At this point, does my ignorance matter?

I like to be well-informed about as many topics as possible. I'm not really sure why this is; perhaps it's my journalism background or the fact that I don't like to be made foolish under any circumstance. Whatever the reason, I don't like to be unprepared for anything and enjoy knowing at least a little bit about most topics.

Being raised Roman Catholic, I felt well-versed with most of its doctrine/dogma/myths. So it was only natural when I began having doubts about my religion that I would begin my critical thinking by putting Catholicism and Christianity under the microscope. I knew what Catholics practiced, thought, believed, etc., and my faith had been fractured early in life, so it wasn't too much of a stretch to go from doubter to atheist/non-believer.

My research was so thorough that, as a consequence, I learned some of the major differences of Christian sects, Judaism and even some edicts of Hinduism and Islam. My knowledge of these other religions isn't exactly complete, though I have read my share of the Koran and Bhagavad Gita. But given my current beliefs (that there are no gods and supernatural acts are non-existent), do I really need to bother with learning about these other religions? If I were going to be a professional debater or if I wanted to actively seek religious confrontations, then maybe I would deem it important to learn everything I could about all religions and practices.

But will people question my atheism if I never explored thoroughly the practices of Islam or Hinduism? I don't think it's necessary. Does a person who is allergic to shell fish keep eating different species until he's tried every kind? No, why risk death for the sake of completion? That's not to say I'm the least bit intimidated or scared by other religions. But what's the point of studying Muhammad or Ganesh when I don't believe there's any evidence of their miracles or existence?

Besides, I'm sure if proof actually existed or came to light I would learn of it rather quickly and do my homework then. For now, I'm happy knowing the minimum about other religions and being an atheist.

Morpheus and more Matrix parallels

You may have read my breakdown of the original Matrix movie and how atheistic overtones/themes could easily be interpreted there. I noticed something else watching the movie the other night for the 158th time.

Morpheus, known in mythology as the god of dreams but ironically is the one charged with waking people up from the matrix, has an interesting exchange with Neo the first time they meet.

Like so many people who start to have doubts about religion, Neo has been looking for answers, too, because things just aren't making sense to him. In the following exchange pulled directly from the movie, I will substitute "the matrix" with "RELIGION" and you'll see the conversation still makes sense and holds up quite nicely as if Neo was an indoctrinated believer on the cusp of deconverting.

MORPHEUS: "Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"

NEO: "RELIGION?"

MORPHEUS: "Do you want to know what it is?

Neo nods.

MORPHEUS: "RELIGION is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."

NEO: "What truth?"

MORPHEUS: "That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what RELIGION is. You have to see it for yourself. ... This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. ... You take the blue pill. The story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe…whatever you want to believe. ... You take the red pill. You stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. ... Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more."

You see, Morpheus, with the blue pill, is offering a chance to go back into oblivion, to return to a world where ignorance is bliss, even though the machines are using Neo's very life to extend theirs. The blue pill could also be symbolism as the believer pill (B for blue, B for believer) and the red pill could be a symbol for rational thought or reality (R for red, R for rational or reality).

It's just a thought.

Gnostic, agnostic, theist, atheist explained

"Gnost" comes from the Ancient Greek word gnostikos for learned or knowledge. So the term gnostic means to know something, and its counterpart is agnostic, meaning lacking knowledge.

I admit when I was first having doubts about religion and god, I threw the term agnostic around to describe my stance because someone once told me they were one and their doubts matched mine, but that wasn't complete. The more I researched the more I came to realize agnostic has nothing to do with religion or gods. I can be agnostic about a lot of things, such as French ballet and oil rigs. When it comes to gods, I assert everyone is agnostic, because how can you absolutely know if a god exists? They can pretend they know, or make some immature irrational statement from personal revelation, but in the end it's hokum.

Many believe agnostic means you reserve the right to believe in a god should we find proof of one. But clearly that's wrong. Atheists have the same right.

A theist is someone who believes in a god and an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god. That doesn't mean an atheist couldn't believe if evidence proved a god existed, in fact it means exactly the opposite. I would gladly admit there was a god if one presented itself. Often, believers list their beliefs, superstitions, holy books and ignorance as proof, and when atheists carefully point out none of these things are evidence, they ask, "What evidence could a god provide that would make you a believer?" I like to say the deity/creator/god would know what level of evidence it would require to make everyone believe, so why answer the question?

There are some atheists who will claim there is no god, but that only hurts their stance, because then they would need to prove their claim, which they can't. So to say a gnostic atheist exists is just as unlikely as a gnostic theist. We'll never know for sure one way or the other unless a god did what was required to erase doubt. But real evidence mounts heavily on the side of no existence of gods.

Me? I'm an agnostic atheist, because the two terms aren't mutually exclusive and it's the most honest description of my worldview. I don't know if any god exists and I believe there isn't one based on the available evidence.

To help or not to help

I'm a member of a handful of atheism, debate and podcast forums. I admit I was never really a forum regular because most of the time the topics are mundane (or so tangential you can never remember the original topic), many people are argumentative or trolls and basically I just didn't care.

Lately, I have been spending more time on The Thinking Atheist, mostly because it's fun to debate theists and reinforce my knowledge. However, I'm an atheist for quite a few reasons, and one of those reasons is because I just couldn't stand proselytizing nutbags. So much so that they were the reason I set out on my journey to discover the truth. I figured if these jacknuts are so happy being mindless I may as well find out what all the hubbub was about and why it was so damn important to force it down my throat. I discovered the truth through rational critical thinking and haven't looked back at all.

But, something came up on TTA's forum that gave me pause. There was a young man on there asking for advice (this essentially happens weekly). He was 16, and an atheist. His father, who is a devout Christian, couldn't answer this boy's questions adequately so he enlisted a pastor to have a meeting with the boy. This boy asked the forum members what to do.

The TTA members stepped up in droves to tell him what to say, what to read, how to act, how to prepare, etc. Some were sarcastic, some were genuine. I was tempted to respond, to help out this young man, but as I started to read the comments from the others, I began to feel like it was almost like proselytizing for atheism. These comments and proposed actions were not unlike what religious people would do when faced with doubters/non-believers.

I admit I have chimed in once or twice when young people were facing a crisis with their theistic families, but now I'm not as comfortable doing it as I used to be. Granted, in most cases these kids are already atheists and just looking for guidance since they can't get it from their parents, and I'm fine with that. But lately I haven't been comfortable with giving advice to impressionable youngsters, regardless of their religious beliefs or stance. It just feels hypocritical. Sure, if they have questions, I'm not going to deny them knowledge, but to coach them on how to stand up to their parents and religious leaders just feels wrong now.

Do I think less religion would make this world a better place? Absolutely, and I will tell anyone who will listen. And, yes, I think young people should know what we know so they can make an informed decision, but I just don't like telling children what to do, even if their parents are irrational indoctrinated followers.

I'll have a Ham on Nye, hold the bible

I sat through the entire Bill Nye-vs.-Ken Ham debate, and my thoughts afterward were pretty much the same as they were before the debate. I wasn't sure if this debate would be a good thing because the moment you put someone of respectability on stage with someone who is less than credible, you instantly lend credence to this individual.

Why? Debates are meant to pit two ideas with legitimate equal ideas and  viewpoints, and Ham's worldview is anything but legit. There was a part of me that felt if Nye could reach some people who might have been on the fence that it would be worth it. Once the debate ended, my feelings remained the same, that Nye may have reached some people, but Ham got the exposure he craved with a respected member of science, plus he raised money for his horrendous museum.

So, what did I think of their performances? I think Nye was in a precarious position because this was his first debate and it came against a polished debater, and he couldn't be combative. If this were Christopher Hitchens, he would've used his rapier wit, instantaneous recall and unrivaled vocabulary to destroy Ham, but he wouldn't have used any restraint and likely would have lost the mostly pro-Ham audience, who would chalk Hitchens up to being a strident, militant, arrogant atheist.

To Nye's credit, he remained calm and used the platform the educate. I truly believe he agreed to this debate so he could have unedited uncensored access to Ham's followers, and by remaining calm and mostly respectful, people listened to him rather than dismissed him. He tried to make a lot of jokes (his M.O.), but I felt this was a mistake. It's OK, and actually encouraged, to tell jokes when you are on your home turf or at the very least in a neutral location, but when you are on someone else's turf, your jokes are mostly going to draw crickets and give the illusion that you are losing. He only had a finite amount of time with these people and should've used every minute conveying his arguments.

I do wish Nye would have held Ham accountable for some of his fallacies and used better points to refute the Ark and bible accounts. When Ham continually used the bible as his "proof" and pandered to his home crowd with sly condescending jokes, Nye should have made it clear that the bible is ONLY a claim, just like every other religious text, and is not proof of anything. He could have brought up the Flood of Gilgamesh, the single window out of which all of the tons of waste from the animals would have to be discarded or the fact that the mix of freshwater and saltwater would have combined to kill all of the water animals.

As for the fallacies, here is where I think Nye needed the most help because an experienced debater would have jumped on Ham's mistakes. Ham opened the debate by changing the debate topic and then proceeded to use this angle to support his point. This is known as a strawman argument.

Instead of addressing the issue, which was creationism as a viable option to origins, he announced that Nye and the outside community say creationists can't be scientists. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. He then ran video clips of a handful of scientists who rattled off their resumes to show how legitimate they are in the scientific community. They then stated they were creationists, etc.

This is an appeal to authority. Ham introduces these official looking and sounding scientists to an impressionable audience to influence them into thinking, "Hey, these guys are scientists, so if they say creationism is correct then it must be." But, none of these scientists have ever had one paper published regarding creationism. They may be experts in astronomy or MRI invention, but that doesn't make them an authority on Genesis or creationism. But it didn't stop Ham from carting out their names later in the debate to "shore up" and "legitimize" his defense.

Ham's other strawman came when he spun the word "science" to mean what he wanted it to mean rather than what it is. He said the science we witness today is observational science, whereas things we weren't around for would have to be explained through historical science, and that is not reliable because we weren't there. This was Ham's gin card, because whatever Nye would use as scientific evidence to determine such things as the age of the earth or lack of proof for a global flood, Ham would roll out his boilerplate excuse that we weren't there so your method isn't accurate.

There are numerous scientific ways to combat this way of thinking, but in this case I would have made it simple for the audience and said, "Were you there when the bible was written? Were you there when god created the heavens and the earth and Adam and Eve?" So why do you get to use events you weren't present for as your proof, but science doesn't get to use its proven radiometric dating methods for events we weren't present for?

I then would have said if you don't trust radiometric or carbon dating, then what about China, which has a continuous history that dates more than 5,000 years with actual historical records? Your 4,000-year-old flood story completely disregards an entire country, race, culture and heritage. Where were these Chinese people when this flood came? It's a much easier tangible example to keep the simple audience thinking rationally.

Ham was very good at dodging questions, such as, "Do you believe everything in the bible as literal truth?" He spent the first minute of his allotted two-minute response on defining "literal," then spouted off the standard, "Some parts are meant to be poetry and some are history," etc. While Nye admittedly was a little harsher with his one-minute rebuttal here, he could have really gone in for the kill, but he didn't. His inexperience as a debater showed in this segment, and Ham used it to his advantage, knowing they never really had to engage each other.

This was the major problem with the format. It was almost as if these guys didn't need to be in the same room. A good debate has give and take, it allows debaters to hold each other accountable and lends itself to actual discussion and the fleshing out of points. This format started with five-minute opening statements, followed by 30-minute speeches, then a pair of five-minute rebuttals and counters, and wrapped up with a Q&A from the audience. Here is where I felt the format hurt Nye, because the questions were posed, they got two minutes to answer and the opponent got one minute to answer the same question. Had the format allowed for the opponent to rebut rather than answer, we might have seen some fireworks.

Overall, I was glad I watched it. Nye did a good job and Ham proved he was a nutjob.

Sorry, I'm not Abel to believe this, Cain you?

A little while ago on Facebook, I posted a YouTube video of a Fox News show that had a young priest as a guest who was answering questions about random topics. It was an epic fail on his part when a viewer posed the question of how Adam and Eve's sons Cain and Abel populated the earth since they were two boys.

Here's the clip:

 

It's a simple question, and one that is poignant to the short-sightedness of Genesis. Adam and Eve, according to this fairy tale, were the first two humans on Earth (though you should look into the full story of Lilith for fun). They were charged with populating the planet, so they had sex and the result was Cain and Abel.

Since Eve was the only woman on Earth, and she didn't give rise to a girl, it would stand to reason Adam would have to keep trying to make a girl with her, or Cain and/or Abel would have to sleep with their mother, right? Incest was going to have to be overlooked at some point, since even if Eve gave birth to a daughter, the brothers (or Adam) would have to impregnate her, too.

But let's explore the story a bit further. They had a farm and the sons had their chores: Abel tended to the sheep while Cain raised crops. Then these guys felt the need to give god a gift. God loved Abel's sheep offering, but was less than enthused with Cain's food. Go figure, god is immature and fussy, just a child not wanting to eat broccoli.

Anyway, this rejection ticked off Cain to no end, so much so that his jealous rage led him to kill Abel, which resulted in Cain's famous saying, "Am I my brother's keeper?" when god returned asking where Abel was. Funny, isn't god omniscient? Does he really not know what happened? Let me guess, he's treating Cain like an infant who spilled a glass of milk on the new couch. He knows he did it, despite the choruses of "Not me." This led to a fight with god, some insults were tossed around and then Cain split.

Now here's where the story takes another twist (as if there weren't enough bizarre plot lines already). As Cain wanders through the Land of Nod (East of Eden), he finds a wife! Where did she come from? Adam and Eve didn't have her (though they would give birth to yet another son, Seth, and he would sleep with Eve to populate Earth), and god never says he put her there for him, plus why would god reward Cain for his murderous actions by giving him a wife? Incest runs rampant and Abel has a huge family. The end.

If you're a believer, how can you read this tripe and not question it? I know Genesis is made-up poetry written by science-deprived Middle Eastern troglodytes, but there are literalists out there who believe this stuff. And when you have a priest on national television who can't explain it, isn't it time to discard the effluvium and call it what it is, a fairy tale?

A triumvirate of contradiction

It's a funny thing, prayer. Some people do it to clear their minds; some do it because they think it will help whatever it is that troubles them; some do it out of habit; most theists do it because they believe some supreme beings can read their thoughts and make things happen in their favor.

It's a funny thing, freewill. Some people think we don't have it; theists think we have it, an ability to do whatever we want; some theists think freewill is merely an illusion and we are all predestined to live life exactly how it turns out (and many theists have never done any critical thinking to see these last two statements are at odds with each other).

It's a funny thing, god. Some people believe he exists; some believe he doesn't exist; some theists believe he has a master plan that can't be changed because their god is omniscient and has seen/laid out everything past, present and future.

Now, I have written about prayer, freewill and god's master plan before, but I have a different slant this time. Let's combine all three.

I've heard people pray for family members to do the right thing, for the surgeon to do his best or for the person in the car ahead of them to bypass the open parking spot.

While at first blush these statements may seem arbitrary and harmless, especially to a theist, but a deeper understanding of the three elements I carefully laid out at the top of this post will help you see these statements are confusing and contradictory in a theist's worldview.

If you are a theist, you believe in intercessory/petitionary prayer, meaning you think god and his heavenly compadres can hear your prayers and "answer" them. That if you ask for cancer to leave your friend's body, god can hear your request and make the decision to rid your friend's body of cancer, sending him into remission. We already see something wrong with this because if you are a theist, you believe your god is all-knowing and already has planned out every day of your life and your friend's.

But let's take it a step further: Suppose now you were the one asking your god that the surgeon does a good job on the surgery for your friend, who has cancer. You are now violating free will and god's master plan. You see, by asking god to make sure the surgeon does a good job (and expecting god to actually follow through), you are taking away the freewill of the doctor to falter or do something differently. Plus, you are asking god to change his plan (for if your friend was destined to die on that table, then god would be changing his master plan just for you, and if he was destined to live then god wouldn't listen to you because it was in his plan anyway). The only way god listens to your prayers is if he is willing to change his plan, which, if you're a theist, you believe can't happen. The second you believe your prayers have been answered is the exact moment you contradict your core beliefs in god's master plan.

The same holds true for the trivial parking spot. If you pray, "Please, God, don't let her take that parking space!" You are admitting you don't believe in free will and your prayers can make god change his plan just for you. Quite a bit of arrogance, no? Because if god knew this person was going to take this spot, he would have to insert a thought into her head to make her drive past the opening. This violates the woman's freewill.

This is one of many logical problems with theism and what happens when you write a bunch of supernatural laws and gibberish into a holy text. You find out later it doesn't make sense when you hold it up to scrutiny. You cannot believe people have freewill, god has a plan and prayers get answered. You can believe in one of these, but you can't believe in any two because they ultimately contradict one another.