ArgumentsFromtheLeft's Xanga

Attention!

Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:59:39 GMT

I will no longer be posting on this site. I have too many debate sites going, and I can't do them justice like this. So I am combining them all together in to one site: http://www.xanga.com/GodlessLiberal.

This site will incorporate aspects of my three debate sites (BibleLies, EvolutionExplained, and ArgumentsFromtheLeft). All three of these sites will remain up, mainly as archives. Please, if you enjoyed what I did on any of these sites, come join me on my new home. Especially now that the school year is approaching, which means I'll have lots of things I'll be wanting to avoid (the main fuel for these sites in the first place). If you will not be joining me on this move, then I'll miss you.

Peace, Love, Krisko Disko

This is our country

Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:59:07 GMT

Thanks to Mark for this:

What Paris in Jail Says About the Justice System

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:16:15 GMT

If prison's purpose is to punish, protect and deter, the journeys of Paris Hilton and Genarlow Wilson leave you wondering whether Justice, far from being blind, needs her vision checked. The reckless white heiress was all but impossible to lock up; the vindicated black honor student is impossible to set free.

We know Paris' story all too well: celebutante on probation for drunk driving is caught going twice the speed limit with no headlights and a suspended license; sentenced to 45 days, she's released after three by a softhearted--or perhaps lightheaded--sheriff, only to be ordered back by an irate judge amid a storm of public outrage and media glee. But even then it is not to the county lockup she is remanded but to a special medical facility, for an unspecified ailment, at 10 times the cost of regular jail.

Genarlow's case tips the scales the other way. Georgia citizens were so troubled when the homecoming king was sentenced to 10 years for having consensual oral sex with his underage girlfriend (he was 17, she was 15), the state legislature amended Georgia's child-protection act to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. But Genarlow remains in jail after 28 months because lawmakers did not make the change retroactive. Jimmy Carter spoke out for leniency. On June 11, a judge ordered Genarlow released, citing a "grave miscarriage of justice." His mother called it a miracle. But still he sits in jail, since the state attorney general vows to appeal, saying the judge went too far.

Maybe every prisoner has a story, and most will never get told. But these two throb with irony and pity: Paris' punishment, captured for the ages as she cried, "Mom! It's not right," on the way to jail, fits her crime; it serves to protect the public, since nothing short of jail appeared sufficient to keep her from getting behind the wheel. The deterrent value for other heiresses who are tempted to run off the road remains to be seen. Genarlow, though, is generally viewed as undeserving of his sentence, unthreatening to public safety, his example useless as a deterrent because his conduct is no longer considered a felony. The public outcry over both cases was heartening, if naive. We want justice to be blind to privilege but open to mercy. It feels at times as if we are only halfway there.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1633063,00.html

What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?

Mon, 07 May 2007 03:13:02 GMT

Thanks to Karanis for this.

See if you can find any social parallels!

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:37:40 GMT

Bush nearly blows himself up.

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:38:13 GMT

Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.

Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford's hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.

"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen This is all off the record, right?"

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/AUTO01/704070338/1148

We're Number One!

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:56:43 GMT

Amont the most obnoxious tendancies of redneck culture her in the US is to declare the United States as number one, with no regard for what that actually means. It seems to come out especially loudly when the olympics are held on our soil, as if chanting "U.S.A.!" loudly enough will convince all other nations of our superiority.

In total industrial output, political clout, and military spending there is no doubt that America is number one. But I posit that the way we care for our own might be a more telling criteria than these. So please consider:

The US is 49th in the world in literacy, and is 28th out of 40 ranked nations in mathematical literacy.
Our provision and quality of health care and medicine ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations.
Childhood poverty is more prevelant here than in all developed countries save for Mexico.
The best run companies and most successful banks are predominantly European.
The proportion of scientific articles published by Americans is declining sharply..
The US ranks 41st in the world in infant mortality.

We seem to only rank number one in weaponry, consumer spending, debt and delusion. But of course, any politician who would remark otherwise would commit political suicide. This has become especially apparent after 9/11 (just count the number of flag and "support our troops" ribbons on the SUVs that pass you by on any given road).

The rest of the world seems to regard America as greedy, violent, rude and immoral. That's a rather full range of dislike. And attitudes about America's governing body is even more negative. The most prominant view of America by outsiders is that America cares only about itself.

Our constant chanting of "we're number one!" is an affront to the people of the world, and this includes foreign policy that we believe we know better than the rest of the world about. (And Iraq has quite obviously shown that we're wrong about that.) This national arrogance just creates fissures in our relationships with the rest of the world. It also gives us a false sense that if we're number one, nothing is wrong in "God's favorite country", nevermind those infant mortality numbers. America needs to make a concerted effort, at both the government and individual level, to realize that there's a lot of world out there besides us, and we're far less than number one in quite a few things.

Questions for Bible-Thumpers

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:52:03 GMT

The following are questions I have about the Bible and Christianity. I've asked most of them of folks who have written to complain about my site. I have not yet received adequate answers.

I realize that not all Christians are Bible-thumpers, and not all Bible-thumpers believe exactly the same thing. When answering these questions, feel free to skip those which do not apply to you. It might be helpful to explain why a certain question does not apply, but it's not required.

The KJV Bible as the literal word of God:

There are no questions in this section, because I don't consider it worthwhile discussing things with people who actually believe that God spoke to Moses in Elizabethan English. For The KJV Bible to be the literal word of God, that's exactly what would have had to have happened, that's what literal means: exactly, word for word, what someone said.

The Bible as the word of God:

Where in the bible, if anywhere, Does the Bible say it is the Word of God?

How do you know this applies to the Bible as we know it today, and not some other collection of books? For example, how do you know it refers to the gospels of John, Mark, Luke and Matthew, and not the gospel of Simon, Thomas, and Peter?

What's to keep someone from writing whatever they want, or altering existing stories to fit their need, then using this passage to prove God wrote it? Today, of course, we could compare with other versions of the Bible, but what about hundreds or thousands of years ago? Did God correct the mistakes and strike down the blasphemers?

Depending on your answer to the last question, tell me how you feel about the fact that this page was typed by God himself. James's name is just on it for legal reasons. By the way: I, your Creator, say you're a poop head, the Bible is bogus, and you should send Reverend James 10% of your gross income.

The Bible, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, and other books are supposedly the word of God. Many other works are supposedly inspired by God, gods, god-like aliens from the Pleiades, etc. Why should I accept your favorite, and not one of the others?

Biblical Inerrancy:

I claim that the Bible contains contradictions, errors of fact, and suspicious omissions...especially regarding matters of physical science. A number of people have tried to explain away these errors. I am not impressed. If you intend to defend Biblical inerrancy with one or more of the following arguments, please be prepared to answer the associated objections. You do not need to reply to answers to objections that you don't plan to use. If you see the Bible as containing mostly metaphor, as opposed to literal truth, you can skip down to the section on Biblical Metaphor.

If you claim that there are no apparent flaws in Bible, and thus there is nothing to explain, Why do I see flaws?

If your answer involves a defect in my mental ability, Why is it more likely that I suffer from this disorder than you?

If your answer involves a lack of faith on my part, how does this apply to Islamic fundamentalists, who are quite willing to die for their faith?

If your answer involves rude comments about my parentage, please keep it to yourself.

If you claim that the apparent flaws in the Bible are the result of misrepresentations and passages taken out of context:

Why is it so easy for me to distort the word of God? Shouldn't an all-powerfull, all-knowing being be able to write more clearly?

Why should I believe that your religion's leaders are not similarly distorting the word of God for their own selfish gain?

If you claim the King James Version is linguistically flawed due to archaic language and / or poor translation:

Why did God allow this to happen?

If God allows flaws in some versions of the Bible, Why should we presume that he corrected any version?

Why should I accept your favorite version as being the one version God decided to correct?

If you rely on "original" versions in a variety of archaic languages, please pay special attention to the next questions.

If you claim it requires extensive interpretation, study and research to properly understand the Bible:

Why did God make his word so hard to understand?

Why should I accept your favorite interpretation as being correct?

Why not just study nature instead, as science does? There is, after all, no chance that nature is a fraud.

If you claim it requires divine revelation to properly understand the Bible:

Why should we accept divine revelations that point to the Bible while rejecting revelations that point to the Koran, The Vedas, The Kalevala, or any of countless other texts?

If revelation is a reliable source of information, why not just rely on it, instead of a book?

If you claim apparent contradictions are the result of metaphoric use of language:

Why did God make his word so hard to understand?

Why should I accept your guess as to which parts are metaphoric, and which are literal?

When I use metaphor, I use it to get around the limitations of language and the human mind. If you assume God uses metaphor for the same reason, why would he have created those limitations in the first place? If you assume God uses metaphor for a different reason, please explain that reason.

Occasionally people write to tell me they see the Bible as just another inspirational work:

What do you find inspiring about the atrocities that constitute much of the old testament?

What do you find inspiring about the new testament's message of eternal damnation for those who fail to embrace exactly the right set of beliefs?

Why should I slog through the racism, sexism, absurdities and atrocities to find the occasional bit of inspiration when there are thousands of other inspirational works available?

Why should I rely on any book for inspiration when sunsets, flowers, and big piles of sauerkraut with wieners chopped up in them are all readily available?

Gays:

Most Christians are pretty nice folk, but one loathsome sort of Christian uses the Bible to justify homophobia, gay bashing, and a lack of compassion towards those suffering from AIDS. I have little tolerance for this, as the tone of these questions might suggest:

If AIDS is God's punishment to Gays for anal intercourse, does that mean lung cancer is God's punishment for smoking? If so, do you plan to picket Aunt Mildred's funeral carrying signs saying "God hates Smokers?"

If AIDS is God's punishment for sex, why is a little piece of rubber so effective at preventing it? Are all sins absolved when committed in conjunction with rubber, or just those related to sex? Can I, for example, worship graven images so long as they're made out of rubber?

In forty years do you expect your discrimination against gays be more or less embarrassing to your grandchildren than your grandparents' discrimination against blacks is to you? You may, of course, skip this question as irrelevant if you're a racist too.

Christian Metaphysics:

Can anyone explain:

Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself so that He could correct a mistake He made Himself?

How does the crucifixion count as an appropriate sacrifice? Jesus spent a few hours, maybe a day, in agonizing pain; but it was no greater pain than millions of others have suffered. If Jesus really is God, then He knew exactly what was happening, and exactly how long it would last. When it was done, He supposedly ascended to heaven and became the all-powerful ruler of the universe. This is infinitely greater compensation than even the faithful will receive, and infinitely less torture that the damned will receive.

Please reconcile these two statements: "Without evil, there can be no good", "God is all-good."

Please reconcile these two statements: "With God, nothing is impossible", "You can't be saved unless you accept Jesus as your savior."

Extra-Credit Questions:

If you answered any question beginning "Why did God..." by saying it is not our place to question God, explain why you feel free to question his decision to make me an Atheist.

List at least three ways God is better than Santa Claus. Here's my list of ways Santa is better:

The only punishment Santa delivers is a withholding of presents. Even at that, he usually brings coal. Useful stuff, coal.
If you're not good enough, Santa gives you another chance next year.
The evidence for the existence of Santa is much stronger: I get presents from Santa and hear radar tracking reports about Santa on the news every year. Millions have even seen Santa, I am among them. Even if 99.99999% of the sightings are false, that is still certain proof of Santa.
Santa doesn't care if you believe in him, only if you're good or bad.

If there is an afterlife, why haven't Isaac Asimov, or Carl Sagan written books about it yet? "Paper burns" is not an acceptable answer. Funny, in a twisted sort of way, but not acceptable. (Lest anyone mistake my feeling, these men were among the greatest intellects to ever walk the face of the Earth, and I miss them both terribly.)

If you only have time to answer one Question:

There are many books that are so good that once I start reading them, I can't put them down. The Bible is not one of them. How is it that God, or an author directly inspired by God, does not write as well as (for example) Michael Crichton?

Amending the Constitution on Issues of Marraige as Decreed by the Bible

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:52:44 GMT

In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the king ruled by God's will.

In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of slavery.

In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God made women inferior to men.

In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted to keep the races separate.

When you look back at how your parents and grandparents dealt with these things, are you ashamed or proud?

Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates homosexuality.

When your children and grandchildren look back at how you deal with this, will they be ashamed or proud?

Thanks to Duncan.

Why do Atheists care about religion?

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:52:52 GMT

I get asked this all the time. I was all set to write up my reasons, but posting a video is easier on me. So enjoy: