GodlessLiberal's Xanga

Atheist revelife equivalent?

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:38:59 GMT

First, let me just assure you that a debate-inducing post will be up quite soon.

I was over at In Reason I Trust's site, where the topic of having an atheist/skeptic domain similar to revelife came up. I've sent in a request to Xanga about this, but I think it could be a great idea. While I feel we probably would not be able to crank out a topic every two hours like they do on revelife ("I Watch Sex and the City...Without Remorse", "Is it Bad For Christians to Read Horoscopes?", " Does Prince Charming Carry a Bible?" being some of the more recent ones), we could easily do a post a day if we had a few moderators. And frankly, more than that doesn't really foster debate, it just allows someone to put out their view on a topic and move on.

Anyone interested in moderating should let me know.

Some of the broader topics that we could discuss (in narrower fashions, of course) are:
Faults of religion
Atheist/Humanist philosophy
Life as atheists
Evolution
Atheist "anti-theology"
Holy books
Religious figures/icons
History of religion
Reviews of books/movies/documentaries/etc pertaining to atheism/religion

Now, we'd still need ideas for a name. Some of the ones brought up in Reason's post were:
Freethought Lab
Godless Zone
Reasonedlife
Revelthought
Reasoned Response
Atheist

I'm partial to Reasonedlife, but more suggestions would be appreciated. We would also be in need of a symbol. Some we could use:

Or, the ever-popular, Mr. Gruff the atheist:

Bible Verses Your Pastor Won't Bring Up - Genesis

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:30:11 GMT

Everybody knows some of the broad themes of Genesis: God creates earth, the Garden of Eden, the story of Noah, etc. Here are some things that may not have been brought to your attention in Sunday School.

~ God creates day and night on the first day, but doesn't create the sun or the stars until the 4th. (Genesis 1:3-5, 16-19)

~ God repeatedly refers to himself as "us," though why (and why only in Genesis) is never explained. (Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7)

~ Adam was not kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit. God became nervous that his newly-enlightened creation would also eat fruit from the tree of life and become immortal. (Genesis 3:22-23)

~ Cain killed Abel because God liked Abel more. Why? Because as a farmer, Cain could only sacrifice plants to God. Abel was a herdsman, and so could sacrifice animals. (Genesis 4:2-5)

~ God's sons come down from the heaven to have sex with earth women. (Genesis 6:1-2, 4)

~ "There were giants in the earth in those days" isn't an accurate translation. The word translated into giants was "Nephilim", which nobody actually knows how to translate. (Genesis 6:4)

~ Noah gets drunk on wine from his vineyard and passes out with his genitals exposed. Ham, his son, accidentally sees this. When Noah wakes up, he punishes Ham by making his youngest son a slave. (Genesis 9:20-27)

~ God makes a covenant with Abraham and demands that he and all his descendents become circumcised. God never explains why cutting off the foreskin is important, but it seems quite contradictory to all the other laws about never exposing one's genitals. What good is a distinguishing self-mutilation that nobody is allowed to see? (Genesis 17:10)

~ Rachel and Leah battle for Jacob's favor by giving him their maids as sex partners. (Genesis 30:1-11)

~ God has a wrestling match with Jacob and loses. To honor the occasion, God changes Jacob's name to Israel. (Genesis 32:24-30)

~ The "sin of Onan" is not masturbation. Onan wasn't punished because he "spilled his semen on the ground" but because he didn't impregnate his sister-in-law. God kills Onan. (Genesis 38:1-10)

Of course, many of these issues have light shed upon them when the Bible is viewed from a critical, rather than inerrant perspective. For example, God referring to himself as "us" is explained by Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis. For a great book on how to read the Old Testament in a historical-critical perspective, I highly recommend Brettler's How to Read the Bible.

Arguments NOT to use when Debating Evolution

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:07:46 GMT

I figure lots of evolution debates (read: red-in-the-face screaming hissyfits) will be popping up on here in the future, so I thought I'd bring up arguments NOT to use. Direct from the good people over at Answers in Genesis, a (shortened) list of arguments they say Creationists shouldn't use. From now on, I think that anyone who uses one of these arguments should be directed back to the following page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp. I'll be throwing in my own comments * bold and surrounded by asterisks*.

“Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”

Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if it were true, so what? If Ken Ham renounced the Bible, would that disprove it?

“NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” [Joshua 10] and Hezekiah’s sundial movement [2 Kings 20].”

Though this story is not promoted by major creationist organizations, it is a hoax in wide circulation, especially on the internet.

Essentially the same story appeared in the somewhat unreliable 1936 book The Harmony of Science and Scripture by Harry Rimmer. Evidently an unknown person embellished it with modern organization names and modern calculating devices.

Also, the whole story is mathematically impossible—it requires a fixed reference point before Joshua’s long day. In fact, we would need to cross-check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these reference points be known to within an accuracy of a few minutes. It is certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time that precisely, so the required cross-check is simply not possible. Furthermore, the earliest historically recorded eclipse occurred in 1217 BC, nearly two centuries after Joshua. So there is no way the missing day could be detected by any computer.

“Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.”

This is contradicted by the geological setting in which mammoths are found. It’s most likely that they perished toward the end of the Ice Age, possibly in catastrophic dust storms. Partially digested stomach contents are not proof of a flash freeze, because the elephant’s stomach functions as a holding area—a mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in the western USA, where the ground was not frozen.

“The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.”

This law says that the entropy (“disorder”) of the universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the biblical framework above, as is suffering (or “groaning in travail” [Rom. 8:20–22]). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.

“If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.”

In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this “pussyfooting,” as he called it. He said, “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.”

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?”

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (“races”) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of “letters” of new information.

“Women have one more rib than men.”

AiG has long pointed out the fallacy of this statement, which seems to be more popular with dishonest skeptics who want to caricature creation. The removal of a rib would not affect the genetic instructions passed on to the offspring, just as a man who loses a finger wouldn’t have sons with nine fingers. Any skeptic who tries to discredit the Bible with this argument must be a closet Lamarckian, i.e., one who believes Lamarck’s thoroughly discredited idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics! Note also that Adam wouldn’t have had a permanent defect, because the rib is the one bone that can regrow if the surrounding membrane (periosteum) is left intact.

“Archaeopteryx is a fraud.”

Archaeopteryx was genuine (unlike Archaeoraptor, a “Piltdown bird”), as shown by anatomical studies and close analysis of the fossil slab. It was a true bird, not a “missing link.” *The only reason Archaeopteryx isn't a missing link is because it has been found. It has a healthy mix of reptilian and avian features, making it the very definition of a transitional fossil.*

“There are no beneficial mutations.”

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.” *There are plenty of mutations that increase genetic information.*

“No new species have been produced.”

This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.

“Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”

Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

“Darwin mentioned the absurdity of eye evolution in The Origin of Species.”

Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step. *"Subtly" out of context is a polite way of saying completely out of context.*

“The phrase ‘science falsely so called’ in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.”

To develop a scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated “science” is gnosis, and in this context refers to the elite esoteric “knowledge” that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word “science” originally meant “knowledge,” from the Latin scientia, from scio, meaning “to know.” This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as “knowledge” in this passage.

“Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator.”

Using the normal meaning of these terms, Einstein believed no such thing.

Question Number 2

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:17:36 GMT

Now that I've asked why you believe what you do, I'd like to know what could possibly change your mind. This, I think, is a very important question.

What evidence could turn you from an atheist to a believer, from a Christian to a deist or beyond, from a Scientologist to a sane person?

A question to you - aka, prelude to the heavy stuff

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:32:03 GMT

I'd like my readers to consider what they believe to be the greatest argument for what they believe about life. If you are a Christian, what one (or two... not too many, please) piece of evidence do you think is most compelling towards this worldview? It doesn't have to explain everything you believe in, just something major - for example, I find the fossil record to be quite difficult to ignore when looking at evolution and the age of the earth (a topic I'd be more than happy to expand upon by request).

So please, what one or two pieces of evidence, arguments or experiences have shaped your worldview into what it is today - be ye believer or non, naturalist or supernaturalist, literalism or interpretation?

I'm also going to request that if anyone is commenting on someone else's response to this post, please remember that nobody here is posting an exhaustive bibliography for their beliefs. Also, I encourage everyone to invite people in on this discussion. As I've said, I'd like to increase the participation on this site before I get elbow-deep into some juicy controversy.

A (not so) triumphant return (?)

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:20:17 GMT

Aloha, howdy, hola, bonjour, and hiya to everyone,

This is the first time I've poked my head into Xanga in three months. It's summertime, and I don't know what that means for you all, but for me it means a lot more time reading. That being the case, I've been reading lots of non-fiction, which made me miss posting on this site. So the question becomes this: is there anyone left who would be interested in taking part in semi-rational, semi-reasoned, semi-polite discussions? (You'll notice I've lowered my standards.)

If there are people that want to hear my views (or hear enough of them to declare them utter falsehoods) leave a post, including any and all topics you may want me to address.

Peace, Love, Krisko

Done?

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:21:40 GMT

Hey all, I'm done with this blog, at least for awhile. I've gotten sick of it. It used to be I'd get some honest debate going on my sites, but those days are long gone.

I've also been dealing with some personal issues that have been more pressing... I was stabbed two weeks ago in a mugging, and I'm recovering from that. It's led me to reevaluate my life, and at the moment I'd rather study evolution, religion, history, politics, etc. for my own edification rather than to make some pithy comments online.

I've enjoyed the journey, grown a bit and learned a lot myself. My thanks to everyone who participated on any of my sites.

Peace, Love, Krisko Disko

Bush vetoes anti-torture bill

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:19:12 GMT

Sorry for my lack of posts, I recently had some surgery done to my arm, making typing slow and laborious.

According to CNN, Bush recently vetoed a bill that would have banned US torture practices such as waterboarding. The Bush administration is adamant that waterboarding is not torture, but this article I found is quite convincing to the contrary: Warning: not for the faint of heart.

So much talk of waterboarding, so much controversy. But what is it really? How bad? I wanted to write the definitive thread on waterboarding, settle the issue. Torture, or not?

To determine the answer, I knew I had to try it. I looked at my two small children. Surely, in the interests of science?.....

But alas, my wife had objections.

Perhaps her?

Sadly, she is proficient in Ju Jitsu, and I am unlikely to waterboard her.

That leaves me.

***

Seriously, I determined to give this a try, see how bad it was: Settle the debate authoritatively. Torture, or not?

I figure I would be a good test subject. I am incredibly fit and training for a 100 mile endurance run. The main thing about such an event is ability to tolerate pain. I am good at this. I am trained.

I also have experience with free-diving from my college days. I once held my breath for 4 minutes and two seconds. Once, while training as a lifeguard I swam laps without breathing until I passed out, so that I could know my limits.

To determine whether waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique or torture I must research it an then undergo it myself. Once I have done this, Elucidator Diogenes Tomndeb and all the rest of those liberal scum (no offense intended) must accept my now accept my now expert opinion.

So, here's what I would do. First I would google waterboarding to understand the basic concepts than I would try it on myself. First, self inflicted and then, if necessary, inflicted by my wife.(she has no problem torturing me. We've been married almost 15 years.)

These are the results of my research and experience:

The goal of waterboarding is to simulate drowning without the actual drowning or inhalation into the lungs. In order to accomplish this the subject is forced to lie on an inclined plane with his head lower than his lungs and then water is dumped onto his/her face (always keeping the lungs above the "Water line.") This simulates drowning and causes a panic.

There are some advanced techniques that make this more extreme, but that's the basic concept.

Easy enough to duplicate. I have an inclined weight bench and a watering can. No problem. I lie on this and tilt the watercan to pour water on my mouth and nose. Water goes up my nose causing me to gag and choke and splutter, but after a try or two I'm able to suppress my reflex, relax breathe in shallowly and then expel rapidly (shooting out the water) and maintain my composure. This is not too bad. with my diving experience, you would never break me this way. I can't beleive those AL Zarqawi guys were such pussies.

Back to researching the advanced techniques:

The first of these is wet rag in mouth. I try it. Ok, I can handle this too. It makes it a little bit more difficult to maintain control. I didn't realize it, but the first time around I was selectively breathing through either mouth or nose, to help maintain control. The wet rag eliminates the mouth as an option. You have to really concentrate to maintain control, breathing very shallowly on the inhale and not allowing yourself to exhale until you have a good lungfull with which to expel the water in you nose throat and sinuses. Then, you have to inhale slowly but fast enough to pull in a lungful of air before your nose throat and sinuses fill up. Difficult, but doable with some self-control. I can see where this would get very unpleasant if you lost control, but still, not terrible, not torture, per se in my book. It wasn't as bad as my vasectomy or last root canal, and not nearly so bad as the last OP I read by Liberal.

Next up is saran wrap. The idea is that you wrap saran wrap around the mouth in several layers, and poke a hole in the mouth area, and then waterboard away. I didn't reall see how this was an improvement on the rag technique, and so far I would categorize waterboarding as simply unpleasant rather than torture, but I've come this far so I might as well go on.

Now, those of you who know me will know that I am both enamored of my own toughness and prone to hyperbole. The former, I feel that I am justifiably proud of. The latter may be a truth in many cases, but this is the simple fact:

It took me ten minutes to recover my senses once I tried this. I was shuddering in a corner, convinced I narrowly escaped killing myself.

Here's what happened:

The water fills the hole in the saran wrap so that there is either water or vaccum in your mouth. The water pours into your sinuses and throat. You struggle to expel water periodically by building enough pressure in your lungs. With the saran wrap though each time I expelled water, I was able to draw in less air. Finally the lungs can no longer expel water and you begin to draw it up into your respiratory tract.

It seems that there is a point that is hardwired in us. When we draw water into our respiratory tract to this point we are no longer in control. All hell breaks loose. Instinct tells us we are dying.

I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You [b]know[b] you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic.

There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It would be like telling you not to blink while I stuck a hot needle in your eye.

At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved.

I never felt anything like it, and this was self-inflicted with a watering can, where I was in total control and never in any danger.

And I understood.

Waterboarding gets you to the point where you draw water up your respiratory tract triggering the drowning reflex. Once that happens, it's all over. No question.

Some may go easy without a rag, some may need a rag, some may need saran wrap.

Once you are there it's all over.

I didn't allow anybody else to try it on me. Inconceivable. I know I only got the barest taste of what it's about since I was in control, and not restrained and controlling the flow of water.

But there's no chance. No chance at all.

So, is it torture?

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods.

It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.

Posted here.

I think it's extremely obvoius that waterboarding is torture, and Bush is lowering us down to a nation that legalizes the practices that we were once outraged about at Abu Ghraib. This is sick and disturbing. And people wonder why the world hates America.

The Birth of Jesus

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:18:26 GMT

This is just noting a few of the most notable issues I've found with the Jesus birth accounts, which is by no means exhaustive, but merely the ones I noted during my study of the Bible at the beginning of the decline of my faith. While these have been well documented by many scholars, I came about these by reading nothing but the Bible about five years ago, which I then looked to outside sources to corroborate.

Only two of the four gospels, Matthew and Luke, deem Jesus' birth to be a noteworthy event. John tells us only of the Incarnation - that the Logos "became flesh" - while Mark doesn't say anything about Jesus until his baptism at around 30 years old. Certainly Mark knows nothing of the Annunciation or the Virgin Birth. In fact, Mark's account seems to indicate there was no angelic announcement of Jesus' birth and godliness, since in 3:30-31, Jesus' family declare him to be "out of his mind" upon declaring himself the Son of Man.

There are discrepancies in the genealogies of the gospels, which I'll merely link to and move on.

Luke 2 tells us that Jesus was born in Nazareth, while Matthew 2 tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after his return from Egypt.

Then there's the issue of the Roman census talked about in Luke 2. It indicates that Joseph was an inhabitant of Nazareth, yet for some reason was compelled to travel to the "city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David." The genealogies given to us by Luke list dozens of generations between David and Joseph. It's doubtful that Joseph would even know his genealogy going back this far, let alone which part of his genealogy to trace back (I, personally, would have no idea whether to follow my family line back to Ireland, England, Sweden, Finland, Norway or Northwest America). Furthermore, why on earth would he be required to return to the land of his ancestors anyways, when a census would likely require him to register himself in the town he lives in. This would be a ridiculous way to conduct a census.

Just a few things to mull over.
Peace, Love, Krisko Disko

Islam - Religion of Peace?

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:23:23 GMT

We've all heard Bush and Blair declare Islam to be a "religion of peace" whenever they discuss terrorism, and how terrorists go against the central tenets of the Muslim faith. But is this true? Not since the 17th century has Christianity inspired violence in the same way that Islam does today. Of course, much is to be said about the culture terrorists are raised in, with terribly violent regimes in the Middle East nations that are predominantly Muslim. But what of all the "homegrown" terrorists? The answer lies in the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam. Now, to dispel the inevitable cried of "racist" and "bigot" that one invariably gets for questioning a culture aside from the one they were raised in, I by no means believe that all Muslims are violent or terrorists. My qualm is with the book itself, not with any adherents of the faith (except, of course, those that ARE violent).

The Qur'an (or Koran, as many of you know it as) has many passages about peace, the ones toted about by those propagating the "Islam as peace" mantra.
"There is no good in much of their secret conferences save (in) him who enjoineth almsgiving and kindness and peace-making among the people." Surah 4:114

And of course, there's the ever famous quote of tolerance of other religions:
"There is no compulsion in religion." Surah 2:256

But many people do not know the Qur'an's doctrine of abrogation, whereby all later verses replace earlier verses:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106

"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101

Unfortunately, most of the peaceful verses were from Mohammed's early teachings in his hometown of Mecca. These tend to be replaced by his later, more violent teachings in Medina, when Mohammed led an army and no longer had to remain under the radar. The Qur'an is not written in chronological order, as the Bible (basically) is. Instead, it is arranged by the length of the book, and thus the later teachings are not at the end. The last teaching is accepted as Book 9, often known as the Book of the Sword. Some of the teachings found within Book 9:

“Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of believers” Surah 9:14

“O ye who believe! Fight the Unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” Surah 9:123

"Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them" Surah 9:73

These later passages (and many others) are the ones generally used to justify Jihad. Those that propagate the belief that Islam is a religion of peace generally don't know about the replacement of Allah's word.

Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to hear about Islam or the Qur'an, or if is even a topic of interest.

Peace, Love, Krisko Disko