Marriage Equality Amendment Bill today

This parliamentary bill gets it's first reading/vote today.. If passed it goes to a second reading and select committee work-over...

The religious are generally against this amendment on the grounds that it breaks the sanctimony of marriage.  That marriage between a man and a women is the domain of god and while enshrined in law as being more than that it is still a religious institution first and foremost.

No surprise if you guess that I'm not supporting the religious argument.

One thing they do have right is the acknowledgement that marriage has become more than a religious ceremony.  It is now a state ceremony and it's definition has ramifications in law and society.  This amendment (if passed in to law) will have the effect of gathering in a part of our society that is excluded.  In other words we have legal and societal conditions that create a 2nd tier within our country and I happy to see this form of bigotry extinguished.

Quote from Penn Jillette on faith

Just finished GOD, NO! by Penn Jillette - a great read, his flamboyant personality leaps off the page...

An abridged quote from the book
"Its not fair to blame all the Muslims for the horrible acts of a few people.  That's wrong.  You cannot blame all thos epeople.  And we shouldn't blame a particular faith for the horrible acts of a few people.  At least we shouldn't blame just Islam.  We should blame all faiths.  We should blame faith in general. But Bush and Obama couldn't do that.  No religious person can do that.  Being religious means being okay with believing in things without evidence.  That's the most important part of any faith."

Cool !! "Being religious means being okay with believing things without evidence" - get it

So - and to use another quote: "The enemy is not Muslims.  Muslims are people.  The enemy is not people.  People are good.  The enemy is not Islam.  The enemy is not god.  There is no god. The enemy is faith.  Love and respect all people; hate and destroy all faith"

AtheistPig.com - Guardian Angel

Should we call religious people stupid?

Probably not.  So what would be acceptable?

I'll answer that with a question: What do we call adults who believe in the existence of Santa Claus?

Marriage: Gods Law? Letter to Matt...

Dear Matt,

After waxing on about Feticide and other related issues of the Bible could you enlighten us with your position on gay marriage?

You see, every time I read about "Gods Law on marriage" I get very angry.  God's Law, really.  Which God?  The one who still manages to turn a blind eye to the children dieing every day and droughts or flooding or other miseries that cause strife to various humans on this planet?

Seems there are about approx 3000 different Gods - so which one is making this "Law" on marriage?

Didn't we already sort out that Man made God (not the other way around)?

Isn't the issue equality.  I would like to see the same rights afforded to any couple in the country I live in.  Marriage is a state enforced contract.  If it had been a religious construct then it has moved on from there, in other words, religion does not have a place (unless you chose it) in the contract of marriage.

Equality - remember that's what this is about. 

SCA

William Lane Craig

Dear Matt,

You recently argued that (and I will paraphrase as to repeat your dissertation would put most reasonable people to sleep) Richard Dawkins refusal to debate William Lane Craig in the UK was a form of mis-information/cowardly act on Dawkins part.  Yes - your over 1570 words boiled down to that...

Craig, in the face of many statements of fact, has (to my knowledge) never changed his mind and said - "OK on this point I am mistaken and I need to develop a new position".  Yes - statements of fact.

Dawkins deals in facts.  You preface your article with the words "Contra Mundum"  really!! "Against the world"  - how arrogant.

Dawkins is a scientist.  Debating Craig who does not practice science or should I say does not use the Science Methodology would be a waste of time.  Dawkins can do what I do - and watch Craig on Youtube.  Dawkins probably concluded the same thing I did - Craig is an Unreasonable man.

Unreasonable:  "When the facts change, I change my mind"

Science continues to erode the the boundary of knowledge of our species and adding more facts about our existence.  Religion feels threatened by this and it is becoming obvious to me that we need to start treating thoughts of God in the same way we think about Santa Claus: Great for children but not appropriate for adults.

So Matt, I hope your pursuit of "adultness" deals to the childish notions of an omnipetent diety

Cheers

SCA

Does evil exist?

Interesting question - Let us presume that evil does not exist - "A hypothesis"

So, evil does not exist.
Then you (yes you can play the other side) suggest that the Nazis/Hitler were evil.
I say: Really? "Yes"  The stuff the nazis got up was because of evil? "Yes" An evil spirit made them do those crazy things?  So they weren't responsible?  Something else called "evil" was responsible. "Well yes..."

You know I'm thinking there are shades of evil, but we should be thinking about how many people view evil.  Evil is the result of the "Devil".  The Devil has enticed you towards an evil act.  The dark side....

Interesting.  So if I was to do something bad to another person (say hit them with a bat) would I be responsible or would the "evil" thing be responsible.

The religious amongst us contend that evil is all around us and that it needs to be turned away from, and that if the evil has caused you to do a bad thing then you can be reconciled from it by another third party - "God" A forgiveness that will take on your burden of responsibility.

Wow - that last statement is huge.  So you can be absolved of the responsibility.  In other words, the consequence for the bad thing you did is gone - no consequence.

What if we were to re-label "Evil" and called "Acts of Wrong"  People doing wrongs against others/things.  This definition would still be considered evil, but its not seen as coming from another third-party source like the Satan etc.

Who is responsible for Acts of Wrong?  Well the people themselves.  No "passing the buck" with this, these people own it.

I like this definition because it can also include Acts of Wrong perpetuated by people thinking they were doing Gods Work.  Nope - they were just wrong and they in flicked bad stuff on other people or things.

Does evil exist? No.  They are Acts of Wrong that people should be responsible for.

A difficult challenge

Dear Matt,

This quote from Penn Jillette offers a huge challenge.  Have you done this?  If you said Yes, then I wonder if you really have, properly and critically read it.

Yours SCA

annoying statements...

From "ten-cliches-christians-should-never-use/"

“If you died today, do you know where you’d spend the rest of eternity?”
No, I don’t, and neither do you. So stop asking such a presumptuous question as this that implies you have some insider knowledge that the rest of us don’t. And seriously, if your faith is entirely founded upon the notion of eternal fire insurance, you’re not sharing testimony; you’re peddling propaganda.

Well there another 19 on top of the ten referred to - here is a good one
God is in control.
This raises a very fundamental problem of Theodicy, which most Christians I’ve met who say this are not necessarily prepared to address. Theodicy is the dilemma between belief in an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God with the existence of evil and/or suffering in the world. And the other problem is that, if you believe that human beings have free will (a central tenet of most Christian thought), it needs to be recognized that that, in itself, is a concession of control by God. And like other phrases I’ve mentioned about God’s role in daily life, be careful in tossing this one around. Telling someone who was raped, abused, tortured, neglected, etc. that God was in control during that experience likely is enough to incent that person to turn from the concept of God forever. 

Letter to Matt: Teaching religion to children

Dear Matt,

Please accept my apology for the lack of blog posting.  The recent activity of buying a new home and beating out the other earthquake refugees has been tiring.

And we settle the house this Friday - so stress is growing rapidly - lots to do when you shift.  At least I have done this a few times now and know whats involved - still its a lot of work and the usual daily activities (The job that brings in money) still have to be done...

So, Matt, I hope to be continuing my quest of understanding the mind that can write (contribute to) such a book.  The wonder in the natural world should be enough, but to then ascribe its beauty to a supernatural being is astounding.

"Religion: Hardens the heart and enslaves the mind"

Ciao for now
SCA

In my local paper...

Given my current evidential understanding of the existence of god(s) this sort of thing needs to be mocked.

I hope that any people attending are not giving money for this false hope.  If people are attending who do need compassion, understanding and help, then this quote says it all "Two hands working beats 1000 hands clasped in prayer"

Sad news from North Carolina

Really?
Was the Amendment vote about marriage, or about bigotry and hatred?
Did the religious have to enshrine their views on marriage (one man and one women only)?  What they have achieved is the acknowledgement that there are "classes" of people in their society that are different, not equal, and that these classes are not entitled - In other words, of a lower class.

This is bigotry and hatred.

I don't know how the laws are made in the USA and how laws can be localized for an individual state, but for this state to do this shows a lack of moral back-bone!

When the facts change...

This quote...
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" John Maynard Keynes, also attributed to Winston Churchill.

(side note:  quotes allow us to focus on an idea, as the person being quoted has often stated simply what we were having trouble stating at all)

Believers in Gods have been having to deal with this "facts changing" problem for as long as Gods have been around. The believers need to shore up there positions with considerable effort and have spawned an industry of Apologists to help with this.  Why?

Because changing their mind seems unconscionable.  In my opinion it is the fear created around there beliefs that cause them to also fear the gap that exists when the belief has been refuted.  Consequently, it is better (for them) to believe and ignore the new facts then to change there mind. 

OK - Some people, honest and decent people, have been duped to believing that no belief is foolish.  Those doing the "duping" are preying on these honest people and taking advantage either financially, or philosophically and abusing the trust that the good people have given them.

In our societies there are varying personalities, people with strong language/communication skills, those the strong work ethics, those who will give there time, and so on.  In other words, people who fulfill various society needs.  Those in our society who desire power or influence over others can make good with this desire through organised religion.  It suits these "narcissistic" individuals to ignore the emerging facts that show beliefs in gods to be harmful.

Yes - harmful.  Please don't tell me I'm wrong.  If you attempt to show or example something good that organised religion does for society, then I will retort with: "The good that you example can be achieved equally as well with out the god part".  A God does not add grist to your argument. 

Although if you can prove otherwise through facts, then I will be prepared to change my mind!

SCA

I could, but I will not....

Well I could just link to another article that describes the evidence for Jesus. This would be intellectually vacant. I will use a few articles/blogs etc and do the hard yards, as in read both sides and focus on why either argument is compelling or not.


So this will take some time (maybe months).


The difficulty I will have is in understanding how one side can abandon reason in arguing he case. Yes, I'm already of the mind that the religious have reasoned incorrectly, but why have they. What stops them from "joining those final dots"


And I am now faced with understanding the psychology of the believer.

Evidence: doubt it or believe it

Some important things about evidence.

If the police turned up at my place and said they had arrested my son for murder (a serious crime...).  And I ask how they know that my son is the culprit?  The policeman/woman  tells me that a person "A"  came into there station-house and said that they knew another person "B" who told them that they know my son had killed "X".
Of course I'm very upset, and ask had they spoken to person "B".  The police say - nope, don't need to, we feel the word of "A" is plenty good enough for us and that will make it a "sealed deal".

Would you be concerned?  The evidence of "A" is called hearsay.  Its in-direct.  Do we know who "B" is - no, and do we get a chance to question "B" as to how they were witness to the crime.

In a modern court of law (any - probably most, countries) hearsay evidence is not good enough.  Actually its very poor evidence and doesn't get aired in court at all.

Why?  because its unsafe, too easy to pervert, potentially fraudulent.  In other words, its better to doubt its veracity then to believe it.

I'll add a post detailing the sources for this statement - but I need to say this now.  The evidence for a Jesus, living in or near a place called Nazareth is hearsay.  Letters and statements written by a person who had been told by another person (and sometimes many other people in the chain) about a person called Jesus. 

This hearsay evidence is made worse by the tyranny of time.  These statements, as relayed from another person(s) were around 60-70 plus years after the supposed life of this Jesus.  This would be like my son being locked up for a crime committed before he was born on the word of "A" as told to them by "B" (whom we can't talk too)

Sound dodgy?  Wow - so far we are only looking at what evidence could be taken and believed versus evidence we should doubt.  So the next few posts will focus on "existence of Jesus"  What evidence are people using to make the statements that Jesus existed.  Should that evidence be believed or doubted?

In other words, would I trust my sons life based on the quality of evidence used to support the case for the existence of Jesus.  You can tell that I'm one of those doubters, but I'm open enough to read the Apologists writing and find out why they see evidence to believe, and where others see evidence to doubt...

Ciao

Existence of Jesus? Really?

In chapter one I'm suddenly affronted by this statement
"No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus" - Bold words.  Worth a book or two on its own.  And I believe has consumed many "scholars" both for and against its hypothesis.

Lets break down the statement 1. reputable scholar, 2. Existence of Jesus, 3. Doubt
Lets work backwards through these three....

3. Doubt.  Well doubt and how it applies to evidence
It is important to remove faith from this evaluation of this statement.  Faith leads to the abandonment of reason. Ar, that word reason again.
I had the the misfortune of being part of a jury trial a few years ago.  I say misfortune as it wasn't a pleasant experience, even though it was a civic duty, the "civic" didn't really look after us a jurors.  It was traumatic to me as it was about sexual molestation of girls who happened to be the same age as my own daughter at that time.
Being an outspoken sort of guy (yeah really!) I was made foreman.  The foremans role in a jury trial is a strangely hidden one, although if you have watched the movie "12 Angry Men" then you will have some idea.  It can be like herding cats.
OK - As a jury we had to look at the evidence presented.  Assess its worth. Who said what about what they say or witnessed being said.  Lots of first hand stuff.  There was a lot of second hand stuff as well, and we were told, as a jury, to ignore this as it wasn't good enough as evidence.

As the foreman of this jury I had to chair the discussion.  We had five charges to work our way through and we eventually decided guilty on 3 of the 5.  Not enough evidence for 2 of the charges.

Spoiler Alert!! Interestingly, if we applied a similar evidence based logic to the existence of Jesus, we might have some problems.... the next post gets into it

So, why am I doing this?

Great question - I do ponder this.  I'm not here for some ego trip.

What I believe is that if we are to lessen the effect of religion on society (the bigotry, the hate, the fear, the guilt, the mental abuse, the misinformation ) then we need to let the religious moderates know that they have a problem to deal with.

Why religious moderates?  They are the group that allows the "Fundamentalists", "Extremists", "Literalists" (in other words, those on the extreme edges of religious belief) to perpetuate the "bad stuff".

How do we make change in our society?  We need to mock religion.  Show that as a hypothesis on life, that it is a poor description of how the world is around us, and what our place in this world is.  That people need to be respected, and that ideas are not sacred and don't need to be respected.

If we can handle the truth about Santa Claus, then I think we can handle the truth about Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, etc

Letter to Matt - Been re-reading some of your posts and comments

Dear Matt,

Confusion reigns!  Been re-reading some of your posts and especially the comments made.  I wonder if you as an Christian Apologist might spend more of your time/effort on sorting out the story inside Christianity.  The mixed messages are mind-blowing (not in a good way...)

All the best
SCA

Twitter #IfAtheistsTalkedLikeChristians

Nice work people - love your style.

So why do we mock the beliefs of Christians and other religions?  Because this is the way towards eliminating it from our society. 

Letter to Matt - Doubts

Dear Matt
Thanks for introducing the term OTF.  I hadn't heard that before (gosh - so much reading to do).

Doubt is something that we all inherit.  Keeps us safe from danger.  Allowed us to survive as a species.  When you look at other animal species we often say (for example) that "cat" looks timid, but no - it doubts (in other words, is skeptical about your out-reached hand) and until it gathers sufficient evidence (sound of your voice, smells, location) to assuage the skepticism it will stay back.

Religions ask us to suspend that doubt, and then states that the evidence does not need to be tested.

What do we do with this?  How do we ask a religion to prove it self?

Yours with interest
SCA

Letters to Matt -"No reputable scholar ..."

Dear Matt,

It is with some concern that a book you have lent your name to has made the statement "No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus".  Your reputation, in my opinion is at risk when you associate yourself with poor arguments or shoddy workmanship.

With your best interests at heart, please be careful.

Yours faithfully
SCA

OK - the all joking aside. Lets break down the statement 1. reputable scholar, 2. Existence of Jesus, 3. Doubt
Lets work backwards through these three....Lets move to a new post

Ciao

Quote

You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Carl Sagan

Chapter One - The Party of Reason by Tom Gilson

Part of a review for this book closed with the following statement:
Which is more reasonable: atheism or Christianity? Read “True Reason” and think for yourself.”

 Lots of problems with this statement.  atheism or [Insert any religion here]"  Now that's a statement that works.
The current wave of atheism isn't an attack on Christianity.  Its a social statement in regard to all religions.

OK - I'm off topic already, back to Chapter One.  Warning: there will be many posts about chapter one.

The first chapter is about the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) and the atheist claim of being about "Reason".
The chapter states the claim that the New Atheists books, articles and debates are riddled with fallacy, appeals to emotion, and mishandling of evidence.  Essentially, that the call to reason has been incompetent.

This is a bold statement, and opens the writer up to the same scrutiny as they are applying to the New Atheists.  A discussion on Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris follows and then a series of closing statements to draw a more abstract definition of "reason" and then how the rest of the book will assist in support of the argument that reasoning is from God.

Lots in here to work with, but I am going to start with the statement "No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus".  What follows is nothing to back this up.  So I started to do some research.  It should scare the Christians amongst us how sketchy the evidence is, and I'm calling it evidence only out of...no, actually I can't think of a good "reason" to call it evidence.

So, how will this Blog evolve

True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenges of Atheism will be the main source of inspiration for this blog.  So far, I have read the first chapter and am amazed at its paucity for truths, or unfounded logic.

Evolve is a useful way of thinking about the purpose.  My current thinking is to look at each of the chapters in turn and discuss the merits of the "True Reason" that the authors have found.
Based on the first chapter, I think that this will be a long process. So be it.  My apologies to Matt as his chapter is last, and while he has helped inspire me towards putting my thoughts (opinions) on "paper", he will not have the pleasure of my attention until the very end.

Of course my strategy may change as I move through this book.  I will add posts of related topics as and when the feeling arises.  And for the most part I will refrain from commenting on the state of society in North America, although the various commentators from that region do write some brilliant stuff, and frankly, I'm glad I don't live amongst it.

Any local (southern hemisphere) theist/atheist topic worthy of not will (hopefully) get a mention here.

So, that's the plan...

Dedication

Hi,
This blog entry is a dedication to the person(s) who motivated me to discuss the hypothesis of religion.
First. Matt and Madeleine Flannagan. Matt especially is holding himself up as a biblical scholar. Ok, I'm fine about that with the exceptions as it pertains to his beliefs. What mean by this, is that Matt ( and Madeleine ) can have there beliefs however if they are unsubstantiated then they deserve to be mocked.

Second. A women who will remain nameless, who I knew in my youth who decided to believe in Christianity.

Third. "The Hitch". What a loss! Just as I had found his writings, he was struct down with a terrible disease.

Fourth. Greta Christina. For providing an easily digested forum of thought. Her latest book," Why are atheists angry? 99 things that piss off the godless" helped me to find he words to how I was feeling.

While this isn't a complete list, it is ignition to get my contribution going.

By the way, I lead a happy, joyful life with my partner, my children, and her children. My work is stimulating, and my outside work life is full of fun activities.