I realize I haven't done much lately as far as posting videos or making blog entries. That got me thinking about the definitions I'm often hearing about "God". Hopefully you'll see the connection in a minute.
Not only is the traditional concept of God a logically self-contradictory idea (consciousness without matter, life without birth or death, complexity without evolution, simultaneously all-knowing and all-powerful), it also produces static divinity.
A Static God
If God is everywhere, then there is nowhere he can go. I have the freedom to sit in that chair, but God doesn't because he's already in it. He is omnipresent and omnidirectional . If he knows everything already, then there's nothing he can learn (or change). He can't "want" something, because he's supposed to be perfect (and you can't want what you lack). He is essentially an unchanging, unmoving, inactive idea; an everything and a nothing all at once. Add one to the self-contradictory list.
The theists will disagree, but the basic God-triangle (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) produces a static deity. The omnipotence paradox and the omnipotence-omniscience paradox show how God is restricted by simply applying the "omni-" attribute. Another simpler way to look at it is the phrase "a expert of everything is an expert of nothing". You can't judge your expertise against anything if you're already counting everything. Maybe all that means to you is that your god is super-powerful, but to me that means he can't change. Change is good and necessary, especially in a being that's supposed to be a healthy judge.
-STA
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Tassel Hassle
I've been in Texas over the weekend for a family member's graduation. With a few hundred graduates seated on the floor of the local Expo center, I was prepared for a long evening. I was in for a surprise when the ceremony begin with a prayer.
You, Me, and MY God
I don't know why I was surprised. The graduating student opened with a prayer to the Christian God, thanking him for getting them through the school year alive, and asked that everyone -- not just her, her family, or even the class...EVERYONE in the building -- continue to "seek God and do His will". I shouldn't have to say how presumptuous, disrespectful, and unnecessary this was, but I'll do it for the benefit of the believers who read this and just can't see why it's not okay to assume that everybody within earshot believes in YOUR god.
As the ceremony progressed, I was increasingly disheartened by the notion that nearly every speaker just had to say something about God. One even read from the bible! After every mention of religion, I found myself tuning out the speaker. I would be agreeing right up until I heard them talk about how Jesus blessed them with the knowledge they have. No matter what came after, it would be tainted with the discovery that the speaker lacked true critical thinking skills. I wonder what exactly was talked about in their government, history, and science classes. "We've learn a lot," one would say. Have you?
We Did It
One theme that was common was the motto, "we did it", a pretty universal high-school graduation adage. And yet, the religious graduates continually described how God gave them this, God blessed them with that, "God's hand has been on our class". One student's speech started out with her thanking God for everything, THEN giving thanks to the apparently less important ones like her mom and dad. I see this all the time from god-believers and those who specialize in doublethink. "We did everything; we're smart, we have wonderful teachers and supporting parents. But GOD gave us the knowledge and the blessing and blah blah blah". Either give the credit to the ones who've earned it (yourselves) or sit there like the puppet you think you are and give all the credit to your "savior and Heavenly Father"!
I was relieved to discover the school had a disclaimer printed at the bottom of the program that stated the students were given the chance to make speeches on the topic of their choice, and their views didn't reflect nor were they endorsed by the school. I am all for free expression, and I'm in no way condemning the students for exercising their rights and choices. I just wish they'd made a little better informed ones. All in all, I (and perhaps a few others in the large audience) was uncomfortable and belittled, but at least I got to see my cousin graduate.
-STA
You, Me, and MY God
I don't know why I was surprised. The graduating student opened with a prayer to the Christian God, thanking him for getting them through the school year alive, and asked that everyone -- not just her, her family, or even the class...EVERYONE in the building -- continue to "seek God and do His will". I shouldn't have to say how presumptuous, disrespectful, and unnecessary this was, but I'll do it for the benefit of the believers who read this and just can't see why it's not okay to assume that everybody within earshot believes in YOUR god.
As the ceremony progressed, I was increasingly disheartened by the notion that nearly every speaker just had to say something about God. One even read from the bible! After every mention of religion, I found myself tuning out the speaker. I would be agreeing right up until I heard them talk about how Jesus blessed them with the knowledge they have. No matter what came after, it would be tainted with the discovery that the speaker lacked true critical thinking skills. I wonder what exactly was talked about in their government, history, and science classes. "We've learn a lot," one would say. Have you?
We Did It
One theme that was common was the motto, "we did it", a pretty universal high-school graduation adage. And yet, the religious graduates continually described how God gave them this, God blessed them with that, "God's hand has been on our class". One student's speech started out with her thanking God for everything, THEN giving thanks to the apparently less important ones like her mom and dad. I see this all the time from god-believers and those who specialize in doublethink. "We did everything; we're smart, we have wonderful teachers and supporting parents. But GOD gave us the knowledge and the blessing and blah blah blah". Either give the credit to the ones who've earned it (yourselves) or sit there like the puppet you think you are and give all the credit to your "savior and Heavenly Father"!
I was relieved to discover the school had a disclaimer printed at the bottom of the program that stated the students were given the chance to make speeches on the topic of their choice, and their views didn't reflect nor were they endorsed by the school. I am all for free expression, and I'm in no way condemning the students for exercising their rights and choices. I just wish they'd made a little better informed ones. All in all, I (and perhaps a few others in the large audience) was uncomfortable and belittled, but at least I got to see my cousin graduate.
-STA
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
W's Religious War
Recently declassified briefings from the Bush administration further reveal the link between our current war and religion. The cover sheets to these documents are adorned with pictures of troops and other war images captioned with quotes from the Christian bible. These briefings were delivered by Rumsfeld to the White House. Although this propaganda wasn't directly sent to the troops themselves, the fact of the matter is that those in power believed war was the correct course of action because of their religious belief. I think the images speak for themselves.
-STA
-STA
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
How to Argue Like a Theist
So what am I doing making a post with such a title? Over the years of arguing with them, I've learned to anticipate the arguments that theists will use in a discussion. It's like you can write a script for nearly every single debate (at least the ones with theists who haven't really debated before, or haven't given much thought as to why they think what they do). We nonbelievers have learned all the theists' tricks simply because these arguments are all that they have. They just keep using them again and again, no matter how many times they've been proven wrong.
The first step (depending on how threatened the theist feels) is to attempt to rid themselves of the burden of proof. They may also falsely confuse passion with anger and try to use emotional arguments, claiming that the atheist must have been "hurt" by religion in the past. When these attempts fail, the next step is to argue from design. As the nonbeliever will typically use current scientific understanding to combat these weak attacks, the believer's next attempt is to attack science itself, claiming that scientific methods are invalid or flawed and will commonly use the "well, it's just a theory!". Once shown that science works, they resort to the only thing the atheist can't take away from them: personal experience. By the end of the discussion (if both parties ever reach such a point), the theist will throw out an argument from morality and begin considering what would be required to "believe IN" if one doesn't believe in God.
This is in no way a complete list, nor is it a script that occurs at each encounter. As I said earlier, it's the most common arguments that I find believers using to try to justify their unjustifiable beliefs. Yet the nonbeliever usually finds that every counter-attack has the opposite result: the more you show them there's no proof, the stronger they become in their belief! Faith is the evidence of what you can't see or prove. That's how you know, you just HAVE to know, and then you know. Faith (read: ignorance) can prevail.
Tracie Harris (who writes the Atheist Eve web comic) provides a similar list of theistic tactics, though in a different order:
-STA
- Attack #1: Shift the burden of proof ("Can you prove God doesn't exist?")
- Attack #2: What did God do to make you so angry?
- Attack #3: Can you prove love?
- Attack #4: Pascal's Wager
- Attack #5: Watchmaker and other painter/painting Ray Comfort BS pseudo-arguments
- Attack #6: Since science doesn't know how we got here, it must be God.
- Attack #7: Offer personal experiences (you can't say I'm wrong now...I just *feel* it!)
- Attack #8: Then what do you believe in? (purpose in life, morality, etc.)
- Attack #n: see Ways to Annoy an Atheist
The first step (depending on how threatened the theist feels) is to attempt to rid themselves of the burden of proof. They may also falsely confuse passion with anger and try to use emotional arguments, claiming that the atheist must have been "hurt" by religion in the past. When these attempts fail, the next step is to argue from design. As the nonbeliever will typically use current scientific understanding to combat these weak attacks, the believer's next attempt is to attack science itself, claiming that scientific methods are invalid or flawed and will commonly use the "well, it's just a theory!". Once shown that science works, they resort to the only thing the atheist can't take away from them: personal experience. By the end of the discussion (if both parties ever reach such a point), the theist will throw out an argument from morality and begin considering what would be required to "believe IN" if one doesn't believe in God.
This is in no way a complete list, nor is it a script that occurs at each encounter. As I said earlier, it's the most common arguments that I find believers using to try to justify their unjustifiable beliefs. Yet the nonbeliever usually finds that every counter-attack has the opposite result: the more you show them there's no proof, the stronger they become in their belief! Faith is the evidence of what you can't see or prove. That's how you know, you just HAVE to know, and then you know. Faith (read: ignorance) can prevail.
Tracie Harris (who writes the Atheist Eve web comic) provides a similar list of theistic tactics, though in a different order:
-STA
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Obama Not Concerned with Praying
It seems that this year's annual trampling of church-state separation known as the "National Day of Prayer" was basically skipped by the nation's current President. The Obamas opted to observe the "holiday" in private (as he should according to his religion). For the first time in nearly two decades the White House declined to participate in the Congressionally-authorized mental jerkfest beyond issuing the standard proclamation.
Yay.
Obama's toned-down stance earned him big points with us secularists. Along with his measures to stop federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education for teens and replace it with funding for “scientifically accurate” teen pregnancy approaches, and his stance on placing stronger a emphasis on science, not to mention lifting the ban on stem-cell research -- he's shaping up to undo a lot of the evils of the previous eight years.
Of course, President Obama did sign a proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer, as presidents before him have done for over half a century.
Small steps, I guess.
-STA
Yay.
Obama's toned-down stance earned him big points with us secularists. Along with his measures to stop federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education for teens and replace it with funding for “scientifically accurate” teen pregnancy approaches, and his stance on placing stronger a emphasis on science, not to mention lifting the ban on stem-cell research -- he's shaping up to undo a lot of the evils of the previous eight years.
Of course, President Obama did sign a proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer, as presidents before him have done for over half a century.
Small steps, I guess.
-STA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)