TheInquisition's Xanga

Friday, July 07, 2006

Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:40:27 GMT

I think that it is time for me to move this site away from theology. The discussion of theology is fine: it's logically stimulating (sometimes) and makes for a topic that almost anyone can offer a few cents on, for better or worse. But I am in this not as an educational tool, but to enrich myself, my mind. As I have departed Christianity and theism in general and become, I feel, much more able to view a theological question objectively -- I harbor no resentment or negative feelings towards theism -- I have gradually found the very notion of a God to be increasingly ludicrous. The Christian rendition in particular seems to hold no more merit than any assemblage of myths and moral faebles, as convincing of God and Jesus as the Norse legends are of Valhalla. I feel that if Christianity had not grasped such a stranglehold on the Western world through a variety of practices, its propositions would be granted the same credibility by the general populus as the Norse legends are now.

I foresee that some of you may take insult at this, but I cannot apologize for that which I do not feel is wrong. If you care to voyage with me beyond theology into ethics, politics, reason, and whatever else may catch my (or your) fancy, I would be glad of the company. Otherwise, let us part peacefully and in consideration of whatever we may have gleaned from these discussions.

Now, some unfinished business:

If you look at all the information that is located in a single strand of DNA, doesn't it seem more logical that someone of intelligence put it there, rather than saying it just somehow got there?

After understanding the incredible productive power of mutation and selective continuance, as is evidenced in the many uses of evolutionary algorithms, it does not seem any more logical to invoke the supernatural for DNA than for rain.

Do you think it's unfair that many people question the motives of ID (Intelligent Design) people but never question the motives of ND (Neo-Darwinism) people?

Is ND: (A) the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical populational genetics; (B) Ne·o-Dar·win·ism (nē'ō-där'wə-nĭz'əm) , n. Darwinism as modified by the findings of modern genetics.; or (C) a definition used by ID and allies that I am not familiar with?

If A or B, then I don't see how you could question the motive of its supporters any more than you could question the motives of a petroleum geologist in regards to the methods he uses for finding oil. In short, I don't understand the question. Please clarify in the comments, as I will not be dedicating another entry to this subject.

Do you believe there is any correlation between religion and crime (either positive or negative)?

My first instinct is to say no. But -- ah! -- the glory of the internet: I can find out. This is what I found:

-------------------------------------

A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex before salvation; 5% after. ["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]

--------------------------------------

Among other things, the report says 13 percent of the people who regard religion as "essential" have lied to get jobs (as opposed to 15 percent of irreligious people); that 36 percent of the same religious group cheated on exams as high school seniors (compared with 39 percent of irreligious people); that 30% percent of respondents who regard religion as "essential" cheated in college (as opposed to 29 percent for the irreligious); and that 20 percent of them admitted to submitting other people's work as their own (as opposed to 21 percent of their irreligious counterparts).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-morality.html

---------------------------------------

So far, it would appear that religious orientation has little effect on crime. However, there is this intriguing study that finds that out of 74,731 members of the prison population that give a religious orientation, 156 are atheists -- 0.209%.

However, atheists make up about 10% of the population [Source], so we have a disproportionately low number of atheists in prison. I have not been able to verify the prison numbers elsewhere, though, so the data is questionable.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:56:42 GMT

Ask the Atheist

Questions? Interrogations? Rants in general? Ask (or assault, as the case may be) your friendly resident Atheist. I'll do my best to give a rational and reasonable response to whatever query, from mundane to left-field.

First Responses

What if it's a full moon and it's raining. Is it still ok then?
No. We atheists melt in the rain.

Have you seen the movie "The god that wasnt there"
No. Synopsis?

when's the next full moon?
April 27th, 2006

How does an atheist decide upon a moral system?
There are a variety of ways; as many as there are atheists. There is, of course, the straight relativistic approach. I personally prefer an objective reality, which then leads to objective behavior and eventually an objective moral standard that would be deducible through logic and reason. I have done considerable research into the development of such a system, and I will be writing a piece on it as soon as I am able to see the argument from beginning to end and defend it.

#1 - What is the hardest and most difficult question for an atheist to answer?
For this question and the next two, I can only speak for myself. Perhaps the most difficult question for me to answer is the classic "Where does it begin?" question. I find it so difficult to provide an adequate answer that I must simply say "I don't know." This is not leverage into theism, though, because I find myself asking the same questions of the concept of "God".

#2 - What is the most unreasonable thing about being an atheist?
The answer to this question arises when discussing the evidence it would require to convert an atheist back to theism. I have to ask myself, what would constitute a sign from God indicating I should become a theist again? When I ponder this, I eventually say (again) that I just don't know. This is slightly unreasonable, obviously, because it implies that I have crossed a one-way door and there is no way for me to return, because I would write off any 'miracle' as something we just can't explain yet.

#3 - Do atheists believe in ABSOLUTE right and wrong?

Some do, some don't. I do.

"If you look at all the information that is located in a single strand of DNA, doesn't it seem more logical that someone of intelligence put it there, rather than saying it just somehow got there?"

Actually, that seems to me like saying, "Look at the awesomeness of a lightning bolt! Doesn't it just make more sense that an omnipotent being hand-crafted it, instead of saying it's just the result of chaotic natural forces?"

Monday, April 24, 2006

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:34:50 GMT

Again, it's been a long time. The IC argument wasn't worth finishing -- anyone with an ISP (read: anyone who reads this) and Google can find where I was going on at least one of the first five search results -- not to mention that the commentators nailed it pretty well.

I'm going to try to get this moving again with a different method:

Ask the Atheist

Questions? Interrogations? Rants in general? Ask (or assault, as the case may be) your friendly resident Atheist. I'll do my best to give a rational and reasonable response to whatever query, from mundane to left-field.

Just to clear up the first question before it even comes up: no, we don't eat babies. They're horrible for the digestion and all that 'baby fat' does travesties to the arteries. We prefer toddlers, and most atheist nutritionists suggest even that no more than once a month, preferably under the full moon while worshipping Lucifer.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:36:17 GMT

Irreducible Complexity I

The IC argument states, essentially, that there are some biological systems which could not have evolved because without one or more of thier parts, they would not be functional. So, to evolve such a system, there would have to be a construction of a non-functional system with an end goal in mind -- and that wouldn't be evolution at all, now would it?

IC systems include the chemical wondershop that is the bombardier beetle's defense system, in which two volatile chemicals which are stored in separate, specialized compartments are mixed in an equally specialized tube with another -- you guessed it -- specialized enzyme to create a super-heated toxic spray that emits from the beetle's abdomen:

Other systems include the human eye, blood-clotting systems, hunter-killer immuno-defense systems and the venus flytrap. All seem to be non-functional if you take away any part of the system.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:10:58 GMT

I've been told that I'm too proud to accept God or Jesus as my savior, etc. I've denied it vehemently: I'm not too proud to take medicine when I'm sick, so I don't think I'd be too proud to come to religion given the right reasons.

At least, that's how I always addressed the accusations. On second thought, though, maybe the accusers are right.

I am too proud to apologize for things I am not ashamed of. I am too proud to hold anyone accountable for my actions but myself -- and that accountability is permament. It does not go away. I am too proud to accept someone else's penitence for my errors -- they are mine and mine alone.

I don't want to worship a God that I must kneel before, or that I ever feel the inclination before. I will worship a God in front of whom I can stand erect and proud -- proud of myself, proud of God, and proud of my actions in light of God's justice and understanding.

I am too proud to say that my state is wretched, my life sinful from before I was conceived. I am too proud of me and my world to want to abandon it. I am too proud to go into servitude for anyone, man or God.

I guess I am too proud for God.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Sat, 07 Jan 2006 00:51:37 GMT

My mind has dulled like a tool left unused. My creativity has dried. I lack the stimulus I need to develop as an individual and as a superego.

I'm coming back. I'm hoping that I can still write, and that it will refresh me spiritually and intellectually.

I'll be making some changes to the nature of my articles, though. I don't care to explain again why Pascal's Wager is bankrupt or why evolution and abiogenesis are not impendent on each other.

Sure, I'll still discuss religion, philosophy, and science. But I will be addressing those areas and questions that challenge me to grow, not stagnate. I want to talk about the ethics of home-schooling: how much control should a parent have over a child's education? I want to talk about herd mentality. I want to talk about religion again, as seriously and vitally as I did when I first began here.

I don't know when I'll start or what I'll start with. If you have any requests, I'll consider them. I'm looking forward to being back: I've missed you.

Thank you, and I hope to be talking with you again soon:

Daniel

Monday, September 05, 2005

Mon, 05 Sep 2005 21:45:25 GMT

I suddenly found myself staring into the abyss where I thought there was solid footing, and I drew back in revulsion as I saw in the abyss what man truly is.

This game is over. Thank you for your time and participation.

There are many of you that I have developed an admiration and respect for in this time. I do not want to loose contact with you and your minds. Please drop me a line anytime -- and I do mean it.

AIM: DRBrettschneider
E-mail: Daniel.Brettschneider@gmail.com

I have nothing further to say.

-- Daniel Brettschneider

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:14:45 GMT

I was planning on finishing the questions this weekend, but I'm too incoherent to write competently.

That said:

In the meantime, I have a question for you. Let's say you're in a situation like New Orleans right now. Maybe you stored food and water -- regardless, it's all been washed away. You find yourself with the shirt on your back, standing in the middle of a flooded street in the business section. Hell is breaking loose around you.

What do you do? Be specific; if you say 'loot', what are you looting? If you say 'go somewhere', I want to know exactly where you are going.

How would you handle it?

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:35:06 GMT

This is a side note into my personal affairs.

Many of you were at the KMHS Open House tonight. Depending on when you came, you may have noticed me seated behind the rather impressive display for the GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) -- or you may have noticed a big lack of such a display. The story is as such:

All clubs are asked -- no, required -- to have a display for open house. They are then all put in the cafeteria with representatives from the club.

I had a lot of help with ours. In fact, it was pretty much taken over and made by some wonderful girls with artistic talent -- which I lack. It was made of two columns with a cross-beam on top.

On the left side, it had our mission statement, Officers, and meeting time & place. Our mission statement:

To promote tolerance of all lifestyles, open-mindedness, and respect among students.

On the top, it said GSA -- the name of our club.

On the right, it had a summary of this FAQ. Offended yet? I didn't think so.

I set it up after school at around 4:00 and came back at 5:00. In that time, they had come and removed the right side. Someone from the club had seen it and replaced it, not knowing who had removed it.

They came back and took it away, explaining that it violated the charter the founder of the GSA had signed last year to bring it into existence. I accepted that, and sat for close to an hour with half a display.

Then I though, "Wait. If Sarabrynn (our founder) had signed a charter or agreement of any kind, she would have told me when she left and handed over the club presidency."

I called SB and asked her. She said that she had never seen nor signed a charter or document of any sort. I told her what was on the poster, and she said that was what she and Mrs. Gunderman (our Principal) had explicitly agreed to.

I put the poster back up. Long story short, they showed up again and took it down. The conversation went like this:

Mrs. G: Who is the President of this Club?
Me: I am.
G: Who put the display back up?
M: I did.
G: Were you aware I had taken it down?
M: Yes.
G: Were you aware I had said it should not be put back up?
M: Yes. I do not feel as if you justified your decision adequately.
G: I don't have to justify my decisions to you.
M: Why was it taken down?
G: We're not talking about this now. If I cannot trust the officers of this club, I will have it disbanded.

End result: I have a meeting with her tomorrow. I will not cede. I will not apologize. I will not lose this fight.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 21:44:14 GMT

Questions, Round II: Atheism vs. Theism, Continued

What was the factor that caused you to become an Atheist? Did you feel the beliefs of Christianity didn't fit you, or did something happen to you that just turned you off?

It was actually a composite of factors, none of which were strong in themselves and most of which I have gotten rid of. They left behind, though, a mental gridwork of steel.

I had been raised as a Young Earth Creationist without knowing it. While holding the tenets of YEC in my head, I simultaneously accepted and agreed with the information I gathered in my science courses. I saw no conflict between the two because I never thought to put them up next to each other. Eventually I did, though, and found that nothing -- absolutely nothing -- in YECism jived with reality. Nothing at all.

Now, this didn't cost me my faith. I was theologically stronger than that -- my beliefs hinged on no one point. It was a disturbing revelation, though, and I began to analyze not only what I believed, but why I believed it. I started arguing opposite viewpoints in my Bible studies just to play devil's advocate and maybe make my peers think for once about their religion; they had the glazed look of sheep milling about a field without ever thinking, "Why this field? Why not that one?"

Remember, I was still very much a Christian at this point. By considering and arguing for opposite viewpoints, you are not supposed to abandon your beliefs -- they should strengthen them. I became rather apalled when the opposite viewpoints turned out to be more rational and defensible than the ones I had held.

I started really questioning my religion. I read about the history of the church, the historical Christ, and religions throughout history. I started into apologetics for Christianity, and saw a lot of arguments against Christianity and for atheism that seemed to make a lot of sense. The more I studied and learned, the less and less I liked church Christianity.

I talked to my pastors and they were often unable to satisfactorily answer my questions. They dodged, diverted, and generally told me to just believe. Others may have bought it, but the suspension of the mind they asked for made me sick.

I considered God and the Christian idea of God. I did not like it. I wondered what sort of God would create a race simply to worship him and pray to him. It made no sense -- I thought that God would be more likely to create companions, not sycophants. So I stopped praying and started talking to God at night, like I would talk to a close friend.

Eventually, I simply dropped the pretense and asked myself why I believed in God, namely the Christian God. I could find no answer. The reasonable switch, then, was to agnostic weak atheism -- I have seen no evidence for a God, but some may exist that I have not seen. There is probably no absolute evidence, though.

I continued my studies and found that some of my information, especially concerning the history of the church, had been false. Some of the arguments were intellectually bankrupt. I have dropped them, and generally gotten out of the pre-packaged theology field. The questioning and eventual conclusion that they prompted, though, is still valid and has not changed since.

Do all monotheistic faiths possess equal validity in your opinion?

Do you see more validity in either monotheism or polytheism, or are they equal?

All monotheistic and polytheistic faiths possess equal validity, because when you eventually come down to 'just have faith', anything and everything is equally true.