Freethinker's corner

Original Sin, Invalidated ………….. December 19, 2012

2012/12/20

Pretending that science has not proven that Adam and Eve could not have existed, let’s examine the circumstances of the alleged original sin.

God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. With God’s vast array of abilities he could have placed the tree in question … any … where … he … wanted. He chose to place it in full view of his creation, Adam and Eve. This presented a severe temptation for these new life forms.

God forbid the two humans from ever eating from the tree of knowledge. What kind of knowledge? The knowledge of good and evil. Curiosity, abounding in the newly formed humans, drove them to desire to know why the tree of knowledge was forbidden.

Wouldn’t you know it? Those pesky humans went ahead and ate up some of the fruit from the tree of knowledge anyway. They realized afterwards that they were naked, and took measures to hide themselves.

Of course God, seeing the newly clothed humans, that is, after finding them(guess he didn’t know everything back then), knew right away of their transgressions. God immediately condemned them and sent them packing from the Garden of Eden. No more paradise for those devious humans, no sir.

But… were they guilty? No, and here’s why…

How could Adam and Eve had known it was evil to disobey God and eat from the tree of knowledge, if they hadn’t yet eaten from it? They were newbies! Case closed. Besides, snakes don’t talk.
Jesus and Santa …. December 17, 2012

2012/12/16

Tis the season to be jolly…. for some.

Christians claim the holiday as the birth of Jesus, a sort of half-man, half-God, whole-God… well, a kind of hybrid (sort of like Hercules). Even though there is no actual record of the time of Jesus’ birth (actually no record he ever existed), it certainly wasn’t on December 25th as now claimed (Unless of course shepherds sit in the snow tending the flock). It was the pagan holiday that occurred on December 25th, a celebration of the Winter Solstice. Whether the peoples at time thought of it as such is questionable. What they were celebrating was the return of the Sun from its winter trek. It was a time of celebration. Christianity, unable to quell the celebrations, co-opted them. Just like a myriad other mythical gods and historic figures, even quasi-historic figures, Jesus’ birthdate was designated to be on December 25th.

Christianity, in its present form, was initiated by edict. It was the Edict of Milan accredited to Constantine I. This was around 313 C.E. (common era). It legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire. One might say that Constantine is mainly responsible for the greatest hoax ever committed upon the human race (as it might have otherwise died out). Taking that thought further it could be said that he was responsible for all the suffering, violence, and death that occurred due to Christianity thereafter. After Constantine’s death Christianity became the state religion and was imposed on everyone. Anyone not toeing the line was persecuted as the Christians were persecuted before Constantine’s edict.

Santa Claus. Santa had origins which began perhaps in the 1600’s. He began in rudimentary form under the name St. Nicholas. The modern image of Santa Claus was not due for another 200 years. Around 1863 Thomas Nast began a series of annual drawings modeled after descriptions he found in a poem and other works of Washington Irving.

Christmas today is a hodgepodge of former holidays. It has progressed through the centuries in stages: Stodgy religious celebration to light-hearted celebration to extreme commercialism.

Is there any harm in presenting these myths to children? The Santa Claus story, in my opinion, is just fine as a bedtime story for the holidays, as long as the children are not led to falsely believe that any of it is real. I feel about the story of Christianity, and the image of Christmas they present, in the same manner.

http://www.thehistoryofchristmas.com/sc/night_before_christmas.htm

https://drenn1077.com/2011/11/27/the-stolen-holiday/

https://drenn1077.com/2008/12/21/the-winter-solstice/

http://www.thehistoryofchristmas.com/santa_claus.htm

www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/thesis.pdf
A Shot Across My Bow …………… December 12, 2012

2012/12/10

If you have blogged enough, as I have, and gotten your real name out there, you know that sooner or later someone who has been rankled by this or that you have said will track you down. In this case, tract you down.

It’s scary but if your name is out there as an atheist, sooner or later someone will Google your name and get your address. I am easily found. Well, someone did and they sent me some lovely little Jesus tracts. Cowards though they are, as they were careful not to include a name or return address.

Here’s one about the Candymaker:

This is what the Wikipedia has to say about the Candy Cane:

According to a popular account, in 1670, in Cologne, Germany, the choirmaster at Cologne Cathedral, wishing to remedy the noise caused by children in his church during the Living Crèche tradition of Christmas Eve, asked a local candy maker for some sweet sticks for them. In order to justify the practice of giving candy to children during worship services, he asked the candy maker to add a crook to the top of each stick, which would help children remember the shepherds who paid visit to infant Jesus. In addition, he used the white color of the converted sticks to teach children about the Christian belief in the sinless life of Jesus. From Germany, the candy canes spread to other parts of Europe, where they were handed out during plays reenacting the Nativity.

A recipe for straight peppermint candy sticks, white with colored stripes, was published in 1844. The candy cane has been mentioned in literature since 1866, was first mentioned in association with Christmas in 1874, and as early as 1882 was hung on Christmas trees. Chicago confectioners the Bunte Brothers filed the earliest patents for candy cane making machines in the early 1920s.

Geesh, ruin everything, don’t they?

Whoever sent these were concerned for the fate of my eternal soul….

Jesus on the cross, as you most likely know, is a holdover from the times when Christianity wasn’t called Christianity and they actually engaged in human sacrifice.

Let’s not forget how you are supposed to look at the Xmas season:

Everybody knows that the 25th day of December was not Christmas but began as a pagan holiday. It was a celebration of the Sun’s, not the Son’s, return from its southern trek.

Finally, they seem to think no one in the U.S. has heard just what it is they are talking about. Jesus Christ! Of course I know who that kid was supposed to be. As an atheist I probably know more about the Bible than most Christians.

I know these people sincerely are trying to be nice, and probably think they are doing something good. Don’t they realize I am an Atheist? Do they think scriptures mean anything to me beyond the words they express? At this point in my journey all I could do is laugh. I am embarrassed for them that they still believe this stuff.

If they had given me their address I could have sent a few non-tracts back to them. Maybe that’s why they didn’t include it. Or maybe they thought I might track them down, like they did me.
What, The Devil? ………………December 10, 2012

2012/12/09

It is well known that theists compartmentalize their thinking. Compartmentalize means: To separate into distinct parts, categories, or compartments. What this means is that they can keep science and theology separate within their minds and never use science to scrutinize their beliefs. If they did examine their beliefs with logic and reason, well, they wouldn’t be theists. Then again, after a lifetime of indoctrination, how can theists be expected to examine anything associated with their religion. In what way can atheists be associated with anyone’s religion? Obviously, theists see atheists as associated with their religious beliefs because atheists do not accept those beliefs. (Their beliefs do not allow for that.)

The faithful in great numbers have always insisted that atheists are evil devil worshipers. This assertion makes no sense. If we were evil devil worshipers that would mean that we believe in Satan. If that were the case, we would not be atheists. Atheists state they either disbelieve in God, or they simply say, as I always do, that there are no Gods. If we believed in Satan that would also imply that God exists, for God is said to have made Satan. God said he made all the good and all the evil. If atheists claim disbelief in a God, or claim that no Gods exist, then how can theists claim that atheists serve the devil, since to do so one must believe in what you serve? When theists make the claim that atheists serve Satan they fail to examine the absurdity of the claim.

Or, do the believers claim that atheists serve Satan inadvertently as opposed to advertently. Since they are quite serious that their God really exists and that therefore Satan does also the theists must conclude that everything is under the stewardship of one or the other. Since atheists do not accept God’s existence the conclusion is drawn that atheists are being manipulated by Satan, whether the atheists are aware of it or not.

All of this reasoning on the part of theists is reminiscent of the Biblical scripture Matthew 12:30. Black and white reasoning where there are no grays: ” Either you’re with me or against me!” Since atheists are not with them, then we, the atheists, are the enemy. Theists consider themselves on the side of God. Therefore, atheists, being against them (by not being with them), must be against their God. God’s enemy is Satan, so naturally, atheists must be “with” Satan. For these poor misfits there is no third alternative. There is no spot where you can choose neither. There is no door number three. There is no room for compassion for outsiders.

Thankfully these sub humans are not a majority within the population that claim Christian affiliation. They do however practice their religion as it originally was meant, as a literal Biblical reading would dictate. In reality, these fundamentalists, these ignorant people, are the only true Christians. (If any can be said to be so, considering the nature of the book from which it is all drawn)
One Moment of Weakness ……… December 7, 2012

2012/12/07

Black-collar crime has always been a problem. Black-collar crime is crime committed by those who operate a Christian church. Included are those who function in name of a church, i.e. youth leaders, deacons,pastors, and others. In fact, it seems a growing problem, especially for the Catholic church.

Atheists, on the other hand, make up a minuscule percentage of the prison population, exceedingly smaller than their percentage in the general population.

Christians make the claim that they aspire to be more Godly. The Scriptures exhort the reader to be born again, forsake their old lives, and live in Christ. The Bible goes to great lengths to impress on the reader how pure and moral God, or Jesus is and that we should humble ourselves before God. Unfortunately, Christianity goes a bit farther.

Christianity teaches self-loathing.

From the first book to the last, the sinful nature of humankind is emphasized. Mankind is not worthy. Without Christ’s sacrifice of love, mankind would be sledding to hell, and so forth. “All morality comes from God” is a phrase I have heard Christians say a million times. In fact many Christians have confided that without God they would be raging murderers.

If some talented person does extremely well in anything whatsoever, it wasn’t their talent that they spend years honing that receives the credit, it’s their “God-given” talent that does the job. If a patient pulls through after a difficult surgery it’s “Thank God”, the surgeon evidently was unnecessary. Humans are such worthless, uneducated, evil pieces of slime-mold.

This condition that Christianity instills within its members may be the reason behind the high level of Black-Collar crime.

Christians are capable of doing great good. The individual Christian is capable of being an outstanding human being. However, there is a problem. They have been told since their first indoctrination that they have no inherent morality. Morality comes from God. Humans, they have been told are lecherous and depraved. So, what happens when faith wanes just a tad?

What do you think happens?! They fall off the wagon… hard! Without God they have no morality. That’s what they have been told all their lives. That’s when the “Black-collar” crimes become a bigger statistic. Yes, they bounce back, but the problem is that there’s always that next time that faith wanes.

I submit that my fictional chart is not too far from the truth. I also submit that atheists are more stable than Christians, hence the low showing among the prison ranks. I submit that Christian morality swings wildly and frequently. I think this explains much of Christian history. While the atheist is at the coffee house sipping a cup of joe, the Christian is fretting over some incident where they may have displeased God in some slight fashion. While the atheist may not be a shining example of a human being in all cases, a Christian has no room to brag, especially when speaking from a prison cell.
An Open Mind ….. December 5, 2012

2012/12/05

What do Christians mean when they implore you to have an open mind? I can assure you that they do not mean the same thing that is meant when the non-religious say it.

Atheists, humanists, agnostics, and the non-religious mean for you to keep your mind open to new ideas, new information, without dismissing it outright. They mean for you to examine the evidence and determine its validity. They mean for you to research the idea or information yourself and find its truthfulness or falseness.

Christians mean for you to make your mind receptive, pliable. They desire that you suspend rational thinking and instead let your emotions make your decisions. They want you to accept what they are saying without resistance, without question, totally on feeling. Finally, they want you to realize the truth they are speaking, that they are right, and then you are to convert. That final step is what they had in mind all along. They are not arguing the point and are not receptive to anything you have to say. When it is all over and you haven’t converted they turn and walk away dismayed that you have rejected the truth. Their idea of compromise is that you give in.

Debate is useless except for the sake of those who are freshly converted or have doubts at the beginning. Unless they are the ones you are arguing with, the not quite set in the flock breed, or unless there are some in the audience of that type, why waste the time.
Which Camp Mr. Einstein? ……December 3, 2012.

2012/12/02

During his life Einstein’s religious leanings were never clear. Many of his quotes seemed to support a bend toward spirituality. His famous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe” is taken as evidence of his religious belief.

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings,” he once said.

Spinoza defines “God” as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such. There is much controversy as to what was meant by this, some claiming it was a pantheistic belief, others claiming it almost entirely materialistic.

In my own opinion the reason Einstein spoke in religious references so often is the same as every person living in America and Europe.
Religious gibberish permeates the languages of these areas and is used in many common instances without realizing their nature. People say “Oh my God” over the most innocuous occurrences, and “Thank God” in instances when God is the furthest thing from their minds. “Oh my Gosh” would serve as well in the first instance, and “Thank Goodness” in the second. In both cases actual belief in an entity is not inferred in the actual sense as these phrases are used as simple exclamations in the appropriate instances. Yet, there are some of the fervently religious persuasion to whom such innocent mouthing’s become faith incarnate.

Here I present excerpts from a letter Einstein wrote to Eric B. Gutkind, on January 3, 1954, a year before Einstein’s death. These quotes should serve to clear up Einstein’s view of religion, and his stance. Of course there will still be those who because of their agendas will still claim the genius was in their religious camp, but this does not change the truth: Einstein was an atheist.

“For me, the word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still exceedingly primitive legends. No interpretation, however subtle, could change that (for me).’’

“For me, the unadulterated Jewish religion, like all other religions, is an incarnation of primitive superstition.”
The Perils of Overly Plentiful Posting … Special edition

2012/11/28

I post once a week, unless there is something important I have to say. This is a special post for posters, here, on WordPress.

There was a time when I churned out four or five posts a week. The posts were posted on WordPress and on the local newspaper site. The newspaper site is no longer available as the owners got cheap and decided everyone had to pay to play. The blogs were taken down in their entirety on the newspaper site with no promise of a return should you want to pay to play. For me the site was useless without the blogs so I am presently with no other avenue than here, on the WordPress site.

During the period I was churning out posts like some sort of post-factory one frequent reader made the comment that I should not post so often as people only had so much time in the day and were more than likely going to ignore the posts. Then too, the quality suffered when posts were quickly composed and then relayed to the site.

So I have adopted a posting schedule. I post on Sunday, with Monday being the deadline. Once a week so that I will have time to compose each piece and perhaps even prepare some ahead.

There are many out there who post frantically, perhaps churning out 3 or 4 posts a day. Although I look at some, I do so briefly, and then delete them. There are only so many hours in a day, you know. Sometimes I look at the list of blogs that have come in and shake my head, disappointed I have no time, and probably won’t have time to ever read them all. So I delete them sight unseen. What a waste.

My recommendation is for all to adopt a publication schedule and keep it. Even twice a week, or once a day, is better than a flood.
Ack Basswards? November 26, 2012

2012/11/25
Intelligent Design, born of creationism, is creationism disguised by the use of scientific sounding jargon. Some have said that it is science, only that it is “bad” science. This assertion, however, in my opinion, is false, and those who accept it as merely bad science have bought into the ruse which accompanies most publicly presented appeals by proponents of Intelligent Design.

When presented publicly the concept of Intelligent Design is simply unlinked from its Christian origins, its Christian God genesis. Instead it is proposed that the force which is behind creation is a supernatural entity or other unknown entity. The Intelligent Design proponents, publicly at least, claim to accept that the Earth is very old, and that evolution occurs at the micro, but not macro, level.

A simplistic description of the scientific method usually follows this line:
- Observation and description
- Formulation of an hypothesis
- Use of the hypothesis to predict other possibilities
- Experimental tests of the predictions by independent and multiple means.
Those who practice the scientific method seek to eliminate bias where the outcomes of tests are concerned. They are not always successful, individually, but when the experimental tests are carried out in sufficient numbers by scientists who are objective (i.e. uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices) rather than subjective (i.e. of, relating to, or emanating from a person’s emotions, prejudices) then bias is most certain to be neutralized.

The ID proponents claim their “theory of Intelligent Design” to be true science. Through use of a blur of mathematics and probability assertions as well as a mix of intellectually impressive word usage these people, ID proponents, have convinced multitudes of people possessing little to no scientific knowledge that Intelligent Design is legitimate science. What do the actual scientists say? With ease, reputable legitimate scientists are able to see through the thick smoke of irrelevant mathematics, probabilities predictions, and language use. They conclude:
1. That no science has really been done despite assurances that such science would be forthcoming
2. That those proffering Intelligent Design have no biological background
3. Intelligent design is not science and is obviously religiously motivated
It is clear that the Intelligent Design promoters have had the conclusion chosen from the beginning. Once the conclusion had been chosen then they sought evidence to support that conclusion. As they sought such evidence any contrary information that arises is ignored and the search continued.

Having failed to insert creationism or Intelligent Design into school curriculums ID proponent tactics have changed. Now those who would have myth brought into the academic setting are feverishly trying to undermine the science of evolution, sowing doubt by repeatedly pointing out those areas where the theory of evolution still lacks full information. Exclaiming that the controversy should be taught they fail to note that the only controversy that exists is solely within their own ranks. Science and scientists overwhelming back evolution.
Hey, I Didn’t Say That! November 19, 2012

2012/11/18

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.”

I saw the quote on Facebook, attributed to Charles Darwin, but … he didn’t say it. It was a quotation from Clarence Darrow, most likely during the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Information from the internet should be double-checked, even triple-checked for accuracy. I found several websites attributing the above quotation to Darwin.

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.” – Mohandas Gandhi

This quotation is attributed to Mohandas Gandhi, yet there is no evidence he ever said it. As far as who did, the article it is found in suggests a trade unionist in 1914.

“Beam me up, Scotty” –Captain Kirk

Captain Kirk never said it. Yet I have heard it attributed to this fictional character frequently. The closest he ever came was “Beam us up, Mr. Scott” in the Star Trek episode “The Gamesters of Triskelion.

Quotations, whenever used, should be checked as to the authentic source. The internet is a powerful tool, however, it can be misused. The spreading of false or inaccurate information can weaken the educational potential of the internet.

Most of my posts are of original construct. Many deal with my position about a particular issue or topic. Some are backed with references, while others are musings off the top of my head. Take them for what they are worth. Factually check assertions and if you find them sound accept them. If your ideas meld with mine I would like to hear your take on whatever topic it may be. Perhaps it will expand my theatre of thought. If your ideas contradict or disagree with mine I am willing to argue the points. Once again, my theatre of thought may be expanded.

(For more hoaxes, internet and otherwise, look here.)