Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

atheism

CCB says: you’re ignorant.

The Word of Christ - Surprisingly indistinguishable from one's personal opinion, actually.One of the biggest reasons that I dislike religion is because it is considered infallible and therefore can not be questioned. There are so many reasons to dislike religion from the  hypocrisy of those in leadership, silly superstitious beliefs, etc.  Of all the things to dislike, I think it is the unquestioning nature of religion I hate the most. Don’t question the priest, don’t question the Imam, don’t question the bible. Everywhere you turn are "answers" but no questions. This leads me to the title of this article.

I received this comment recently on an article I wrote:

"CCB says:

you’re ignorant. go to church you sick pig. find god in your life, maybe then you’ll have different views."

Oh…I’m sure I’d have different views alright. I wanted to start this article with the obvious comments:

  1. If you’re going to start a sentence about ignorance, at least capitalize it.
  2. You certainly exude the "Christian" ethic. Golly, can I go to your church?
  3. If finding God in my life led me to calling people I don’t know sick pigs, …well then sign me up!
  4. I don’t have "God" in my life, therefore, I am allowed to have different views.
  5. I guess, WWJD doesn’t come into your mind very often, huh?

…but I didn’t want to take the easy road, so I’m not going to make any of those comments, *ahem*.

You, CCB, are the reason this website exists. Well, maybe not "you" specifically but people like you. When you suggest I go to church, which one should it be? Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or is any God ok, as long as there is one in my life? I have a sneaking suspicion that two out of those three Gods would not be on your approved God list. Your unquestioning and insulting nature is what fuels this site and those like it. You may not like my style of sarcastic humor but you can’t argue with the facts of the article you commented about.

The Pope was involved with a cover-up of child rape. The Pope did ignore rape allegations. The Vatican will not accept responsibility for it’s lack of oversight of priests. These are facts. You may not like them but they are true.

So, CCB (if that is your real name… and if it is, it’s a weird name) thanks for reading and keep the insightful comments coming.

Lovingly,

Craig

The Scapegoats of Catholic Sex Abuse

The concept of “scapegoating” dates back to a biblical age. The theory was that a community could load all of their problems on the back of some hapless goat and exile it into the desert, effectively excising the troubles of the community. Sometimes I pine for the good ‘ole days. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could load up a goat with the Pat Robertsons of the world? Unfortunately this idea didn’t work then and it won’t work now, but that hasn’t stopped the Vatican.

Some of you may be saying, “Geesh, Craig what’s with all the Catholic articles lately?”. I’ll tell you. I think Catholicism is and should be on the ropes. The fact that NO charges of any kind have been brought against any member of leadership within the Vatican is absurd. It is now well documented that charges of rape were well known within the Catholic church for decades, it is also well documented that a coordinated cover up was in place to keep the proper authorities in the dark and that the current Pope was intimately involved with sex abuse policy making before becoming the church’s moral compass and God’s inspired messenger. Now back to Catholic scapegoating…

There seems to be a flood  of news articles from people looking to “solve” the mystery of , “how this could have happened” Here are two articles from the same magazine. April 12, Newsweek; one of the featured articles is “What Went Wrong”, by George Weigel.  In the article Mr. Weigel promotes the theory that the church doctrine of celibacy led to the current Catholic crisis. April 12, Newsweek; another featured article is “A Woman’s Place Is In The Church”, by Lisa Miller. In this article Ms. Miller, in no uncertain terms, blames the sexual abuse scandal on the utter lack of femaile involvement within the church. The sexual abuse scandal rocking the Catholic church is really not that hard to figure out. It has NOTHING to do with celibacy and NOTHING to do with a lack of female involvement.

How many times have we heard the stories of sexual abuse taking place from witin a family or by a close friend of the family. How many times has the “new boyfriend” or “favorite uncle” been the perpetrator of such a vile act? Were they celibate? I don’t remember hearing about the rash of “celibacy rapes”, do you? Were any of these “boyfriends” or “uncles” married? One of the most important traits that seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we fornicate for fun, not just for procreation. That means we CAN control our libidos. The notion that, “well the priest wasn’t gettin’ any, so he raped some kids” is preposterous. Entering the priesthood is a voluntary act, period. If you find that you can’t handle a celibate lifestyle, resign from the priesthood, don’t rape children. Sorry, Mr. Weigel but your postulate has more holes in it than a thurible! (Catholic incense burner…I had to look it up).

As for Ms. Miller’s claim, that a lack of female influence is to blame, I disagree. While the Catholic church is world renown, second only to the Islamic faith, for it’s misogynistic viewpoints, it’s not the lack of women that caused men to rape children. It is just silly to suggest that over the last four decades of child raping within the Catholic priesthood, not one woman was aware and in a position to blow a whistle. No Nun? No church secretary? No one? Let’s not forget, this type of abuse came to light when adults came forward about what happened to them as children. It was in the early 2000’s when the stories and lawsuits began to emerge. Let’s not also forget that it is with a wry smile and a laugh that adult products of a Catholic education often tell stories about abusive Nuns (females) in school. You know, “the Nun used to wrap my knuckles with a ruler” routine, and I’ve heard worse. Females, while not as “powerful” as their male superiors,  were every bit as much into corporal punishment and suffering for school children back in “the day”.

Now to my postulate for the current sexual abuse scandal assailing the Vatican. When asked, why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied, ” ’cause that’s where the money is”. Sometimes the simplest solution is the correct one. Why did so many pedophiles become Catholic Priests, ’cause that’s where the kids were. Think about it. If you’re a pedophile, what more idealic a place to work than where you have regular unchallenged access to children under the guise of spirituality. In a system like Catholicism, designed to engender guilt at every turn, what better place to make children fearful of coming forward about being raped by the very person they perceive to be the gate keeper to eternal happiness?  Rule number one is nobody talks about rape. Rule number two is nobody talks about rape.

The priesthood served as an ideal hunting ground for pedophiles. Trust, love and divinity. All the ingredients for the pefect serial pedophile.

Catholicism became a (dare I use the word) victim of it’s own dogmatic heirarchy. Had the Vatican truly cared about the children, there would have been dismissals, criminal charges and an outpouring of concern, when these revelations came to light.

Thousands of children worldwide have been raped by their Catholic spiritual caregivers. I’m curious how many times these children prayed to God, asking him to stop their local priest from molesting them? I’m more curious to know how many times God actually did. I guess we should be thankful to God. We all “know” he answers prayers. Just think of how many more rapes would have taken place if God hadn’t stepped in to  stop his shepards from raping the young  sheep within his fold! Thanks God.


Google Reader makes me laugh

I’m a little behind, so my unread post counts in Google Reader have been building up. Today, my "Atheism" category made me laugh.

Google Reader Post Counts

Anderson Cooper Investigates Scientology

Anderson Cooper has been investigating charges of abuse within Scientology for the past several months. This week, a four  part series will begin running on CNN. Here is a link to find out more.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/scientology-a-history-of-violence/ .

Bertrand Russell on God and Religion

A Facebook friend linked to this video (3:25 in length) and I thought it worth sharing. Bertrand Russell answers some questions (in 1959) about God, religion, and why he’s an atheist.

As a side note, when I was 13 and starting to seriously question religious faith, Bertrand Russell’s book Why I Am Not a Christian was the first book I ever purchased on the topic. The essays it contains put me on the path to understanding that intellectual honesty is better than blind, obedient faith and that ethics and morals based on rational concepts are far, far better than simply following vague, archaic laws from questionable holy books.

Russell famously said, “I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.”

I am in agreement.

Foundation Beyond Belief Official Launch

Foundation Beyond Belief Looking for an exceptionally worthwhile charity to support this year? Check out the Foundation Beyond Belief, which is officially launching today. Founder Dale McGowan, the author of Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers, started Foundation Beyond belief with the following goals.

To demonstrate humanism at its best by supporting efforts to improve this world and this life; to challenge humanists to embody the highest principles of humanism, including mutual care and responsibility; and to help and encourage humanist parents to raise confident children with open minds and compassionate hearts.

The Foundation features ten charitable organizations each quarter focusing on a number of different areas such as health, education, poverty, child welfare, human rights, etc. When you join and contribute, you determine where your contribution should go (among the ten charities for that quarter). At the end of the quarter, all the donations are distributed and a new set of charities is selected. More information can be found at the Foundation’s About page.

Here are a few details.

  • Foundation Beyond Belief is a non-profit charitable and educational foundation created (1) to focus, encourage and demonstrate the generosity and compassion of atheists and humanists, and (2) to provide a comprehensive education and support program for nontheistic parents.
  • The Foundation will feature ten charitable organizations per quarter.
  • Members join by signing up for a monthly automatic donation in the amount of their choice, and distribute it however they wish among the categories. Contributions are fully tax-deductible.
  • Members can join a social network and forums centered on the ten categories of giving, advocate for causes, and help us choose new beneficiaries each quarter.
  • Featured beneficiaries may be founded on any worldview so long as they do not proselytize. At the end of each quarter, 100 percent of the donations are forwarded and a new slate of beneficiaries selected.
  • On the educational side, the Foundation will help create and fund local groups for the education and social support of humanist/atheist parents.

Here’s the Foundation’s introductory video as well.

Consider the Foundation Beyond Belief for your charitable donations. You’ll be supporting great causes and, as Dale’s mission statement says, demonstrating humanism at its best.

Atheist BINGO!

Pascal’s wager is a free square. Ha!

No God Bingo

(thanks to my friend, Paul, for pointing this out)

(via)

Dale McGowan on the Santa Claus issue

Dale McGowan (Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers) posts on The Meming of Life blog about Santa Claus being the “ultimate dry run” for questions about God’s existence.

In part…

By allowing our children to participate in the Santa myth and find their own way out of it through skeptical inquiry, we give them a priceless opportunity to see a mass cultural illusion first from the inside, then from the outside. A very casual line of post-Santa questioning can lead kids to recognize how completely we all can snow ourselves if the enticements are attractive enough. Such a lesson, viewed from the top of the hill after exiting a belief system under their own power, can gird kids against the best efforts of the evangelists – and far better than secondhand knowledge could ever hope to do.

My daughter is eight years old and has plied me with numerous questions about Santa, which I’ve handled much as Dale has handled his children’s questions. She hasn’t brought it up in a couple months (oddly enough), but I’m pretty sure she’s very close to the point where she’s going to determine that Santa is fictional. I’m also pretty sure that she’ll handle it just the way Dale’s son handled it.

We’ve had discussions about God, religion, and what other people believe. She knows I’m an atheist, but also knows that many people believe many different things and that she’s allowed to make up her own mind. She’s been to a Christian pre-school and has been to a church “music camp” for the past two years in the summer, so she’s been exposed to religion and Jesus and God. When my wife asked her if she believed in God, her response was that she was too young to know one way or the other. I thought that was an exceptionally reasonable answer for an 8-year-old.

Now we’ll see how the Santa thing plays out.

Santa is like Jesus

Star Trek …and God?

Kirk

Ok, Ok… I know. You’re saying this time you’ve lost it. Hear me out. The theme of many of the articles that I have written has been that religion is most certainly a man made creation. I believe the evidence in biblical text, for me at least, is clear. The Christian God is a flawed God, particularly in the Old Testament. As I began thinking about how man went about to create a God, I tried to think about how modern day fictional writers would “create” a God. Star Trek came to mind. There are many episodes of the original Star Trek that dealt with God or God-like beings. I think it’s interesting as we look at some of these episodes, how man chose to portray a modern interpretation of what a God-like entity might be like.

Chronologically the first episode to portray a “God” was titled, Where No Man Has Gone Before. In short, a crewman on the Enterprise is the victim of an energy field that grants him exponentially stronger telepathic and telekinetic powers as the hours go by. After the accident he grows increasing intolerant of mankind’s comparative weakness. He begins to consider himself a God and many of his human foibles become accentuated by his new found powers. He begins to exhibit the same traits as many of those exhibited by the God of the old testament. He becomes, arrogant, cruel and tormenting. Kirk eventually “takes care of business” before his crewman’s abilities continue to grow beyond their ability to contain him. In this episode mankind is far too immature to deal with supernatural powers of this magnitude.

Interestingly, the beings in the next two episodes evolved into their powers over millions of years. The Metrons (Arena)  and the Organians (Errand of Mercy) were powerful beings who used their abilities to bring peace and end violence. With their powers they found there was no reason for the petty behavior they were at one time capable of. They had evolved beyond the need for vengeance or wrathful behavior, a lesson the Christian God never seemed to learn (particularly in the Old Testament).

Star Trek is also full of powerful beings that are not so nice, just like the Bible.

Wouldn’t a real God, logically act more like a being who is mature and peaceful? If God is all knowing and all powerful what would be the point of  putting people through sickness, infant death, war, pestilence, plague, blight, starvation, etc. I know, we shouldn’t ask what God’s purpose is right? Well… why? Why should it be considered impertinent to ask?  Why would God have given us brains if we were meant not to use them for problem solving?

Science fiction writers come in all shapes and sizes. Some like to write about mean spirited supernatural beings and some write about gentle and loving supernatural beings. That describes the writers of Star Trek, the Old Testament and the New Testament. All three works of fiction.

Creation Museum – Men In White

men-in-whiteA truly disappointing waste of theatrical technology and flair. As with most of the museum, this “show” was well produced (totally bat s%&t  crazy) but well done. The Men In White were the angels Michael and Gabriel. By putting a “hip” spin on an old story for the sake of youngsters, teachers and scientists are comically portrayed as villainous and silly.

The show starts with a young animatronic girl named Wendy sitting at a campfire pondering her existence and the meaning of life. During her moment of lost contemplation and doubt, Michael & Gabriel show up to raise her spirits. The implication is that without a purpose from God, Wendy is lost, alone and miserable. The angels show up to persuade Wendy that God exists and cares for her and they begin to show her “proof” of his existence.  It is here that the angels begin with, ” …if you use the bible as your starting point Wendy, then everything makes sense!” ANGEL SAYS WHAT?? Imagine if your science teacher started your first class with, ” …if you just take everything I say as fact, then everything makes sense!” From the very beginning this presentation insults the human intellect. Science doesn’t require blind faith and it never suggests a “starting” point.  This is where the “machine gunning” of  “facts” begins.

When you start with the bible everything makes sense like:

1. Marine fossils found on mountain tops? Those mountains were once covered in water from the great flood.

2.Volcanic dust found in ice cores? Just think of all that volcanic ash in the atmosphere after the flood.

3. Similarities in DNA found in the cells of every living thing? Since God created DNA he made it so that all living things could live and eat in the same world.

If you believe in evolution or as the angels call it “goo to you” then none of this makes sense. According to the angels, “…evolution makes no sense without billions of years!”

-Next we move on to discredit radioisotope dating.  This form of dating is flawed because there are too many assumptions required to be accurate, say the angels. Zircon crystals have been found with helium gas in them. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as man believes because the helium gas is escaping to quickly to be millions of years old. This is refuted on the following CHRISTIAN website http://www.answersincreation.org/RATE_critique_he-zr.htm . I highly suggest you read this article. It gets all “sciencey” but it is fascinating and alot more accurate than two white overall clad buffoon like angels.

-Next we learn from the angels that the earth can’t be millions let alone billions of years old because of the salt content in the oceans. The angels (portraying high school students in a science class) smuggly challenge a teacher about the age of the earth due to the lower than they expected salt content in the oceans. This is called EPIC FAIL. This moronic notion that if the earth were millions of years old there would be higher concentrations of salt in all of the world’s oceans is wrong. Wrong for several reasons but once again I would direct you to the following CHRISTIAN website to read the refutation of this quackery. http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/G336_creation_science.htm This article explains that creationist’s salt theories are misguided and fail to account for several factors involving the mechanisms for the removal of salt from the oceans.

-Next up, the crazy dinosaur theory. Our smug little angels tell their professor that in 2005 a T-Rex leg bone was found with blood cells intact and un-fossilized. This obviously means that the leg bone could not be millions of years old, right? WRONG! Again the answers to the BS claim come from a CHRISTIAN website. http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/magazines/Creation/1997/trexblood.htm . In this excerpt there is an email log from the actual paleontologist, Jack Horner, who was chiefly involved in this discovery. He goes on to explain that it is not true and that creationist are grasping at half truths and no facts.

-The angels just can’t quit. Next we find out from these two brainiacs that the earth’s decaying magnetic field would indicate that life could not have survived millions of years ago. This is again refuted at http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/G811_creation_science.htm . The angels are referring to a scientific article written by Thomas Barnes. It has been all but publically laughed at by theoretical scientists and bears no scientific weight.

-Next…lack of super nova remnants proves a young earth, say the angels. No, it doesn’t. http://www.answersincreation.org/malone_supernova.htm . I hate to keep linking after every point but since the creation museum didn’t use any real science to make their point, I figured I should.

With about thirty minutes of research on the Internet I have found tons of articles scientifically refuting everything said in this absurd display of purposeful ignorance. The men in White should be taken away and locked up by …men in white jackets. The most disheartening part of this “program” was the fact that children were in the audience being “taught”. Shame on the creation museum and shame on the parents who made their children sit through this glaring display of  stupidity.