religion = mental gymnastics

for my birthday this year we spent the weekend at my parents' timeshare in escondio. we did a bunch of things but the thing i really wanted to do was visit the Creation & Earth History Museum & Bookstore and the Unarius Academy of Science. i purposely didn't do much research before going and i deliberately planned of us to visit them back-to-back. 

the Creation & Earth History Museum & Bookstore was very interesting! it has a surprising amount of science for a place that denies a lot of science, lol. and there was a lot of dinosaur stuff! basically tho, it was "this science stuff proves this stuff in the bible." and the science stuff that disproves the stuff in the bible is either wrong or not mentioned. there is also a big room full of physiology and human anatomy, basically using the watchmaker analogy to prove the existence of god. 

after that, we went directly to the Unarius Academy of Science which had much much less funding but was no less interesting. we were lucky enough that the man staffing the place was very happy to explain their beliefs and to give us a tour of their space. in a few words, this is a space cult that believes in reincarnation.

we really ran into to a full spectrum of belief that day! a number of the people in the creationist museum seemed to fully believe in it. and while there were only two people at the unarius place, we only interreacted with one, but he was definitely a believer in his religion. 

of the four in our party, it was t, who is some sort of christian (i don't know what sect, this is not a knock on her, just my lack of knowledge) and fairly devout; her bf i, who seems to believe some of the major tenants of christianity; j, who is agnostic and believes there may be some kind of creator; and me, an atheist who believes in neither creator nor afterlife.

i think besides learning about the religions themselves, it was really interesting to see what people accept and what they reject. t made some comments about how the museum got some things wrong in the bible, but the creationists would say the same of her, as they do say it about science! i think we all were a little more skeptical of unarians but like... why? give it 3000 years and it may become the most widely accepted religion, who knows? 

what i think is most interesting is how people scoff at other beliefs when they are only very short step away from the same thing. the mental gymnastics one must go thru to believe one branch of science but not another, one random book but not another, or to look at it all and sill turn away is really something. i am also closer to creationists that I'd probably like, because religious belief isn't so much a line as it is a circle. I don't believe in the bible, but i do fairly blindly believe in science that i don't at all understand.

really, as long as you really believe in something, you will believe in it, "facts" be damned. 

non-profit / churches

The Hill - Thousands of Catholic churches received PPP loans: report

I get that churches have bills (like rent and utilities), and obviously they employ people, so sure, they need money too. plus, I imagine many of their donations come from passing around the "hat" every week. so if they're closed, they aren't getting their usual donations. so i don't really have an issue with them getting ppp money.

that being said. i do have an issue with it. as someone who works for a non-profit in fundraising, i know pretty well what our revenues and expenses are. our biggest expenses are salary and programs. our salaries take up about 30% of our total expenses, which sounds like a lot, but isn't (we each get under $65k a year and we have NO benefits). of course there are other expenses like rent, utilities, insurance, office supplies, stamps (nearly $1000 a year!), but the majority of our expenses are on programs which go directly back to the community we support. we mostly spend on teachers and students. we get audited every year, we have our annual reports on our website, easily found public 990s, and grantors regularly request our financial information going back several years. they generally also limit our overhead expenses to a max of 18% of our total grant money because they want us spending their money on our programs, not on our people (and while I get that, I also very much don't get that, but that's a conversation for a different day).

but, like, what are churches spending on? I feel like (honestly, this is based on nothing other than feeling) the majority of money is spent on their own parishioners, and not on the outside community. basically, it's a social club you pay dues to, and you get snacks every meeting, and occasionally you invite the homeless dude down the street. I doubt many of their parishioners ask what their money is going to, what percentage on the programs and what on operations. 

it's funny because the other day, this topic came up. g was upset so much PPE money went to churches. I agreed but was also more cautious. but as I said this, t gave the example of how the church of scientology is getting a lot of money that isn't spent on programs but I wanted to ask her about if she know what percentage her tithe is spend on programs at her church? it took a minute to find her church's EIN (it's not listed on their website), and even with that EIN I can't find their 990 (apparently churches aren't required to have them public) or any sort of financial information, and they don't have anything resembling an annual report on their website. like... wtf knows what they're spending their income on? and how much income do they even have? and the biggest thing is, NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE. not even t who so quickly tried to throw scientology under the bus. 

I get that services to your own congregation are services. it just seems really unfair that regular non-profits are expected to provide free services to pretty much anyone who asks, without getting nearly anything financial in return from that same group. we're held to pretty high standards, especially by anyone who is offering to give us money. even for individual contributions we generally have to prove that we're helping people. I guess churches are different in that the proof is in you. if you feel good, you're happy to give money, even if it doesn't help anyone else. which also seems really weird somehow.

conclusion - I don't think churches should be considered non-profits. I do think they should be taxed. any entity that wants to be tax exempt should have a certain level of transparency. the public loses out on your tax money, so you should be able to justify WHY. regular non-profits do. churches don't. that's completely unfair.

control

Vogue - The Supreme Court Is Letting Trump Get Away With Weakening Birth Control Coverage Mandates

I don't understand how it's okay that a person's religious and moral beliefs can oppress other people. what does your religion have to do with my health care?

if my employer is a jehovah's witness, should my health coverage not include blood transfusions (and therefore rule out many major surgeries)?

if my employer is an anti-vaxxer, should I (and my children who are on my health care) be forced to pay for vaccinations out of pocket?

or what if I believe that you shouldn't have any kind of health care since you can just pray to god really hard and ask him to cure you? his will is the way, and if he wanted you healthy, well, you would be.

article about how birth control used as medicine, not to control births: Why the Supreme Court Ruling on Birth Control Is Even Worse Than You Think

petition

got a change.org email asking me to sign a petition to ban anatomically correct child dolls.

Right now, teachers, coaches, babysitters, and neighbors, in every town in America, can purchase lifelike, anatomically correct dolls designed to simulate sex with a child. And it’s perfectly legal.
These sick dolls are being imported into the United States and other countries. British police have seized more than 100 already in the UK, and authorities have found that the people buying them usually have child pornography too.
Sign this petition to ban the sale and distribution of child sex dolls!
These child sex dolls can normalize a pedophile’s behaviors, emboldening them to harm children, as is often the case with those who view child pornography.
According to the CDC, 1 in 5 children are sexually abused. One child is too many. Our elected officials need to protect children. That’s why Congressman Dan Donovan from New York is introducing legislation that will ban the distribution and sale of dolls that encourage child abuse.
Show your support for this legislation by signing this petition, and help protect America’s children!
not sure how I feel about this. I mean, obviously I'm against any kind of sexual conduct towards the underage. but if these people are having sex with dolls, will it deter them from having sex with actual kids or is it more of a gateway thing? cause if most of them use it as an outlet, rather than a stimulus, then we should not ban these dolls. gross as they are, they would be deterring crime.

the email itself is really weird too, why does it say that "teachers, coaches, babysitters, and neighbors" can buy these? I can't think of a reason why these people would need such a doll, but I dunno. I think the petition would have sat better with me had it said that perverts can buy these dolls.

Tibetans

went to a section of China that has a lot of Tibetans and our tour actually arranged two seperate visits for us to learn more about their culture. one was a fake "home" visit where we were served drinks and food, and they danced and sang for us. the other was an actual home visit where a lady sat with us for an hour in her kitchen/sitting room and answered questions and their culture. some really interesting stuff! notes below:

Families live all together in a house. Kids aren't that valued; the most important person is the father. What he says is absolute. When you make money you turn it over to him and he decides what to do with it. A lot is donated to the temples. Temple monks make like bowls, vase things, spatulas, etc that they'll give back to families who donate a lot. You family's "face" is based on how much of these items you have since they can't be bought. Giving money is the easier way out tho; the best thing you can do is service. 

Yaks are traded for women. A woman's value is measured in yaks, and childbearing ability. Small waist, big hips = good for childbirth. No kids? You're fucked. Household's worst jobs are on you. Tho you can also go live in a monastery generating like 'piety points' for your family.  i didn't get the chance too ask what happens if the man is the reproductively challenged one... Stacking firewood neatly shows you are a diligent and hardworking woman.

Tibetans always keep their middle section warm. Cold legs, arms and especially belly is bad for fertility. 

After you die the village people come to vote on if you're a good person or bad, which will determine your burial (also a Llama will inspect your body). 5 kinds of burial, the worst being a ground burial. There's also water, fire, temple kind of thing, and sky. Sky is best for the common person. your body is cut into 108 peices and their up into the air for the birds gtoeat. Not because the Eagles take your soul into the sky and closer to god, but it's more of a circle of life thing. Eagles are sacred, but they don't have enough food ooh the plains of Tibet. So you give your body to them, to feed them. Which is also why Llamas inspect your body; don't want to feed the Eagles diseased meat. 

Mao is a big deal. They're apparently totally into him. Without him they wouldn't have houses or cars or other shit they also say they're not that into. "We'd still be herding yaks otherwise and living in tents on the grass and snow." but they're also like "Yaks are all you need. We're hardier than you guys cause we live with nature. All you guys care about is money. Your lives are miserable. You would be happier living like us."

rewards

what i really like about hinduism/buddhism is that you don't have to believe in it for it to happen anyway. like, you'll be reincarnated even if you don't believe you will. that's super fair and somehow, to me, that makes it seem more factual. like, you don't have to believe in a round planet, but it's spherical anyway. you don't have to believe in global warming, but weather/climate is gonna get whack anyway. basically, facts are facts. regardless of your belief. tho, i guess no matter if you believe in it or, you're going to hell anyway (assuming you don't accept christ and all that).

plus

1. you can't command belief. you either believe something or you don't. you can't *make* yourself believe. and therefore, there's no reward (the way christianity has) for belief. 

2. belief in the religion isn't the point. the point is that you should be a good person doing good things and you'll be rewarded with a higher level of reincarnation. christianity rewards you for belief and nothing else really. that's unfair as fuck. especially since you can't make yourself believe anything anyway!

leaning away from god

thank god no one from my small group reads my blog, but i think i more naturally tend towards buddhism than christianity. true buddhism is human centered (even self centered), while a lot of monotheistic religions seem to be more god centered. and that it's more of a philosophy than a religions probably appeals to me. the basic tenets of buddhism also really speak to me:

(1) to lead a moral life
(2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions
(3) to develop wisdom and understanding

a lot of small group is focused on "what does god want from/for me?" "what does god mean when he does this?" "what does the bible say about that?" i just can't get myself to care about him, his intentions, or his word. i feel like if you were to ask a christian to describe christianity in under a minute, their definition would talk more about god, jesus, the church, than on what it actually *means* to be christian (which, to me is basically to live life according to wwjd). buddhists tend not to proselytize, and while a lot of them certainly worship buddha, i feel like their under-one-minute definition of their religion would focus more on the philosophy of the religion rather than the structure of it. i like that.

also, from what i've seen. a lot of christians missions trips are more focused on spreading the word of god than actually helping people. (that's an unfair way of putting it, i know, because christians believe that spreading the word of god is the best and most important way to help people. but i think that's a easy justification for those of us who live with more than enough money, food, shelter, health care access, education, etc) the buddhist missions trips i've heard about go to disaster areas to help out and *not* talk about their religion unless asked. that's pretty cool.

when speaking of christian missions, i'm always reminded of the desmond tutu quotation: “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.” i don't think that applies so much in today's world, but has it ever applied to buddhists?

i wonder if there are any buddhist "life group" equivalents in our area?

random article: Big Drop in Share of Americans Calling Themselves Christian

truth in acting

at small group we've been talking about charismatic churches*. rock harbor, the church our life group is associated with, is trying hard to be a middle of the road church, not too charismatic or the other way round.

our leaders asked us what we thought of very demonstrative people. most of them seem to be in agreement that they view more dramatic reactions are show, and are not genuine. more than one person said they were suspicious that these people were doing it for the attention.

as an atheist who doesn't remember ever feeling the stirring of god, any higher power, or anything supernatural, i'm fairly neutral towards the subject. everyone's different: some people never cry, not even at a death, others start bawling and ripping out their hair over split milk. so one person not being physically moved by god makes just as much sense as a person "over-reacting" for god.

personally, i'm less comfortable with charismatic churches. tho i say this having never been to one. but i'm a fairly reserved person anyway, so the fainting or faith healings is a bit too much for me.

*from what i understand, charismatic churches are the churches where the people are more demonstrative when they feel god. this could be anything from raising your hands in the air, to shouting "hallelujah", to speaking in tongues, to rolling on the ground. non-charismatic churches tend to stay away from that. i think they're more structured in general. so less going with what you feel than going to what's on the schedule.

bad publicity

at small group we're reading a book on christian identify. i was curious if any in our group publicly said they were christians. not that these are closet christians, or ashamed of their religions beliefs, but they don't, like, first thing, especially in secular environments, identify themselves as christians.

it's because of the crazies they said. they're nervous that outright declaring their religious beliefs would somehow brand them as being one of the religious crazies. they were also worried that non-christians would challenge their beliefs or ask theological questions they didn't know the answers too, which would probably make the non-christian very smug. and no one likes a smuggy buggy.

i think that's sad. the crazy religious make far too much noise. they also get far too much air time. this is, of course, because crazy is as crazy do and crazy makes for good media. but it's sad for the regular tho devout religious. they're shamed into hiding their identities because aggressive idiots will say inappropriate things to them. but the regular joe believer should try to make more noise than the crazy believer. that way idiot non-believers will be like, hey, not all religious people are nuts. i know that competing with crazies isn't usually a great idea, but believers need re-branding!

i'm not saying that believers should go back to shoving their religions down everyone's throats. i mean, i fucking hate it when i do something nice for someone and they say "god bless you." exactly, fucker, god blesses me, not you. just say thank you so i know you appreciate it. you're not in the position to be rewarding me with god's gold stars anyway! but maybe they should talk about their beliefs more openly. instead of "i can't make it saturday morning, sorry" they can say "i'm volunteering with my church on saturday so i can't make it, sorry." or instead of "i don't want to watch that movie" say "my church said this movie has a really bad message so i'd prefer to watch something else." and, as a bonus, i think both my alternatives are more likely to lead to discussion / questions about your beliefs. hopefully they won't lead to arguments tho!

at small group someone said that they hope to behave / live life in such a way that someone will eventually think "oh wow, bob is such a great guy. there's just something special about him." and ask bob what his secret sauce is. ...this is clearly unrealistic. and i don't like that it seems as tho your religious identity should be some sort of guessing game. you've dedicated your life to your beliefs. so do it loudly and proudly!

god is dead. maybe.

there's a saying (which i cannot find online since i don't remember the wording) that "god needs us as much as we need him." another is that "without us, god wouldn't exist." i think they're both true. if god does exist, he wouldn't "physically" cease to if people stopped believing in him. but in a very real way, he would no longer exist. ...until he convinced people to believe again that he did.

it's a little like the old "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" yes, of course it makes a sound. it fell, so it would because that's how gravity, sound, and reality work. but no, it doesn't really make a sound because there is no "observer."

ha, mixing existentialism and god. it's practically meta!


sartre wrote in his Existentialism and Human Emotions that "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence. Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism."

religious prosecution

ugh, this hobby lobby scotus thing. i'm not going to say much about it because, well, i think you can probably guess how i feel about it. but i absolutely agree with ginsburg saying that scotus "has ventured into a minefield." (the rest of the dissent is pretty good also, but here are a few highlights)

this video tho, lol:


i feel like america is getting stupider. most countries, certainly first world ones, seem to be getting smarter. but we're stuck quibbling about dumb shit like whether we should allow guns in bars (we should NOT), teaching religion in science class (we should NOT), and whether or not we should let people drink extra large sodas. ugh. seriously. as much as i love america, i really hate americans (well, not all of us. i'm pretty fucking awesome, afterall, ha!). i'm know that there are stupid people all over. and that every country hates the majority of it's politicians, but seriously. we're among the worst. almost makes you feel like democracy is just as stupid of an idea as communism.

polygamy

i recently finished jon krakauer's under the banner of heaven and it was really interesting! i hadn't known much about mormonism except for the "magic underwear," no caffeine, and what i gleaned from the book of mormon, lol. so, basically, nothing. a couple months ago i did finally visit the very beautiful mormon temple in san diego where outside two mornon girls with a binder showed us pictures of the inside of the temple (non-mormons are not allowed into their special rooms [altho for the record, i would love to get in, the inside of the temple is even more beautiful than the outside!]).

anyway, back to some of the most interesting things i learned from the book. apparently mormons are latter day saints. this whole time i thought they were different sects! ting even dated an lds for a couple weeks last year, haha. the other super interesting thing i learned is that the big difference between regular mormons and fundamentalist mormons is that fundamentalist mormons believe in polygamy. and that's about it. seriously. that's why they split. couldn't agree on the number of wives.

but the reason this post is titled "polygamy" is because that after reading the book, i'm now pro-polygamy. i didn't have strong feelings about it one way or another before, but now i'm definitely pro. i feel like krakauer was pretty unbiased in his book, and i certainly don't feel like he was trying to sway readers towards polygamy, but here i am. but of course i only approve of it between consenting adults. adults!! (apparently a number of mormon marriages are assigned marriages between a much older man and a girl child. disgusting, illegal, and wrong!)

one more thing i randomly thought was interesting. apparently divorce is not uncommon in mormon marriages. wives seem to leave their husbands with some regularity. part of it, i guess, is that many of these couples don't choose each other, but are assigned to marry. oh! one question i have tho. if this society only does polygamy and not polyandry, like... where are all these women coming from? do they not run out? or are there a lot of single, unmarried men since all the women are taken? (i should probably remind you about elizabeth smart who was kidnapped by a mormon fundamentalist family and subsequently made to wed the kidnapper. however, cases like hers are very rare!)

lost heart of asia

quotations from colin thurbron - the lost heart of asia: an intimate portrait of uzbekistan, tajikistan, turkmenistan, kazakhstan, and kirghizstan, the five central asian republics

"I found myself launching a plea for tolerance. Why should one religion hold a monopoly on truth, I asked? Faith was a matter of private conscience... My evangelism for tolerance began to sound fanatic."

"'Islam is the last revelation... Fist came the Jews' book, then the Christians' book, and fainlly the Koran. The Koran is the last word of God. It was right at the time for Jews and Christians to believe as they did. They had nothing else. But now it is our way which his right...'
"I said pedantically: 'The Communist doctrine came later than Islam, but didn't disprove it. The last book isn't necessarily the right one. Your own Traditions come later than the Koran, but they don't superseded it... The Jews believe that the first is best... because it's the original.'"

both from page 74

the whole book

at life group the other week they were talking about how, as a christian, you must respect everything in the bible. it's not a buffet, you know, so you can't pick and choose. since the bible is the word of god, and since you believe in god and trust him to be all-knowing, you must also believe in every part of the bible. (we're not talking about literal interpretations of the bible, mind you, just the tenets and such).

someone vaguely alluded to gay marriage, though no one expanded on it. but it was the first thing i thought of too when they were talking about accepting the bible as a whole. then a couple days later i ran into the following clip from the west wing.

amazing! i wish i knew about it earlier and had memorized it so i could've asked life group about it!

but seriously. the bible stuff just so confuses me. the koran is believed to the actual word of god (well, pretty much anyway, muhammad transcribed what god said, so for all intents and purposes, god wrote it). so it makes sense that you should believe every word but even christians will tell you that the bible was not written by god, it was written by man, and lots of them, spanning many years. who's to say that some of these writers didn't insert their own agenda into the bible? or, for those unwilling to believe in such outright deceit, possibly parts of the bible were incorrectly translated or transcribed over those hundreds of years before people invented copiers, but before anyone invented photoshop.

a long time ago (i think this was before high school) i asked my friend's mom, who is very religious, if god made gays. i mean, god makes everyone, right? but he hates gays. so why would he make them? i don't remember what she said, but i do remember her response having nothing to do with "people aren't born gay. they decide to be gay." which brings me to this video...

food for the... soul?

in life group we talked about local vs global church. they were talking about how great it is that missionaries go to spread the word of god to third world countries. they talked about how crazy it is that we have so much yet also complain about so much when many others have barely anything at all, not even food. and how great is it that all these people are now saved! they may not have a second pair of pants, but it's so inspiring how when even two weeks ago they hadn't even heard about god, now they're singing worship songs!

i'm of course sitting there thinking "are you serious? who cares about god when you're starving?!" they're talking about how important it is that we donate money so they can buy bibles, bibles for god's sake. "a bible can help 10s of people. they pass it around so everyone can hear about god." um... yeah... i get that maybe sending money so starving people can buy food is maybe a waste since you can only eat it once but...

i guess our priorities are really different. one's afterlife is forever. human life, especially if you die young from starvation, is temporal. yet... how can you love, honor, worship, and respect a god who doesn't save people who don't know about him, and give them pretty terrible lives to boot? it's different if i go to hell, having heard about god but not believing him in anyway. (tho i would argue that it's also not fair since one cannot command belief) but these people who are dying from diseases that we just don't have in 1st world countries because we have basic medical treatment and sanitation, these people who haven't heard about god because the missionaries haven't gotten there yet, these people people have to spend an eternity in hell? why?

most christians ask, at some point or another, about the people who haven't heard about god yet. or the ones born in china a thousand years ago, or the egyptians from even before that, you know, before christianity was even "invented." somehow they don't think to blame god or question his omnibenevolence. he has a plan, they say, we just don't understand it.

well, no, i don't understand it. i can't understand it. i can't understand why you think giving someone a bible is better than giving them a well so they can have clean water. i understand that christians do both on missionary trips, but to place a higher value on your afterlife rather than your current one is surely a sign of arrogance. you know you're leaving india in a week, to come back to your wifi and $4 cups of coffee. when they don't even have 50cents to protect themselves from NTDs.

some christians have told me that they think god doesn't send people who don't know about him to hell. they're not sure what happens, but surely he wouldn't punish them for something out of their control. he is omnibenevolent, after all. if this is the case, which i'm inclined to agree with, wouldn't it be more humane for missionaries to save lives than to save souls? instead of sending missionaries to spread the word of god, send money, food, shoes, doctors, whatever it takes to make life livable! if you were choking, would you prefer someone to give you the heimlich or to read passages from the koran? i think it's clear.

casting stones

i've been going to life group with t lately. life group is once a week at someone's house where we watch a short video and discuss the week's readings. oh, and this is all bible stuff, btw. but it's a casual setting. no one preaches, questions are asked and people give their opinions.

coming into this as a "devout" atheist (i say devout because i'm unwavering in my beliefs), it's really interesting to hear what they're concerned about.last night someone asked what it meant to be a true christian. there are over 40,000 different sects so this is a pretty good question!

...but is it really? there's no "evidence" of which sect, or even which religion, is the true one. so maybe don't waste time wondering what can never be proved. and don't worry about the others; just be sure of yourself. i think as long as you follow your holy book and the basic tenants of your religion you'll probably be just fine. i don't think you can focus too much on the details anyway since even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose and most holy books are written by people, so who knows how much of the original message has been perverted.

god, or whomever, will decide if you get into heaven, or wherever. so live your life without regrets as close as you can to how you think god, or whomever, would approve. that's the best you can do. and honestly, i think that's all god wants.

god created science!

1. i can't understand why some people deny evolution (and science in general). 2. i don't understand why some people think evolution and [the christian] religion are completely incompatible. sure, you won't be able to take the bible at complete literal value, but most christians already don't. it's symbolic allegory. so why not the story of the creation of mankind as well?

there is actual proof of evolution. there is no proof to the contrary. seriously. all well-respected scientists in the revelatory fields agree that evolution happened / is happening now. so what does that mean for god? nothing! why couldn't he have created evolution (and all laws of science) also? don't you want a god who is so smart that he makes things in an orderly fashion that follows rules (like thermodynamics, gravity...)? i would find it troubling to have an all-powerful being that does stuff willy-nilly!

if i believed in god, i would find it reassuring that he seems to thoughtfully create things. if he did stuff haphazardly (that is, maybe he has a purpose, but there doesn't seem to be any order) i would feel like he didn't really care about his creations.

this should make sense to most people. we take care of the things we care about. we wash our clothes, get mad when someone scratches our car, don't lend stuff to people who constantly lose their own belongings... we trust people we can depend on. but can we depend on a someone who does things carelessly? no. which is why if you believe in a benevolent god, you really should believe in an orderly, careful one. i.e., one who creates the world according to the laws of science, like evolution.

besides, what would be the point of god, after haphazardly making the world, planting "evidence" for geologists, chemists, archeologists, astronomers, biologists, all scientists... to repeat millions of tests only to find no convincing anomalies in the laws of nature? that would be a mean god indeed! it's like he wants people to believe based on faith of a literal bible alone, when all evidence proves otherwise. when he made humans with the innate logic and reasoning, and the desire to find out why and how. what a conniving, deceptive, and manipulative god!

i refuse to believe that a supposedly benevolent god would make everything according to the rules of nature (rules he made up), and give us the intelligence to figure out those rules, only to be really testing us to make sure that we don't believe what science proves to be true and instead wants us to believe in things that are quite obviously stories written for a time before science came aroun.

(semi-related article about a town that pretty much all believes in creationism) 

proof

a friend recently asked me why i don't believe in god. i responded that it's because i don't believe in a soul. no soul, no afterlife, no need for religion, i.e. no god!

so why don't i believe in a soul? 1. because i just don't believe. and belief cannot be commanded. 2. there's no concrete evidence of anything supernatural. sure, science doesn't have explanations for everything, but maybe it just doesn't yet.


btw, the science i'm talking are the physical sciences. so biology, archeology, astronomy, chemistry... stuff that can be proved with hard math and physical evidence. so currently unexplainable psychology stuff or cognitive science doesn't count. (for example, why some studies show that prayer seems to heal the sick faster even when the sick person doesn't know they're being prayed over [of course, other studies show just the opposite so who knows?]).

but if you had a real "miracle" then i'd have no choice but to believe! my friend suggested something like jesus feeding 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. that would totally do it. tho a statue "weeping blood" will not. ...not unless it's actual blood and scientists really can't figure out where it's coming from.


btw, tho i'm not religious, i do have respect for religion. and i think it can work hand in hand with science. and i think it's so weird so many religious people outright deny legitimate science. for example, the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe is the big bang theory. but there's no explanation for what came before that, or even why it happened. so why not god? science hasn't at all disproved the existence of god (and honestly, science can't disprove something doesn't exist. it can only prove that something does), so why not believe in actual facts and fill in the rest with religion? there's little to no overlap!

(want to learn more about the world's religion? here's some stats)

in line

i was at a store the other day with one checkout line leading to multiple registers. one woman was called to a register but the cashier was called away to something else; he said she would be right back. another register opened up and that cashier asked me to come forward. i told her that the other customer was before me. she tries to, but cannot, get the attention of the customer and tells me she's on the phone. so i go over and tell the customer that a new register has opened. i go back to my place in line. as i get into line, a lady in line tells me "there's a special place in heaven for people like you."

what am i supposed to say to that?

"if your god is correct, i'm going straight to hell. but you remember this: atheists do nice things too!" or maybe "hey, fool, read the bible better; people aren't rewarded for good deeds!" (and nowhere does it say that god would segregate heaven by random acts of kindness) gah. seriously, i appreciate that you appreciate that i'm not a line cutter, but you don't need to tell me incorrect things about your religion by way a "compliment."

charity

(lol, this site has become a bit of a atheist propaganda site)

Why You Don't Need God to be Good: the Rise of Atheist Charities

"Charitable organizations geared towards non-believers are growing. "Good without God" has become a catch-phrase of the increasingly vocal atheist and freethinker movement -- from books to billboards, the non-religious are asserting the strength of their humanist ethics. As atheists emerge from the closet and stand up for themselves, one message they're bringing along is that charity is far from an inherent monopoly of the religious."

“skeptics and humanists are frustrated that so many charitable organizations, especially those that help people afflicted by natural or human disasters, have efforts coordinated by religious organizations. These organizations sometimes proselytize to the people in need of their services. This is entirely unacceptable.”

as much as i like helping people / organizations, i always try to picks secular ones. it is really disconcerting when you go to a thing and the organizers are like "let's do this for god!" or whatever. i mean, i'm here to go good because i think it's the nice thing to do, not because some deity told me i should.

giving and helping should really be about the end goal, not about the motivation for why we do it. but, of course, many who don't agree with the organization's reasons for giving are understandably uncomfortable with contributing. so i'm glad there is a rise of secular charities. i know i am much more open to supporting secular causes.