TYT - Flying Spaghetti Monster Joins Baby Jesus In Holiday Display

TYT - Christians vs. Atheists: Who's More Likely To Divorce?

TYT - Soup Kitchen Rejects Atheist Volunteers

What to Say

Trey Smith

There is an insightful piece in the Guardian today, Grieving As an Atheist: A Surprising Dilemma, by Tiffany White. She tells of initially being at a loss for words upon learning that her best friend's mother died.

I felt like I should have been saying the usual things: "God is with her now", "She's now in heaven" or "You're in my prayers". These phrases sound better because these are the phrases we're used to saying. "She's in a better place" provides a sense of hope and optimism. "You're in my prayers" shows caring and understanding. But that day, as I stood there on the phone struggling to think of the right things to say, I realized I couldn't say those phrases anymore. I couldn't tell her I was praying for her because I wasn't. I couldn't tell her I thought her mother was in "a better place" because to me that place was a hollow grave.

As White states, there are some pat phrases we offer when we want to be empathetic or sympathetic. When you grow up within a religious tradition, there are several of these stock phrases you can pull out of your quiver whenever the need arises. These phrases may lack genuine substance, but they make the utterer feel as if they have performed their solemn duty.

But even if I were still a Christian and had the privilege to pepper my condolences with hopeful phrases of heaven and angels, those phrases might sound better, and sure they provide immediate reassurance (which is what they're designed to do), but the phrases themselves are empty. When people say they're praying for you, how often are they really? But saying "I'm praying for you" sounds nice, regardless if there's any truth to it or not. We're conditioned to say these phrases whenever we're confronted with a tragedy, but we put little thought or effort into why we say them.

When faced with tragedy or heartache, if we are at all honest with ourselves, almost anything a person can say is empty. It doesn't make the situation better or bring a loved one back from the dead. So, what could a religious adherent or an atheist say or do as a meaningful gesture? I think White hits upon the best answer.

During my second phone call to my best friend, I decided I would let her do the majority of the talking. After all, this wasn't about me, it was about my friend, and I realized the best thing I could do for her was to simply be there for her and be a supportive listener. I told her she could call me any time she wanted, even if it was 4am, even if she just wanted to bawl in my ear. Even though I wasn't armed with an arsenal of hopeful and optimistic phrases to make her feel better with, I realized that simply being a caring and understanding friend was more important. And isn't that what really matters?

TYT - Are Atheists Smarter Than Religious People?

TYT - Atheists Can Now Go To Heaven

TYT - Wolf Blitzer Tries to Interview an Atheist, Fails

So, Who Are the Real Peacemakers?

Trey Smith

In this predominantly Christian nation, we know that Christians, by and large, are followers of one Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is the fellow who is famous for the Sermon on the Mount. Of the beatitudes he lists, one goes, "Blessed are the peacemakers." Since Jesus appeared to be an ardent supporter of peace, it would follow that Christians as a group would be a very peaceful bunch.

The same cannot be said for Muslims and atheists. According to most people you talk to, the former believe in a violent religious doctrine. They are bloodthirsty people who have little respect for the lives of non-Muslims and, sometimes, fellow Muslims as well. Atheists are almost as bad as Muslims because we deny God. With no God to lead us, we lack the inherent morality of Christians and most of us certainly lead hedonistic and selfish lives.

It all seems really straightforward. Christians = peacemakers. Muslims/atheists = supporters of wanton violence.

Not so fast, says Jim Naureckas of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). In doing some research, he happened across a Gallup poll that turns these assumptions on their heads!

When respondents were asked if the killing of civilians was ever justified by individuals, groups or a government's military, the two groups that were most opposed on any of these grounds were NOT the Christians. No, it was the Muslims and the atheists. In fact, when the question concerned solely the military, nearly 60 percent of Protestants and Catholics gave a big thumbs up. Compare this to Muslim respondents in which only about 20 percent approved!

What we have here is a rather obvious disconnect. The followers of the Prince of Peace tend to support the use of violence against civilians in much greater numbers than Muslims or atheists and slightly more than Jews. Doesn't that seem to you like a strange way to follow someone? (It sure does to me.) It's like Jesus says, "Hey everyone, let's turn left here" and the majority of his flock go tromping off to the right...all the while singing his praises!

Atheists Have One Thing in Common

Trey Smith

I have read several articles over the past few weeks that talk about the new atheism or rational atheism as led by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (among others). Some writers have applauded these folks and some have criticized them. But most of these writers have treated these modern versions of atheism almost like a religion. I have a bone to pick with that assessment.

There is only one thing that atheists have in common: A lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods. That's it. If that is all one needs to view something as religious, then all people who don't believe in the tooth fairy, that the world is or that global warming is real belong to specific religions that deal specifically with those singular issues!

Atheists come in all shapes and sizes. While any two atheists might agree there is no evidence for a god or gods, these two people might not agree on anything else! One might be a flaming left wing radical and the other might be an old time conservative. They might not agree on gay marriage or defense spending. One might be a racist, while the other is not. These two might not even agree on the arguments concerning why there isn't a god or gods.

Consequently, because of the diversity of opinions and perspectives among atheists, there can be no dogma or orthodoxy. There are no shared creeds or rituals. There is nothing that binds atheists together as a homogenous group. The ONLY thing atheists share in common is not having a god or gods as their starting point for understanding and living in the world.

If atheism is tantamount to a religion, then so too is aclausism (all the people in the world who don't believe that Santa Claus is real)!

Derivations on a Theme -- About-Face

Trey Smith

Like most people, I sometimes fall behind on reading some of my favorite blogs. For example, I just read Bruce Gerencser's (The Way Forward) March 1 post, Liberal Christian John Shore Says People Like Me Never Were Christians. Bruce quote's Shore's reasoning:

As for Christians who renounced Christ, who are no longer Christian? Two things: 1. If they don’t care (and they can’t, since they no longer believe that Christ is any more real than the tooth fairy), then the question of what their new relationship is to Christ is the ultimate moot point; and: 2. As much ire as I know this will bring me [and it did: see below], my vote is that such a person was never really a Christian in the first place — by which I mean that their Christianity was always immature. And that’s certainly no crime.

As Bruce points out, Shore is advancing two explanations that, though Shore treats them as one, are two separate arguments. In Shore's opinion, individuals who have deconverted from the Christian faith either were never true Christians to begin with OR their faith was of an immature variety.

Here's what I want to know: Would Shore apply these same principles in the opposite direction?

Let's say there is a famous atheist who has led a very hedonistic AND public life. At some point, this atheist has an epiphany and becomes a Christian. Would someone like John Shore accuse this person of being an illegitimate atheist? Would someone like John Shore say this individual was never REALLY an atheist to begin with? If so, then all those hedonistic acts would have been the acts of a god-fearing Christian and all the criticism of a hedonistic atheist lifestyle would have to pulled back!

Then again, maybe it was just a sign that this real Christian merely was behaving like an immature atheist because we all "know" how those immature atheists act!

Absolute disproof of Free Will.

Ta-Wan

Correct me if I'm wrong as I've heard this is not possible to disprove the existence. I am though convinced this disproof is watertight.

Firstly, while it may be deemed difficult or impossible to disprove of free will, it is certainly impossible to prove there is free will. There is simply no experimental way for a person to follow a set of instructions and prove to themselves that there is a free will. Free will can only be "proved" to exist by unsubstantiated claims or references. It can be disproved though by simple reasoning.

Disproof of something that is in itself unprovable is not so much a necessity, so this disproof is only to allow people who believe there is free will to systematically learn otherwise. Feeling like you have free will is not proof!

Disproof:

Unless one can travel in time, then one can not prove that they could perform any act in any other way than the way they did.  One can not do an act and claim they could have done it otherwise. Please try if you will.

You may say "In 3 seconds time, I will lift my tea cup or I won't."

1, 2, 3. Action.

Now prove that was free will. I don't believe you can, unless you travel back in time to the exact situation and re-enact the opposite situation. You can not form an experiment by repeatedly counting to 3 and noting down whether you lift the cup or not. This experiment is not demonstrating free will; it is only demonstrating the only possible way things could be.

There is no repeatable experiment to display free will. There is no one-off experiment to prove free will as a one-off experiment can not be proven without then being able to rewind time and demonstrate the opposite result.

The strongest case for free will in compatibility with determinism is the modern compatibilist approach of Dan Dennett and it is almost convincing. While I can never respond to a scholar such as him in the way he deserves, I can state that the most valid claim made by him is in-fact unprovable. His case is so:

[paraphrased, I leave the research to you] "Evolution has favoured the ability to move out of the way of a moving car. So then, evolution would favour the species which would plan to not be in the way of the car in the first place." [not his words, just a simple approximation of his point] The idea being that free will is a natural creation of evolution and due to its effectiveness in producing longer living beings, it has been favoured by natural selection.

There is though no way to prove that this action is the entities' free will or a determined response to a given situation. Evolution has certainly favoured reproduction and death avoidance, but to say that we "therefore" have free will is no more valid a claim than the opposite claim that free will is an illusion. The latter claim though is further backed up by the very sticky and impossible to disprove point that you can not prove free will without also being able to travel in time. Also, if one could travel in time to prove free will, then there is no way in that experiment to prove that prior action has not influenced the repeated action.

Evolution is a genuine, amazing and proven fact and evolution could well have favoured, and it is very likely it would have, species with large brains which plan to avoid trouble. Great point and very likely true. There is though no proof, even given this, that the entity is exercising free will. It is far more likely that the action it makes are determined. Why should humans be exempt to the determinism on display in the universe? This claim of free will seems to me to be yet another false claim by humankind that it is special.

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

Absolute disproof of God.

Ta-Wan

Correct me if I'm wrong as I've heard this is not possible to disprove the possible existence. I am though convinced this disproof is watertight.

Firstly, while it may be deemed difficult or impossible to disprove of God, it is certainly impossible to prove there is a God. There is simply no experimental way for a person to follow a set of instructions and prove to themselves that there is a God. God can only be "proved" to exist by unsubstantiated claims or references. It can be disproved though by simple reasoning.

Disproof of something that is in itself unprovable is not so much a necessity, so this disproof is only to allow people who believe there is a God to systematically learn otherwise.

Disproof:

A widely claimed feature of God is omnipresence. 'One can not hide from or be absent of God.' Due to this, God must be everything we know and do not know, entirely infinite, beyond any limit one could possibly place. God is then as much the rapist as the AIDS virus, as the cute puppy, as the smell of a flower. God is as much the meal as it is the turd.

Being omnipresent, the totality, all extremes and their balance, results in a bland nothingness. Any statement to move God from this state must then discredit the claim of omnipresence thus:

"God is not bland and nor is God as much the evil as it is the good."

"So then, God can not be omnipresent."

This may well encourage the following response;

"God is beyond your reasoning."

This though moves God to something indefinable and, if indefinable, it is not a thing with any qualities, so is null and void. If God is given qualities, then God is no longer omnipresent and so the so-called 'Proof of God' has broken down into a circular failure.

To escape this, God may have the attribute of omnipresence removed and to then be redefined as Good or some other set of qualities. I am though clear in my resolve that, once God is defined as a set of features but not omnipresence, then the initial infinite nature begins to deflate to the finite. Once this deflation is under way, there is nowhere to go besides annihilation.

A God that is not omnipresent is then smaller than the infinite, subject to external forces and so not 'all great' or worthy of the name God. Such a thing must have come into being and so then must go. A God that is omnipresent is featureless and valueless as it is as much the good as the bad. There is no escaping this argument that I can see.

So then, not only must this disproof be disproved, so also a valid proof of God's existence must be made. I'll bet my life it never will be.

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

Spiritual Atheist 3.0

Ta-Wan

Solving the spiritual/atheist paradox

First a fact: We all have a natural quest for meaning in our lives.

Second an assumption: You, being an intelligent and rational person, will look towards science for explanations.

If you look towards ancient scripture, then please move on.

If you're still reading, then you are the modern Spiritual/Atheist. You live in a paradoxical place, but you don't fall down here as the truth of the matter is no such paradox.  We just don't explain the situation well enough normally to see that it is actually quite a sane position.

It is natural -- even given our innate desire for answers to our biggest questions -- to discount a "spiritual" approach as fallible and something that will be proven as fanciful once science furthers its goals. Yet, as said, we all naturally have a tendency to wish to know where, why and how we fit into the mystery of life. We perhaps feel that the inner desire is in our evolutionary baggage or excuse it in some other way. If we strongly embrace it, then we may feel it contradicts our scientifically-obtained knowledge and we may indeed feel a split in our Spiritual/Atheist persona.

Spirit, as first defined by the Greeks, was breath and so, no breath, no life. Spirit then evolved as a term to become a thing separate to the living organism, something that may even outlive the body. This most people would agree now is untrue given modern science and so spirituality in this discussion is not a spirit that is a thing in any way but a label. The term Spirituality can be tinged a little and placed alongside Religion as something thinkers should be steering clear of.

As said though there is an inner drive in us all to for answers and many people cannot even get by in life at all without some ad-hoc solutions to theses 'Spiritual' questions. Whether 'Spiritual' is the right word then is in the semantics and how one interprets the word. I'm using the word to point to that part of us all that wishes to know. In this way, I perhaps unfairly include even the most rational scientists in this group as they are driven by this same inner wish for fulfillment. As we progress though, you'll see that in the end I see no genuine divide between all of the groups I've mentioned.

I suppose the greatest perceived split between the Scientific and the Spiritual approaches are of Science's apparent wish to find bits within bits and Spirituality's apparent wish to unite all. Science has been seen to be occasionally unholistic as in its method of wishing to find the bits that make the things, or the cause of the things as in these quests it is seen to be blind to the infinite regress of such an approach. Spirituality, on the other hand, can often be seen to be too wishy-washy as it so easily embraces all into a wholeness, while not processing so called real knowledge or making real testable claims.

Science does though have a well accepted goal of unification and spirituality does care for the parts, the most obvious 'bit' it cares for is the very individual entity doing the inquiring, the one seeking answers. A true Spiritual/Atheist cannot accept things that science has no way of proving or if they do then they should have left this conversation earlier with those folk who look toward ancient scripture for comfort. They can though hold some views that grate with science and seem on the surface unprovable. Let's take some glaring cases that in being so outstanding save us the effort of talking through smaller points.

Let's look at these seemingly unscientific and very mumbo-jumbo-esque statements: "There is no self, All is One, There is no Death."

That should stir the more scientific folk to rise to defence, if not attack. These statements are though quite scientific and our explaining this leads to the unification of the seeming paradox. If I make such bold claims as these though, I must state quite clearly how they are scientific or my last few minutes have been a waste of time.

Scientific claims are "falsifiable" that is, given the description of the method used, anyone with sufficient apparatus can follow the experiment and either agree with the claimed results or disagree. So then: 

"All is One" = the scientifically accepted idea of the Universe. Uni being One and Verse being anything from turning, to song to motion. So then, any scientific person who accepts a universe fully agrees with a spiritual person who sees Oneness. 

"There is no self" = the scientifically provable case that there is no precise place where a person is. There is no one place in the brain, no one organ, no chance of a body surviving without a suitable environment (such as Earth), no ongoing air supply, food source or so on. The apparent self is an ongoing and ever shifting process and not a fixed thing. Self then is either non-existent or ill-defined. Science should have no problem with this and so there is agreement again here with the Spiritual perspective.

"There is no death" = the scientifically provable case of the previously mentioned flow of life, that all is an ever shifting process and not fixed. We could very well say that a self comes to life at a time in space, as science and even common convention may incline us to, but we may also say that the universe, moved, shifted and changed and, for a time, we seemed to be, and for a time, we seemed to no longer be. While science is the sticking point here, it is the very exactness of science which brings for the agreement in the end. It is impossible to define a fixed moment where a fixed person came to be or where one ceased to be. Take the case of the medical coma for such a grey area.

This may sound flowery and unscientific, but if you follow my message rather than the literal wording which, I admit, rubs up against the social norms, then the idea portrayed here is that:

There is a valid stance which accepts all of science, but still fulfills our natural desire for a spiritual explanation. There is a view that fully accepts the findings of science and waits for more to come with no fear of it overturning presupposed unproven claims. There is a view of wholeness that loves the bits, the technology, the medicine, the intellectual wonder that science brings, but is also already complete and validated. A place that is fully content, ever complete in an ocean of change and apparent uncertainty.

There is a person called a Spiritual/Atheist who is not living in contradiction of anything, is not trapped by dogma, is not unfulfilled by life and so left ever seeking. This person is here as much as the next person, lives life, enjoys, learns, suffers, thrills and will die, but is not drawn to the unprovable, in need of the yet-to-be proven, but is simple and takes what their mind creates as life but is free of complex explanation or mystical unprovables.

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

Afternoon Matinee: A Christian Nation?

Day off work

Ta-Wan

As various religious groups take days off work for fictional characters' birthdays, deaths, and so on, I decided to note down all of the various super hero's birthdays and so on and begin a campaign for us atheists to have some days off of our own.

Here's to Superman's birthday!

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

Members of the "Club"

Trey Smith

Like a fresh-baked loaf of sanity resting on the window of human possibility, atheism is on the rise in the United States. Will this growing constituency become a formidable political force before global warming decimates civilization? I'm skeptical. But according to the Pew Research Center, 1 in 5 of Americans now say they're either atheist, agnostic, or that they simply don't believe in anything in particular. That godless number was a scant 6 percent in 1990, and this spring roughly 20,000 atheists showed up — rain and all — at the first ever Reason Rally in DC, so, surely, despite the protestations of Texas Republicans, this newfangled thing called “critical thinking” is poised to better the national discourse, yes? Well...

The thing about the so-called “rationalist” movement in America is that disbelief in gods seems to be the only qualification to join the club. Disbelief in a supernatural creator, especially as the movement becomes more popular or “hep,” as I'm pretending the kids say, in no way guarantees rationality in matters of foreign policy or economics, for example. Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff — likely owing their prominence to these same benighted beliefs, lending an air of scientific credibility to the myths corporate media seeks to highlight, and thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists in the long-term. In other words: The crap always rises to the top.
~ from The 5 Most Awful Atheists by Ian Murphy ~

While I don't necessarily agree with Murphy's list, I think his main point is well taken. Contrary to what most contemporary religious figures say, there is only one requisite to being an atheist: disbelief in God. Once you get beyond this meager requirement, there rarely is any agreement at all.

You see, this is why atheism is different than belief in a specific religion. The latter has a litmus test filled with several definitive answers. Agree with those answers and you're welcomed into the club with open arms.

Atheism is far more broad. Once a person has rejected the God question, all other kinds of beliefs are fair game. You can be a pro-capitalist atheist (like some people I know) or a radical socialist atheist (like me). To say that I am the same as a pro-capitalist atheist simply because we both reject the notion of a god is ludicrous! The subject of a God may be the ONLY thing we agree on.

And so, when you see some folks try to pigeonhole atheists as something akin to a political party or church denomination, all you should basically take from such a definition is that this is how they see the world. Because they belong to an exclusive club (like Baptists, Catholics, Muslims or Mormons), they simply can't fathom that some people are okay with being free agents.

Afternoon Matinee: Ethics, Evolution & Moral Progress

Afternoon Matinee: Now Praise Intelligent Design

Afternoon Matinee: Sam Harris on "Free Will"

Faith and Belief

Ta-Wan

"You must have faith in God!"

"You only need to believe in Jesus to be saved!"

"You must have faith in there not being a God!"

"You only need to believe there is not Jesus!"

Just re-read those again:

We are often told that these statements on belief and faith

"You must have faith in God!"

"You only need to believe in Jesus to be saved!"

are worthy proofs, but if so then the following:

"You must have faith in there not being a God!"

"You only need to believe there is not Jesus!"

are equally worthy dis-proofs and so presented with Faith and Belief, religion's greatest "proofs", we can see them as entirely empty.

Most likely you did anyway. Yet given that, you'll find a thousand examples in microseconds by performing a simple web-search of people using their Faith or Belief as proof of their fictitious God's existence.

I have Faith and Belief in nothing but humans ability to lie to themselves.

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.