Painting with Light

Sex toy giveaway

2011-09-25T22:22:00.000-07:00

The amazing folks over at Early To Bed are having a giveaway! Go join!

Einstein

2010-07-02T22:45:00.001-07:00

“I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”

--Einstein

Rev. Al Sharpton vs. Glenn Beck

2010-07-02T16:40:00.000-07:00

Beck stated that his rally on August 28th at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (on the anniversary of MLK's I Have A Dream speech) will "reclaim the Civil Rights Movement...We were the people who did it in the first place." This is hilarious enough coming from the face of the party that is anti gay marriage, anti choice, and anti immigrant (among other things) but the best part was when he got the smackdown from the Reverend Al Sharpton. I absolutely LOVE that Sharpton can completely and totally crush Glenn Beck regarding the civil rights movement without even talking about race. This man is my hero. Seriously.

Racism

2010-06-13T16:19:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about racism lately. There are two things that happened to me recently to cause this:

a) I was talking to my uncle, and he used a line I've heard so many times: "I'm just sick of pressing 1 for English."

b) I was talking to my mom and learned something new about my family. See, my dad had a sister that we never talked about. I learned a bit about her over time (her name, that she has 3 boys) but no one really talked about her, ever. All I knew what that she had been effectively kicked out of the famly and no one ever talked to her. Naturally, I assumed the worst. I thought she had murdered someone or something like that. Yesterday I learned what horrible thing she did. She married a black man. My grandmother had been incredibly racist. She was the head of the family and what she said was gospel. So when she decided that her daughter was no longer welcome due to the race of her husband, that was it. My grandmother died when I was about a year old, but no one welcomed my aunt back to the family. Apparently, she was fairly poor and she, her husband, or her kids (or some combination of the above) have done some fairly undesirable things. I don't really know the details. My grandfather started talking to her again, but I guess there was just too much bitterness there for her to feel welcome in our family. It breaks my heart that I've only met her once (at my dad's funeral) and I've never met my cousins.

I don't understand how people can justify their racism. I know often they don't see what they're doing as racism, like with the English thing. I don't understand why people get so angry about the fact that a large number of Americans speak Spanish as a first language. I know a lot of times people equate Spanish-speakers as illegal. However, that doesn't negate the fact that there are 34.6 million people in the US who speak Spanish at home. The "press 2 for Spanish" thing (and offering legal forms in Spanish) is catering to our own citizens. Plus, in areas with a high concentration of Spanish-speakers, it makes sense from a business perspective to offer phone menus in Spanish. Catering to one's client base is being a smart business, not anti-American. What's interesting to me is why this is a problem. I don't have any reaction at all when I'm on the phone and hear "press 1 for English". It's obvious that some people do, though. What is causing them to be offended? Is it simply the reminder that people exist who are different than them? Where did the idea that here in America we speak English and only English come from, anyway? I've heard this argument: "If I moved to France, I would have to learn French. This is America. They have to learn English." The problem with that argument is that some countries (such as France) have their national identity closely tied to their national language. The French language is a huge part of the culture. But America is not one of those countries. It was built on the idea of being a land of opportunity for those who can't make it in their home countries. I know that, historically, there has been backlash and racism against every major group of people that moved here. I understand that at this point in history, America (or at least parts of America) is racist against Spanish-speakers (and those from the middle-east, thanks to 9/11). But what's the point? No good can come from racism. We as a nation have learned this lesson time and time again. I don't understand how people can be so patriotic and yet be so racist. In one breath they talk about how in America all men are created equal, and then they turn around and discriminate against the groups of people they don't like. I just don't understand.

Texas to change history books

2010-05-06T09:40:00.000-07:00

I know that I'm late talking about this, but I've still got a lot to say. The Texas school board approved a change in the social studies curriculum. They think that the current history books have a liberal bias and are taking steps to correct that. They are trying to cast conservative historical figures in a more flattering light than they currently are. The problem? There were no historians, sociologists, or economists consulted at the meetings. Some of the issues they are concerned with are:

The separation of church and state. They don't think that the U.S. Constitution supports this idea and want to remove it from the textbooks. This fits nicely in with their idea that America was founded on Christian principles by Christians. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. 1) Establishment Clause. 2) Treaty of Tripoli. The U.S. is NOT a Christian nation, and it never was. It is (and was always intended to be) a country that grants to its citizens the freedom of religion. This means that every citizen can choose for himself which religion he belongs to, if he wishes to be part of one at all. No citizen should be forced to follow the rules of any one religion, and no one religion should be endorsed by the government. This means that NO, the U.S. is not a Christian nation.
Evolution v. Intelligent Design. Obviously, they are working to teach the theory of intelligent design in the classrooms along with evolution. This is a problem because the whole premise of intelligent design assumes that there is a creator, which is an endorsement of religion. This directly violates the first ammendment.
Casting conservatives in a more positive light. They want to explore more deeply the positive things that conservatives have done for history, such as supporting civil rights legislation. Fine. But who first came up with the legislation? Not conservatives.
Casting liberals in a more negative light. They want to play up the bad things that liberals have done. For example, they want to stress people like Malcolm X and the violence he promoted along side of Martin Luther King Jr.
Thomas Jefferson. The problem with him is that he was the person who first coined the phrase "separation of church and state". We can see the issue here. So they're trying to cut him out.

Wow. My first reaction is horror - OMFG THEY'RE CHANGING HISTORY?!? This is HUGE. So much of my reality is shaped by my understanding of the past, of how we got here and why we are the way we are. The idea that children are going to grow up thinking that the U.S. is a Christian nation and there is no separation of church and state is offensive to me. By changing the way we view the past they're changing reality. My reality is "as an American atheist, my government has a responsibility to represent me just as objectively as it represents Christians". If a generation of kids grow up to believe that there is no separation of church and state, will that continue to be true? I don't think so.

And yet, they have a point. Conservatives are portrayed in a bad light in history textbooks. I think this is for good reason - social and moral progress has historically been opposed by conservatives. For example, the eradication of slavery. Or women's sufferage. Or marriage equality (both interracial marriage and gay marriage). When we're viewing the debate about interracial marriage from our modern perspective, the conservatives who opposed it are inevitably going to look like douchebags. BUT. I do agree with the fact that it may go a bit too far. I know that growing up with these American history textbooks, I definitely saw quite a bit of us/them and good guys/bad guys mentality. This isn't helpful for learning about others and about cultures different from one's own, which is the whole point of history class. We just learned "they had slaves in the south. That was bad. So we fought with them to free the slaves and we won! The good guys won! Yay liberals!" I'm embarrassed to admit how old I was when I first realized that America isn't always the good guy. A bit more of the other side's story might be good for students.

So who gets to decide what really happened? These history textbooks should reflect historical reality as much as possible. I think that that's an admirable goal. But who gets to decide what "historical reality" is? Obviously, there are some things that are not debatable, and history is one of the areas where this happens a lot. Some things either happened or they didn't. However, there can be grey area, even in history. Is there such a thing as objective reality? I don't know. So what happens when two people's realities don't match up? This happens. So who wins? The people with the power. History is written by the winners. So does that mean that liberals are the winners? The liberals do seem to win in the end (at least on issues of social and moral progress), and we have written the history books. But what happens when the conservatives fight back? What does that mean for the future?

Is this supposed to be funny?

2010-05-03T12:37:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I went to a Catholic mass for a First Communion ceremony. Everything was fine until the very end of the mass, when the priest told a joke:

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist, and a member of the ACLU.
One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, 'GOD if you are real then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes.' The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, 'Here I am GOD, I'm still waiting.'
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently.
The other students were shocked and stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, 'What in the world is the matter with you? Why did you do that?' The Marine calmly replied, 'GOD was too busy today protecting America 's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot. So He sent me.'
The classroom erupted in cheers!

The whole congretation laughed. This was interesting to me and I had a number of different reactions. The first reaction was from the gut (OMG not all atheists are arrogant and pompous and use their classrooms as a soapbox!). Then I thought wait a minute, why are they all laughing and I'm not? I wasn't offended by the joke. I'm used to that characterization of atheists AND I was on their turf. The difference in our reaction to the joke is what interested me. I think that they saw the joke as "good Christian boy stands up for God/his beliefs, and is witty to boot! Haha!", whereas I saw the joke as "young man creates violence in the name of God/religion, and the rest of the class applauds him". The fact that punching someone in the face so hard that they are out cold turns from "bad" to "good" when said person is an atheist (AND a member of the ACLU! For shame!) is sad, and honestly a bit frightening.

Marriage Equality

2010-04-25T17:34:00.000-07:00

For easy future reference, I've decided to put up the information I used for my presentation on marriage equality for my Social Problems in American Society class.

The state of affairs in the U.S.:

-Five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and Washington D.C. allow gay marriage.
-Two states (Rhode Island and New York) recognize gay marriages performed out of state.
-Eight states (New Jersey, California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin) allow civil unions.
-Of the 8 states that allow civil unions, only New Jersey gives couples in civil unions the same rights as those in civil marriages. California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington give civil unions most of the rights given to civil marriages. Hawaii, Maine, and Wisconsin give them only some of the same rights.

DOMA:

The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) states that :
1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2) The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

This gave the states free reign to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriages. It also denies same-sex couples that are legally married all of the federal rights afforded to heterosexual married couples.

Rights currently being denied to gay couples:

There are over 1,000 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, as well as around 300 provided by each individual state. Even if the state allows gay marriage, gay couples will still be denied their federal rights, thanks to DOMA. These rights include but are not limited to:

making medical, legal, and financial decisions for the partner
hospital visitation
inheritance without a will
suing for wrongful death and/or emotional distress if the partner dies or is injured
drafting a will or trust for the partner
paid leave or sick time to care for ill partner or partner's child
unemployment insurance if one has to relocate due to the partner's job
health insurance under the partner's plan
death benefits for surviving partner and children
leave of absence after death of the partner
right to live with the partner in senior citizen housing developments
filing jointly on taxes
sponsoring a partner for citizenship
holding both partners as equal parents
child support and custody
conjugal visits to the partner in prison
right to use necessary force to prevent partner from wrongful injury
right not to be forced to testify against partner in court
ability to authorize medical treatment of partner's biological child

Most people (gay or straight) don't think about these rights until something goes wrong. These rights were crafted to protect and support the spouse when something happens to the partner. That means these rights are called upon in times of great emotional, and sometimes financial, need. These are the rights being denied to same-sex couples daily.

Who else (besides the couple) does this affect?:

-Children of the same-sex couple. Many psychological studies have shown that children raised by two parents of the same gender do not have any major differences in developmental outcomes than those raised by two heterosexual parents. They do, however, face prejudice and homophobia from peers and adults due to their homosexual parents. They also do not have the same protection under the law that children of married couples do. They face the possibility of being separated from their surviving parent if the biological parent dies and they haven't filed for adoption. They also face loss of income, benefits, insurance, and even sometimes the right to the home they live in.

-Gay children. Gay children are affected by this issue because they are being told, directly or indirectly, that they are not the same as everyone else and that they don't deserve the same happiness and protection under the law that straight people receive.

-Society as a whole is hugely affected by this issue. This is one of the most polarizing issues in the public arena at the moment. Some people judge others based on what they believe about gay marriage in a way that they don't for other issues. Some people vote for political leaders based largely on their views of gay marriage, often neglecting other important aspects about these politicians. Since gay marriage is such a huge issue, it takes up quite a bit of the public's caring capacity, and as such other important issues often don't get the attention they deserve.

This is a matter of basic human rights.

It is not a question of religious morality v immorality. In America, not everyone is required to follow the rules of one religion. Therefore, what any particular holy book or religion has to say about homosexuality is inconsequential when deciding who gets protection under the law.

It is not a question of tradition. The definition of marriage has changed over the years. Marriage used to be (and still is in some cases and certain parts of the world) used for:

political purposes
improving one's social status
improving one's economic status
procreation (and only procreation)
certainty as to the paternity of the children
the subjugation of women
family obligation

It used to be (and still is in some cases/parts of the world) between:

one man and multiple women
one woman and multiple men
multiple women and multiple men
a man and a young girl
two people who did not meet until their wedding day
a man and a "mail-order bride"
people of the same religion
people of the same race (side note: interracial marriage wasn't fully legal in the U.S. until 1967)
people of the same gender (see: early Roman Empire, Ming Dynasty, early Zhou Dynasty)

Therefore, arguments about "changing the definition of marriage" are invalid. The definition of marriage has already changed quite a bit. It's called progress.

Sources:

www.marriageequality.org

National Conference of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org)

Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage by Davina Kotulski Ph.D. Superior Court of DC (http://www.dccourts.gov/)
(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, published in the American Sociological Review (April 2001).

Mike Huckabee is a bigoted douchebag

2010-04-23T14:48:00.000-07:00

Mike Huckabee was interviewed by a student reporter named Michael Tracey at The College of New Jersey. In the interview, Huckabee said some bigoted things about gay marriage. Tracey then, gasp, published what Huckabee said in a campus newspaper called The Perspective:

“That would be like saying, well there’s there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?”

Thanks to the internet, his statements have been widely publicized and criticized, and rightly so. Huckabee was not pleased. So how did this Republican presidential candidate reply? By blaming the reporter, of course. Huckabee called for the reporter to release the transcript of the interview, which he did. Huckabee then talked about it on FOX: (see video)

1) While it's true that Huckabee didn't say that incest and polygamy are the same as homosexuality, HE was the one who brought up incest and polygamy, NOT the reporter, so HE was the one who linked them. He was the one who put them into the same category ("things I don't believe should be approved of by the U.S. government"). Even if he didn't explicitly say "I think that these things are equal", he was the one who made that link.

2) It's a slippery slope argument. And a red herring. They weren't talking about incest and polygamy. They were talking about gay marriage. You don't really have much of an argument if the interview goes like this: "So why are you against topic A?" "Because topic B and C are bad!" Not only do polygamy and incest have NOTHING AT ALL to do with gay marriage, invoking those topics in the first place shows us that your case against gay marriage isn't strong enough to stand alone.

3) The definition of marriage has ALREADY changed. He claims to be a Christian. Has he even read his Bible? It's not exactly a secret that the bible says the following about marriage:
a) Women are practically property. (Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
b) Love has nothing to do with marriage. You found a hot chick when you killed her family in a war? Fuck her and marry her! (Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Exodus 21:7-11, Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 5:30)
c) Polygamy is fine by God (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15, Genesis 28:9). See: King David (2 Samuel 5:13), King Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), Solomon's son (2 Chronicles 11:21), Abraham (Genesis 16:1-3, Genesis 25:1), Jacob (Genesis 29:16-30)

Also, are we forgetting that inter-racial marriage wasn't fully legal here in the U.S. until 1967? So what was he saying about "changing the definition of marriage"? History, motherfucker. Learn it. Better late than never, even if you did run for president.

4) What is so bad about polygamy?

P.S. He's going to "charge the mound"? What about turning the other cheek? How very Christian of him.

Mosquito laser

2010-04-09T20:11:00.000-07:00

Scientists have designed a Star Wars-esque laser that can shoot down between 50 and 100 mosquitoes per second! They created it completely out of parts bought on eBay. In areas affected by malaria, these lasers could be used to create fences around clinics, homes, or agricultural fields instead of using pesticides.

Awesome!

Source: NY Times

Segregation...still?

2010-04-09T19:58:00.000-07:00

Some high schools in the south have segregated proms. Still. Today. This completely blows my mind. The civil rights movement was in the '60s, people. Half a century has gone by. HOW can this still be happening? I know racism still exists, as I have felt it first-hand. But I didn't know that institutionalized racism still happened in this country. I thought we were beyond that. I thought we as Americans believed in the phrase "all men are created equal". Apparently not. I have no words.

Source: NY Times

Fun facts!

2010-02-20T21:25:00.000-08:00

I've decided this blog will also be a collection of fun facts I learn from teh intarwebs and NPR. For example:
-Giorgio Carbone of Seborga, Italy convinced the inhabitants of his town that the town was an independent principality. They elected him as prince, and he was addressed colloquially as "His Tremendousness".
-The floor collapsed under a Weight Watchers meeting. I'm sure it must have been mortifying for them, but it's also really really funny.
-"Truck Nutz", metal testicles to hang from your pickup truck or other sufficiently manly vehicle in case isn't already compensation enough, are now illegal in Florida. The fact that they actually make a product like this is amusing enough, but even better is the fact that they spent time debating this in the Florida senate. One of the senators admitted to owning a pair and said that it is, and I quote, "an expression of truckliness." Wow.
-I just found my new favourite phrase in Italian: "Ho una fame da lupo", which means, roughly translated, "hungry like the wolf". (And I really, really tempted to link that to this video.) Or maybe it's "succhiacazzi" (cocksucker). Grazie, professore!

Osama Bin Laden obsessed with Whitney Houston!

2010-02-18T11:38:00.000-08:00

According to this article, Osama Bin Laden is completely obsessed with Whitney Houston. He wants to have her husband killed and take her as a wife. I can just imaging him wandering around going "IIIIIIIII will always love yooouuuuuu!"

You CAN be good without god...who knew?

2010-02-14T09:57:00.000-08:00

This article from Science Daily explains an interesting new theory about why religion and morality are linked. See, there had previously been two main theories about the origin of religion:
1) Religion evolved as a way to solve the problem of cooperation among unrelated individuals.
2) Religion evolved as a by-product of pre-existing cognitive capacities. For example, it is much better for the survival of young if they have a tendency to believe what the elders tell them about what is edible/dangerous etc.
This article talks about two psychologists who found (citing many studies in moral philosophy) that people show no difference in moral judgements for unfamiliar dilemmas, despite differences in, or even lack of, religion. This suggests that intuitive judgements of right and wrong are independent of specific religious obligations.
"This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen (one of the authors of the article). "However, although it appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation between groups."
This is interesting because of some of the common views on the connection between religion and morality. Some people view morality as impossible without religion, others see religion as a way of expressing moral intuitions, some see religion as something that impedes moral progress, and still others think religion and morality are in no way linked. But it still remains that in most cultures (including this one), religious beliefs and concepts have become the standard way of articulating moral ideas. Since the language of morality and the language of religion are so intertwined, an attack (perceived or real) on religion is seen as an attack on morality.
I think this is where the trouble comes in for people like my mom. She's believed all her life that religion is good, moral, and right. Therefore, people without religion are bad, immoral, and wrong. Then I come out to her as an atheist, and suddenly she has to reconcile her preconceived notions of what an atheist is with her knowledge of who I am. I'm just glad that my mother chose to go with her knowledge of me as a good, moral person instead of forcing me into the role of evil immoral atheist.

Haiti Charges Americans with Child Abduction

2010-02-05T12:03:00.000-08:00

A group of ten American Baptist missionaries tried to take 33 Haitian children out of Haiti without government consent. They were trying to take them by bus to the Dominican Republic where they were in the process of creating a Christian orphanage. These children were going to be eligible for adoption in the U.S. The problem (other than the whole "without government consent" thing) is that some of these kids still have a living parent. Some of these parents claimed that the missionaries promised simply to educate the children in the Dominican Republic and allow them home to visit. Also, the missionaries had been warned by child protection officials, human rights experts and Dominican authorities in Haiti that they could be charged with trafficking if she tried to take the children out of the country without proper documentation. Read the full article here.

The lawyer for the group says that 9 of the 10 are "completely innocent", and that only the leader of the group should be held accountable. I don't know how much the others knew about what was going on, so I can't really say anything about them. However, I think that there's no excuse for Ms. Silsby, the leader. She said that she and the group had gone to Haiti to rescue children left orphaned by the earthquake, and that "our hearts were in the right place." I believe that for the other nine people (if it's true that they really were in the dark about the status of the children and all of the legal stuff) but not for Ms. Silsby, for the simple fact that she knew exactly what she was doing, and how wrong and illegal it was. She lied the the parents about putting their children up for adoption! There is absolutely no way to say that she's just trying to help the children.

The group is charged with child abduction and criminal conspiracy, and could face a potentially extended legal proceeding in Haiti and, if convicted, face prison terms of up to 15 years. I think she should be convicted. She was attempting to do something that would rip families apart, and she was doing it on purpose. She should not be able to hide behind her faith or the church. She should not be allowed to use that as an excuse. She was doing something illegal and harmful. She should pay the consequences.

"How Do We Know The Bible Is True?"

2010-01-11T17:44:00.000-08:00

Jason suggested in his blog that everyone should read a book that is outside their belief system. Doing so challenges what you believe and encourages growth. Well, my mom gave me a book for Christmas called How Do We Know The Bible Is True? by John Ankerberg and Dillon Burroughs. I can honestly say that, in the spirit of opening an avenue of discussion with my mom, I read the book with an open mind. It was difficult to maintain that mindset, however. My comments in the margins got snarkier as the book went on. Here's an overview of the book and my thoughts on it:
On the first page of the book, before we even get to chapter 1, I come across this little gem: (in the context of listing other religions' holy books) "Buddhism has The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path." No. Those are teachings, not holy books. That would be like saying that The Ten Commandments is a holy book. If the authors are going to say something, they should at least do a bit of research, especially considering that one of the authors wrote a book called Comparing Christianity with World Religions. This doesn't bode well for the rest of the book.
Chapter 1 (How Did We Get The Bible?): This is a brief history of the Bible, what's in it, how many books there are, etc. They claim that the Bible has historical accuracy, eyewitness accuracy, and prophetic accuracy. However, the only proof that they provide is quotes from the Bible. Sorry, but you can't say "this book is true because it says it's true!" Logical fallacy #1. Then, they talk about the reasoning behind the choices of which books were included in the Bible and which ones were cast aside. This is supposed to strengthen the argument that the Bible is true. However, most of these "tests" are about making sure the books are consistent with previous teachings and books, or have some kind of intangible quality (eg. Does the book ring with the sense of "The Lord says..."?) None of the tests have anything to do with whether or not the content of the books is actually true. Fantastic.
Snarky summary of chapter 1: The Bible is true because it says it's true and a lot of important people believe it's true!
Chapter 2 (Isn't The Bible Full Of Myths And Legends?): They define a myth as a fantastical story that has a kernel of truth. They then list stories in the Bible that seem like myths. They then state that these stories can't possibly be myths because the Bible is God's Word(tm). Proof that it's God's Word(tm)? You guessed it: Bible quotes. They then state that there are over 200 stories of a massive flood, citing The Epic of Gilgamesh. Leaving aside the fact that they cited a mythological epic poem as historical fact, they seem to believe that if a large number of people believe that something is true, that means that it is true. Did we learn nothing from the persecution of Galileo and countless other scientists? The chapter ends with a chart of well-known miracles of Jesus, as if that's supposed to convince me of something.
Snarky summary of chapter 2: There are a whole bunch of stories in the Bible that are hard to accept and impossible to prove, but the Bible says that it's God's Word(tm), so therefore everything is true!
Chapter 3 (What About Those 'Lost Books' Of The Bible?): Ah, yes, The Da Vinci Code. Why am I not surprised that they cite a silly fiction book as a strong, well-known argument against the Bible? Anyway, they state that the four books of the gospel are the only good ones because a) they were written within the lifetimes of the apostles and b) there are a lot of copies of the manuscripts that were made a short while after the original was written. There is a chart of other literary works (eg. The Iliad by Homer) with fewer copies and much more time between the copy and the original. However, they completely disregard the fact that neither of these two things has anything to do with the veracity of the books, or that no one reads The Iliad as infallible historical fact. There is then a chart of New Testament quotes from early church leaders, as though the idea that a bunch of guys quoted the book 2000 years ago makes it 100% factual. The authors then claim that independent non-Christian authors "mention details regarding facts found in the New Testamant". Oh good, some actual factual evidence! Oh wait..their "evidence" is a mention of a group called "Christians" and that they followed someone called "Christ". If there had been independent mention of any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection, for instance, that would be "details regarding facts found in the New Testament". Well, considering the fact that I'm questioning the truth of the Bible and not the existence of Christians, I remain unconvinced.
Snarky summary of chapter 3: The gospels are true because we have lots of copies close to the original date of authorship and early church leaders quoted them. Oh, and it's more accurate than The Iliad, which must mean it's valid historical fact. Also, the 'lost gospels' are bullshit.
Chapter 4 (What About All Of The Contradictions?): They claim that the main cause of atheism is the contradictions in the Bible. I'm not even going to touch that one. They claim that the Bible is inerrant/inspired because it says that it is inerrant/inspired. I'm really getting tired of this logical fallacy. They claim that the best way to deal with contradictions in the Bible is by closely examining both sides. Finally, something in this book that makes sense. This chapter is mostly about how to deal with minor discrepancies in the texts. I was mostly fine with this chapter until the very end, when they claimed that since some contradictions can be solved, the whole book is true.
Snarky summary of chapter 4: Some contradictions can be cast aside, therefore the whole book is inerrant Truth(tm).
Chapter 5 (Why Do Christians Believe The Bible Is Perfect?): Again, just because a bunch of people believe that a book is true, that does not make it true. I don't think the authors understand this concept. Anyway, this chapter is basically a whole bunch of circular arguments. For example: "Jesus Christ is the One who claims to be God and proved His claim by rising from the dead. It is on His authority as God of the universe that we are sure the Bible is the Word of God." So, basically they are saying 'the Bible claims Jesus is God. Jesus claims the Bible is true. So, logically, since Jesus is God, the Bible is true!' No. Logic does not work like that. They also keep using the word "evidence" as though they have already given it. I don't think that word means what they think it means. They also don't understand the idea of burden of proof, as shown by this quote: "The proper way to interpret the Bible involves a respect for the text as given until proven otherwise." Again, no. Since you're the one making the claims, you're the one that has the burden of proof. If I was to say "there is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars", it would be my responsibility to prove my claim, not yours to prove I am wrong (thanks Bertrand Russell). They also claim that the Jesus story fulfills all of the prophecies made in the Old Testament, and that is proof that the Bible is true. I'm not even going to go into the fact that the writers of the gospels both knew what the prophecies said and had a reason to make it seem as though they had been fulfilled. But guys, "The son of God will come. See that guy? He's the son of God." does not count as a fulfilled prophecy, nor does it count as historical fact or scientific proof. There is absolutely no proof or corroboration by other historical documents. There is a chart at the end of the chapter called "24 Prophecies Fulfilled in the 24 Hours Before Jesus' Death". However, this list is unimpressive because it's full of things like "beaten and spat upon", "wounded and bruised", and "people ridiculed him". These are things that were true for every person ever publicly humiliated and put to death.
Snarky summary of chapter 5: The Bible claims that it is inerrant, therefore it is inerrant. Also, it claims that prophecies have been fulfilled, therefore it is inerrant, and also 100% historically accurate.
Chapter 6 (How Do We Know The Words Haven't Been Changed?): This chapter is about how many of the copies of the New Testament matched each other except for minor "typo-like" errors. The authors go into the reasons for these kind of errors, none of which are particularly note-worthy or interesting to me.
Snarky summary of chapter 6: Most of the discrepancies in the Bible are minor and "typo-like", therefore the Bible is factual, historical Truth(tm).

Wow. That was a lot longer (and more bitter) than I was expecting it to be. I guess I was hoping for a book that would challenge my ideas and my intellect instead of a book full of logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

American Religious Identification Survey

2009-03-14T19:21:00.000-07:00

Survey

The report suggests that the number of Americans who report no religious affiliation or preference is increasing. It also suggests that the number of people who identify as Catholic is decreasing.

Quote from Ghandi

2009-03-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

Summary of my beliefs

2009-03-12T00:25:00.000-07:00

I have many reasons for not being a Christian. They can best be summed up by a few quotes:
• “The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain
• “It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts that I do understand.” -Mark Twain
• “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts
• “It’s pretty easy to establish that you cannot change your beliefs on will (despite what some people claim). “Trying” to be an [Christian] just by pure will isn’t going to work. Atheism is more of a realization than anything; it involves reading the arguments and realizing that you agree with them… A Christian can no more try to be an atheist and succeed than an atheist can try to be a Christian and succeed.” –Kieran Bennett

First, I'd like to define my beliefs. I see myself as an agnostic atheist. I know that these seem like contradicting words, but they refer to two different things. The word "agnostic" refers to my knowledge: I don't claim to know anything about god with absolute certainty. The word "atheist" refers to my lack of belief in any gods. An atheist is not necessarily a person who believes with absolute certainty that there is no god. It simply refers to a person who does not hold a belief in god. Since I do not have a belief in god but I am not absolutely certain that one does not exist, I refer to myself as an "agnostic atheist".

To properly explain why I don't believe, I'd like to elaborate on the reasons I once did:
1. I'd been taught that God was real since birth.
2. Everyone that I knew and trusted believed in God.
3. I'd been taught that the Bible is truth.
4. It appeared to be true that belief in God resulted in goodness and morality, and that the only way to live a moral life was through Jesus.
5. Fear of Hell if I didn't believe.
6. From the stories I heard, God seemed like a nice guy, like a guy I wanted to work for.
7. I was HAPPY believing.

1. And 2. I'd been taught that God was real since birth. Everyone that I knew and trusted believed in God. I went to church every Sunday (and every Tuesday when I was in Catholic school!) God is real. God loves you. Jesus died for you. All of these stories really happened. I can prove it by this book here. All of that I believed as a child because why shouldn't I? Everything else I was taught was true: Don't touch that, it's hot. (I touched it. Yeah, it was hot.) Wear a jacket because it'll get cold later. (I didn't wear a jacket. It did get cold.) The tooth fairy will leave you some change for that tooth you just lost. (Well, the tooth was gone, and there was change there, so they must have been right!) Santa comes in the front door because we don't have a fireplace. (There were presents there, and they said “From Santa”!) God is real, and he sent his son down to die for your sins because he loves you. Okay, cool. Why shouldn't I believe it? The adults I trusted obviously did. And they were smart and I looked up to them, and it was a big part of their lives. It must be true. The problem with this is that I can't accept something just because someone else says it's true. Even if that someone else is someone I know and trust. I have to read the book and do the research for myself.

3. I'd been taught that the Bible is truth. I tried to read through it in eighth grade. I only got about halfway through Numbers and got really bored with all of the family trees and measurements of the temple and stuff. So I skipped to Psalms and read that, which I liked. I also read a few more books, and all of the gospels. I didn't understand some of the stuff, but I assumed it was because I wasn't an adult and that some concepts and vocabulary were beyond my capability to understand. I also was somehow not creeped out by all the talk about killing people. I assumed that it was just part of their culture at that time and that it didn't apply anymore. Then I went back and started reading parts of the Bible again in high school. It's not that I didn't understand before. It's that there actually are many, many contradictions in the Bible (sometimes within the same book!)** And the parts I just brushed off before? I can't get past those. There's so much unnecessary pain and death, all fully supported by God! Your kid's insubordinate? Take him to the elders and they'll stone him!** Your wife's not a virgin on your wedding night? You (along with the rest of your town, of course, don't want them to miss out on the party!) can just stone her!** Your fields are poorly tended? Just buy some slaves from your neighbouring countries (not from your own country though!)** Don't like your daughter much? Just sell her as a sex slave!** Your slaves aren't listening to you? Feel free to flog them to within an inch of their life (as long as you don't kill them!)** So taking into account all of the gruesome things God condones, all of the contradictions, and the fact that there is no proof whatsoever that this book is true (or even historically accurate), I just can't understand how I used to put so much stock in this book.

4. It appeared to be true that belief in God resulted in goodness and morality, and that the only way to live a moral life was through Jesus. My mom, dad, our whole family, families at our church, and my Catholic school teachers showed me that. Morality comes from the Bible. It's when you don't believe in the Bible that things go wrong. Further cementing that idea in my twelve-year-old mind was the tragedy on September 11th, 2001. The people who did that were Muslim. Oh, that explains it. Islam is a religion of violence, unlike our Christianity. The only problem? If you actually LOOK at the Bible, it's FULL of violence and war and pain and death. There are plagues and fiery serpents and holy wars (many, many holy wars). How much of that was really necessary? I mean, really? How many innocent people died because people were doing the “will of God”? How many continue to die? Here's a quote from Bertrand Russell that eloquently puts what I am trying to say: “In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion. You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.” There is absolutely no way to justify all of the death in the name of God, for ANY religion, not just Christianity. “They were doing what they thought was right” doesn't count. Would they have felt the need to go out and kill so many others if they didn't believe in God? No. But because their holy books said it was okay (good, even!) to do so, they did it.** Now, I'm not saying that belief in God makes anyone a bad person. I'm not saying that belief in God will make someone pick up the torches and pitchforks and go hunt witches. But I AM saying that absolute belief in something utterly improvable (especially when there are so many people with absolute belief in DIFFERENT improvable things) isn't good for society, or moral and intellectual progress.
Okay, so, does morality come from the Bible (or God or faith or religion)? No. Main argument: slavery. We as individuals and as a society agree that slavery is morally wrong. Yet, the Bible supports it. Oh, it's just a cultural difference, many people say. That's true. Does that matter? No. If people claim to get their morality from the Bible, they need get their morality from the Bible. That means accepting homosexuality is a sin, slavery is morally acceptable, and it's perfectly fine for whole civilizations to be wiped out, as long as God says it's okay.*** Now, most people would not agree with the previous sentence, even people who claim their faith is what keeps them on the straight and narrow. Why is that? Why do people who claim that they get their morals from the Bible, in fact, see some things in the Bible as morally wrong? If they have the capability of making that judgement, their morals must come from somewhere OTHER than the Bible. To tell you the truth, I have no idea where the conscience comes from. But I DO know that it's not from the Bible. I've read enough of it to know that much. I started to doubt the existence of God (and the veracity of the Bible) during the summer after my junior year in high school. Since then, I've managed to live a pretty moral life. As a rule, I don't kill, steal, lie, or, in general, hurt people, at least on purpose. And I'm under the impression that most atheists live that way, too. I'm a good person. I'm a good person because I WANT to be, regardless of whether I'll wind up in heaven or hell for my actions. I'm sure that most Christians want to be good people (why else would they be in church, barring fear of eternal damnation?), but here's the thing. They'd still be good people even if they became atheists or stopped going to church. They'd go on loving the people they love, trusting the people they trust, and living their lives just like they always had. Being an atheist doesn't make someone a cruel, immoral demon incapable of love and kindness.

5. Fear of Hell if I didn't believe. Here's the problem with this one. Seriously doubting the existence of God also means seriously doubting the existence of the fiery place he sends people to if they don't behave. If it turns out that there is a God and that he is as benevolent as I was led to believe, I'm sure he'd much rather I actually thought about it, read his book, did my research, and came to my own conclusion, even if it is faulty, than worshiped out of fear for my own well-being. And if he doesn't want that? If the only criterion for getting into heaven is belief? Well, I guess that sucks for me then. But I can't live my life pretending to believe what I don't believe or pretending to worship someone I don't want to worship (for reasons explained in the next paragraph).

6. From the stories I heard, God seemed like a nice guy, like a guy I wanted to work for. Now, we've already talked about the things in the Bible I've got issues with (mass murder, genocide, and basically killing or hurting others just because God said to. Also, religion impeding on moral progress.) It makes sense to me why I wouldn't want to work for this guy.

7. I was HAPPY believing. I mean, I really, really was. I felt like I always had a friend watching over me. I'd look at a sunset and say “wow, God is awesome.” I'd see good things people were doing and praise God for them. So now that I can't believe anymore, you'd think I'd be unhappy, empty. But the fact is, I'm not. I have the same emotions as before, actually. I see good things people do and I'm happy. I see bad things people do and I'm sad. I see a sunset and I'm filled with wonder. If anything, my time here on earth is now MORE precious to me than it ever was because I know this is the only life I've got, and I'm not getting another one. To me, a universe that somehow came to support such diverse and complex life is even more beautiful and wondrous than one that just poofed into existence because someone willed it to. Yes, my faith was a comfort at times, especially when my dad died. Yes, sometimes things are harder because I don't have that comfort. In fact, one day last summer I realized that, according to my beliefs, I would never see my dad again. That was really, really hard to deal with. But do I wish that I could believe again just to have that comfort? No. I don't. I am a happy, balanced, moral human being, and I like myself how I am.

One last quote to leave you with:
“We [atheists] want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world – its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and not be afraid of it.” - Bertrand Russell

** Website of some contradictions for you:
OT: http://skeptically.org/bible/id8.html NT:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
** Deuteronomy 21:18-21
** Deuteronomy 22:20-21
** Leviticus 25:44-46
** Exodus 21:7-11
** Exodus 21:20-21
** Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 7:1-8, Exodus 17:16
*** Noah’s flood, anyone? (For a list a blogger put together of how many people God killed, see: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-many-has-god-killed-revised_04.html)
All Bible quotes taken from the New International Version from www.biblegateway.com