It doesn't force you to be moral

Atheism doesn’t force a person to be moral, it merely allows for it. And better than any religion.

Atheism comes with no specific set of beliefs, no system of thought. In common usage it is simply a rejection of all gods. This is compatible with a bunch of philosophies, both good and bad. Importantly, however, it is compatible with good intentions.

In the spirit of Kant, atheism allows perfectly for good will. That is, what a person intends is the important element in deciding the goodness or badness of an action, behavior, thought, etc. It’s the idea behind the phrase “It’s the thought that counts”. Give a person a fantastic birthday present because you want to impress everyone with your wealth and the intention is to self-aggrandize. Most people, myself included, regard that as a generally bad intention. But regardless of what one thinks of self-aggrandation, the point should be clear: intention matters. A low-quality gift given after much consideration to the happiness of the recipient is a much better gift, at least philosophically, than the fantastic present.

Atheism jives with good will. Any action with a good intention is ultimately good because consideration has been given to others; people are considered above all else. Religion is evil in this regard (and most regards, for that matter).

Religion teaches that good intentions should stem from a desire to please some magical man in the sky. This is not good intention; it is selfishness. It is a desire to please some god in order to gain access to a reward at the end of The Yellow Brick Road (or at least a desire to avoid punishment). That is action out of self-concern, not for the sake of being a good person. Religion does not allow for purely good intentions except when the actor forgets his particular god(s).

It doesn’t force you to be moral

Atheism doesn’t force a person to be moral, it merely allows for it. And better than any religion.

Atheism comes with no specific set of beliefs, no system of thought. In common usage it is simply a rejection of all gods. This is compatible with a bunch of philosophies, both good and bad. Importantly, however, it is compatible with good intentions.

In the spirit of Kant, atheism allows perfectly for good will. That is, what a person intends is the important element in deciding the goodness or badness of an action, behavior, thought, etc. It’s the idea behind the phrase “It’s the thought that counts”. Give a person a fantastic birthday present because you want to impress everyone with your wealth and the intention is to self-aggrandize. Most people, myself included, regard that as a generally bad intention. But regardless of what one thinks of self-aggrandation, the point should be clear: intention matters. A low-quality gift given after much consideration to the happiness of the recipient is a much better gift, at least philosophically, than the fantastic present.

Atheism jives with good will. Any action with a good intention is ultimately good because consideration has been given to others; people are considered above all else. Religion is evil in this regard (and most regards, for that matter).

Religion teaches that good intentions should stem from a desire to please some magical man in the sky. This is not good intention; it is selfishness. It is a desire to please some god in order to gain access to a reward at the end of The Yellow Brick Road (or at least a desire to avoid punishment). That is action out of self-concern, not for the sake of being a good person. Religion does not allow for purely good intentions except when the actor forgets his particular god(s).

It doesn’t force you to be an atheist

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

It doesn't force you to be an atheist

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

It doesn’t force you to be an atheist

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

I accepted

I accepted the invitation to see Expelled. It was about what I expected.

I didn’t subject myself to that horrid movie since I’ve already seen it, but I did make sure to show up toward the end. I caught the last bit with the interview with Richard Dawkins. It’s hilarious. Ben Stein, horrid economist, understander of science, and vaguely entertaining actor in the 80s, asks Dawkins to put a specific number on the probability that God does not exist. Dawkins says he doesn’t feel comfortable doing this, but Stein persists. To the creationist audience that’s going to interpret absolutely everything as supporting their inane ideas, this comes across as gold. Dawkins seems to be stumbling. The truth is the question is absurd. It would be like asking a creationist to scientifically put a number on the likelihood God does exist. The more stupid breed of creationist will say “100%”, ignoring my qualifer “scientifically” – words, meanings, definitions, and honesty are irrelevant to these mooks – but the rare creationist will see the absurdity of this. More aptly, however, this would be like asking the likelihood that an elephant, shark, or wolf would evolve. No scientist is going to give a straight-up percentage. It doesn’t make sense to that, and even if it did, there are far too many variables to be in the least bit accurate. This, contrary to what the creationist mind thinks (if we are to follow its ‘logic’ to its end), does not mean elephants, sharks, or wolves could not or did not evolve. But even more aptly, it’d be like asking the likelihood that fairies do not exist. The whole thing ignores the point of the argument.

Anyway, there was a “discussion” after the movie ended. By this I mean one guy who claims to have a degree from Oxford and I had a back and forth. The details are becoming fuzzy, but to give you an idea of the sort of thing he was saying, take this. I brought up that no papers supporting intelligent design have ever been peer reviewed and published. He countered by pointing out that Michael Behe and William Dembski both have books out that have been reviewed. For the dumber of you out there (i.e., creationists who think he delivered me a knock-out punch), that is not peer review. The criteria for getting published in, say, Nature is just a tad more difficult than the criteria for seeing your book on the shelves of Barnes & Noble. Mainly, the bookstore criteria is that it will make some money. I had difficulty making this point because the leader of this whole shindig kept trying to interrupt our discussion, but I did get to mention that those books have been peer reviewed in the sense that The God Delusion has been peer reviewed. At that point, this guy (a pastor) completely misunderstood the point and not only asserted that Dawkins’ book had been panned but that it was very poorly written. Again, I was cut off before being able to counter, but c’mon. I can understand someone being so driven by a fear of evidence that they outright reject Dawkins’ arguments, but the man is a fantastic writer. Saying otherwise is just being petty.

After the discussion was mysteriously cut short by 30 minutes, I continued speaking with this pastor. He claimed that the Lucy fossil had been found over an area of 300 feet and only 1% was discovered. I told him he was wrong. This is common; creationists will get these untruths flowing at their churches (usually pushed by the leaders) and entirely believe them. Research? Confirmation? Nah. It’s a convenient thing to believe. You can do your own 30 second Yahoo! or Google search if you’d like, but if you don’t already know the answers, they are: Lucy was discovered all in one location with no duplicate bones nearby (in other words, it was certainly one animal); her body is surprisingly complete, not at 1%, but 40%. From my memory of her images, I would have guessed something a little higher, but I refrained, opting instead to get his email. I gave him this information, plus some other things debunking some wrong ideas he had about black holes (time does not “become irrelevant” at the event horizon). No response has shown up in my inbox.

Overall, it was about what I thought it’d be. A lot of quiet people who would nod their heads to the one or two more vocal creationists in the group who would invariably give me the same old tired arguments coupled with a few random numbers they think are impressive but are really just wrong. Standard.

Soon

bruins07

I like Golden Retrievers, too

Baby monkeys born at Santa Ana Zoo

Two baby golden lion tamarin monkeys were born last month at the Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park. Interestingly enough, this is the second time in 2009 that twins of this species have been born at the zoo–twins were also welcomed in January.

“Golden lion tamarins are a highly endangered species found in the Atlantic coastal rainforests of Brazil,” explained Kent Yamaguchi, the Acting Zoo Director. “They use their long slender fingers to probe small crevices in plants like bromeliads for tasty insects. Golden lion tamarins also snack on various fruits as they forage through the rainforest canopy.”

The recent newborns are not on display yet, but the twins from January can be found on the zoo’s north end.

babymonkeys1

babymonkeys2

Petty revenge in Germany

Germany is once again acting out of revenge, not reason or rationality.

The return of alleged Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk to Germany for trial on war crimes was delayed again Tuesday by a federal court, shortly after six immigration officers removed the retired autoworker from his suburban Cleveland home in a wheelchair.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay until it could further consider Demjanjuk’s motion to reopen the U.S. case that ordered him deported, in which he says painful medical ailments would make travel to Germany torturous.

“If he is deported, if this madness and inhumane action is not stopped by the 6th Circuit, he will live out his life in a (German) hospital. He will never be put on trial,” he said. “It makes absolutely no sense that the Germans, after nearly killing him in combat, would try to kill him once again.”

The Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center said it was undeterred.

“We remain confident that John Demjanjuk will be deported and finally face the bar of justice for the unspeakable crimes he committed during World War II when he was a guard at the Sobibor death camp,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, Wiesenthal Center founder.

This absolutely is not about making someone “finally face the bar of justice” for anything. It is purely about revenge. This man may very well have done horrific things to many thousands of people, but putting him on trial and imprisoning him for the last few years of his life does nothing. It does not increase the safety of others. If the point of a judicial system is to simply punish, then we’re just being euphemistic about a desire for revenge.

People should only be brought to justice if doing that serves some actual purpose. If the ‘purpose’ is simply for the sake of justice, then there is no real reason beside either rule internalization or revenge. (It’s revenge in this case.) People need to rise above this pettiness – no matter how emotionally difficult – and work from principles. Anger, distress, sadness, and other emotions just take the blindfold off Lady Justice and threw dust and grime in her eyes.

It can't be the hand of God

Not the hand of God

This is a photo of Pulsar B1509 taken by NASA’s Chandra X-ray observatory. There is a poll which is attached to the article on this image.

What do you think is captured on the recently released NASA photograph?

  • The hand of God
  • A natural stellar formation

“A natural stellar formation” is leading because the poll has been crashed by PZ Myers. But even though atheists crashed this poll to give it the correct answer, creationists can’t possible view this as being the hand of their particular sky fairy.

Taken by NASA’s Chandra X-ray observatory from it’s orbiting 360 miles above the Earth, the recently released photo of Pulsar B1509 captures the X-Ray nebula in a state shaped like a human hand. NASA estimates the shape spans 150 light years, but is caused by a dense neutron star that’s just 12 miles in diameter.

Astronomers believe B1509 is roughly 1,700 years old and is located 17,000 light years from Earth.

If this was God’s hand, it’d have to have existed since the beginning of time (in fact, since before the beginning of time – creationists have incredible insights into the pre-Universe). It is only 1,700 years old. As we all know, if this were the hand of the particular cultural god of Christians, it would would need to exist since roughly the beginning of the agricultural revolution – i.e., the beginning of all time.

Also, it has four fingers.