Oct

30

I’m a Hypocrite?

October 30, 2008 by Brandon | 16 Comments

Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Last night I was out with friends, as I do every Wednesday night. We discuss a wide range of things, and more often than not, things tend to sidetrack to religion. It’s hard to avoid with me.

However, my one friend professed that I was a hypocrite during the course of the discussion. I denied it and asked her why she thinks I’m a hypocrite. From what I understand, she thinks I’m being hypocritical because I “expect” people to see my atheist point of view, but I refuse to accept other people’s religious point of views.

I disagree. I feel as though my friend expects me to come to a middle ground on the issue, or to say, “Oh, I see where you’re coming from,” or “I can understand why you believe that.” But this isn’t the case. This issue is cut and dry, black and white. What would truly make me a hypocrite is if I did do that.

I do not want to sound self-righteous or anything here, but the fact of the matter is I understand religion far better than a lot  of people, especially your average believer who only goes to church on Christmas and Easter. I understand the social mechanisms of religion and how it propagates itself. So to say that I don’t understand where people are coming from isn’t really the case; I do. I simply disagree with them. Disagreeing doesn’t make me a hypocrite. I do not have to somehow agree with things they’re saying simply because I’m trying to get them to agree with me. I am by no means obligated to even accept that their world view is valid. Believing something does not justify anything.

I make no excuses for myself; I am a self-described militant atheist. I am an anti-theist. I do not like religion. I think it is all bunk. I think the world would be a far better place without it. I am not going to agree that religions are good because church members do good things for the community; because the truth is that people do not need a church to do good things for the community. They can do it just fine without it.

If anything, you can call me stubborn. But if I told you that angels held us all down to the earth and there is no such thing as gravity, and you denied it, would you be stubborn? Would you be a hypocrite for not seeing my point of view?

Furthermore, you are not exempt from my criticism simply because you don’t classify yourself as a Christian. Maybe you’re spiritual. You have touchy-feely, nebulous ideas about the meaning of life perhaps, where we all came from and where we go when we die. It’s just as bad. Why? Because you’re making it all up. You’re making things up that you feel and would like to think is true. You have absolutely no evidence to support any of it, and until you do, I will tell you you’re wrong. And if that makes me a hypocrite, then so be it.



Oct

15

Can’t Sue What Doesn’t Exist

October 15, 2008 by Brandon | 1 Comment

An Omaha man tried to sue God, but the case was thrown out since, well… they couldn’t serve God the paperwork.

Chambers’ suit against God tossed out
BY CHRISTOPHER BURBACH
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

You can’t sue God if you can’t serve the papers on him, a Douglas County District Court judge ruled in Omaha Tuesday.

Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers’ lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served. What’s more, Polk found “there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant.”

Chambers had sued God in September 2007, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes and tornadoes.

Although the case may seem superfluous and even scandalous to others, Chambers has said his point is to focus on the question of whether certain lawsuits should be prohibited.

“Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts,” he said. “My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God.”

Chambers, an avowed atheist, said he decided to make that point after at least two attempts in the Nebraska Legislature to limit “frivolous lawsuits.”

The senator did have a day in court on the case. In August, he argued that Polk should take judicial notice of the existence of God. The senator cited the facts that U.S. currency says “In God We Trust,” God is invoked during oaths in court hearings, and chaplains offer prayers before legislative bodies.

“If God is omnipresent,” Chambers said in that August hearing, “then he is here in Douglas County and in this courtroom.”

Polk was not persuaded.

His Tuesday ruling said Chambers’ motion to take judicial notice of God “is denied as moot.”

Chambers, reached at home Tuesday evening, said he hadn’t yet seen the court order. He declined to comment until he could review the document today.



Oct

15

On my way home from Religulous, which I saw with my friend, we ended up in a discussion regarding sentience. Basically, it was my opinion that sentience is an adaptive trait, something which we, and other species, have evolved over time. My friend, who usually stops by here and reads my posts, so hopefully she’ll take some time to respond in kind, doesn’t necessarily believe in a God, however, she feels that we have a unique drive toward that which is philosophical in nature; where this drive comes from, she does not know.

Speaking directly to my friend: Please correct me if I’m wrong, or elaborate on that thought. I was admittedly rather confused about what exactly the point of saying we have a drive toward philosophical thought, because my interest was in where do you think that drive comes from and I’m not sure if you ever answered that. It did seem to me, however, that you were unwilling to accept that this was something that could have evolved.

So let’s take a second and discuss why sentience, imagination, self-awareness, or philosophical thought, might be an evolved trait, because I think that’s where I got hung up before and wasn’t able to give a clear answer.

I would argue that the ability to think abstractly, to use imagination, or to think of the world around us in philosophical terms, would give us a unique benefit over other creatures. How so? Well, it allows us to make better predictions about the world around us. This is much like the example my friend used regarding other animals demonstrating abstract thought; aparently a species of bird showed the ability to think abstractly, and planned ahead for a future, unforseen event that went beyond simple, hardwired instincts, and stored food premptively, expecting a shortage.

Other animals, like higher primates, can even deceive their fellows for their own benefit, which again demonstrates their ability to think abstractly and shows how it can be beneficial to an individual.

So there you have that. So what about this sentience business? Knowing you are an individual, different from another individual. You are unique. In my opinion, I think this benefits the individual by increasing their motiviation for self-preservation beyond hardwired instincts. A sense of self makes you want to keep yourself alive.

I know that for the most part I’m simply reiterating what was said before in my conversation without presenting a whole lot of new thought, but I think it helps to put it in writing to make it more coherent.

This leads me back to my initial problem; to me, it seems obvious that our minds evolved our sense of self and this so-called drive toward philosophical thinking. My friend said that she didn’t believe in a god per say, just in this innate drive that causes us to try to explain things we can’t explain with gods.

But where did it come from then if evolution isn’t the answer? It seems too ambigious for me. Being a naturalist, I’m quite satisfied with knowing that at this point in time, we obviously don’t understand the complexities of the human brain and its functions, however, evolution readily explains how it got to where it is, regardless of our lack of knowledge as to its function. Much like I can say I know that a watch can be built, with tiny little gears which somehow keep track of time, I couldn’t tell you exactly how it works, just that I know the basics of how it was made and how it functions.

I think I just bastardized the Watchmaker Argument to my favor. Clever me.



Oct

13

Religulous: A Review

October 13, 2008 by Brandon | 2 Comments

I finally got to see Bill Maher’s anti-religion “documentary,” Religulous, tonight. It’s really not so much a documentary as it is a fair number of interviewed theists spewing their typical idiocy.

I was actually quite surprised with the film, or rather, Maher, who went right after the unsuspecting believers like an angry pitbull loosed from his chain. He was unapologetic with his witty banter, but kept things friendly. As friendly as you can keep things while completely trashing someones entirely view of reality, I suppose.

I was expecting Maher to play it cool; I figured he would allow them to hang themselves out to try. Well, they still did, but Maher kept them on the defensive. One fine example was the senator he interviewed. The part I’m speaking of actually appears in the trailer for the film, where the senator proudly proclaims you don’t need to take an IQ test to be elected to the senate. For a moment, the senator was quite smug with his answer, but then what he said actually dawned on him, and it was like watching a light switch being flipped; the “Oh shit,” look that overcame his face was that dramatic.

The message of the film is simple: Do we really want these idiots running the country? It’s time for the non-believing public, which Maher demonstrated is actually a significant minority in the United States, nearly reaching 20%, to take a stand and come out and say we can’t allow these morons to destroy the world, because that’s where they’re steering us. Apathy is no longer an option; religion is like a neurological disease that we need to cure if we have any hopes of survival as a race.



Oct

12

University of British Columbia psychology researchers have concluded that religious people are in fact more kind, generous, and honest than non-religious people.

Well, almost. Two conditions apply.

First, the person must think that their kindness will somehow increase their standing amongst their peers.

Second, the person must somehow connect the action, even if subconsciously, to their belief in a watchdog God who monitors their behavior.

In other words, religious people have to think their religious pals will think more highly of them and they have to believe that God is watching… always watching…

Take either one of these conditions away, and religious people are no more kind than your friendly neighborhood heathen.

The question I’m curious about is this: can’t an atheist do nice things in hopes of increasing their standing in public opinion? And can’t an atheist be concerned of the consequences of doing bad things by an ever-watchful police force and law system? Or perhaps in the case of younger atheists, their parents, teachers, and other figures of authority?

Also, where’s the study which connects violence to religious people and non-religious people? What pre-conditions must be met for a religious man to slaughter someone in the name of God, or commit other hateful acts, when compared to an atheist?

Hmm. Something to think about.



keep looking »

What is Fractal Wrongness?

The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.

  • Recent Comments

  • Visitors Online

    • 01 visitor(s) online
    • powered by WassUp