Freethinker's corner

Anonymous Coward … April 1, 2013

2013/03/31

Why do Christians think that when a man says “I’m an atheist” that he doesn’t mean it? How can it be made clear that nonbelief in a deity or the supernatural is not an invitation for proselytizing? I realize these people might actually believe they are being kind and are possibly even serious about saving my non-existent soul. But enough is enough.

Just before Christmas last year I received a packet of brimstone, fire-belching Christian tracts which I displayed on a past blog. On Wednesday March 20, 2013, I received yet another packet, just in time for Easter. The perpetrator whoever he or she might be does not even have the courage or decency to include a return address.

Perhaps they think it is an amusing game. Perhaps they think they will rile me into accepting their lord and savior. I do find it amusing, to think that there are people who still believe in this crap. What year is it? 2013? Yet they live so far in the past holding to concepts written by bronze age know nothings.

So…who could it be? It’s stamped from the Cleveland post office here in Ohio, whereas, our local mail is supposed to go through Akron. That seems to eliminate my one suspect, one I will call Tim. He’s a baptist, but is otherwise is a fairly intelligent fellow. I think he would know better. That leaves an unknown.

Well, at least these tracts won’t land in the hands of someone who has not been inoculated against the god virus. There’s always a good side to everything.
Intelligent Deception … March 27, 2013

2013/03/27

Ignorance has its intelligent proponents. Its major difficulty is how to convince people something is right, when it is so terribly wrong. The proponents, of course, do not think what they are supporting as being terribly wrong. If they were convinced of this and still promoted it they would be in another category: Liars for Jesus.

For the Intelligent design proponent the problem is clear. How to prove something which cannot be proven. These people fully believe that what they are doing is providing support for the truth. Yet, in the past when they have attempted to prove the correctness of what they believe they have found it impossible to do so.

Think-tanks are formed, like the Discovery Institute, in an attempt to come up with proofs for that which cannot be proven. After much consideration it seems as if their solution to the problem is this: Complexity. No, not irreducible complexity, though that concept has its supporters too, just complexity.

The Discovery Institute decided after much debate to fabricate enormously complex proofs for intelligent design concepts. The complexity is such that the average joe could not, but also would not, attempt to understand these explanations. The average Joes and Janes are the targets of these con-men. Through many large events, drawing crowds of thousands, these masters of deception have bilked willing yokels out of millions of dollars.

Experts have unraveled their complex but obscure proofs and found them gibberish.

William Lane Craig is another deceiver that cloaks his “proofs” in unintelligible longwinded, and quite never-ending speech. The only plus the man has is that he is an expert debater who could probably convince some poor gullible slob that up is down and down is up. Although supposedly winning most of his debates it is through obfuscation and deception that he has done so. If the person you are debating doesn’t have a clue about what you are talking what chance do they have of responding? Craig uses various bombastic tricks he has honed over the years to confuse and outclass his opponent.

In the end, deception is all they have left. If their god truly does exist, that god has left them blowing in the wind. Not a shred of evidence exists to substantiate the reality of their god, including Jesus. The only thing they can resort to is attempting to prove that which cannot be proven, with demonstrations of deception.
Spurning a Label…. March 25, 2013

2013/03/24

Religion has, as its main motivation, the fear of death. There are other reasons for religion such as the transference of respect of and belief in one’s parents ability to protect you, care for you, to an even more magnificent and powerful “parent” after childhood. Fear, however, of death, and the desire to be immortal, are the mainstays of religion.

Many people within the faith, however, are no longer of it. Again, the motivation for silence, and at least feigned devotion of a deity, is fear. Fear of what others might think. Fear of the repercussions of rejection of belief. Some of these “In the faith but not of it” may talk to fellow attendees of their church and not even realize they are talking to a fellow, non-believer.

Fear of rejection by friends, family, and the public in general has kept people en masse from publicly voicing their lack of belief in a supernatural deity. Agnostics sit happily on the fence, afraid to declare atheism, because the faithful over the years have been extremely successful in stigmatizing the label.

Others, in an effort to distance themselves from the mainstream religions, yet not draw the ire of the faithful, label themselves in ways so as not to offend. Many even invent their own brand of belief, with one sole follower, themselves.

There is a group that is growing, a group that atheists, agnostics, and other ‘labeled’ non-belief systems are at once a part, but also separate from:
the Nones. There is a growing segment of ‘nones’ that spurn all labels. They do not profess faith, yet they declare they are not atheists. Though many accept or at least do not resist the label ‘secular’, they accept no other denotation. These people conduct themselves in a secular fashion in all of their daily dealings, proclaiming no faith, and accepting no labels.

Why would these people reject the label atheist? Again, I assert it is because they are afraid. They are afraid of the backlash from wearing the label ‘atheist’. They are afraid of losing friends and being rejected from family. As a result, they assume a position which they think is less threatening to religion, one which might be considered neutral.

Unfortunately, even though these ‘nones’ may desire to simply be neutral, they are forgetting that religion has no gray areas, only black and white, on or off, ‘for us or against us’. The devout look upon these ‘nones’ as undeclared atheists. They do not harass them because the ‘nones’ do not affiliate themselves with power-blocks, groups, which might stand up for non-believers rights. They, the religious, look upon the ‘nones’ as they do the general population, to a degree. They see them as simply wayward children, needing proselytization. Having only black and white horizons, these devout may see the ‘nones’ as off, but not having declared as off. Atheists, on the other hand, have made such a declaration, even to the point of telling the believer that their deity is imaginary.

‘Nones’ are walking a tightrope, even more so than agnostics. Resolutely, they are attempting to align themselves with no one. Distancing themselves from those who actively pursue the right to believe as they wish, they render themselves inert to the cause of unbelief. Like the non-unionized worker, who refuses to join a union and promote worker’s rights, the ‘none’ allows the declared non-believer do all the work that is involved in fighting for the rights of non-believers. They want the rights, but refuse to dirty their hands by doing the work. About the only good they are to the cause is that they present a face of neutrality to religion, which may someday, hopefully, become the norm. Otherwise, they are dead weight, and nearly as bad as accommodationists.
Right to Work? …. March 20, 2013

2013/03/20

What do “Right to Work” laws do?

Right to work laws allow individuals to work within a unionized company without paying union dues. Unions refer to these individuals as “free-riders”. The union is still required by law to represent these employees. By lowering the amount the union takes in for its various functions the right to work laws weaken the union’s ability to act and to bargain. This has the effect of lowering wages in those states with right to work laws.

Such laws are supported whole-heartedly by business corporations that desire the demise of the union and its higher wage rates. Individuals who support these laws have been fooled into thinking that such laws benefit them. To understand why such laws are not beneficial to the employee we have to examine the differences between unionized and non-unionized workplaces.

If unions did not exist is there anyone who thinks wages would be as high as they are? Sure, more people might be working, but these workers would be earning only a fraction of what they deserve. Every worker would be subject to the favoritism of the owners and managers. Yes, those that benefit from such favoritism would object to unions. Any worker could be dismissed for the the most minor of reasons, or no reason at all. Does anyone doubt that at some companies the workers would be treated as slaves? Sweat shops would abound. Everyone would be at the mercy of the whims of the rich and ‘entitled’.

Money would probably be worth more. However, that would be because there would be so little of it to be had. The rich would be richer, the poor, poorer. Whenever the business owner gave a few crumbs to his downtrodden workers it would be hailed as a benevolent act of kindness, though in reality it is given with the thought in mind that it might deter an outright rebellion. Keep them happy, would be the motivation, or at least not angry.

When a non-unionized business is unionized the relationship between employee and employer does change. The owner is then obligated to deal with a group rather than the individual concerning wages and benefits. Adverse financial effects could occur if an agreement to working conditions is not met. What the membership wants is a fair wage for work done. It is not in the interest of the union to make things so difficult that the business cannot continue (Not that this does not happen at times). Favoritism goes by the wayside, at least where management is not concerned. Seniority becomes an important quality should layoffs be necessary.

In the presence of unions, even a non-unionized business must provide an adequate incentive for the retaining of quality employees. Wages everywhere are higher in the presence of unionized businesses. Companies are only going to payout what they have to.

Having worked in both unionized and non-unionized settings I prefer unionized. This is despite the fact that the union leaders themselves, at times, play favorites. Gung-ho union supporters are given extra attention to their grievances as compared to those who merely are members for the sake of enabling them to work. In union atmospheres you must be careful to remain in the good graces of the union leadership.

The only detrimental effect of a union, as I see it, is that, in most cases, the worker who excels is given no more consideration. There usually is no extra reward for exceptional work. This can lead to employees doing only what is necessary to get by and to an attitude of not caring about the future of the company. Of course, I have seen lots of that even in non-unionized businesses, but the individual is usually soon gone, unless they are one of the “beautiful people”.

Unions, as I see it, exist only because of the tendency of human greed. No, not that the unions are greedy, but because the wealthy are extremely reluctant to share the wealth. If all business owners had always been generous, providing good working conditions at fair wages, what need would there be for the existence of unions? The very thing, unions, which the wealthy abhor, are the result of what the wealthy have done.

Unions are a necessary entity. If ‘Right to Work’ laws endanger them then ‘Right to Work’ laws should be fought wherever they exist. Those individuals that support ‘Right to Work’ laws are either rich, or have been duped.
Who Shoulders the Blame? …………March 25, 2013.

2013/03/17
There is much good in humanity. From our humble beginnings as an ape-like creature many millions of years ago we have risen to dominate the planet. Against nearly insurmountable adversities we have prevailed. Among animals we are indeed a marvel.

There are many things, on the other hand, that could be better. Our present population is at the breaking point, perhaps even passed the breaking point, of the planet’s resources.

Population growth is upward bound and out of control. Could this planet support even more? Sure it can support more. The question is: Would life be worth living?

There are many starving people on this planet. Arable land is rapidly becoming depleted. Forests in tropical areas are being cleared faster by the minute, but such land is of questionable value. The soil becomes depleted within a short while and then more forest must be cleared to make new land available.

Water is a major concern. The demand is such that even a brief drought can cause human misery to deepen. Western parts of the United States are screaming for new water resources as a burgeoning population demands more and more. The mighty Colorado is mighty no more.

Means are at hand for population control. Contraceptives are available at the corner store. Family planning is available in most cities. Even abortion is presently legal. Family planning and contraception as well as abortion are, however, opposed.

Public schools can teach sex education. Public schools however are inhibited from giving clear instruction about contraceptives and family planning.

Seems to me whatever would inhibit clear instruction in methods of population control or oppose such methods when they are freely available, would be responsible for the suffocating scale of our present population. Those responsible for this population disaster also is in opposition to much more.

Science is opposed by the same group that spurns population attenuation by reliable means.

Evolution, proven science, is opposed by this group. The intent instead is to teach ancient fables in the classrooms. Much more in the science classroom as well as the laboratory is targeted by this well-meaning but misguided horde. As a result, the United States is on the verge of losing the lead it held in science to other more open-minded countries.

The opposition to science by this “heavenly” horde has threatened the whole of education. They demand that vouchers be given them so they can send their children to private schools that will indoctrinate them in “heavenly” doctrine. This drains the public schools of funds needed to maintain buildings and pay staff. Many schools cannot, as a result, afford the basic needs for instruction to be carried out. The public schools always have done as good a job as any private school, but propaganda distributed widely by the “heavenly” horde has many convinced otherwise. Vouchers are not desired as a means to send little Bobby or Susan to private school, it is a means of draining funds from public schools, causing the eventual collapse of public schools. Vouchers would never be adequate to pay for private schools, in any case.

Then… there are the wars. Wars for resources, wars for terrorism, wars for “heavenly” principle. Those in power rally the troops to war using tried and true “heavenly” doctrine. Most wars are of “heavenly” origin. Many a foreign country hates what we do.

Deficit climbs

High taxes and a staggering deficit hamper efforts to improve quality of life for all. Wars cost money. Wars have depleted government coffers. The “heavenly” horde pays little tax. The masses must make up the difference in lost taxes and thereby subsidize religious institutions and indoctrination.

Opposition to Global warming, now politically corrected to Climate change, by conservative business groups, who deny that mankind could have any effect on weather on earth and maintain the world was “put” here for our use, have delayed efforts to deter such warming to the point it may be too late.

Name it:
1. Overpopulation
2. Poverty
3. Failing public schools
4. Loss of United States science lead
5. Wars
6. High taxes and the nation’s debt
7. Hatred of the United States
8. Global warming
All of these can be laid, partially for some, wholly in others, at the feet of the “heavenly” horde. They are responsible for these and more.

All for the sake of principles taught from a two-thousand-plus-year-old book of questionable origin written by extremely ignorant men. I blame and I am ashamed for them all.
Roe Vs. Wade… March 13, 2013

2013/03/13

Roe Vs. Wade, a decision of the Supreme Court on abortion, has passed its fortieth anniversary date. This decision has at least one thing in common with the Constitution of the United States in that the religious have fought to destroy it since its inception.

Wild eyed religious zealots have attacked abortion clinics and killed abortion doctors on various occasions through the forty years of Roe Vs. Wade. It doesn’t matter that the doctors which are targeted are members of a church and believe many of the same things as the assailant, all that matters is that the doctor differs on the matter of abortion. Dr. George Tiller, one of a few doctors that performed late term abortions, was shot and killed by an unrepentant madman while within the walls of his church.

Roe Vs. Wade gave women the right to an abortion up to the twenty-forth week of pregnancy. The decision, handed down January 22, 1973, guaranteed this right to an abortion “free from interference from the state.”

No longer were women required to carry a fetus to term regardless of danger to the life of the mother, regardless of deformity of the fetus, regardless of financial circumstance, and regardless of whether the mother and father were mature enough to take on the task of raising the child.

In fact, Roe Vs. Wade gave complete control of conception to women. To me, this does not seem entirely an expression of equal rights.

Many people will no doubt take issue with some of my opinions on this matter. Some will say that I am promoting a patriarchal viewpoint. This is untrue, as I promote equal rights for all. I am not for any particular group gaining an advantage, not even to equalize past inequities. Efforts to promote advantages, even temporary advantages, for select groups of peoples have always ended up perpetuating the very fault they were meant to correct. Also, such ‘temporary’ advantages have always had a way of continuing permanently, with cries that who can know when to end them.

Roe Vs. Wade does not allow for any rights to the male side of the equation. If a woman is dead set against carrying a baby to term, even in a consensual sex situation, the baby is terminated, regardless of the opinion of the other member involved. If a woman is dead set in carrying the baby to term, regardless of the father’s opinion, the baby will be born. It doesn’t matter whether it was a case of deception (woman said she was taking birth control, but wasn’t), or a case of failure on the part of whatever contraceptive device being used, the father is obligated to the child’s support, should the woman decide to give birth.

Some have suggested that the future may involve business-like contracts even in consensual sex situations. The father declaring that should the woman get pregnant that he faces no legal or financial obligation if the fetus is carried to term. Such contracts may in fact already exist. Even so, with the courts only offering protection for a woman’s rights, and a child’s rights, such contracts would no doubt be invalidated, no matter how ironclad.

Any one familiar with child-support cases knows that it doesn’t matter whether a man has only enough money left to live under a bridge, the mother will be granted whatever she needs. One wonders if this is the reason that homeless men walk the streets of major cities. It isn’t always practical to move back home with the parents.

I support abortion rights. To do otherwise consigns women to back alley butchers. Abortions will still occur whether abortion is banned or not. Yet, as it stands now, Roe Vs. Wade seems inequitable.
Make Believe …. March 11, 2013

2013/03/10

Do you remember what seems like the distant past now? Do you remember the you, that you, that existed before it was destroyed by reality? That time when make believe and reality were melded, and it didn’t matter that it was melded?

Childhood, sweet and serene, a magic time. A time where there were few worries, and those worries that existed were extremely transient. A time of play, wherein a few teddy bears and a bed became passengers and a bus, an easy-bake oven and a bench became a play house. Reality interfered even then as it was time for supper, or time for bed.

Santa was there, though not for long, as it was soon discovered that Mom and Pop provided Santa’s goodies. Why would Santa hide presents in the closet? Why would Mom and Pop have secret errands to run at Christmas time, where meanwhile, you ended up at the baby-sitter?

The loss of Santa was the beginning of the end of childhood fantasies. Soon you felt silly, especially in front of friends, holding a teddy bear, or your favorite blanket. Maturity was on its way. At least, for many, it was on its way to a certain extent.

The most devious deception parents foist upon their young ones tends to stick, is reinforced by the parents over time, as the parents hold fast to these lies themselves. Of course that means that these parents believe these lies as truth, having been instilled with them by their own parents. Such perpetuation does nothing to make these lies into truth. They are still lies.

Fear is used to make these lies stick. Fear of death, fear of retribution from two or more terrible demons, fabrications all, depicted as real beings. Fear of death prompts desires for immortality. The promise of immortality is most potent of all. Punishment from a God, or protection from Satan, pick your entities, religion offers all.

Enough clear information remains to invalidate any religion, yet the deception, and the adult make believe, continues.

After indoctrination throughout one’s youth it is difficult to persuade your emotional mind to accept the truth emerging from your logical and reasoning brain. Self-deception is the key. Through reinforcement by fellow believers, through denying the truths presented by science and labeling them works of Satan, the lie continues.

Will humanity ever truly grow up? I hope not. The imagination should not be squashed. However, the destructive, violent, and hateful presence of religion must be eradicated, eviscerated, and extinguished. The perpetuation of this particular kind of make believe needs to end.
But, What of the God Spot?

2013/03/06

Within the last few years there have been reports of the discovery of a God Spot in the brains of human beings. Many theists jumped on the bandwagon proclaiming this discovery and how it must mean that belief in God is a natural state for humankind.

Much more research on this topic has been completed. It is asserted now that there are many areas in the human brain which lend themselves to religious belief. There is much speculation on how these areas arose. My own opinion differs from the mainstream as to how it arose in the human brain. I think it is the result of the same conditioning we have for belief in our parents protective powers when we are children. In the adult, the same adulation we had for our parents is switched over to parent-like deities.

Does a God exist? There are many religions that existed which claimed many Gods. Christianity claims there is only one true God. As John Zande, in his blog “The Superstitious Ape”, in a recent post “now theists listen carefully”, remarked, and I am paraphrasing, ‘If this were so (only one God) then every community of people everywhere would have arrived at the same God’.

I thought this a remarkable observation. This observation reveals the reality that religion is a fabrication.

To explain: In science, a scientific principal is arrived upon through observation, research, and hypothesis. A scientific principal, admittedly, is a human construct. Yet, nature obeys these theories, as they are called, startlingly. Over the ages many scientific theories, principals, have been discovered, lost, and then re-discovered. Once re-discovered they are always very much the same as they were when first discovered. They do not change. Even if humanity were to vanish, nature would continue to obey these principals. If another species arose upon the earth, reached a level of intelligence comparable to our own, and made these scientific discoveries, they would again, be the same.

Numerous civilizations have existed solitarily on this planet. Each one, for whatever reason, developed their own religious belief system. Christianity arose only once. Other various religions arose only once. Each religion that developed was different. Co-habitation with other religions led to some borrowing between them, but originally, they were separate unique fabrications. If religion were to disappear, and redevelop, they would again be different from any that existed before. Religions (Gods) are not discovered. Religions (Gods) are made.

And this is a stark difference between science and religion. Science endures, religion does not. Nature obeys the outlines presented by scientific principals regardless of humanity’s presence. Religion can only exist in humanity’s presence.
Separation March 04, 2013

2013/03/03

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion, its exercise, and the freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As Jefferson defined it in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury Connecticut:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

Thomas Jefferson was among those who put together our constitution. James Madison kept him up-to-date on the goings on back at home during Thomas’s trip abroad. If anyone knows what something means within the Constitution, it’s Jefferson.

From its inception, the Constitution was under constant barrage by overzealous Christians who felt that the Constitution was not of God. It does not mention God even once. Christians from the beginning felt that this nation should be Christian and have never been happy with how things turned out. They do not realize that it was made purposely secular, purposely neutral, where religion is concerned. The reason it was done this way is simple: A number of the founding fathers had just left England and its oppressive state-sponsored religion. They didn’t want to end up with the same thing they had just left.

What the Religious Right, a loosely connected group of highly conservative Christian Sects, does not understand is that if not for the Separation of Church and State, and the wall of protection it affords, their numbers would not be as great as they are today. The Separation of Church and State has provided the conditions under which Christianity, as well as the huge number of its variations, as well as others, have flourished.

If one large sect of Christianity, or for that matter, of any religion, had become the state’s religion, all other minority religions would have been harassed at best, crushed out of existence at worst.

Why then do they continue? Are they stupid?

To be honest, just as in the population in general, some are stupid, some are ignorant, and some are devious.

If anyone remarks to you that this is supposed to be a Christian Nation and that there is no wall of separation between Church and State, you can be sure they do not have the best intentions in mind. These people mean to force their beliefs on the masses.

Christianity in America is not suppressed in any way, neither are other religions to the extent that they do not interfere with other belief systems. The only reason anyone would want to destroy the Wall of Separation between Church and State is to dominate the country. That is what many Dominionists desire.
A World Without God …….. February 25, 2013

2013/02/24

Atheists often dream what the world would be like without the existence of religion. On the other hand, Christians often lament what the world would be like without God.

Atheists have a legitimate dream. Religion has had a terrible history on this planet. A history of oppression and violence. It has fought any new ideas which developed that threatened its stranglehold on the minds of the masses. It truly would be a delight to see how much further the human race might have progressed by now if it had not been afflicted with the disease of religion.

The Christian lamentations concerning a world without God are disingenuous. After all, it is already the case that this is a world without God. God’s existence is only in the mind of the religious, having been created by a measure of his/her religion and a larger measure of his or her concept of what God should be. Each concept, therefore, each God, is different for each individual.

People who have not been exposed to some religion of some kind on this planet are rare. When found they are quickly exposed to the religion of those who found them. Before they were found, however, they probably were doing just fine without any God concept whatsoever. There are people living without the Christian God on this planet even now, though they may be tainted by other concepts of a God.

So what does the lamentation of Christians have to say about their beliefs? What they are truly saying is that they themselves would be truly lost, truly corrupt, without the concept of God in their heads. They themselves are of evil intent, murderers, and rapists. Without the concept of God in their heads they feel that they would be without restraint in carrying out their deepest depravity. So… who is evil? The Christian or the Atheist? While the Christian sits in a pew chewing his or her fingernails off worrying about meeting some measure of that needed to attain Heaven’s reward, Atheists are simply living life to the fullest, sitting peacefully, sipping coffee. While Christians are in despair worrying about falling by the wayside, or turning to a life of evil, Atheists just keep-on keeping-on.

Seems Atheism is a much more stable configuration to me.