a sun the earth could not revolve around anything.  Time was completely arbitrary until the sun actually moved across the sky.  And we know that:

2^nd Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Psalms 90:4 also agrees with this verse.  There are other reasons why the creation of the earth did not have to take place in 7 days: the word “yowm” has more than the 24 hour definition (accuracy in Genesis).  So simply put the “god bias” that YHWH created the world in seven days is actually fictitious.

Those are the weak points in the “god bias” but what about how detrimental this bias is to both science and human progress?  I will use historical examples to show that the “god bias” has been detrimental to science.  Let’s start with Galileo.  He was excommunicated (soulforce.org) and not allowed to publish his works (goArticles.com) because they went against the teachings of the “god bias” in his time.  This was the “god bias” attempting to stifle science.  Just think what would have happened if they had been successful?  Would we have landed on the Moon?  Would we even know to be actively looking for meteors/asteroid that could hit the earth?  The “god bias” continued to stifle scientific progress through the centuries and is still active today.  The Scopes Monkey Trial (Andy Bradbury) and the Dover School Trial (MSNBC) are modern day attempts where the “god bias” is actively to minimize or even harm scientific progress.  Bans on Stem Cell research (allaboutpopularissues.com) is the same case.  If scientist are not allowed to do the research, what harm may come to humanity.  Evolution is helping us understand not just how life evolved; it helps with understanding how pathogens (Arizona State University) and cancer (Dan at Migrations) can be controlled.

By serendipity that link on the excommunication of Galileo brings up another strong point against “god bias”.  The “god bias” allowed slavery of centuries, yet today we know that slavery is a heinous crime against humanity. 

I want to finish with what I feel is the strongest case against the “god bias”.  The concept that “God did it” ends all questions.  No more searching is required for the answer to the problem.  What if humankind had stopped at “Lighting – god did it” or “Earthquakes – god did it”.  We would be living in daily fear of lightning strikes and earthquakes.  The same goes for childhood disease like polio, measles, and diphtheria.  Childhood vaccinations (familydoctor.org) are not perfect but they are responsible for a childhood survival rates improving (worldvision.org).  What would the outcome be if we had left children dying of preventable diseases just because of “God wants it this way”?  How much suffering would occur in the world today?  Not just the children who would be in agony, but what about the cost of medical care required to ease their pains as they die?  What about the suffering that the parents would endure as they watch their child die?

So you can at least see why I have a personal belief that the “god bias” is harmful to human society.  There are more examples of the harm “god bias” does, but I will end with the ones I have already covered: inequality for minorities, false beliefs about YHWH, scientific censorship, and the complete stifling of science.  All of these examples, and more, are proof that the “god bias” is unacceptable behavior for our society.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Saddleback Church Deletes Page on Creationism and Homosexuality? (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• ‘Dismaying’ (slacktivist.typepad.com)
• Why I’m peeved (slacktivist.typepad.com)
• Field trip to Darwinism (kottke.org)
• I pray (suzanneanderson.blogspot.com)

Posted in My Beliefs, Becoming an atheist | Print | 11 Comments »