I was just offered a publishing contract for my novel, Plethora.
I'm excited. All that hard work paid off!
Details pending.
(I still await word from another publisher about a different book.)
25 August 2008
24 August 2008
Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg Women's College (pt. 2)
Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg Women's College (pt. 1)
20 August 2008
The God Banana
On YouTube, recently, a video was posted of a Christian program called "The Way of the Master" wherein the hosts, Ray Comfort and actor, Kirk Cameron gave their argument for creationism based on the "design" of a banana.
Included in their argument were points they said showed that the banana was a product of Intelligent Design, i.e., God. They said the banana is shaped to fit the human hand; that it's color-coded so we know when it's not ripe, when it's overly ripe, and when it's just ripe enough; that it has a handy pull tab, and perforations to allow peeling, and it is sweet, delicious, and nutritious, and even bent toward the mouth so nicely, tapered on the end so it can be pushed in with ease...this was their "proof" for God as Creator of the Universe and all the fruit in it.
Well gang, this is where it helps to know something about science. The wild banana-the one "God" created-was almost inedible. It had hard black seeds inside it. The banana references in history were related to it's original form of plantains. It wasn't until 1836, that a mutant banana was found by Jean Francois Poujot, a Jamaican banana farmer. The fruit was yellow instead of green or red. Cuttings were taken from the mutant plant, and over the years, genetically engineered BY MAN to be what we find in the supermarket today. Since the genetically modified fruit, known as the Cavendish Banana, had no seeds, it had to be grown through cuttings. So there were no God-given convenience factors in place originally, as Comfort and Cameron suggest, nor even did they originate in the proper climate.
Bananas do not grow simply from seed. Man intervened long ago and crossed two varieties of African wild bananas, the Musa acuminata and the Musa baalbisiana, got rid of the many seeds that were an unpleasant presence, and improved the flavor and texture from hard and unappetizing to its present soft and irresistibly sweet flavor.
Today bananas must be propagated from large rootstocks or rhizomes that are carefully trans-planted in a suitable climate, namely the hot tropics...(Banana.com).
So yes, the banana has an intelligent design, but the designers were humans.
And here's another thought: according to the creationist argument of Comfort and Cameron, "God" must also have made the coconut, and most of us are aware of how user-UNfriendly, THAT fruit is. You have to have a hammer to get it open. Did God, then, just want us to work harder for our food?
One commenter understood the absurdity of it all and gave me a good laugh. On a blog about this video, the commenter said, "Hey, my banana is curved AWAY from my face....oh, wait..."
Included in their argument were points they said showed that the banana was a product of Intelligent Design, i.e., God. They said the banana is shaped to fit the human hand; that it's color-coded so we know when it's not ripe, when it's overly ripe, and when it's just ripe enough; that it has a handy pull tab, and perforations to allow peeling, and it is sweet, delicious, and nutritious, and even bent toward the mouth so nicely, tapered on the end so it can be pushed in with ease...this was their "proof" for God as Creator of the Universe and all the fruit in it.
Well gang, this is where it helps to know something about science. The wild banana-the one "God" created-was almost inedible. It had hard black seeds inside it. The banana references in history were related to it's original form of plantains. It wasn't until 1836, that a mutant banana was found by Jean Francois Poujot, a Jamaican banana farmer. The fruit was yellow instead of green or red. Cuttings were taken from the mutant plant, and over the years, genetically engineered BY MAN to be what we find in the supermarket today. Since the genetically modified fruit, known as the Cavendish Banana, had no seeds, it had to be grown through cuttings. So there were no God-given convenience factors in place originally, as Comfort and Cameron suggest, nor even did they originate in the proper climate.
Bananas do not grow simply from seed. Man intervened long ago and crossed two varieties of African wild bananas, the Musa acuminata and the Musa baalbisiana, got rid of the many seeds that were an unpleasant presence, and improved the flavor and texture from hard and unappetizing to its present soft and irresistibly sweet flavor.
Today bananas must be propagated from large rootstocks or rhizomes that are carefully trans-planted in a suitable climate, namely the hot tropics...(Banana.com).
So yes, the banana has an intelligent design, but the designers were humans.
And here's another thought: according to the creationist argument of Comfort and Cameron, "God" must also have made the coconut, and most of us are aware of how user-UNfriendly, THAT fruit is. You have to have a hammer to get it open. Did God, then, just want us to work harder for our food?
One commenter understood the absurdity of it all and gave me a good laugh. On a blog about this video, the commenter said, "Hey, my banana is curved AWAY from my face....oh, wait..."
Thatness And Whatness
(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")
Existence and essence--two things we are prevented from knowing about god from within the Christian faith. Why would we adopt a lifestyle, belief system, code, or any other guideline that has no basis in rational thought or empirical proof?
Christian theology states that God is incorporeal, which is to say,
non-material. This means God is not composed of matter, which renders the reference to God as a being meaningless. For if something is non-matter, how could it matter? We are beings who are made of matter (in the simplest terms) and thus our understanding of everything is predicated on matter. All else is both immaterial in a literal and figurative sense and negligible.
And what of ideas and concepts and immaterial things like kindness? Might the theist argue that kindness is real to us, though not made of matter? of course, the theist could argue that, but the argument would dissolve under the powerful force of reason; kindness is not being touted as an entity, as well as something immaterial . If God is not made of matter or of anything humans can comprehend, then God, is in a very real way, NOT REAL. If we cannot perceive God, then, why would we believe in him? If we cannot experience god, since god is non-matter, how could he possibly exist to begin with? And why don't Christians who peddle this concept just admit that they are agnostic, since agnosticism is defined as something we cannot know? Slippery slope, that.
____________________________
painting, "Chocolate Drizzle" (c)Kelli Jae Baeli
Existence and essence--two things we are prevented from knowing about god from within the Christian faith. Why would we adopt a lifestyle, belief system, code, or any other guideline that has no basis in rational thought or empirical proof?
Christian theology states that God is incorporeal, which is to say,
non-material. This means God is not composed of matter, which renders the reference to God as a being meaningless. For if something is non-matter, how could it matter? We are beings who are made of matter (in the simplest terms) and thus our understanding of everything is predicated on matter. All else is both immaterial in a literal and figurative sense and negligible.And what of ideas and concepts and immaterial things like kindness? Might the theist argue that kindness is real to us, though not made of matter? of course, the theist could argue that, but the argument would dissolve under the powerful force of reason; kindness is not being touted as an entity, as well as something immaterial . If God is not made of matter or of anything humans can comprehend, then God, is in a very real way, NOT REAL. If we cannot perceive God, then, why would we believe in him? If we cannot experience god, since god is non-matter, how could he possibly exist to begin with? And why don't Christians who peddle this concept just admit that they are agnostic, since agnosticism is defined as something we cannot know? Slippery slope, that.
____________________________
painting, "Chocolate Drizzle" (c)Kelli Jae Baeli
Honk if You'll Kill for God
(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")
...We have had time to evolve since those dark days. Yet, how could we, when there were so many examples and encouragements to keep us uncivilized and vicious?
In the story of Abraham and Isaac most Americans are familiar with, God commanded Abe to sacrifice his son to Him. Old Abe never batted an eye. Good thing an Angel stilled his hand just in time. Abraham was praised and promised blessings because he feared the Lord enough to sacrifice his son, whom he loved, because "God" told him to.
Abraham's "devotion" to God makes him a model of faith to Christians and Jews alike. . .right. But a model of WHAT? I have a few suggestions. How about a model of zealotry? A model of stupidity? A model of a schizophrenic killer?
What would have impressed me more, and made a great deal more sense, is if Abraham would have instead said, "I will not kill my son for you, because to ask this of me proves that you are evil, and I will neither worship nor obey an evil God." That would have shown Abraham to be truly a model for other people-not of faith, which this shows is not a positive thing to have, but a model of ethical, loving behavior. This would have also shown him to have courage in the face of some request made by a God he worshiped, but who had obviously become something not worthy of adulation or obedience. And if God had really been testing Abraham's mettle, He would have responded, "You are indeed a man of great courage and integrity and compassion and ethics, and I am well pleased." But as we all know, that's not what happened.
To anyone reading this, Christian or not, if you really believed God was telling you to kill your own child, would you do it? It is my most fervent wish that all of you will answer a resounding and unhesitating "No." If you answered otherwise, you are no better than Abraham, and no better than our more modern example of the 39 year old Texas woman, Deanna Laney, who thought that God told her to kill her three sons. She managed to succeed with two of them, sparing only the infant, who will now have a life of dependency on others, since the injuries from the attack will forever render him incapable of self care.
As a nation of ethical, loving, and compassionate people, we were shocked and disgusted by this heinous act. Why do we see this behavior as abhorrent in real life, but hold it up as some paragon of virtue when referring to faith and the Bible?*
Oh, it gets worse. This next tale is not one I ever heard before reading the Bible, and it is glaringly apparent why not. It's another example--not so summarily candy-coated--of why blind faith can be one of the most evil things in existence.
Jephthah. He made a stupid promise to God that if He would award him victory in battle, he would sacrifice the first person to walk out of his house and greet him, after returning from a mission of slaughter in war, and give this doomed candidate as a burnt offering to the Lord. **
When Jephthah returned home from the exhilarating slaughter of thousands, the target for sacrifice turned out to be his daughter. He just decided, "Oh, oops. Too bad, have to kill her. I promised."
I can mark that off to human stupidity, but then, God didn't stop him. Was God stupid? Or just unfathomably mean? God allowed Jephthah to kill his own daughter, and proves Himself again, a blood-thirsty apathetic being.
With complete comfort, I challenge God Himself to come down here and explain that one to me. But God won't do that, because though Christianity is one of the "revealed" religions, this in no way indicates that God ever reveals Himself in any real way.
Both of these stories are examples of religious zealotry, not at all contrary to what the Muslim hijackers did when they piloted the planes into the Twin Towers. They, too, were following the literal instructions given to them in their holy books, the Koran and the Hadiths, (which is second only to the Koran in sanctity, and gives more detail about the life of Mohammad).
Now, it would be cowardly of me not to think about this, and what it really means. A parent would actually kill his own child because some deity told him to-told him, apparently, by way of a voice in his head. (Isn't this similar to what murderous schizophrenics experience?) Abe didn't know God would stop him. He did it with the fullest intention of completing the hideous task. And Jephthah not only did the same thing, but came up with the wager by himself, as a way to reach his dubious goal of successful, widespread slaughter.
So. This still happens today, though not cloaked in the shroud of admirable character. Quite the opposite is true, isn't it? God didn't stop Deanna Laney, either, though she was about to kill her kids believing that's what God wanted. Why didn't God step in and say, at the very least, "No, no, Deanna. . I'm not doing that stuff anymore. I decided it was better to just kill my own son to cover all the sacrifices we might need in the future, and be done with it." (Well at least God did what he expects of others, that one time). But God didn't stop her, just like He didn't stop Jephthah. Thankfully, our judicial system did something about it, by putting her on trial, judging it wrong and worthy of punishment. Unfortunately, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was committed to a mental facility for an unspecified period of time.
But if you are either guilty or insane for thinking that God told you to kill your kids, are either of those valid reasons to defend the virtues of Blind Faith?
Um. No.
-----------------------
*And more poignantly, there is no mention of how Isaac felt after his sacrificial test. I can't imagine that he would be able to love his father after being tricked and nearly killed by him. The two dead Laney children could not be reached for comment, and the one who survived won't ever be able to comment.
** First, I am struck by the absurdity of this deal. Why would anyone make such a vow in the first place?
...We have had time to evolve since those dark days. Yet, how could we, when there were so many examples and encouragements to keep us uncivilized and vicious?
In the story of Abraham and Isaac most Americans are familiar with, God commanded Abe to sacrifice his son to Him. Old Abe never batted an eye. Good thing an Angel stilled his hand just in time. Abraham was praised and promised blessings because he feared the Lord enough to sacrifice his son, whom he loved, because "God" told him to.Abraham's "devotion" to God makes him a model of faith to Christians and Jews alike. . .right. But a model of WHAT? I have a few suggestions. How about a model of zealotry? A model of stupidity? A model of a schizophrenic killer?
What would have impressed me more, and made a great deal more sense, is if Abraham would have instead said, "I will not kill my son for you, because to ask this of me proves that you are evil, and I will neither worship nor obey an evil God." That would have shown Abraham to be truly a model for other people-not of faith, which this shows is not a positive thing to have, but a model of ethical, loving behavior. This would have also shown him to have courage in the face of some request made by a God he worshiped, but who had obviously become something not worthy of adulation or obedience. And if God had really been testing Abraham's mettle, He would have responded, "You are indeed a man of great courage and integrity and compassion and ethics, and I am well pleased." But as we all know, that's not what happened.
To anyone reading this, Christian or not, if you really believed God was telling you to kill your own child, would you do it? It is my most fervent wish that all of you will answer a resounding and unhesitating "No." If you answered otherwise, you are no better than Abraham, and no better than our more modern example of the 39 year old Texas woman, Deanna Laney, who thought that God told her to kill her three sons. She managed to succeed with two of them, sparing only the infant, who will now have a life of dependency on others, since the injuries from the attack will forever render him incapable of self care.
As a nation of ethical, loving, and compassionate people, we were shocked and disgusted by this heinous act. Why do we see this behavior as abhorrent in real life, but hold it up as some paragon of virtue when referring to faith and the Bible?*
Oh, it gets worse. This next tale is not one I ever heard before reading the Bible, and it is glaringly apparent why not. It's another example--not so summarily candy-coated--of why blind faith can be one of the most evil things in existence.
Jephthah. He made a stupid promise to God that if He would award him victory in battle, he would sacrifice the first person to walk out of his house and greet him, after returning from a mission of slaughter in war, and give this doomed candidate as a burnt offering to the Lord. **
When Jephthah returned home from the exhilarating slaughter of thousands, the target for sacrifice turned out to be his daughter. He just decided, "Oh, oops. Too bad, have to kill her. I promised."
I can mark that off to human stupidity, but then, God didn't stop him. Was God stupid? Or just unfathomably mean? God allowed Jephthah to kill his own daughter, and proves Himself again, a blood-thirsty apathetic being.
With complete comfort, I challenge God Himself to come down here and explain that one to me. But God won't do that, because though Christianity is one of the "revealed" religions, this in no way indicates that God ever reveals Himself in any real way.
Both of these stories are examples of religious zealotry, not at all contrary to what the Muslim hijackers did when they piloted the planes into the Twin Towers. They, too, were following the literal instructions given to them in their holy books, the Koran and the Hadiths, (which is second only to the Koran in sanctity, and gives more detail about the life of Mohammad).
Now, it would be cowardly of me not to think about this, and what it really means. A parent would actually kill his own child because some deity told him to-told him, apparently, by way of a voice in his head. (Isn't this similar to what murderous schizophrenics experience?) Abe didn't know God would stop him. He did it with the fullest intention of completing the hideous task. And Jephthah not only did the same thing, but came up with the wager by himself, as a way to reach his dubious goal of successful, widespread slaughter.
So. This still happens today, though not cloaked in the shroud of admirable character. Quite the opposite is true, isn't it? God didn't stop Deanna Laney, either, though she was about to kill her kids believing that's what God wanted. Why didn't God step in and say, at the very least, "No, no, Deanna. . I'm not doing that stuff anymore. I decided it was better to just kill my own son to cover all the sacrifices we might need in the future, and be done with it." (Well at least God did what he expects of others, that one time). But God didn't stop her, just like He didn't stop Jephthah. Thankfully, our judicial system did something about it, by putting her on trial, judging it wrong and worthy of punishment. Unfortunately, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was committed to a mental facility for an unspecified period of time.
But if you are either guilty or insane for thinking that God told you to kill your kids, are either of those valid reasons to defend the virtues of Blind Faith?
Um. No.
-----------------------
*And more poignantly, there is no mention of how Isaac felt after his sacrificial test. I can't imagine that he would be able to love his father after being tricked and nearly killed by him. The two dead Laney children could not be reached for comment, and the one who survived won't ever be able to comment.
** First, I am struck by the absurdity of this deal. Why would anyone make such a vow in the first place?
Pascal's Wager: Hedging The Bet
(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")
One explanation that often comes from the lips of the faithful is this: "I'm not sure, but I think I will go with the God is real thing, just in case--if I do, and it's true, I'll be covered; if I don't, and it's true, I'll burn in hell." This is known as Pascal's Wager. [1]
First, this ideation doesn't address WHICH God you should accept or worship. This is often referred to as the "avoiding the wrong hell" conundrum.
And what if God is real, but there is more than one god? How do we know which guidelines to follow for the god of that particular faith?
And there can be a negative consequence for believing something that isn't true. Refer to the plethora of historical documents, and even current incidents where Christian Scientists believe that prayer, rather than medical intervention, will assure the safety of their children, and those children suffer and die.
At the root of this hedging mentality is a religion of fear. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (the 4 Omni's) as well as the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end), Infinite, Incorporeal,[2] and Ineffable[3]....the most perfect and indeed the original being in the universe, then why does He need to be worshiped? Why would He care? A perfect, non-human being would not have a human division of consciousness like ego, much less any human emotions we tack onto him.
There's an essential point to be had here, and that is the tendency Christians have to anthropomorphize God-that is to say: personify or humanize Him. This being, as He is understood by Christians, is anything BUT human. If this deity exists, and is what Christians testify to, then he is INCAPABLE of having His feelings hurt, or being lonely; if he were, he is simply not the God Christians tout, and thus not worthy of worship anyway. An imperfect being does not warrant worship. And if the "truly inspired word of God" is to be our touchstone, then I submit God is not only imperfect, but mean, petty, cruel and, at times, evil.
It makes more sense to me that I make my decisions about what I believe based on sensible arguments, on empirical evidence, or the lack thereof. If we were not meant to use the reason inherent in our working brains, then why would we have it? If God is the Creator of us all, why would he create beings with the ability to choose to deny Him?
As previously mentioned, according to Christians, God needs us to worship Him. So creating something that was contrary to His needs, when he has complete and utter power over the process, is again nonsensical. And another example of the inherent contradiction of the Christian God.
I have had my moments of clarity over this. One came when I sincerely and earnestly asked God to show Himself to me. I told God that if He could show me he was real in a way that was undeniable to me, personally, that I would not only admit I was wrong, but would spend the rest of my life helping others to believe in Him too. This was not the first time I had had this little discussion with God. But they all garnered the same result. No sign; No message, no change at all. A silence that was cosmically deafening.
I know that Christians will be quick to say that this was because I didn't have enough faith. (Again, anther ad hoc argument that falls flat in the face of reason). But I know for a fact that my faith was larger than that mustard seed found in Matthew 17:20. And I wasn't trying to move a mountain, nor was I asking God to move one. I was asking for a clear sign. I got nada.
The absence of a sign gave me another sign. (A sin of omission by God?) The sign that said "God is not real."
At the same time, I have other moments when I wonder. But I am smart enough to recognize that any reticence I have to completely deny the existence of God is attributable to religious insemination--my fear that if I'm wrong, I might meet a horrible fate that includes the mind-numbing pain of feeling my skin melt off in the furnace He so lovingly provided for me throughout eternity. If I had no other reason, that concept alone is enough for me to turn away from this deity, even if I don't ultimately deny His existence entirely.
-------------------------------
One explanation that often comes from the lips of the faithful is this: "I'm not sure, but I think I will go with the God is real thing, just in case--if I do, and it's true, I'll be covered; if I don't, and it's true, I'll burn in hell." This is known as Pascal's Wager. [1]
First, this ideation doesn't address WHICH God you should accept or worship. This is often referred to as the "avoiding the wrong hell" conundrum.And what if God is real, but there is more than one god? How do we know which guidelines to follow for the god of that particular faith?
And there can be a negative consequence for believing something that isn't true. Refer to the plethora of historical documents, and even current incidents where Christian Scientists believe that prayer, rather than medical intervention, will assure the safety of their children, and those children suffer and die.
At the root of this hedging mentality is a religion of fear. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (the 4 Omni's) as well as the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end), Infinite, Incorporeal,[2] and Ineffable[3]....the most perfect and indeed the original being in the universe, then why does He need to be worshiped? Why would He care? A perfect, non-human being would not have a human division of consciousness like ego, much less any human emotions we tack onto him.
There's an essential point to be had here, and that is the tendency Christians have to anthropomorphize God-that is to say: personify or humanize Him. This being, as He is understood by Christians, is anything BUT human. If this deity exists, and is what Christians testify to, then he is INCAPABLE of having His feelings hurt, or being lonely; if he were, he is simply not the God Christians tout, and thus not worthy of worship anyway. An imperfect being does not warrant worship. And if the "truly inspired word of God" is to be our touchstone, then I submit God is not only imperfect, but mean, petty, cruel and, at times, evil.
It makes more sense to me that I make my decisions about what I believe based on sensible arguments, on empirical evidence, or the lack thereof. If we were not meant to use the reason inherent in our working brains, then why would we have it? If God is the Creator of us all, why would he create beings with the ability to choose to deny Him?
As previously mentioned, according to Christians, God needs us to worship Him. So creating something that was contrary to His needs, when he has complete and utter power over the process, is again nonsensical. And another example of the inherent contradiction of the Christian God.
I have had my moments of clarity over this. One came when I sincerely and earnestly asked God to show Himself to me. I told God that if He could show me he was real in a way that was undeniable to me, personally, that I would not only admit I was wrong, but would spend the rest of my life helping others to believe in Him too. This was not the first time I had had this little discussion with God. But they all garnered the same result. No sign; No message, no change at all. A silence that was cosmically deafening.
I know that Christians will be quick to say that this was because I didn't have enough faith. (Again, anther ad hoc argument that falls flat in the face of reason). But I know for a fact that my faith was larger than that mustard seed found in Matthew 17:20. And I wasn't trying to move a mountain, nor was I asking God to move one. I was asking for a clear sign. I got nada.
The absence of a sign gave me another sign. (A sin of omission by God?) The sign that said "God is not real."
At the same time, I have other moments when I wonder. But I am smart enough to recognize that any reticence I have to completely deny the existence of God is attributable to religious insemination--my fear that if I'm wrong, I might meet a horrible fate that includes the mind-numbing pain of feeling my skin melt off in the furnace He so lovingly provided for me throughout eternity. If I had no other reason, that concept alone is enough for me to turn away from this deity, even if I don't ultimately deny His existence entirely.
-------------------------------
[1]“Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. Historically, Pascal's Wager, ground-breaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.” (Wikipedia).
[2]Having no material body or form.
[3]Incapable of being expressed in words.
[2]Having no material body or form.
[3]Incapable of being expressed in words.
Mibber Who?.
(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")
"Mibber is loving and wise. Mibber is the essence of all matter and energy. Mibber has not limits. Mibber is all powerful."
When hearing statements such as these, it is not our first inclination to ask "What does that mean, in relation to this "Mibber"? or "how is it that Mibber can be all these things?" your first question is naturally, "What IS Mibber?"
First, we must define an object before we can even begin to examine the other questions that arise once we understand the fundamental nature of that object. The same is true, or at least should be true, of the Christian God. I find it aggravatingly fascinating how Christians make announcements and declarations about what God feels, thinks, does, and intends...but have no explanation for the nature of God. What is God? Who is God? How do they know this information?
In one breath, they say that God is mysterious and unknowable and in the other, they say that God is loving, or God is wise, or all-powerful. How can they know any of this if they don't even understand God and have never met him/her/it in person?
No one has ever had a real conversation with God. No, not even Neale Donald Walsch. Claims to the contrary have been grossly exaggerated. They have only had mental processes which they ascribe to an encounter with this invisible entity. One could just as easily-and with as much credibility-say that one has had a conversation with a tree, or a dog, or Elvis. The difference with the latter is of course that we do have actual evidence of the tree, the dog and Elvis.
But again, there is this pervasive, almost cellular habituation attached to the God-paradigm. As a species, humans have had belief in supernatural beings as part of the fiber of everyday reality. Prevalence doesn't, however, make it real.
Further, why would a person chose to believe in something impossible? If something is black, it cannot also be white. If something is square, it cannot be circular. This is akin to the statements most Christians make about God, the essence of which is, "God remains dry when immersed in water." On the face of that, unless it is trickery, this is contradiction at best, and deceit at worst.
The very first explanation that springs to the lips of the devout is some variation of "God moves in mysterious ways." I'll say! Any being who can exist but be invisible, embody the essence of love, yet be angry, and remain dry while immersed in water, is certainly beyond comprehension and so advanced as to be worthy of our attention. Except for one thing. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's almost certainly not true. And since no one can prove the existence of this god, we are left only with a choice to believe in something not only unproven and improvable, but in something that is illogical and fraught with contradiction at every turn.
Pardon me while I lean toward the more rational approach.
"Mibber is loving and wise. Mibber is the essence of all matter and energy. Mibber has not limits. Mibber is all powerful."
When hearing statements such as these, it is not our first inclination to ask "What does that mean, in relation to this "Mibber"? or "how is it that Mibber can be all these things?" your first question is naturally, "What IS Mibber?"
First, we must define an object before we can even begin to examine the other questions that arise once we understand the fundamental nature of that object. The same is true, or at least should be true, of the Christian God. I find it aggravatingly fascinating how Christians make announcements and declarations about what God feels, thinks, does, and intends...but have no explanation for the nature of God. What is God? Who is God? How do they know this information?In one breath, they say that God is mysterious and unknowable and in the other, they say that God is loving, or God is wise, or all-powerful. How can they know any of this if they don't even understand God and have never met him/her/it in person?
No one has ever had a real conversation with God. No, not even Neale Donald Walsch. Claims to the contrary have been grossly exaggerated. They have only had mental processes which they ascribe to an encounter with this invisible entity. One could just as easily-and with as much credibility-say that one has had a conversation with a tree, or a dog, or Elvis. The difference with the latter is of course that we do have actual evidence of the tree, the dog and Elvis.
But again, there is this pervasive, almost cellular habituation attached to the God-paradigm. As a species, humans have had belief in supernatural beings as part of the fiber of everyday reality. Prevalence doesn't, however, make it real.
Further, why would a person chose to believe in something impossible? If something is black, it cannot also be white. If something is square, it cannot be circular. This is akin to the statements most Christians make about God, the essence of which is, "God remains dry when immersed in water." On the face of that, unless it is trickery, this is contradiction at best, and deceit at worst.
The very first explanation that springs to the lips of the devout is some variation of "God moves in mysterious ways." I'll say! Any being who can exist but be invisible, embody the essence of love, yet be angry, and remain dry while immersed in water, is certainly beyond comprehension and so advanced as to be worthy of our attention. Except for one thing. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's almost certainly not true. And since no one can prove the existence of this god, we are left only with a choice to believe in something not only unproven and improvable, but in something that is illogical and fraught with contradiction at every turn.
Pardon me while I lean toward the more rational approach.
The Furnace of Furniss
(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")
A popular booklet for children in the late 19th Century was authored by Father Furniss, an English priest who wrote "books for children." Furniss delighted in describing the horrors of hell:
"...his eyes were like two burning coals. Two long flames came our of his ears...sometimes he opens his mouth, and breath of blazing fire rolls out. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. his answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to do very wicked things."
and,
"A little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out! See how it turns and twists itself about in the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and horrible."
Father Furniss was paradoxically dubbed the "Children's Apostle."
A popular booklet for children in the late 19th Century was authored by Father Furniss, an English priest who wrote "books for children." Furniss delighted in describing the horrors of hell:
"...his eyes were like two burning coals. Two long flames came our of his ears...sometimes he opens his mouth, and breath of blazing fire rolls out. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. his answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to do very wicked things."and,
"A little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out! See how it turns and twists itself about in the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and horrible."
Father Furniss was paradoxically dubbed the "Children's Apostle."
Dubya Must Die
 I find it reprehensible and infuriating that Bill Clinton can be impeached for getting his weeny pleasured, and then trying to cover it up, and George W. Bush can lie constantly, rig his election, send thousands to their deaths just to line his pockets, patronize the viewing public every time he gives a press conference, deprive the citizenry of their vote, abandon the needy in his own country while giving billions to another that harbors Bin Laden, keep company with terrorists, commit treason on a daily basis, and he is still in office.Perhaps the Christian's "angry God" will simply smite him where he stands. But since it didn't happen to Hitler, Stalin, Saddam or Osama Bin Laden, i won't hold my breath. |
Sam Harris Doppelganger
Author's Note
AUTHOR'S NOTE
I will make no secret of the fact that, at this writing, I am almost certainly a card-carrying atheist. This book is a representation of how I got there.
I am not a Bible scholar or a Ph.D.-wielding lecturer, nor a scientist. I earned a degree in Professional Writing, and intend to complete a Masters Degree program in writing as well, soon. Other than that, I am just a writer who is many other things, not the least of which is a lifelong learner and seeker of truth. This journey is a personal one. My truth may never be your truth. So take this or leave it. But understand that I embarked upon this task with the utmost sincerity and the most profound need to know myself and my place in this world.
I am only now fully recognizing the courage it will take for me to embrace this part of my identity in a world where this stance is often cause for oppression in general and ostracization in particular. But I'm no stranger to that. I have been a minority more than once and still am. I am a woman-(though not minority in number, at least minority in a patriarchy and all that entails); I am also a lesbian-though I dislike the connotation of that moniker. I am simply attracted romantically to certain other women, and never, men. I fought disability for years, but refuse to let that define me, currently. And last, and most sobering: I am an atheist.
Let's see...what more could I do to achieve the permanent status of pariah?
In this work, I do not seek to denigrate other great thinkers or respected persons, but to ferret out the facts and, as much as possible, put it down in words.
The act of composing this book led me to some conclusions, or verified those I suspected along the way, and so there will be an unavoidable slant in that direction throughout the text. I didn't stumble on this project after a random thought waltzed through my head. I began the project to refine the ideas and questions that have always niggled at my brain; questions about belief, mortality, reason, religion, human nature and my place in this world. I seek peace with those things I know which might at first appear daunting, and clarity of those things I know on some intuitive level to be true.
I seek my own personal cosmology.
I will make no secret of the fact that, at this writing, I am almost certainly a card-carrying atheist. This book is a representation of how I got there.
I am not a Bible scholar or a Ph.D.-wielding lecturer, nor a scientist. I earned a degree in Professional Writing, and intend to complete a Masters Degree program in writing as well, soon. Other than that, I am just a writer who is many other things, not the least of which is a lifelong learner and seeker of truth. This journey is a personal one. My truth may never be your truth. So take this or leave it. But understand that I embarked upon this task with the utmost sincerity and the most profound need to know myself and my place in this world.
I am only now fully recognizing the courage it will take for me to embrace this part of my identity in a world where this stance is often cause for oppression in general and ostracization in particular. But I'm no stranger to that. I have been a minority more than once and still am. I am a woman-(though not minority in number, at least minority in a patriarchy and all that entails); I am also a lesbian-though I dislike the connotation of that moniker. I am simply attracted romantically to certain other women, and never, men. I fought disability for years, but refuse to let that define me, currently. And last, and most sobering: I am an atheist.
Let's see...what more could I do to achieve the permanent status of pariah?
In this work, I do not seek to denigrate other great thinkers or respected persons, but to ferret out the facts and, as much as possible, put it down in words.
The act of composing this book led me to some conclusions, or verified those I suspected along the way, and so there will be an unavoidable slant in that direction throughout the text. I didn't stumble on this project after a random thought waltzed through my head. I began the project to refine the ideas and questions that have always niggled at my brain; questions about belief, mortality, reason, religion, human nature and my place in this world. I seek peace with those things I know which might at first appear daunting, and clarity of those things I know on some intuitive level to be true.
I seek my own personal cosmology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)