Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.

abovethefray @ 2007-09-18T21:38:00

2007-09-19T02:09:50Z

While thinking about steps toward ending world hunger, I found myself contemplating The Problem of Evil. For those of you unfamiliar with theology and philosophy, it's a paradox centered around four statements:
1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
3. God is omnibenevolent (all-caring).
4. This world contains unnecessary evil.
There are more detailed versions, but basically, most people agree that at least one of these four statements must be false. (You may feel inclined to summarize this problem by simply saying "God is cruel, incompetent, or impotent".) Back when people were still counting down to Year 0, it was #3, but #4 has gotten popular to argue against*. However, it occurs to me that 1 and 2 contradict each other even faster. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything. If God is omniscient, he knows everything that has ever happened, everything that is happening, and everything that ever will happen, including everything he'll ever do. See the dilemma? If he knows what he's going to do before he does it, can he still do something different? He might be all-powerful, in which case he controls destiny, or he might be all-knowing, in which case he is an instrument of destiny, but how could it possibly be both ways?

*If you're inclined to believe statement #4 is untrue, I recommend that you buy this book.

abovethefray @ 2006-10-12T13:01:00

2006-10-12T16:59:24Z

Intelligent design. At first glance, it seems reasonable. Up until 2003, tourists could visit New Hampshire and see the Old Man of the Mountain, a granite cliff that vaguely resembled a human face when observed from a certain angle. It was very popular, appearing as a symbol of New Hampshire on state highway signs, and the state emblem consists of an image of the cliff encapsulated by the state motto. Its popularity was due to it coming into existence naturally, completely by chance. Compare this to South Dakota’s Mount Rushmore. There are four human faces carved out of granite, each of which is bigger than the Old Man of the Mountain, not to mention sturdier and much more detailed (to the point of actually being recognizable). Intelligent design suggests that simply by glancing at the two mountains, it’s immediately obvious which cliff came to resemble a face by chance and which one was designed that way by someone intelligent. Similarly, it should be even more obvious that the humans who designed the Mount Rushmore memorial were too complex to have come into being by chance, and must have been designed by someone even more intelligent. Ignoring the fact that chance molds living things and mountains very differently, let’s consider their supposition. Perhaps there is a god who personally crafted humanity. This god must be very powerful, and very complex, since we were made by it and yet understand very little about it. This god is the “intelligent designer” which the concept of intelligent design focuses upon. So, here’s the real question. Who designed the intelligent designer? We’ve already established that it’s highly unlikely that the Mount Rushmore memorial came into being by chance, and it’s almost impossible that humans evolved on their own. Therefore, the god that made us must have been made by someone else, unimaginably powerful and complex, to the point that even the god that made us doesn’t really understand this god-maker. And the god-maker, of course, is far too complex for you to even begin to consider that it came into existence without being made by something even higher. And so on. Just one way the argument falls apart.

Furthermore, are we to believe that the same individual who designed the tiger also made the lamb? They are fundamentally similar in terms of how their muscles, circulatory systems, and skeletal structures are built, but on the surface, they are rather different. One is docile and provides us with wool, while the other smells suspiciously like buttered popcorn and kills us if it gets the slightest chance. How about Treponema pallidum and Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which are the causes of syphilis and tuberculosis, respectively? It seems reasonable to assume that they were designed by the same being, since they’re both bacteria capable of causing disease in humans. Of course, this raises further questions about what sort of god would design diseases in the first place. Perhaps, when faced with such questions, Christianity would try to suggest that the devil designed everything that brings about suffering in the world. Sure, the devil created a bacterium, which kills over a million people every year and can be transmitted through the air when someone infected talks, simply because he likes to watch humanity suffer. That covers tuberculosis. But what about syphilis, or any sexually transmitted disease for that matter? They all discourage promiscuity, infidelity, and premarital sex, and surely the devil would rather claim the souls of sinners than watch his tailor-made diseases convert potentially lustful people into good Christians. It just doesn’t hold up. The obvious answer is that parasites and predators evolved to take advantage of their victims.

abovethefray @ 2006-08-17T08:44:00

2006-08-17T06:48:59Z

Story time, kids. Thousands of years ago, an immortal god impregnated a mere human woman, and she gave birth to a baby boy in late December. When this boy grew up, he performed miracles, and was particularly well-known for being able to transform water into wine. He came back from the dead. He wore a halo. He attracted a bunch of followers who had a ceremony wherein they ate bread and drank wine to symbolically ingest his body and blood. I am, of course, talking about Bacchus, the demigod of wine, who was worshipped by Romans centuries before Jesus was supposedly born.
Not that I’ve got anything against Jesus Christ. He sounds like a swell guy, even if you assume all that supernatural stuff in his biography was made up after his death (probably by people who had never even met him before). It’s his fan club I have issues with. Lots of issues. The issue I feel like criticizing today has to do with the stranglehold Christianity has on America, cutting off the oxygen supply to its brain, and leaving the general public stupid enough to reelect Bush (probably because they can now relate with him). Christianity owns a collection of fanciful stories, and if one can be proven false, the entire collection (and, indeed, the entire religion) may be at risk. That’s why Christianity has been at odds with evolution since before the idea was publicly known. Evolution conflicts with the Adam-and-Eve creation myth. Therefore, we’ve got Christians who oppose the theory of evolution in its entirety, despite the fact that evolution is obviously a reality, or else there would be absolutely no danger from so-called avian flu (which wouldn’t be able to affect humans), and we wouldn’t have to keep looking for new antibiotics to combat constantly-evolving bacteria. Here’s a troubling article that came out recently.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evo.html?_r=1
Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans
“In surveys conducted in 2005, people in the United States and 32 European countries were asked whether to respond ‘true,’ ‘false’ or ‘not sure’ to this statement: ‘Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.’ The same question was posed to Japanese adults in 2001. The United States had the second-highest percentage of adults who said the statement was false and the second-lowest percentage who said the statement was true, researchers reported in the current issue of Science. Only adults in Turkey expressed more doubts on evolution. In Iceland, 85 percent agreed with the statement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html
The biggest reason why so much of America still denies evolution is because so much of America is Christian. And, as is too often the case with majorities, Christian America wants to make everything better for itself, even if that makes things worse for the minorities. From the Scopes Monkey Trial back in 1925 to the Intelligent Design movement seeping through the modern Bible Belt, Christians have fought the theory of evolution as if Darwin himself nailed Jesus to the cross. To clarify, Christians wanted public schools to stop teaching evolution because it challenged religious indoctrination, but that’s pretty much failed. Now Christians mostly want public schools to teach “alternative theories” in science class, such as the theory that the Christian god created everything. Sure, in this theory, they may refer to their god as an anonymous intelligent designer, but that’s a cheap trick to circumvent the whole “separation of church and state” thing. We all know when Christians mention an intelligent being designing humans, they’re not suggesting we were assembled by advanced alien beings with unusually big heads and gray skin.
It’s clear what’s going on. Convinced that their religion is the correct one, many Christians strive to make this country more suitable for Christians. Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain had a similar goal in 1492, when they forcibly deported Spain’s 200,000 Jews in an attempt to rule a Christian nation. In fact, some Americans falsely believe that America was founded as a Christian nation. This is certainly not the case. First, I’ll present this Daily Record letter to the editor, which is quite concise but forceful nevertheless.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060521/OPINION02/605210321/1095/NEWS01
05/21/06 - Posted from the Daily Record newsroom
America not a Christian nation
“To the Editor:
A recent letter claimed that the United States was founded on Christian thought. That is a myth. References to gods and religions are purposely left out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as all amendments; the only exception being the statement ‘Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.’
The founders purposely designed a secular nation. America is not a Christian nation. It is a nation where many Christians live.
The founders wanted government to leave religions alone and equally wanted religions to leave government alone. The Supreme Court has decided in numerous cases that local, state and federal governments may not promote or finance religion. Religion is belief in a personal God or gods who are entitled to worship and obedience. Neither Franklin, Washington nor Jefferson believed in a personal God. English ‘common law’ predated Christianity in Britain, and the thinking of the American founders was based on the enlightenment, not the Bible.
JEFFREY HUPPERT
Boonton”
For further reading, here is a “nontract” written by Freedom From Religion Foundation, who really know how to get their point across.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

Is America a Christian Nation?

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

What about the Declaration of Independence?

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?

The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
What does "separation of church and state" mean?

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.
What about majority rule?

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?

No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?

Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?

Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Jefferson.jpg

abovethefray @ 2006-08-07T21:48:00

2006-08-08T04:10:02Z

There's a lot of conflict in the world right now, and quite a bit of it is in the Middle East. Now, I don't want to say that all Muslims are violent, but when a Danish newspaper published cartoons satirizing the Muslim prophet Muhammad (and, by extension, Islam), the resulting riots and protests left over a hundred people dead. Every religion has the potential to create inhumane followers, especially when followers regard dead religious figures they'll never meet more highly than ordinary humans that have done nothing wrong.
Religion is not inherently dangerous, but extremism is, so it's important to know where to draw the line. Secularism, especially a secular government, is an important step toward reducing conflict. If a government adheres to ancient religious texts (most, if not all, of which were written by ordinary people with no divine connections) instead of thinking up their own laws, they will furiously resist change, including improvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan
In 1979, a Syrian medical student named Wafa Sultan saw members of the Muslim Brotherhood assassinate her professor in her classroom. "They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!'" she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god." She moved to America in 1989, and after 9/11, has both defended the US and criticized Islam in a number of political debates. Quite a few links to interviews and speeches can be found on her Wikipedia article, but here are transcipts of some of her more interesting ones.

7/26/2005 Clip No. 783
http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=783wmv&ak=null
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=783
LA Psychologist Wafa Sultan Clashes with Algerian Islamist Ahmad bin Muhammad over Islamic Teachings and Terrorism

The following are excerpts from a debate between Wafa Sultan, a psychologist from Los Angeles and Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, an Algerian professor of religious politics. Al-Jazeera TV aired this debate on July 26, 2005.

Wafa Sultan: Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up? How and why does he blow himself up in a bus full of innocent passengers?
In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources – I am referring to scientific sources – to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.
When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse: "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off," regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time – you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist...
Bin Muhammad: The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq. How does a president help the arch-killer of occupied Palestine? Why doesn't she ask from where Hitler was brought up – Hitler, who murdered 50 million innocent people. Why doesn't she ask where the people who dropped two atom bombs on Japan were educated? Who killed three million innocent Vietnamese? Who annihilated the Indians? Who maintained imperialism to this day? Who waged the Spanish civil war, which exacted a toll of 600,000 in 36 months? Why don't we ask these questions? Who has over 15,000 nuclear warheads – Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Muslims or the Americans? The Muslims or the Europeans? We want an answer. Where was Bush educated – if education is really what makes a person a criminal?...
Wafa Sultan: Murder is terrorism regardless of time or place, but when it is committed as a decree from Allah, this is another matter...
The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking – these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other. Have they not incited to the killing of Jews and Christians? If we had heard that a tribe in a distant corner of China has a holy book and religious teachings calling to kill Muslims – would the Muslims stand idly by in the face of such teachings?
The Crusader wars came after these Islamic religious teachings. When these Islamic teachings were delivered, America did not exist on the face of the earth, nor was Israel in Palestine...
Why doesn't he talk about the Muslim conquests that preceded all the wars he is talking about? Why doesn't he mention that when Tariq bin Ziyyad entered Andalusia with his armies, he said to his people: "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is in front"? How can you storm a peaceful country, and consider all its peaceful inhabitants to be your enemies, merely because you have the right to spread your religion? Should the religion be spread by the sword and through fighting?...
Bin Muhammad: Who invented slavery in recent centuries? Who colonized the other – us or them? Did Algeria colonize France, or vice versa? Did Egypt colonize England, or vice versa? We are the victims...
I am not saying that killing innocent people is nice. I say that all innocent people should be protected. But at the same time, we must start with the innocent among the Muslims. There are millions of innocent people among us, while the innocent among you – and innocent they are – number only dozens, hundreds, or thousands, at the most...
Wafa Sultan: Can you explain to me the killing of a hundred thousand children, women and men in Algeria, using the most abominable killing methods? Can you explain to me the killing of 15,000 Syrian civilians? Can you explain to me the abominable crime in the military artillery school in Aleppo? Can you explain the crime in Al-Asbaqiya neighborhood of Damascus, Syria? Can you explain the attack of the terrorists on the peaceful village of Al-Kisheh in Upper Egypt, and the massacre of 21 Coptic peasants? Can you explain to me what is going on in Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt, even though these are Islamic countries which opposed the American intervention in Iraq, and which don't have armies in Iraq, yet were not spared by the terrorists? Can you explain these phenomena, which took place in Arab countries? Was all this revenge on America or Israel? Or were they merely to satisfy bestial wild instincts aroused in them by religious teachings, which incite to rejection of the other, to the killing of the other, and to the denial of the other. When Saddam Hussein buried 300,000 Shiites and Kurds alive, we did not hear a single Muslim protesting. Your silence served to acknowledge the legitimacy of these killings, didn't it?...
What do you want from me? To speak evil of the American society? I've never said that America is the eternal city of Plato, but I did say it was the eternal city of Wafa Sultan. The idealism of American society was enough to allow me to realize my humanity. I came to this country with fear.
Bin Muhammad: Along with the Indians? Along with the Indians? What was left of the Indians? What do you have to say about the Indians?
Wafa Sultan: Christopher Columbus discovered American in 1492. America was founded in 1776, approximately 300 years later. You cannot blame America – as a constitution, a regime, and a state – for killing the Indians.

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050
2/21/2006 Clip No. 1050
Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan: There is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.
[...]
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...
Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.
My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?
Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...
Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.
[...]
Wafa Sultan: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0

abovethefray @ 2006-08-03T15:36:00

2006-08-03T19:53:00Z

A major source of conflict nowadays involves differing religious views. When you spend your whole life worshipping one god, and someone else comes along and tells you your god is imaginary, that's going to stir up a lot of trouble. It's rather silly that people can call thousands of other religions false without casting any doubt upon their own religion, when really, the only thing that's special about that one religion is that it has them for followers. By not putting any faith into my beliefs, I can look at everything objectively, and get closer to the truth than most people. For example, how many wars have been fought because of religious disagreements? Christianity declares "thou shalt not kill", but apparently, it's almost universally understood that killing is fine when you're not talking about killing another Christian. Has it occurred to anyone that if we really had a kind and loving god watching over us, he wouldn't remain hidden for thousands of years? He'd visit us every generation or so to remind us which religion is correct, thus saving us from all the bloodshed. We wouldn't have to interpret ancient books that may or may not have been written by ordinary men to figure out what is or isn't acceptable. He'd hold a press conference once in a while, explaining which position is the correct one for such moral and ideological issues as divorce, same-sex marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and keeping people in persistent vegetative states alive. And we wouldn't have this huge gap between what science has found to be true and what religion guessed at thousands of years ago.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060731/ap_on_re_us/creation_museum

Museum uses Bible to tell Earth's history
By DYLAN T. LOVAN, Associated Press Writer Mon Jul 31, 2:02 PM ET

PETERSBURG, Ky. - Like most natural history museums, this one has exhibits showing dinosaurs roaming the Earth. Except here, the giant reptiles share the forest with Adam and Eve.
ADVERTISEMENT

That, of course, is contradicted by science, but that's the point of the $25 million Creation Museum rising fast in rural Kentucky.

Its inspiration is the Bible � the literal interpretation that contends God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in them just a few thousand years ago.

"If the Bible is the word of God, and its history really is true, that's our presupposition or axiom, and we are starting there," museum founder Ken Ham said during recent tour of the sleek and modern facility, which is due to open next year.

Ham, an Australian native who started the Christian publishing company Answers in Genesis in the late 1970s, said the goal of his privately funded museum is to change minds and rebut the scientific point of view.

"We're going to show you that we can make sense of the different people groups, we can make sense of fossils, we can make sense of what you see in the world," he said.

Visitors to the museum, a few miles from Cincinnati, will be able to watch the story of creation unfold in a 180-seat special-effects theater, see a 40-foot-tall recreation of a section of Noah's Ark and stare into the jaws of robotic dinosaurs.

"It's education, but it's also doing it in an entertaining way," Ham said.

Scientists say fossils and sophisticated nuclear dating technology show that the Earth is more than 4 billion years old, the first dinosaurs appeared around 200 million years ago, and they died out well before the first human ancestors arose a few million years ago.

"Genesis is not science," said Mary Dawson, curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were."

Ham said he believes most fossils are the result of the Great Flood described in Genesis.

Mark Looy, a vice president at Answers in Genesis, said the museum has received at least $21 million in private donations. He said two anonymous donors have given $1 million, and he expects the museum to be debt-free when it opens next May.

John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, an organization that promotes creationism, said the museum will affirm the doubts many people have about science, namely the notion that man evolved from lower forms of life.

"Americans just aren't gullible enough to believe that they came from a fish," he said.

While you're at it, you might as well watch this video, which treats the subject of creationism jokingly (the only way it deserves to be treated nowadays).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxzJaWk4wY

abovethefray @ 2006-07-31T21:17:00

2006-08-01T01:34:38Z

Various people have claimed that everything worth saying has already been said. While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, there is certainly a good deal of wisdom that has already been recorded, and since the majority of wisdom has probably been forgotten already, it's important to review important details. It is a habit of mine to not only provide a hyperlink to whatever subject matter I wish to discuss, but also provide literal excerpts, in anticipation of the day when certain internet websites will have been moved around, and thus a recording of their URL may not be enough to revisit the site. This brings me to my current subject, Wikiquote.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God
A number of these quotations ring true to me, and if you don't have the luxury to examine them in their entirety, I've set aside the ones that I agree with the most.

Call on God, but row away from the rocks. ~ First Nations proverb

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? ~ Epicurus

Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition. ~ Alexander Hodge

God is a sound people make when they're too tired to think anymore. ~ Edward Abbey

God is either cruel or incompetent. ~ Woody Allen

God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in his arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; He will set them above their betters. ~ Henry Louis Mencken

God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That, sir, is not free will. It would be akin to a man telling his girlfriend, 'Do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out.' When a man says this we call him a psychopath and cry out for his imprisonment/execution. When a god says the same, we call him loving and build churches in his honor. ~ William C. Easttom II

I believe in God, only I spell it 'Nature'. ~ Frank Lloyd Wright

I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars. ~ Charles Darwin

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. ~ Susan B. Anthony

I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them. ~ Galileo Galilei

I don't believe in God but I'm very interested in her. ~ Arthur C. Clarke

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it. ~ Voltaire

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk. ~ Thomas Edison

I'm not against God. I'm against the Misuse of God. ~ Marilyn Manson

I prefer to think that God is not dead, just drunk. ~ John Marcellus Huston

I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him. ~ Albert Einstein

I think that if there were a God, there would be less evil on this earth. I believe that if evil exists here below, then either it was willed by God or it was beyond His powers to prevent it. Now I cannot bring myself to fear a God who is either spiteful or weak. I defy Him without fear and care not a fig for his thunderbolts. ~ Marquis De Sade

I've been worrying about God a little bit lately. It seems as if he's been lashing out, you know, destroying cities, annihilating places. It seems like he's been in a bad mood. And I think it has to do with the quality of lovers he's been getting. If you look at the people who love God now, you know, if I was God, I'd need to destroy something. ~ Salman Rushdie

I've never understood how God could expect his creatures to pick the one true religion by faith-- it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe. ~ Jubal Harshaw

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. ~ Voltaire

If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think Man much to boast of as the final result of all my efforts. ~ Bertrand Russell

If the gods listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have perished: for they are always praying for evil against one another. ~ Epicurus

Is it not better to place a question mark upon a problem while seeking an answer than to put the label "God" there and consider the matter solved? Does not the word "God" only confuse and make more difficult the solution by assuming a conclusion that is utterly groundless and palpably absurd? - Joseph Lewis

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ~ Thomas Jefferson

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument--their intellect--which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. ~ Galen Strawson

Man's inhumanity to man will continue as long as man loves God more than he loves his fellow man. - Joseph Lewis

Men rarely (if ever) managed to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. ~ Robert A. Heinlein

More people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason. ~ George Carlin

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. ~ Albert Einstein

Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God — but to create Him. ~ Arthur C. Clarke

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. ~ Isaac Asimov

Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man...living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money. - George Carlin

The only notions of God that I outright reject are those conceived, preached, written, believed, or killed for by men. ~ Kenton Thomas

They say that God is everywhere, and yet we always think of Him as somewhat of a recluse. ~ Emily Dickinson

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Issac Asimov

What? Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man? ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

When people expect God to plan their lives for them, and protect them, they tend to lose their motivation to guide and control their own lives. ~ Charles W. Faulkner

You notice how God's not around anymore? He spends all that time playing with Adam and Eve and the Israelites and smiting cities and things and has got bored over the last... recorded history or so. I wonder if he has new toys? And if so, are the old toys still going to be wanted when we show up to cash in the "life everafter" tokens. ~ Katie Lucas

abovethefray @ 2006-07-31T16:39:00

2006-07-31T20:53:21Z

Hello, one and all. I am above the fray, and it feels good. As an empirical agnostic, I don't have to deal with things like going to church regularly, avoiding certain foods, and being embarrassed that I have a physical body. I also don't have to worry excessively about controversies like same-sex marriage, or the conflicts that arise when nearly any two religions get within spitting distance of each other. Empirical agnosticism means that I believe that if there is a god or gods, there is not enough evidence to prove their existence. Similarly, if atheists are correct and there is no god, they can't prove it, and therefore, atheists must take a leap of faith to reach their beliefs, in much the same way that theists do, although in a different direction. The existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown. I differ from certain other agnostics in that I believe we may someday know the truth, and as such, I will gladly convert to any religion that is able to prove any of its fairytales are more than fiction. Since no such religion exists, I am content to sit back, put my feet up, and watch with curiosity as religious people are driven to act illogically by their faith. I'm also more than happy to share my observations with anyone who cares to listen, regardless of how they may feel.
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=359