GOD LOGIC

Every so often a nice theist joins the site. The conversations always seem to have an aura of friendliness at the beginning, but then they quickly turn into a never ending defense of belief. The arguments are not new, just rephrased to confuse. Apparently it works, since we all jump in to defend an atheist viewpoint, and it always seems to confuse us for a few days until we finally come up with the answer. We do not spend our days studying for a conversation that has no end; the infinite debate will continue with or without us. There should be an answer though, regardless of our lack of enthusiasm to engage.

For atheism to exist, there would seem to be a reason needed. Absence of belief is a fine definition for the word, but that definition would seem to require an argument; an argument that defines the definition. Speaking in circles isn't just for theists. 

For religion to exist, a network of falsehoods must exist. Lies must be told: 

According to Tm Mazur:"Immanuel Kant said that lying was always morally wrong. He argued that all persons are born with a ‘intrinsic worth’ that he called human dignity. This dignity derives from the fact that humans are uniquely rational agents, capable of freely making their own decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding their conduct by reason. To be human is to have the rational power of free choice; to be ethical is to respect the power in oneself and others… Lies are morally wrong for 2-reasons: First, lying corrupts most important quality of being human: the ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie told contradicts your moral worth. Second, lies rob others of their freedom to choose, rationally. When a lie leads people to decide in ways other than the way they would had they known the truth, you harm their human dignity… Kant believed that in order to value ourselves and others… we must avoid damaging, interfering with, or misusing our ability to make free decisions, in other words: No lying."

Certainly, that premise exists only if you give in to a theist's certainty that free will exists to some degree. Without free will, the theist doesn't have an argument on morality to make, so wasting time trying to convince otherwise might be a, well, waste of time. Might as well skip the heart and head straight to the brain. Free will's added benefit to an argument could be Kant's view regardless, so catching a theist in a lie would be the same as said theist partaking in an immoral act, and theist's arguments for god containing falsehoods become repetitive instances of evil. Case closed.

We need to clear up our arguments. It should not take days or weeks to file the bible in the fiction section. It shouldn't take days or weeks of allowing circular arguments to control the debate to exorcise the fantasy from our collective thoughts. It shouldn't take days or weeks to refute the theist's statements. Logic should be the simple answer, but the theist takes that as well and twists it into proof of god. 

Hundreds of years before jesus, Aristotle delved into how we process reason. The three basic laws of logic, though already a given, were given a more formal expression. For the purpose of creating a discussion, do these basic laws not negate religion without going any farther? Is there a need to look at all the different ways religion tries to deafen our sensibilities with arguments, that on the outside, may seem meaningful, but when deconstructed become nothing more than a cloak for faith?

Any of us that lay claim to being reasoning humans probably know the three basic laws of thought, even if we don't vocalize them. 

1. The Law of Identity.  Everything is the same as itself. Whether a thing, or a proposition, A = A. 

Without going any farther, this would seem to trash religion immediately. Asking for a definition of god should be enough to show the proposition is nonsense. 

William Lane Craig seems to be one of the focal points enlightening us with the latest ontological definition of god. The first premise usually goes like this. "God is the greatest being conceivable. If you can conceive of a greater being, then that is god." To me this states that "A" does not equal "A." A proposition is true or it is not. If "A" changes, then it is not "A", and we cannot have a reasonable discussion about "A" because "A" has not been defined. God of the old testament is different than god of the new testament, and everyone who describes god has a different definition according to his or her own biases, so god does not exist.

Even if an argument could be made that the tree in my back yard is still the same tree as it grows - like god can change and still be god - that glass doesn't hold water. Everyone has the same definition of a tree, yet all are different when it comes to god. 

2. The Law of Non-Contradiction. Nothing can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect; or no statement can be true and false.

Again, if the definition of god changes depending on the mind that has created him/her, then the statement describing god is certainly false.

3. The Law of the Excluded Middle. Something either exists or it doesn't exist; or every statement is true or false.

Once again, if a definition changes, then the statement is always false.

This seems simple enough, yet we get caught up in debates that should be nullified immediately.

Is there a need to go further when it comes to logic? We ought be informed, reasoned, and ready for any attempt by a theist to proselytize the site. We should be able to be courteous, informative, and respectful to the theist, but not necessarily to his ideas.

If anyone cares to play, tell us why these statements are false. 

The Planet - July 24, 2015

IN GOD WE TRUST

Christians are a loud bunch, and their desperate cries make there way across the planet. That desperation circles the globe with their laments, desires, and their need to be forever victims. Although islam's cruelty for the moment is in most of our thoughts as they destroy any claim they may have had to morality, christianity is crumbling as well.

I hear the worry, and see the problems first hand, that other western countries see when they look at this country. To have such a warrior mentality bomb, mixed with a fuse that is the overabundance of religion, is scary. Heck, I live here and it scares the shit out of me also.

But these are the cries of the lost, of a forever child that resists maturing into an adult. 

Different states have different characteristics, some very secular, some very religious, and most a mix of sanity and crazy. Conservatives have allowed christianity to take over their politics to the horror of the majority. Christianity, money, and crazy; oh the joy of living in a free country. Well, we're only really free in our own minds.

When I leave Michigan I almost always cross Indiana in one direction or another. This state is the Mississippi of the north, and the crazy has taken hold. The most common plates you see say "In God We Trust." Not the only state, but one that will not let you put "jesussux" as a plate number if you have a different opinion. In states that do this, there are always those who detest combining church and government. There are legal actions pending to allow people to put whatever they want on their plate, a free speech issue, but that will not stop the insertion of religion into every hidden corner theists can find.

The latest, and in my thoughts, sneakiest insertion of religion into local government is in Missouri. Government owned vehicles they are now wearing "In God We Trust" decals. Not just any government vehicle, but police cars.

Now that raises so many problems. It won't be long before a third of this country does not belong to any religious or spiritual group. That's a lot of Americans to mess with. Then if you add non-christian groups, damn, you might be messing with a majority of constituents.

There is also the thought that our laws are not based on the bible, period. So now you have a police force that may be enforcing faulty biblical morality on its citizenry, a police force that gives the appearance that christianity guides their hands. This is in an area where evangelicals are the main religious force, and they grab what they like from both testaments; wonder if they'll close down all the Crab Shacks.

This is a direct violation of the Establishment clause and with any luck someone will sue them quickly. That is if someone is ready to be driven out of the state. Although I know this is one county in one state, the significance of this action cannot be dismissed. I went to the FB page of this police force and noticed all the positive responses from the scared populace of the area. Other counties in the area are being asked by the religious to do the same.

If this catches on and is not immediately addressed by the courts, we could have our own Sharia Law coming to a town near you. Rejoice Sinners!

The Planet - June 30, 2014

IN GOD WE TRUST

The religious have decided to go all in. In a mad rush to create a theocracy, they have doomed themselves, and apparently the rest of us. Their zeal to demolish democracy is unmatched, their inherent inability to think critically is their holy path to emulation.

The Hobby Lobby decision shows that religious freedom no longer exists. If you work for a christian company, you will follow christian dogma, if you work for a muslim company, you will be guided by the light of allah. No longer do you have the freedom to be religious, or non-religious, during most of your life. 

I did send a message to the SCOTUS godcocksuckers, it was the least I could do:

Dear Conservative Fools,

Thanks so much for hurrying the decline of religion in the states. The idiocy that religion brings to our daily lives will now finally end. As soon as Burkas are required in some businesses, and Pastafarians refuse to pay for prescription antacids - tomato sauce is holy fools - then we can finally place religion where it belongs, in the trash bin of history.

Thanks, you guys rock!

Neal

Then, still in a fit of rage, I sent a message to Hobby Lobby through the Becket Foundation for god botherers. Ah, it is fun to rant a little.

If you're not pissed, you better be soon. Do you think "theocracy" is a little overboard in this discussion? Here's what Hobby Lobby puts in newspapers every forth of July:

Nice. Sounds like they're an all inclusive bunch; not. These little footstools for fools have the money and power to change this country. As the inequality gap widens, those with the money can tell us how to live. 

There is an all out coordinated attack to repress the public. Women are at the forefront, they will be beaten back into submission if the radicals have their way. Just this year there have been 303 provisions enacted at state levels to prevent women from having the ability to make their own decisions in personal health care. Healthcare, burkhas, all the same thing. 

This is an affront to all freethinkers. If there was going to be a groundswell of opposition to conservative christianity, this is the time.  

The Planet - September 12, 2013

GOD

Nice blog by Jeff Schweitzer talks about one of our favorite lines, "Science Is Not Religion." The rebuttal centers on a recent thought by social psychologist Christine Ma-Kellams' thought that "in many ways, science seems like a 21st century religion."

Yeah, I've heard that somewhere before. In fact, over and over the thought rises to become king of the manure mountain for a couple of days. Please, let it go. 

The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance "one nation, under that figment of your imagination" line is being litigated once again. The litigation focuses on the thought that under god discriminates against those who've decided they never liked fruit cakes anyway. Basically, reciting the pledge is religious indoctrination. 

When I was growing up, I'd always be looking around to see who was saying that "under god" thing. The percentage of my peers saying those words by rote always amazed; I think some years I was the only one in the class making up words. 

I really enjoyed mythology while in school, so always said zeus, thor, janus, etc., when reciting the damn pledge every morning. It's all about control, control of our minds. If only I'd known about the flying spaghetti monster and his noodly appendages then; ah, what fun.

Of course, the right doesn't like any of you. The above litigation story was discussed on Fox, where Dana Perino basically stated that if you don't like god, you don't have to live here. Dana should heed her good book and not talk in public, it's a sin.

EDUCATION

Zack Kopplin, the young man in Louisiana who started a campaign to get rid of their Science Education Act, is still campaigning for real science in schools. For those who aren't up to date on that act, it allows teachers to bring supplemental materials that refute evolution and global warming into the classroom. I don't know how many caught him on Maher last April, but it shows how education, regardless of age, is a powerful tool. He slams conservative economist Stephen Moore with reality, it is a joy to watch.

This type of activism seems to be starting to gain ground. In Britain, Esha Marwaha started an online petition to stop the education secretary, Michael Gove, from removing references to climate change for those under 14.

Then there's Texas, which always seems to find its way into the news. The Texas State Board of Education was infiltrated by creationists. The Texas Freedom Network requested records of the reviewers, and the agenda they are promoting is inexcusable.

“I understand the National Academy of Science's [sic] strong support of the theory of evolution,” one reviewer wrote. “At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator, parent, and grandparent, I feel very firmly that ‘creation science’ based on Biblical principles should be incorporated into every Biology book that is up for adoption.”

Another wrote that, “While I understand the theory of evolution and its wide acceptance, there should be inclusion of the ‘creation model’ based on the Biblical view of history.”

Are we talking about biology or Bible study? Reviewers seem to have confused one for the other.

Dr. Raymond Bohlin, a reviewer affiliated with the creationist Discovery Institute, repeatedly plugged the Institute’s own work in his objections to the textbooks.

“There is no discussion of the origin of information bearing molecules which is absolutely essential in any origin of life scenario. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell easily dismisses any RNA first scenario. The authors need to get caught up,” he wrote.

GUNS

Yes, we need more of them, because we haven't put one in the arms of every psychopath in the country yet. Last Sunday, a 46 year old gentleman shot an 8 year old boy who was playing outside, celebrating his 8th birthday. 

It took three years for the first national park death. The tea party congress has decided that guns are needed everywhere, a three year old girl shot herself because her parents are dumb fucks who think they are safer with weapons always handy.

Happens everyday, and we ignore it every day.

And George is back. Threatens wife and father-in-law and destroys the video evidence of his insanity. Another great tea party hero. Poor guy just can't seem to get a break.

WAR

First, a fine quote from Bertrand Russell:

"Killing an enemy in a modern war is a very expensive operation. We should now be much richer if war did not occur. If men were actuated by self-interest, which they are not — except in the case of a few saints — the whole human race would cooperate.

There would be no more wars, no more armies, no more navies, no more atom bombs.

There would not be armies of propagandists employed in poisoning the minds of Nation A against Nation B, and reciprocally of Nation B against Nation A.

There would not be armies of officials at frontiers to prevent the entry of foreign books and foreign ideas, however excellent in themselves.

There would not be customs barriers to ensure the existence of many small enterprises where one big enterprise would be more economic.

All this would happen very quickly if men desired their own happiness as ardently as they desired the misery of their neighbors. But, you will tell me, what is the use of these utopian dreams?"

Utopian indeed, but sorry, humans have not evolved to that state yet.

Senator McCain got an earful from a supporter about any military action against Syria. I do not think we will get involved in this; how many wars can we afford? And that's how it has to be framed, since killing civilians doesn't seem to ring a bell with so many Americans.

Happily it appears that we will give Syria a chance to comply with mandates to destroy their chemical weapons.

Whenever you hear about chemical weapons, and the need for war, remind them that President Reagan closed his eyes to Iraq's Sadaam using chemical weapons against Iran. That won't quell the blood lust of the incompetent, but will at least give them pause.

POLITICS

Texan republicans still wish to secede. Smitherman, another crazed, rightwing, low-hanging fruit, had this to say in an interview:

“We are uniquely situated because we have energy resources, fossil and otherwise, and our own independent electrical grid. Generally speaking, we have made great progress in becoming an independent nation, an ‘island nation’ if you will, and I think we want to continue down that path so that if the rest of the country falls apart, Texas can operate as a stand-alone entity with energy, food, water and roads as if we were a closed-loop system.”

Smitherman said he feels Texas officials must do what they can to prepare the state.

“This was one of my goals at the Utility Commission and it is one my goals currently as chairman of the Railroad Commission. That’s why I stress so vehemently oil and gas production, permitting turnaround times, and everything that enables the industry to produce as much as it can, as quickly as it can,” he said.

Oh please oh please oh please.

Florida, with the second highest rate of uninsured, (second to Texas, imagine that), has decided not to expand medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Hey, half a million kids without insurance is not such a bad thing, another war should clean up that mess.

WORK

Finally some good news. Indiana's "right to work" law has been ruled unconstitutional. Michigan jumped on that bandwagon right after Indiana passed their law, hopefully all states inflicted with these wage destroying laws will have them declared the same. 

With income inequality at an all time high and union membership at its lowest point since the depression, we need some legislative relief.

God is Useless

Pick a day, any day, in your life and think about the sequence of events in that day, and what parts of it had anything to do with god.

I'll pick yesterday, only because I can still remember most of it.

I climb out of bed, scratch my balls, head to the can and drain the dragon. Did god reach down and do that scratching for me? No, the lazy bastard didn't. Into the kitchen where I find dirty dishes and glasses, the basic leftovers from last night's dinner that I didn't take care of. You would think though, that since god lives outside of time and never sleeps, maybe he could of picked up a rag and cleaned the counter? Not happening. Maybe wash a dish? Yeah right. Happily I have this device that I can fill up that automatically cleans my dishes, how cool is that?

Next on the list is coffee, I fill up a machine with water and ground beans, and presto, fresh coffee. Did god grind the beans or heat the water, nope. Did god create the tree that gives us coffee? If, as some would have me believe, he did, he couldn't figure out what was the ultimate bean, otherwise why the variety? In his omnipotence he couldn't just make the ultimate coffee bean? Indecisive little twit, except when it comes to killing.

I need to replenish food stuff, so jump into the vehicle and head into town. Twenty miles away so a quick drive. But, if I didn't have a car would god give me a lift into town? You know, throw my thumb into the air and hang on for the ride? No, I'd spend my day walking. Thanks buddy.

It would be easy to fill up a book on just one day of your life where you point out everything that god didn't do that day. As far I can tell, he sits around and watches everyone while deciding who to torture for an eternity. This bugger needs a day job.

God doesn't feed the hungry, he doesn't heal the sick, he doesn't save us from natural disasters, he doesn't physically do a damn thing to earn his keep. God is a useless thought that is promoted by the rich and con artists looking to get rich. God is just a dream, and for the destitute, maybe a hope that never becomes real. Is the thought really worth anything more than a method of controlling those who have nothing?

For the most part, we live, communicate, travel, experience, interact with life due to science. I am amazed that anyone would pick god, who doesn't do a damn thing, over science, which works for us every second of every day.

Christian Confusion

As I pull into the driveway of my conservative christian family to join them in celebrating their holy day, I'm greeted with the usual barrage of bumper stickers. "Protect Our Borders," is the first I see, slightly amusing since I'm in Illinois and unless they mean to keep out the Wisconsinites, Iowans, Hoosiers, Missourians or Kentuckians, I have no clue what they are talking about. Maybe those sneaky Canadiens are jumping on rafts and floating into Chicago at night, sight unseen, I don't know. 

In Exodus it seems fairly clear, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt," and, "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt." Leviticus the same, "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him," and, "The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Maybe they understand the lines in Deuteronomy?  "And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother israelites or between one of them and an alien," and, "And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt."

Doesn't seem that confusing. 

Well, maybe they are new testament snobs, but even Matthew states, "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in."

All this points out that possibly christians should welcome immigrants, right?

Maybe it's the picking and choosing style of reading that christians embrace since Leviticus also states, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."

But even this shouldn't create the hate that many christians have for those who are trying to better their lives. I mean, at worst, they could buy a couple of latino children, what's wrong with that?

The bible is a teaching of opposing views that cannot be reconciled, which is why the whole religious leaning bunch in this country should be certified insane. You cannot listen to the teachings of the bible and be without internal conflict.

Then the next bumper stickers I see do kind of explain how christians lose to contradiction, always.

A young family member from the lovely state of Wisconsin proudly exhibits, "How's that hopey changey thing going for you," and, "Walker for Governor." I think I understand. This is a young person who thinks destroying safety nets that will enable her to live a comfortable and healthy life in the future are bad things. No need for social security or medicare, she's got it handled; not. 

The only possible reason I can see for this type of acceptance is that god is such a confusing dick that confusion reigns supreme; they cannot reason. The person looks at a message that tries to instill hope and change and instead sees, "How's that rapey and pillaging thingy working for you." 

They cannot define meanings. They lose to what makes discussion possible. If I say apple, they think orange.

Strange thoughts indeed.

Christianity embraces a corrupt morality, one that makes it seemingly impossible for its followers to make sensible decisions.