Reason for the Season

My wife and I, in a measure to help appease one (both?) of the traditions of the parents, make a trip to my parent's church one week near Christmas. Usually it's the week before the Christmas Eve service, but this year we went the year after.

I am not religious. This may shock you. As such, I don't normally dress up very fancy (clean clothes are fine, thank you...if a church has standards about who they let in, then they're not very Christian, are they?) and I usually keep to myself so as to not be driven nuts by the habits of other people around me and by listening to what I have concluded tend to be propaganda more than an educational sermon.

Yes, other people's habits. Chomping gum like a valley girl drives me nuts too. It's a wiring thing in my head.

The thing that really compelled me to write this was that the minister went over "what is the real reason for the season." Churches really lucked out on having "reason" and "season" rhyme. It helps make ignorance sound clever.

I refrained from saying anything, but Christ is not the "reason for the season". It's the reason for Christmas, but Christmas itself has other origins.

I have run into this time and time again, and every time the people spouting this stuff listen only to what they want to hear. Christmas is not the day Christ was born. Christmas, miraculously, happened to be placed in a pagan holiday to usurp the non-Christians.

Excerpted from Wikipedia: 
Dies Natalis Solis Invicti

Main article: Sol Invictus

Dies Natalis Solis Invicti means "the birthday of the unconquered Sun." The use of the title Sol Invictus allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, including Elah-Gabal, a Syrian sun god; Sol, the god of Emperor Aurelian; and Mithras, a soldiers' god of Persian origin.^[53] Emperor Elagabalus (218–222^[ambiguous]) introduced the festival, and it reached the height of its popularity under Aurelian, who promoted it as an empire-wide holiday.^[54] This day had previously been dedicated to Bacchus, in the Brumalia festival. Bruma being Latin for "shortest day."^[55]
The festival was placed on the date of the solstice because this was on this day that the Sun reversed its southward retreat and proved itself to be "unconquered." Several early Christian writers connected the rebirth of the sun to the birth of Jesus.^[6] "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born", Cyprian wrote.^[6] John Chrysostom also commented on the connection: "They call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .?"^[6] 
Winter festivals

Main article: List of winter festivals

A winter festival was the most popular festival of the year in many cultures. Reasons included the fact that less agricultural work needs to be done during the winter, as well as an expectation of better weather as spring approached.^[56] Modern Christmas customs include: gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; and Yule logs and various foods from Germanic feasts.^[57] Pagan Scandinavia celebrated a winter festival called Yule, held in the late December to early January period. As Northern Europe was the last part to Christianize, its pagan traditions had a major influence on Christmas. Scandinavians still call Christmas Jul. In English, the word Yule is synonymous with Christmas,^[58] a usage first recorded in 900.

In other words, Christmas was placed in a time when people had a winter celebration of Winter Solstice.

The "reason for the season" was to usurp popular pagan holidays into a Christian holiday.

And it'll happen again, now, too. Regardless of what people will spout about to (and in) the pews and on family specials on television, the custom of giving gifts is as strong as ever. Our US economy is based on you spending money, whether you need to or not. We get things that are sometimes useful, whimsical, wasteful, and/or sentimental for people otherwise may not even think to spend more than ten dollars on for their birthday. You get a gift from Aunt Janice and feel compelled to return the favor. Coworkers spend time and money baking and purchasing trinkets for other coworkers that otherwise they spend their time griping and bitching about (at least in our case it's true). Our retailers depend on the "season" to turn about a nice profit as kids get their shot at receiving usually undeserved uber-expensive toys that they'll play with for month or two before breaking it or losing the pieces.

Once you have stores involved, you get advertisers involved. You get advertisers involved, you get media involved. You get media involved, you get generations of kids slowly growing into teens and adults that will nod their heads at the whole religious side of the holiday and begrudgingly go to services and whatever else it takes...as long as they get the presents under the tree the next morning.

Which is highly ironic. I hear the same people giving holiday plays in churches about the shopping and greedy attitudes being the problem, needing to celebrate Jesus', the warm feeling of helping others...but then these people go home and indulge in an orgy of consumerism. Somewhere the doublethink eludes them.

Now, I'm not against this. I don't have a lot of loose money to throw around, and I'd love to have the spare coin to do these wonderfully generous things like tossing money off the balcony at the mall to watch people claw each other fist into foreheads to grab the money and I will have the fuzzy feeling of knowing I brightened someone's day. I certainly won't turn down free gift cards to bookstores. I enjoy the consumer habits. What I wish is that people knew and acknowledged that today's "season" is NOT a Christian holiday.

It's a celebration of consumerism for stores.

It's a celebration of greed and selfishness for kids, often. We see acts of kindness and selflessness, but when it comes right down to it, I still see the majority of kids looking out for numero uno.

It's a holiday meant to ingrain Christianity into the culture by removing the pagan holiday and inserting a Christian holiday.

It's a conglomeration of secular and non-secular myths and traditions (do you really think Frosty is religious? Rudolph? Yule logs? Even Santa has a mixed origin; the current image of the "jolly elf" is very much an American invention, and apparently America as America is very post-Christian in origin. There are strands of the origin story that go back further, but please, I'm talking about what your average celebrant of Christmas knows and thinks they know about the holiday they're celebrating. If you're going to get worked up about "atheists stilling Christ from Christmas, at least know what you're arguing about.)

Another thing that bothers me is the continued refrain of the Christian being under attack during the holidays. The minister went on to say that it's considered wrong for you to say Merry Christmas and instead have to say Happy Holidays. Personally I don't care. Christmas gets me gift cards. I'm happy as a clam. But there are some people who think it's rather silly to tell someone who is Jewish that they should have a merry Christmas. And now we have Kwanzaa, another made up holiday that will in another few years probably get a decent number of Hallmark cards on the shelf for it.

As consumerism and other holidays and hopefully recognition that our melting pot of a country has people that don't care one way or the other about Christmas (or celebrate it as a means to an end consisting of toys, money, and an excuse to gossip about family at buffet dinners), advertisers are growing wise to the idea of just saying Happy Holidays so they don't tick off their customers. Apparently if you make customers happy, they buy more crap. In the end a lot of people just aren't pissed off at the change from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays, as long as they're getting a bargain in the electronics department.

You're not under attack. You're simply getting a number of apathetic people who don't care, and a small but growing number of people who prefer not hearing about Christmas every ten minutes while not in their home. Probably it's a side effect of being exposed to Christmas lights and Christmas ornaments and Christmas movies and Christmas specials and Christmas displays starting a week before Thanksgiving! We're tired of it before it gets here! And we have more important things to worry about than whether some dillhole tells us Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas while assaulting us with ringing bells, like what in the !@#$ we're going to find to give Grandma Bessie and whether the cards were mailed on time and whether we remembered everyone on the list and oh crap Aunt Mimi just got us a gift (why? Don't know! Haven't heard from her in ages but now we need to find a cocoa set for her at the ConsumoMart...)

Next time you want to push the "reason for the season", just don't ask me about it. The reason is that it was meant to push a religion on to the masses by stealing their food orgy to the Solstice gods.

I'll leave you with this note, also from the same Wikipedia article:
There is no evidence scripturally or secularly that early Christians in the first century commemorated the birth of Jesus Christ. In fact, in keeping with early Jewish law and tradition, it is likely that birthdays were not commemorated at all. According to The World Book Encyclopedia: "early Christians considered the celebration of anyone's birth to be a pagan custom." (Vol. 3, page 416) Rather than commemorating his birth, the only command Jesus gave concerning any sort of commemoration of his life actually had only to do with his death (Luke 22:19). It was not until several hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ that the first instances of the celebration of Christmas begin to appear in the historical record. According to the new Encyclopedia Britannica, some who later claimed to be Christian likely "wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the 'birthday of the unconquered sun'." The festival was celebrated with similar customs (gift giving, feasting) that are done to celebrate Christmas today.

Are there any holiday irks that get to you? Feel free to share...

Why Believe in God?

It's my birthday so I thought I'd post something that was kind of personal. Unfortunately this tends to tick other people off. At least it does in real life if I were to bring it up. I learned a long time ago that religion and politics are two things that people would rather not rationally discuss so I avoid it and pretty much assume it's topica non-grata. I don't get much feedback from the blog on the topic, so I didn't think it would hurt that much to bring it up here. This is kind of an off-the-cuff rant (I think it's called stream of consciousness, or something similar to it) so if the lack of structure is something else that bothers you that's another reason to move on to another day's topic.

I don't believe in a god.

And I don't understand why other people do.

It's a copout to say that perhaps my atheism stems in part from my tendency to value reason over emotion, or the quirk where if I see an inconsistency in reasoning it is something I cannot unsee. I was raised as a methodist but from a very young age I simply couldn't accept Christianity as the answer to all the questions I had.

I have come to believe that people believe in gods because it is simple. If you don't understand it, God did it. And people who profess to believe in a neverending spirit living for eternity will blindly follow whatever religion they feel comfortable with...I don't see them thinking critically about this, they just do it. And it perplexes me. You're gambling on your eternal soul without critically evaluating your religion?

I think this is in part to how complicated things really are and how we're wired to handle complicated things.

People by default use stereotypes as a shortcut for evaluating situations. We assume the guy in a police uniform is a cop. He might be. He might not be. There are stories of women being pulled over by cars with dash lights and a man in a uniform who then proceed to rape them. There are numerous advice columns I've read that say if anything seems suspicious, you should proceed to a well-lit public area to pull over (indicating you are going to pull over and acknowledge the officer) or keep the door locked and window up and demand to see a badge and have them call for another officer to come as well.

We assume things about certain races, situations, uniformed people, and while not true, they often turn out to be somewhat accurate, or accurate enough that we can free our mental processing space for other tasks. People simply aren't willing to ask questions about the universe or take time to understand the scientific method. Unfortunately, our country (the US) is largely scientifically illiterate.

I have heard people say that there's no way for us to know about extrasolar planets (they don't use those terms, though). I don't pretend to know every detail. But I do know that there's multiple ways scientists have verified it. Even if I did, the person that says that probably wouldn't understand lensing, gravity's effects on light, how a large mass moving in front of a star affects the perception of the star from Earth over time, or even how the planetary object of sufficient mass affects light from a star when the object is behind the star. We can even get an idea of the makeup of the atmosphere with very sensitive light receptors and seeing what an analysis of the spectrum of light hitting Earth shows as the planet moves in front of the light source.

See, these are things that scientists cannot make up. they cannot on a whim declare that there's another planet out there. They are using methods and reasoning that can be duplicated by other people. And as of this writing there are over 370 extrasolar planets confirmed using these methods.

Intuitively I cannot follow the religious teachings I have been given. I ask questions and never get satisfactory answers that cannot be rephrased, basically, "Because I said so."

• Why did God create us?
• What does Satan get from an eternity of picking on God by playing with people?
• Wouldn't Satan have something better to do? Or God, for that matter?
• Why do you have faith in a book that has been retranslated many many times over a centuries and is still having some translations in dispute?
• Why should I believe the interpretation of the Bible from someone who may not even know that Jesus' native tongue wasn't English?
• How can the Bible preach love and understanding (which Jesus does, from the versions I have read) be used to justify hate crimes?
• Have you stopped to think about where all the water in the great flood came from, or where it went? (Into the Earth really isn't possible. Do some math to find out why.)
• If there were one small family on the ark, doesn't that mean that everyone on Earth now would be inbred?
• Where is historical evidence of Jesus outside the Bible?
• Why does God have His followers interpret (and according to each other, misinterpret) His word and intentions rather than just make a really big planetwide broadcast of His will?
• Why did God apparently spend a lot of time a couple thousand years ago performing astounding feats and personally interceding in disputes and society affairs, then disappear entirely?
• Why is the Catholic church currently banning sharing a chalice for ceremonies out of fear of H1N1, if they believe that God will protect them in their one true faith?
• Why is it that the Bible is held to be the sacred word of God, but there is still so much "wiggle room" for interpretation, or worse, followers cherry pick what they want or don't want and follow their own version of religion, still believing that everyone else is wrong?
• If God does not want certain behaviors, why does He allow for them to exist?
• If we are allowed to sin because of free will, why would he punish us with eternal pain and torment after spending our entirely lives playing "it was all a test" with my life?
• I hear people say "I have nothing to lose by believing in God and everything to gain." Wouldn't it suck to be a careful practicing Methodist to find out the Catholics were right all along? Take your pick...there's only a couple hundred possible religions to follow here.
• If the only thing getting me into Heaven is knowledge of Jesus, what happens to the mentally retarded, or those that are raised in a situation where they are never exposed to religion? Do they go to Hell because of ignorance?
• If ignorance is allowed...like babies who die young, the mentally retarded, etc...why are you condemning me to Hell by telling me about your religion?
• If we cannot possibly understand the nature of God or his will, at what level of understanding are we deemed fit to enter Heaven? On a scale of ignorance, I mean...
• If there was no physical union with Mary, was Jesus a clone? How could a male have conceived from the DNA material of a lone woman?
• If God loves me, why would he torture me when He won't come down and have a personal chat with me? He surely knows what it would take to have me believe in Him. He can create the universe but not spare ten minutes to say hello without some mediary showing up at my door spouting his interpretation of what He wants?
  

Those are just some of the questions I've had. I think they're legitimate. Other people think I'm apparently just being snarky. but after not having answers to these things for so long, I gave up listening.

Science doesn't know everything. But I've rarely encountered a rabid follower of a major religion who has tried to understand the nature of the conclusions of science. Their eyes glaze over and they start ignoring the evidence...they never understand that what science does explain cannot be simply written off as a miracle or pulled from a hat. And there are things that it explains that contradict what's in the Bible.

"Well, the stories are meant to guide us, they're not literally true," some say.

I'm pretty sure the Bible was meant to be taken at face value. Over time it has morphed into some morpheous blob that is okay to interpret when convenient for many people, probably to try to reconcile those things that contradict in the Bible and real life experiences while still using it as a handy mental putty for filling in gaps of intellectual knowledge or sense.

Besides, if you can interpret the stories as not really happening or being modified or changed over time, what can you believe as being true versus just stories? Why are parts something to gamble your soul on for eternity while other parts are just myths for illustrating points?

When I was younger I decided to follow religion based on the idea that if I were born in a village with no established religion, how would I know what to believe?

Surely a Christian God wouldn't only base his country club membership policy on who has read his book. Otherwise people who were innocent would suffer.

I look around and see a wonderous world of complicated machinations. And there may be a time where I would have thought of sky wizards creating balls of light, or stories to explain the stars.

But science analyzes how these things work. Based on evidence and sound theories (and there's a definition for the word theory as used in science that does NOT MEAN some untested idea I pulled out of my arse...otherwise you couldn't be able to take a course in college on music theory). Based on evidence science sets out to explain the natural world. We learned the nature of stars. We have math and simulations that explain fusion energy, spectral analysis to verify what our star is made of, and the math to predict how long the sun will last. We have dopplar shift to show how stars are moving away (or towards) our position in the universe.

That's the major difference between religion and science. What science establishes must be based on sound reasoning and logic. Religions can say the planet is held up on the backs of turtles, and if you ask where the turtles came from there is little more than dismissive hand waving.

I can't live with that.

Maybe others can. My priorities lay in finding or understanding truths. I may not get those answers in my lifetime, but I know there is a quest to find them. Religion settles for "good enough", with threats of torture if you question too much.

I wonder if other people are simply content with prioritizing comfort over knowing. It's easy to just say God did it. It's hard to understand fancy things like relativity.

I don't know and the more I think about it the more I think I'm wired to not understand why people do this. As long as it's not affecting me, that's okay. You can believe whatever you want. I only have a problem with it when religious folks start legislating their beliefs on me. I hate laws that make no rational sense or are inconsistent. I mean, sodomy laws? I don't care what you do in your home. As long as I don't have to participate and I don't have to deal with it and if others are involved they are doing so voluntarily, I don't have an issue with it. So why do you have to burden our already overburdened and archaic sets of laws with more idiotic paperwork?

In the end, science works. Religion...I've found no evidence of it. Science gives us microwave ovens, CD's, and cell phones with more computing power than the systems that put men on the moon. The same people that denounce the scientific evidence for evolution and all things contrary to their beliefs have no trouble driving cars with laser-welded frames and watching televisions getting images and data from plain old wires in the ground or satellites held up in the sky by more than magic.

In the end it doesn't matter. I'm one voice in the confusion and chaos and I'll eventually die having left little if any footprint in the world. I'm certainly not going to convert anyone into taking more of a reasonable approach to life or existence. But I will still vent on occasion in forums like this. For better or worse. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

It's probably time for me to go out and not have birthday cake...

God...didn't create the Earth?

Happy Halloween everyone! I thought I'd celebrate our favorite "evil pagan holiday" by ticking off some of the more pious out there in the blogosphere. This is actually older news from near the beginning of the month, but it was still an interesting read.

Here's the story.

Apparently some academic who studies the Old Testament...she's a scholar and all...is saying that the Bible was mistranslated.

In studying the original Hebrew text and given the proper context, she claims that the actual wording of "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" should actually be "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth".

In other words, God created animals and people and plants...life...but not the Earth. The Earth was already there.

Now I don't personally believe either of those for my own reasons. My take on this is that it won't make any difference whatsoever.

People believe what they want to believe. Unless you were forced to face a contradiction in such a way that there was absolutely no way on Earth you could continue to believe what you want to believe, you will find a reason, no matter how absurd, to cling to that which you hold true. There are people who claim to be good Christians who also believe in killing medical doctors. All life is sacred unless it tastes good on the dinner plate. Love thy neighbor as long as he isn't gay. And plenty of others hold the opposite view while claiming to be good Christians, and both sides will use the Bible to justify and rationalize their beliefs.

When there's that much leeway with interpretation, especially using a document that has been translated and retranslated and edited so many times in hundreds of years that the abstractions allow you to justify just about whatever you want to do, I'm thinking it's not quite so useful.

Now this scholar is claiming something that should gain attention from any Bible-loving community. This is something questioning the very foundation of the interpretation of the Bible, and it's not coming from a rabid atheist like Richard Dawkins. This is from one of the flock. An educated academic.

Outside of this Telegraph article I've heard nothing about this.

Which is a real shame. I've often questioned things like, outside the Bible, what third-party proof is there of Jesus and the miracles he performed? Or any of the miracles in the Old Testament? The Romans weren't slouches in keeping records during the Empire. Surely a guy going around creating wine from water and performing healing ceremonies with magic, especially when it was using a deity other than those blessed by the Emperor, would have third-party accounts recorded. So why do most of my questions end up being referred back to the Bible?

Anyway, I thought this was an interesting tidbit in the news that will no doubt flutter away with nary a blip on the radar. I'm willing to bet that asking the local preachers in my area if they've heard about it a few weeks from now, any little blurb, will elicit blank looks. If you're a news junkie or trivia buff, or interested in such matters at all, maybe my small readership could try it out as an experiment in their area! I'd love to hear the results!

Until next time, Happy Samhain!

On Religion: Questions and Doublethink

I apologize in advance that this is a rather rambling bit. This chronicles a line of thought I was having one morning as I was pondering an idea. I think it's a fair question. Some might find it offensive. Others may think they have an answer. I've yet to hear an answer that truly answers the questions posed. But if you'd like you can leave comments. Maybe it'll give you something to think about. Maybe you believe in something contrary and are comfortable with what I perceive to be holes in reasoning. This isn't meant to change minds.

It was just something I was thinking about in the car one morning. Stuck in construction. So here it is.
*******
I was listening to a podcast that tends to be a bit on the offensive side when a question occurred to me. See, this particular podcast has a bit where the host has a conversation with Satan. The host was talking to him this time because in real life his father was in the hospital and he wanted to make sure there wasn't going to be any funny business by the Prince of Darkness. One comment made by Satan was that the host of the podcast didn't have a soul, so there wasn't really anything he had to offer.

That's when I began to wonder, why is it that Satan is portrayed as doing what he does?

Why does he take souls to Hell? I mean, is it like currency or something?

Is this supposed to be like spitting at God?

But...if God is almighty, he could wash it all away on a whim. I don't get it. It's not raising a fist of defiance at God since He's allowing it to happen. He coudl stop it at any time. It's not an annoyance.

And why would Satan keep doing this for eternity? Doesn't it get repetitive?

It seems as if Satan is providing quite a service, actually, as a boogeyman in stories told to children by religious parents. Behave, or you'll go to Hell! Behave, or Satan will take your soul!

It occurred to me that if Satan wanted to really get more souls, he should make some kind of resort down there in the underworld. Grant wishes. Let me win the lottery. I'll have more than a little loyalty for someone that makes my every financial stress evaporate. I mean, what's with the torture thing? I have never run across any explanation for why Satan has this infatuation with pain and misery. Especially for eternity. What's the deal with that?

It's not like he's trapped in Hell if he keeps supposedly coming to Earth to mess with humans. He could really just chill out for awhile at the Mall of America. I hear it's a fun place to visit.

I guess I don't understand what motivates him to do the whole taking souls thing.

Some had told me before that his motivations can't be discerned, like God's motivations and behaviors can't be understood by mere humans. I don't buy it. It's too convenient to say that; it's a brushoff. Why should humans love or swear loyalty to a being they can't hope to understand.

Also, if you can't hope to understand the motivations behind the behavior, that implies to me that the behavior doesn't follow any rules. It does what it does just...because. That means it's not intrinsically good or bad. It just is. So why is Satan evil, or God good, for that matter? Just because we define it that way? God is good simply because by definition what He does is good.

Why?

Under explanations that follow a rational way of living the act of murder is wrong, bad, because it acts in a way that does not respect an individual. It harms a collective group or community. It makes someone dangerous, and their behavior could mean that if Peter killed Bob without justification then Peter may kill me next. It's not because murder itself is intrinsically bad. We kill living beings all the time, telling ourselves that in that case it's okay because they're lower on the food chain, or it was an accident, or any of a number of reasons. There's always a reason that it's okay to eat that cheeseburger and it doesn't count as ending a life, or we can live with ourselves after we walk away from an accident that claimed someone else's life.

Under religion, it's just bad. There is no reason why other than we arbitrarily say so.

I find this to be a form of confusing doublethink. Maybe others don't. It's just one of a number of questions I've had that I think are quite reasonable but most Christians tend to eventually write off as "it's just the way it is," unable to provide a logical, reasoned answer. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me.

Atheism and the Banana

One of the stupidest anti-atheism bits I had run across in my years came from Kirk Cameron and his buddy Ray Comfort and their viral video about the Atheist's Nightmare: THE BANANA!

They give such wonderful tidbits about the pulltab God placed so conveniently on the banana, as well as the fact that the shape happens to fit so well into our hands and it has it's own packaging.

For me it's funny because it's so hilariously ignorant. In case you didn't know, the Cavendish banana (the kind you normally find in the grocery store) is absolutely nothing like the wild banana. It was genetically engineered the old fashioned way by humans: selective breeding. Check it out here.

Of course it didn't take long for atheists to reply with those pesky facts. There's a YouTube video highlighting their ignorance on the topic.

I'll also point out that if you do research on the Cavendish, they're genetically all the same. There's a disease spreading that threatens the existence of that type of banana and those bugnuts may soon get a lesson in evolution since the Cavendish can't evolve a resistance to the disease...the solution seems to involve creating a slightly different hybrid banana with a slightly different taste and texture. Enjoy the atheist's nightmare while you can, folks...

Lesson: if you're going to take on a controversial topic, make sure you do your homework. Especially if you're going to look as stupid as these two clowns when talking about God's creation: a fruit that has a documented history of domestication by humans.

Is the Bible Outdated? Asperger Observations

This was interesting to me...and it may piss off some others who read it and happen to be religious. If you are religious and prone to getting bent out of shape by someone's opinion, skip to tomorrow's post or yesterday's. If you decide you're curious enough for this post then do us both a favor and read it the entire way through. If you want to respond, go ahead with the comments, as long as they're constructive and preferably have some reasoning to back up and support your view. I'd rather not close comments on the blog because someone wants to be an arse-head.

I mentioned previously that I had a wonderful time reading Look Me In the Eye by John Elder Robison. I really recommend it. I was about to put the book into my sacred storage area where I could have it for reference in the future...a bit of clutter programming in my head, I suppose, wherein I stash things I think I might want later because I really liked them...but instead I passed the copy on to my mother in law (and perhaps father in law) to read in hopes that they may understand me a little better. I believed that while I would love to put it into my storage area the book will be useful only if the words carry on in other people's minds, and the only way to do that is pass it along. So I did.

Moving on...I also mentioned in that blog post that John Elder has a blog. Well, he posted an interesting observation regarding religion. The question seemed to have been posted innocently, but it is one that I've often pondered in my own head and made observations regarding. It's a really touchy subject though. Big surprise. Usually when I've tried to explore it with other people...and I don't personally know other Aspies in realspace, since I'm rather isolated socially (and most Aspies aren't social butterflies anyway, another big surprise) I end up offending people which I find out after the fact. Or right to my face when they get really huffy and start getting petulant or just flat out angry or insulted, thinking I'm calling them stupid. It makes it really difficult to puzzle things out when other people from whom you're trying to get information and understanding aren't cooperative.

He (John Elder) stated that he's spiritual, but not in an organized religion of sorts. He was asked by a researcher why Aspergians tend to not follow religious organizations. On reflection it seemed that other Aspies he's met weren't religious either, and this researcher was actually collecting (or had collected) data regarding this topic and found that apparently most aren't religious. Coincidence?

Here's what I can say:
Aspergers seems to create a predisposition towards reason and logic. We prefer working for results, not warm fuzzy feelings. We prefer working with people we deem effective, not "nice".

I've been told by someone neurotypical and close to me that they have seen the trend where the more educated people tend to be liberal in their beliefs, and the less educated tend to be neo-Republican. The Republican party in the US is famous for their family value platform, Bible values platform, as well as their willingness to murder thousands of foreigners in war (as long as the guys in suits don't have to go and get shot at) and the all too common scandal of yet another affair from Republican figureheads. It's not limited to them, but they're the ones generally telling their supporters they'll burn in Hell on the pulpit...er, campaign platform...before retiring to their office for some alone time with their cute senate page. Have to make it a quickie though...they have to get to the floor in time to vote on the laws they proposed that make what they just did more illegal.

The poor tend to be more religious. Could that be part of the reason that the generally more impoverished live along the Bible Belt in the US?

Religion (speaking of Christian religion in Northeastern USA, since that is the kind I'm personally exposed to) is full of fallacies and contradictions. The Bible is wonderful in that it can justify everything from kindness to strangers and justifying banning abortions for the sanctity of life to killing homosexuals. If you have a view of something, chances are you and someone who disagrees with you will find some way the Bible supports your view.

But Barry! You said religion has fallacies and contradictions, but you talk about the Bible! The above mentioned the Bible in particular, but religion is worse, as it is basically an interpretation of the Bible by people. Many religions are based on the Bible yet there are how many sects you can join? There are the big ones, of course, like the Catholics and Baptists and Methodists. The major religions take potshots at groups like the Mormons for being a cult. But the even The Family is based on the Bible as well. Check them out if you want to see how wild things get.

Hypocrisy is rampant in various organized religions. I've known Mormons swigging caffeinated beverages and downing chocolate. Priests are in the news for turning altar boys into altar men. I know regular church attendees who hate particular people for their features or actions or traits...where's the Christian love Jesus was so fond of? I roomed with a guy in college who refused to utter a single swear word (even though I don't see the difference it made when he simply substituted another word for the curse...other than it annoyed the hell out of me. Frick this, frick that, gosh darnit...I wanted to punch him square in the mouth). This same guy was heard thumpin' the ceiling over the living room area of the common room of the college apartment when his girlfriend visited, and since she lived on campus, it was every, @#%-ing, night. I asked him how he could profess to be so religious when getting more tail than most prostitutes.

"I'm human and have failings. I ask for forgiveness for them."

So it's not religion that has the failings, it's the people...

I've also observed that the religious tend to not understand much of what they're talking about with issues related to their religion. I don't think most have any idea that Jesus, if he existed, didn't speak English. We still have people who every Christmastime insist that "Xmas" is trying to remove the Christ from Christmas. Makes a good headline and riles up the followers, but it's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Yet even when shown the proof I've had people insist their view was correct.

These are just some of the issues I had with religion while growing up.

If anything, I became a full atheist when I finally realized that with all the hypocrisy, contradictions, and ignorance I was encountering I simply couldn't live with what I felt were too many inconsistencies in the stories. I couldn't live with the idea that I would be living a lie. It came down to basically a question of would you rather be ignorant of what is happening and be happy, or know the truth and be miserable? It turns out that I'd rather know the truth.

I'm beginning to think this may be partially due to the Asperger's. There may also be a correlation between people being of liberal bias and having higher education, and true atheism and education (true atheism since I wouldn't count the people who have a "falling out" with God and thus say they're an atheist for it; they're just being pissy about something that happened to them, not seeking a higher truth). This correlation does not imply causation, but it does give one pause to scratch one's head a moment for some reflection.

This sounds arrogant. I'm simply stating what I've come to believe after a couple decades of observation and my own studies. Of course there's much more to it than I state here, but this is one facet of my understanding. And it pisses people off.

I don't know how to sugar coat it.

Even reactions to this give me a bit of a curiosity since in some cases it incites a lot of vitriol...when in most Christian sects, I'm supposed to be considered a wayward sheep in need of finding my way back with compassion. Another case of hypocrisy? I don't worry about it any more.

I don't know what the answers are with absolute certainty. But I do know what I've observed, and I know I've had many questions of religions that fail to have adequate answers. In the end people don't want to entertain the idea that they're wrong. They are happy with their beliefs. And I don't care what you believe as long as I don't suffer for what you believe. Myths, sky wizards, doublethink, whatever floats your boat. Just don't bother me unless you're willing to have an actual reasoned discussion. I have enough legislated morality to swim through in my world already.

I'll be interested to see what comments John Elder's blog post receives. I worry that some people will dismiss my opinions more then they already do if they associate my atheism with being "brain damaged" with Asperger's when perhaps it should give some pause to the fact that if there is a strong correlation, maybe they should wonder why people who are wired to see things through a nonemotional filter see religion as a sham, in general. But on the other hand maybe it's another reason to just leave my brain-damaged self alone.

Wondering About the Nature of God

I was on a drive with my wife half a month ago when I pondered out loud a question that was tickling the back of my mind about God.

Why would God, an almighty being characterized a as a father figure that loves us (according to Christian tales), able to poot stars and planets into existence and create humans from dirt, only communicate through vague events that are left up to us inferior beings to interpret?

I didn't understand why with "His" infinite wisdom and power and our backwards, primitive ability to comprehend we would be left with vague things to figure out what "His" will is.

When something bad happens, many Christians say it's to test us, or draw us closer to God. It's to show that we need Him. It's to strengthen our relationship with God. Etcetera, etcetera.

So...let me get this straight. God, all-knowing, all powerful, creates Earth and stars in seven days along with all life (and many new-Earthers and Creationists say the Earth is 6,000 years old according to the Bible), isn't able or willing to create a memo for we slow humans that isn't so vague that we can't tell if it is either a vital message about our lives or some coincidence?

Okay, let's take it as not as silly a question as I think it is.

Next, our Heavenly Father figure, communicating through vague signs and signals like our cars dying on the way to work making us horribly late and getting fired or our houses catching on fire or tree limbs narrowly missing us as they fall into the road...we misinterpret signs or don't see them as Him talking to us, so when we die God, who loves us, punishes us but throwing us into eternal torture and damnation.

I don't know about you, but when it comes to father figures, my father wasn't vague. He didn't hint at what he wanted. Which when the recipient of the message has Aspergers that is a really really good thing. He came right out and said things like, "Take out the trash," "Pick up your room," "What's wrong with you, anyway?" and "Why the hell didn't you take out the trash already?!"

The model that I'm under the understanding God uses as our Father is to walk into my bedroom late at night, dump a bucket of sand on me and put a pair of boxers on my head before walking away without a word, then giving me the belt when I didn't know this meant I was supposed to do the dishes.

Just a couple thoughts to ponder. I'm sure there are reasons for this that's I'm simply too dense to accept, and I sure don't accept answers that boil down to "just because". Voices in the head, vague signs and "tests" of hardship in my life and the promise of eternal punishment for something that He didn't come down and actually specifically tell me to do (or not to do), instead relying on his army of followers (who are also flawed and unable to comprehend our Father's nature) to interpret from an ancient text that in itself was created by committee (look it up) and was translated and translated and reinterpreted over centuries.

Jus' saying...

The Problem of Reasoning With Faith

There are a few points in my life when I really started to cement my philosophy of personal religious views.

One of them was when I realized the futility in arguing the nonexistence of a god. Primarily this is because theists can cite an argument that takes advantage of a flaw in inductive reasoning; namely, inductive reasoning proves what is probable, not what is infallible. For example we tend to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has in the past. There's some infintesimal chance that something could cause the sun to explode...but most people don't wake up thinking that is what will happen.

As is outlined in this paper this is a big reason that people will believe in something despite evidence to the contrary; you can't prove that it's not there because it's only probable that it's not there. For people that don't prefer to live by reason this is a perfect loophole.

For example...

Frank and Joe are friends who get together to have a chat. Frank tells Joe that there's a small invisible elephant named Nemo hovering over his head and that he controls the weather.

Joe is skeptical that there's a hovering Elephant named Nemo over Frank's head. "I don't see anything."

"He's invisible," says Frank.
"So how do you see him?"
"He wants me to so he lets me see him."
"Well...I want to see him. Can he show himself to me?"
"Not if he doesn't want to show you."
"What if I throw some paint above your head? Wouldn't that cover him so I could see him?"
"No, it'll pass through him."
"Does he make any sounds? Can I hear him?"
"Only if he lets you."
"So I can't hear him, I can't touch him, and I can't see him. How do I know he exists?"
"Easy! Look outside! Right there's the weather!"

This is how it is with theists discussing the existence of God; it's telling that basically in order for Joe to "see" Nemo he must first, like Frank, believe he's there and that way accept the shortcomings in the lack of evidence. Joe could tell Frank all about what is known regarding meterology; cold fronts, low pressure fronts, heating of oceans and humid air from the effects of the sun heating the ground and water, etc. etc...but see, it's complicated to understand those things. It's far more comforting to just say Nemo does it.

More accurately as science advances our understanding of weather Frank just will fall back on either Nemo wants us to believe that, or those are the mechanisms that Nemo uses to manipulate the weather. It's still Nemo controlling it.

No matter what there's still a fallback to dismiss these arguments. Science provides reproduceable results, testable hypothesis and theories, yet stacked against something whose abilities are believed to be...well, what amounts to magic...it's far simpler for Frank to dismiss Joe with a lot of hand-waving and he'll continue to take comfort in what he's already invested in believing. There's no way to definitively show that there is no Nemo above Frank's head because no matter what evidence Joe brings to the table Frank can dismiss that that's just how Nemo works or what Nemo wants. It's the power of the divine.

It is impossible to argue with people who don't want to hear what you're trying to say; don't even bother. It's uncomfortable for the majority of theists to listen to something that challenges what they've believed all their lives, something that comforts them, and for people like that comfort is more important than seeking truth.

Nontheists, the best approach is to simply be honest with yourself and others if asked. Don't push your ideas upon others; it'll be as unwelcome to them as when they push their beliefs on you. There are others who feel alienated because they are surrounded in their communities by theists and who question themselves because they are a minority in their own community. Finding others who are comfortable standing up and saying they don't believe in an organized religion can help you find others who share your perspective; you're not alone.

Creationism Bugs Me

I think I am beginning to understand one of the biggest reasons that the creationism movement bugs me so much. I got to thinking about it while skimming a book called Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul at a bookstore not long ago. It's the story of the semi-recent court battle over teaching Creationism in the classroom in Dover, PA. Sorry, Intelligent Design. Unfortunately there's a long history of bending semantics to try shoehorning the same idea into the curriculum of academia (see the evolution of the phrase "Creation Science").

What follows may be offensive to the more religious-minded. If you don't like having your ideas challenged you might as well quit reading now.

I have seen repeatedly that a significant percentage of atheists understand the Bible better than the majority of Christians. I don't necessarily mean quoting the Bible; I'm talking about understanding it. Anyone with time on their hands can memorize Shakespeare without understanding what Hamlet is really saying when telling Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunn'ry!" (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1) Getting into an argument over Biblical trivia is pointless.

The part that bugs me is quite simple. I would summarize Creationism thusly:
A magic being in the sky one day decided to create the Earth and various creatures on the Earth culminating in His ultimate creation, Man. Why he did it we don't know. He just did it. All creatures are the way they are because the magic invisible being just decided to do it.

This is, of course, paraphrasing. "Magic being" can be replaced with a number of different names, the most common of which in this area is God.

After poring over various Biblical passages the fundamentalists thus conclude that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Six thousand years ago God decided to create everything and at various points told people to record the events in a series of scrolls that later become the Bible (although most professing a strong belief in it don't seem to know the history of the Bible's origins)

That's pretty much it. Uncomplicated. Simple. Magic invisible being waved his magic stick and everything just popped into existence. The magic being has no origin, no end, nothing explaining where it came from. It's pretty simple to understand and any questions are usually dismissed with some vague hand waving.

Ask the good Creationist believer to summarize evolution and you usually get an equally vague explanation. Just some idea of creatures changing over time, if you're lucky, or the common one I had run into was that life just "sprang from nothing."

While the idea of Creationism is fantastically simple to understand...an invisible all powerful magic being who often is depicted looking like Milton Berle or Gandalf just decided one day that this is how things should be...evolution takes actual comprehension to understand. The people who want you to disregard the science usually have no idea what Evolution entails (especially the ones that say Evolution is bunk because life can't come from nothing; it's ironic both because they don't understand that evolution isn't a theory of the origin of life and also because these are the same people that say they believe in a magic being that has no origin, literally popping into existence from nothing. Or some idea of "always existing" or "exists outside this dimension". But evolution is simply way too crazy an idea for creationists to accept.

If you're going to cite that, demonstrate that you understand the math behind such an idea. Otherwise it's about as legitimate as The Force from Star Wars.

Unlike the idea of Creationism, Evolution has actual observable and provable hypothesis creating the foundation upon which it is based. It can be disproven; this is one of the fundamental ideas behind any empirical scientific theory. You can assert whatever you want. But it's not a scientific theory unless in some way it could be proven or disproven.

That is exactly why Creationism is not a science. It cannot be disproven or tested. This is a fundamental idea upon which science is based. How do you prove the nonexistence of God?

You can't.

Rather than rant or rave about that, here's my proposal. If a Creationist can accurately teach someone what evolution is, the actual science of evolution, so that that person understands evolution accurately then I would take them seriously in a discussion. They have to be able to teach evolutionary theory in their own words. Seems pretty simple.

The only way you can teach an idea to someone without simply regurgitating what a book states is to understand the idea. If you can teach someone else an idea in your own words; you understand the subject, and far too many people are proclaiming a strong believe in Creationism without having the faintest idea what they're talking about.

That is another bit of doublethink that leaves me baffled; if you are one of those people proclaiming a belief in an immortal soul, don't you kind of owe it to yourself to make sure you're right about your belief? I mean, that's quite a thing to leave to chance. So why hide behind dismissive hand waving and such when you probably should be devoting time to educating yourself about what you're investing your eternity in? Not just the memorization of Bible passages. Any goof can sit and memorize sequences of words. Rather, dedicate time to finding out what the other side is trying to tell about logical fallacies and mistakes, and understanding the history of the document which you are gambling your "soul" upon.

It's sad...there are far too many people who are entrenched in the idea that they are right about this magical history when they don't even know that the Bible wasn't a single document written in English.

Not that it matters much. True believers are often the move vehemently against exploring ideas that may contradict their belief system; they're too invested, emotionally, in the belief system to see beyond the world of comfort on which they rest their worldview. It may be psychologically damaging for them to entertain the idea that they are wrong about something so fundamental.

Or for many it's just easier to accept the simple explanation...magic, essentially...over learning what chromosomes and DNA are and how they work.

Creationist Museum Seen By Academia

Those who know me know it's no secret that I'm not big on the whole "creation science" movement. It's not a science. If you don't understand that it's not a science, it's because you don't understand the definition of science.

But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the 70,000 square foot Creationism Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Apparently some paleontologists topped off a conference in the area with a group tour of the facility.

Some of them happened to be Christian and were still surprised, saddened, and shocked at the material they found in the museum.

My favorite quote from the article:
********
"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
********

Not a big surprise. Usually the responses I see when academics criticize these things is simply dismissal of their claims. I think it comes from a friction between reason and faith; I can't fully claim to understand it because I'm simply wired differently. I cannot easily take something that runs contrary to observed or reasonable evidence. People who are very much invested in their beliefs...no matter what evidence is shown to the contrary, no matter how much you show that they hold views that conflict with each other...the doublethink will prevail for them. The Creationist museum is a prime example of this.

I mean...the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian until Eve ate from the tree of knowledge? Really?

I should hope that the quote I believe is attributed to Jerry Lipps from the article is correct..."Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."

What Is a Christian Nation?

In the various arguments I've seen regarding religion in the US, I've often bumped into people supporting their views by saying that we're a "Christian Nation". I don't know what exactly they are referring to.

Is it the "In God We Trust" on our money? Became our country's official motto in 1956. It actually has its roots in religious sentiment from the Civil War. But it was hardly because of anything having to do with our country's founding or its founding fathers.

As a bit of trivia, Theodore Roosevelt opposed putting that slogan on money. He considered it an act of sacrilege.

Indeed, contrary to what many of the citizens seem to believe, many of our founding fathers were Deists, although sadly I'm not sure most of our nation's citizens are even aware of Deism. Here's a quick quote from Wikipedia:
*********
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith. Deists generally reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs - such as by miracles and revelations. These views contrast with a dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Judeo-Christian,^[1][2] Islamic and other theistic teachings.
*********
What got me thinking about this was an article on the Jefferson Bible. Scratching your head yet?

Apparently our 3rd president of the United States extracted the parts of the Bible that he found to be contradictory or unreasonable, creating a version that was purely consisting of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ; it was also arranged in a manner that made a consistent narrative. The result was called the Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth. The article said that the resulting book was 46 pages long.

It was also Jefferson credited with the idea of "separation of church and state." He was an admirable man; he believed in God, but did not believe in supernatural revelation, and as such didn't feel it was right to legislate his beliefs onto the people he was elected to lead.

Thomas Jefferson was indeed a remarkable man with more achievements than most people could hope to attain in his lifetime. From the Wikipedia entry on him:
****
When President John F. Kennedy welcomed forty-nine Nobel Prize winners to the White House in 1962 he said, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
****

When Religion Kills

It seems religious tolerance is in fashion nowadays. There are those who try to spread the myth that Christians in the US are persecuted, as if they're the minority, and that atheists (or Christians of various sects) need to be tolerant of other people's views.

But what about situations where these religious beliefs lead to someone dying?

What if that someone was a child?

That's exactly what happened in this story where a woman was convicted for letting her child die from a condition that was easily and readily curable right up to the very end but instead of taking the child to a doctor she used prayer to save...well, not save...her eleven year old daughter.

I'm all about the philosophy of not caring what you do as long as you don't bother me. I don't care what you do behind closed doors. I don't care if you talk to invisible friends and I don't care about the plain brown wrappered boxes you have delivered to your home. If I don't hear it or smell it or have to participate and you don't disturb me, I could really not care less about what you do with your own time in your own home with consenting adults.

But when a person's religion ends up killing people, innocent people, I have an ethical problem with that. The most convenient bit of religious dogma is that all of this fits perfectly with the family's worldview; they pray for her to get well, and God would have saved her if He wanted her to live. She died, so it was His will to have this happen. Amen.

I see this as being superstitious nonsense akin to the murders in Africa happening today in the name of witchcraft; people are hunting and killing people because they're suspected of being witches. It's amazing what a lack of education can do. How can anyone see video footage like this and not condemn the perpetrators yet still call for tolerance for other people's beliefs leading to the death of children because of a preference for prayer over medical help? You can't have it both ways, saying there needs to be tolerance and respect for all other beliefs (although I'm led to believe that when someone says this, they actually mean respect and tolerance for their beliefs) while condemning some loons on a witchhunt in a remote village.

Unfortunately I would say that if I were to believe in the existence of a single Almighty God, I would have to also believe that since He allows all this to happen that it is all good. Otherwise He would have stepped in and done something about all of this. Since He hasn't, I'm led to believe that either He doesn't, in fact, exist, or it's okay since He's not intervening. One could argue about what He actually wants using passages from various scriptures but I'm afraid that without His clarification there is still room for you to be making interpretations of what is meant, meaning you could be wrong. The only authoritative conclusions would come from the horse's mouth. Seems pretty simple to boil it down. I've seen too many incidents similar to this to not have come to these conclusions.

Columbine and the Cassie Bernall Myth: I Believe in God!

My wife has been enthralled with the book Columbine by Dave Cullen. I haven't read it but as she hits interesting bits she's been sharing excerpts with me. She highly recommends it.

The bit she shared that really bugged me concerned the story of Cassie Bernall. If you followed the Columbine aftermath at all you heard this story; one of the killers looked Cassie in the face and asked her if she believed in God. She said yes. He shot her pointblank for it, martyring her.

The problem was that this story never happened. It was a myth. Fabricated. With evidence to back it up. And the press knew about it as they reported it. The local papers didn't even come out with the truth until after Misty Bernall published the book She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie Bernall about the mythical incident passing it off as truth.

Emily Wyant was an eyewitness, hiding under the table with Cassie at the time of the shooting. She said that there wasn't any such exchange before Cassie was shot...the killer slapped the table, said, "Peekaboo!", and shot her before walking away with a broken nose from the recoil of the weapon.

The Bernall family later came out with a press statement saying "'Our intent was to share Cassie's story in an effort to encourage parents and teenagers. If any of our actions have hurt or offended anyone, we sincerely apologize.'"

The truth is that the story was hijacked from a young woman named Valeen Schnurr. From the Salon article:

**********
Schnurr was down on her hands and knees bleeding, already hit by 34 shotgun pellets, when one of the killers approached her. She was saying, "Oh, my God, oh, my God, don't let me die," and he asked her if she believed in God. She said yes; he asked why. "Because I believe and my parents brought me up that way," she said. He reloaded, but didn't shoot again. She crawled away.
**********

According to Cullen's book Schnurr, when telling the truth of the incident, was accused of trying to steal attention from Bernall. She was ridiculed and threatened.

Worse, the church, despite later knowing the truth, continued to perpetuate the myth because it served their purpose of recruiting more followers on the tail of the tragedy. Members with only a small shred of decency to respect truth over hype at most concede that it's the symbolism behind the story that's important, not the truth (NOTE: the link I put in here is from someone who is reviewing Cullen's book and stated that he regrets perpetuating the myth to a youth group upon learning the truth...this isn't accusing him of being one of those against which I'm spearing here. Read his entry for the section regarding his thoughts on that incident).

This is one more illustration of my "problem" with the state of organized religion in the US. Reason, truth...they don't mean much to the institution. Here it's illustrated that they'll knowingly perpetuate myths and falsehoods in order to further the collective agenda while even marginalizing or denigrating, in this case, a young woman who was actually victimized. They essentially victimized her twice, once through the Columbine incident, once by having a Christian institution try to silence the truth.

It's horrible to me seeing such cognitive dissonance among self-proclaimed believers as well; it hardly strikes me as Christian to see this kind of behavior from the church. Yet it doesn't merit a second thought from congregations.

Shameful.

Gay Marriage and History

Beauty contestant Carrie Prejean was bashed for her silly off-the-cuff answer, which she apparently characterized as biblically correct instead of politically correct, to a question from Perez Hilton about her opinion of same-sex marriage rights in states.

Too often I hear people justify the anti-same-sex stance as being anti-biblical.

Just today I ran across a couple articles that may question the validity of that idea...or at least give a little history lesson on the origins of marriage.

The Flu and Religion: Offensive?!

I saw a story in the paper yesterday that had an Israeli official calling for the Swine Flu to be called the Mexican Flu, because the reference to pigs was offensive.

Yeah. "We find pigs unclean, so you shouldn't call it that."

Instead of working on a cure, working on containing a disease...we're worried about ignorant people thinking getting the flu will somehow mean they have unclean pork germs in them.

Maybe twisting the thinking a little more would mean that if God didn't want you to worry about it, you won't get infected...so the stigma or offense you feel for having the affliction is part of His punishment.

Just a thought.

An Exercise in Logic and Proof

My wife is more religious than I am. Not to the point where she recoils and hisses like a vampire when confronted by something erotic, for example, but she generally goes along with the whole idea of a God and a Christian denomination's ideas of truth.

I, on the other hand, don't.

In our very rare conversations about religion she had said of me that (to paraphrase) no matter what evidence she presented, I'd have an excuse not to believe it, so it does no good to discuss it.

I on the other hand see it as arguing over something that has no foundation on which to believe, and that the idea of me having an excuse not to believe the reasons I'm presented with are actually nothing more than turning the tables on the other person's inability to present such reasonable proof. What am I talking about? This excellent essay by Carl Sagan explains it quite clearly. She accused me of always having an excuse...I say it's the other way around. The essay is very short and lays out the issue in a simple manner.

I realize this isn't going to make any difference; people will believe what they want to believe and they'll always find a reason to cling to those beliefs. What it came down to for me was whether I could accept living with ideas that I had concluded were not supported, essentially living a lie. If I couldn't reconcile the ideas presented to me from the Christian religion...or any other religion...with the voice of reason in my head and experiences in life, then I simply cannot bring myself to follow the belief system imposed by those religions.