The last blog entry

Your BFF told me that would be sending me a link to something involving earth science. Thank you for sending it.

I watched the video from the link you sent and found it interesting. I didn’t find it convincing, however. It is difficult to be convinced by one video by a man that I know nothing about. In the video, Neal Adams is against the current theory of plate tectonics which is a young theory that came about in the 70s.

Plate tectonics is well supported with empirical data (observations) and consistent with what we know about physics and geology. It builds on the observation of continental drift and sea floor spreading. The best theories are ones that explain the observations and contain the fewest assumptions, see Occam’s Razor. At the heart of the video is the claim that the growing Earth theory best explains the shape and position of the current land masses. This could be true but there are other explanations and the expanding Earth hypothesis conflicts with other respected theories. It also adds more questions than it answers.

To explore the idea of an expanding Earth, first do a search to see what the experts are saying and determine if there is a scientific consensus. Then look at what Neal Adams is saying and his qualifications. Also look for other experts that agree with him.

There is a scientific consensus that the earth is undergoing gradual change through plate tectonics. The theory explains the current land masses and explains the formation of the relatively young archipelagos—the Galapagos Islands and the Hawaiian Islands. A key part of the tectonic plate theory includes “subduction.” Subduction explains mountain building, earthquakes, and volcanism, items not addressed by the expanding Earth hypothesis. The forces that allow and cause plate tectonics are understood. They are convection and tidal forces from the sun and the moon. We know the plates are moving and we can measure the movement with precision using satellite technology. The plates are moving apart in some cases and they are colliding in other cases. Plate collisions form the tall mountain ranges such as the Andes and Himalayans.

Is Neal Adams an expert in Geology? He is known for being an artist and does not have a degree in Earth Science. He is famous for comics. Samuel Warren Carey, his favorite expert, died in 2002 and his work on plate tectonics is highly regarded in the scientific community today. However, his “mechanism,” the expanding Earth model, has been discredited by the inclusion of the subduction hypothesis. Ott Christoph Hilgenberg also believed that the expanding earth model explained the shape and position of the current land masses and his work predates the inclusion of subduction into the plate tectonic theory.

It took only a few minutes of research to find this information. Please check out the included links. In particular, check out this link: Plate Tectonics, and as an aside, you might steer clear of folks that frequently appear on Coast-to-Coast radio.

I hope you’re doing well.

Don

Some of people admitted that they can’t imagine what it would take while others were very inventive and very specific. For example, one individual said God would have to appear as a burning bush at a Karaoke bar and sing “I’m Blue.” By the way, he also said other people would have to witness it too so that he’d know that he wasn’t hallucinating.

There was some discussion of what an Atheist might be missing that the church normally provides the believer. For example, some remember the almost indescribable feeling of ecstasy that sometimes accompanies religious devotion. Others appreciated the religious rituals and consistency of regular experiences. The Catholic Church has seven sacraments that are designed to give a human life a structure and makes them dependent on the Church. They are baptized, receive communion (the first one is a REALLY big deal), confess sins to the priest, get confirmed, get married, some get ordained, and may receive last rights (Extreme Unction) just before their last breath. A religious person can be comfortable in the knowledge that ALL things have been answered. There are no unsolvable mysteries and death, the biggest mystery of them all, is no big deal. It’s just the next phase of their eternal existence. Religious people often have a strong community.

But religions are not derived from reason or from the logic of human philosophy. Many of the pat answers have no basis in science. Religious dogma, while providing a strong often safe foundation, limits the human experience, and it has prevented or at least delayed advancements that are beneficial to all mankind. Also remember that while every religion on earth tends to call itself peaceful, Lilliputian differences have led to incalculable human suffering and death.

Steve Martin says Atheists Don’t Have No Songs but I won’t be going back soon. I enjoy having Sunday’s free, having Rock ‘n’ Roll, and watching football in my underpants. Most of all I like believing things that are demonstratively true in a world where our knowledge freely advances unfettered by religious dogma. In an Atheist world, there is no “chosen people” and human rights are derived from secular societal norms, not poorly translated dictums from Bronze Age writings. Finally, Tucson Atheists have a strong community too. Feel free to join us at The Shanty this Sunday at 7 PM.

From Jim Wilson:

As a fan of rock music as well as many other genres, it is fascinating to hear various religious figures arguing that music is evil.  In the Muslim world, such anti-rock attitudes are often linked with anti-Westernism in general, but here in the West we are more likely to be told that rock music is addictive, that it is a communist conspiracy, or it comes directly from Satan.   Rock music, we are told, has beats authored by Satan in a villainous plot to the control listeners and send them to hell.  Such beliefs have given rise to wild stories.  There is the tale that all rock bands pray to Satan before recording. There is the claim that screamed vocals on rock records are created when the musicians are enjoying anal sex, and there is a rumor most rock albums have satanic messages backed masked into them. There is the claim that every year Keith Richards has all the blood drained from his body and replaced with fresh blood from young donors.

While exploring this topic I stumbled on this video . It is a video of a Christian religious leader preaching on the evils of popular music.  Beginning around 1:54 he states that God does have preferences for everything and that he expresses his preferences through his design.  He states, “God has made your ears to be able to take a certain amount of sound, and if you go beyond that level you’re going to hurt your ears.”  He continues to point out that damaged human ear cells do not heal themselves the way other body parts do making damage caused to ones ears by listening to loud music permanent.

He argues that God intentionally made our ears this way to express his distaste for rock music which admittedly, is often played loud.  That’s right! We are being told to believe that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of all things demonstrates his preferences through design flaws.  Are we also to also assume that because God designed us to use the same opening to intake food and breathe air that he wanted us to be vulnerable to choking death?  It would have been much more useful for us to have ears that can heal themselves, and hear a wider range of the sounds of nature or to have eyes that could see more of the electromagnetic spectrum including ionizing radiation and magnetic fields.

We are forced to conclude that a supposedly benevolent creator’s designs are intentionally flawed, but the preacher’s argument has other problems. The design flaw says nothing about specific genres of music.  For example, Mozart or Bach music can be played at the same loud volume as Slayer with the same damaging effect.  Furthermore, you can listen to Slayer at low volume and receive NO ear damage.  Many older people who were lifelong rockers are not worse off than the people with ear damage from the sound of gunfire in wars or by the sounds of heavy machinery.  Is God trying to tell us through his poor ear design that he is anti-war or anti-factory?

God doesn’t exist but if he did it is unlikely that he would communicate his musical preferences by making a faulty ear design that doesn’t heal after damage. Rock and roll musicians are not always the best role models, and that is part of the genre’s appeal, but to assert that Rock ‘n’ Roll is from Satan is a load of superstitious nonsense that attempts to close off our experience of a wide range of diverse, innovative, and interesting sounds.  Besides, Rock ‘n’ Roll has also done much to bring people together. Check out Farm Aid , One World Concert, The Moscow Music Peace Festival, Live Aid, and the benefit concert that started it all The Concert for Bangladesh.

As an atheist, I’m often asked “Where do you get your morals from?” The implicit attack here is that morals can only come from religion and that, therefore either I have no morals or the morals I do have were instilled in my religious upbringing. I do not intend to write about where I get my morals, beyond simply and quickly saying that my morals stem from a desire to make the world a better place. Instead, I intend to write about where most modern Christians get their morals – and it is most definitely not the Bible. This topic is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, as it has come up over and over in the debate on gay marriage.

Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 13 has come up repeatedly. It reads as follows (as obtained from BibleGateway.com, the New International Version)

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Two verses later, in Leviticus 20:15, a similar admonition against sexual relations with animals is delivered:

“If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.”

These verses are similar to those of Leviticus 18:22-23, but the punishments for these sins are given in the above quoted verses. However, as of this writing, gay marriage is legal in 9 states, and bestiality is legal in 20 (according to www.animallaw.info). Why are there no large-scale protests about bestiality? Why are not more Christians sermonizing on bestiality and how wicked it is, how it leads to the downfall of nations? Should not both biblical statutes carry the same weight in our laws and morals?

More common sins are listed in the previous chapter. Leviticus 19:19 says (quotation marks as in original)

“‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:26 commands:

“‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

Leviticus 19:27 and 28 continue:

“‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

These six commands, and more listed throughout the book of Leviticus, are daily violated by good, upstanding Christians without protest. How is it that these commands can be disregarded so easily, but the single command on gay marriage must be not only upheld, but written into our national legislation? Christian morality is full of hypocrisy. The argument is often made that some verses are to be interpreted literally, while others are merely figurative. How then does one determine which are which? The Bible itself cannot be a guide; it gives no direction on how to evaluate its contents beyond such pithy directives as “Keep my decrees”. Some other source must be obtained to make this decision. The lay people of a church rely on the guidance of their pastors, priests, ministers and deacons, but where do these leaders turn for their answers? There must be some source which is not the Bible for making these decisions of morality.

The act of deciding that some commands in the Bible can be safely ignored while others must be upheld literally, and in some cases, violently, can only be rationalized by two possible courses. Either the decision is made to consciously violate God’s sacred commands, thereby intentionally earning a place in the fires of hell, or the Christian has employed a set of morals independent of and superior to the biblical commands. In either case, the Christian can no longer point to the Bible as the ultimate source of their morals. It may provide a starting point, but as we no longer stone women for failing to be virgins on the day they are married to some lecherous old man who bought them, we clearly have evolved our sense of morality since the Bronze Age.

 Jim Wilson can’t believe Russell Crow’s Supposed UFO Sighting!

Recently Russell Crowe shared this video with his Twitter followers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W63K–xUg6o&feature=player_embedded

The star of Gladiator and Les Miserables stated, “UFO? Time Lapse Photos THESE ARE REAL! A friend and I set camera to capture fruit bats rising from Botanic Gardens, this was a big surprise.”

In the time exposure video, a flat white object moves across the upper portion of the screen. A red beam of light appears to radiate down from it.  The video is from Crowe’s office in Sydney on Woolloomooloo Bay.  His office sits on the pier directly across from the botanical gardens.  There are many explanations for the images including glare from the camera lens or photoshopping but Russell Crowe insists that he did not photoshop them.

The explanation offered in this video is most compelling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjlK7kjgphU

This largely explains the strange images that were captured. Had he captured fruit bats, what would they have looked like in the timed exposure?

Did God give us Free Will? No. There is no reason to think so because there is no evidence to suggest that God ever existed but the existence of free will is still in question. For all practical purposes, it seems that we have it and we must act as though it exists. On the other hand, it could be that all of our behaviors and thought processes are the result of chemical reactions that we have no way of controlling.

The existence of free will depends on the definition of the term. After all, we may have free will in the sense that we are free to make decisions ourselves but, at the same time, we may lack it in the sense that actual decision making process is dictated by immutable physical laws.

Many religious people use free will as an explanation for why the world is messy. They argue that God wants us to voluntarily choose Him. They say our failure to do this has introduced sin into the world along with tapeworms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Of course, this argument flies in the fact of the claim that God is all-knowing, all-benevolent, and all-powerful. All-knowing assumes prescience and all-powerful assumes total control of everything that happens. If God has a plan, no human activity can effectively alter the plan.

If, however, God is lacking in the infinite knowledge depart, or the infinite powers department, then free will maybe a little more plausible. But that makes God a little less great which may be just fine for some believers. The Judeo-Christian then must ask, “What did God know and when did he know it?” Additionally, it gives rise to countless other questions, such as:

Did God not create Satan? Could God not destroy Satan at this very moment? Did God not knowingly allow Satan to introduce evil into the world? Did God not knowingly begin the chain of events that led to evil being introduced into the world? Could God not have removed evil from the world at any time if he wanted to? If so, wouldn’t that make God ultimately responsible for the existence of evil in the world? Did God know that the world would become such brutal and inhospitable place for humans as a result of Adam eating the fruit? Was this part of this God’s plan or the result of a miscalculation on God’s part? Did God intentionally set Adam and eve up for failure? Were Adam and Eve simply tools used by God to introduce sin into the world? Could God have tweaked Adam and Eve’s personalities such that they could have avoided the whole incident, but chose not to? Was the talking snake actually an agent of God’s will, or the result of some sort of error in his judgment? Why should Adam’s descendants be punished for Adam’s actions? Was it God’s intention that humans should be a permanently ignorant?

Some believers argue that the world we live in is far from the human ideal because this allows humans to be virtuous rather than acting as something akin to robots. This leads me to ask:

Was Adam’s fall necessary for humans to be virtuous? Were Adam and Eve capable of being virtuous before their fall? Given this, is it possible to be virtuous in Heaven? Is there free will or sin in heaven?

Other Christians argue that Satan, rather than God is ultimately responsible for the evil that exist in today’s world. That is too convenient.

There are ambiguities within the Judeo-Christian world-view and areas that are potentially problematic for believers. Different believers will have different answers for these questions but the Bible says, “Prove all things: hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

These are my thoughts on free will and my latest set of questions for the faithful.

Jim Wilson has a question:

I know a few anti-gun zealots who would like the populace to be completely unarmed. I cannot help but completely disagree with them. Like most Americans I think law abiding people should be free to have guns, knives, swords, and etcetera for the purposes of self-defense, hunting, and peaceful recreation.

At the same time so many of my fellow American’s are happy to point the Second Amendment of the Constitution and declare it to be absolute and scream at the mere suggestion that we restrict people’s ability to buy assault weapons or high capacity ammunition magazine. I’m put off by both sides in the gun debate as more often than not absolutist gun nuts and gun abolitionist both seem to be driven more by ideological rigidity than a willingness to examine the issue.

I recognize that in practice the Second Amendment is not considered absolute by the majority of people on either side. Most gun rights advocates will not argue that the Second Amendment does not grant ordinary Americans the right to own ground-to-air missiles, weaponized anthrax, rocket propelled grenades, Apache helicopters, or nuclear bombs. For better or worse, most actually see it as a good thing that the government maintains a monopoly on these arms and they are not often accused of being inconsistent. There seems to be some sort of unspoken agreement that the line between what weapons we do or don’t have the right to own needs to be drawn somewhere. The question is, how do we determine where?

Perhaps it is the case that things like assault rifles are close to the line that is to be drawn. Or perhaps there is no line and we really should allow ordinary people to run around with tanks and cruise missiles. One friend of mine suggested that we will inevitably draw the line where the Supreme Court justice with the best persuasive skills says we should. So I’ll ask our readers, “How far does the right to bear arms extend?”

I was a believer when I first heard this story. It was a bit uncomfortable to hear for a couple of reasons. First, it laid bare the idea that we are on our own during dire situations as it is very unlikely to be saved in a miraculous way by God. In all my life, I had never heard or read about a miraculous save such as the one depicted in the story and part of the humor was the how unlikely the situation really is. The second reason it was a bit uncomfortable was that it opened me up to the idea that if the other deities are looked upon by outsiders as ridiculous, how does the God of the Bible stack up?

Hearing that joke may have been my first experience with cognitive dissonance. It made me realize that there may be answers that I hadn’t considered before. Many current believers must have a similar feeling when they hear Mike Huckabee blame our most recent tragedy in Connecticut on the lack of prayer in public school. The difference of course is that he wasn’t telling a joke, at least not on purpose. It is a most “cringe worthy” statement and it’s amazing that he states his opinion with such confidence. Do you believe that saying a prayer before classes would have made the least bit of difference in that tragedy? But also buried within his statements is the underlying theme that there is no morality and no values in secular society. Dave Noise in Psychology Today also cites Huckabee’s comments in his article on Atheist discrimination. Somehow Atheists are to blame for everything bad that happens. Mike Huckabee and others forget that religion played no part in the Sandy Hook tragedy.

About that religious student skydiver, do you think it showed a lack of faith for him to put on a chute to begin with? Mike Huckabee may be a hero of the religious right and his professions, while silly to the unbeliever, may resonate with those who believe in Christianity but Atheists have their spokesmen too and many of them are comedians (on purpose). For example, Eddie Izzard got it right when he says, “If there was a God, don’t you think he would have flicked Hitler’s head off?” And just between you and me, don’t you think he might have made Adam Lanza’s four weapons inoperable?

In response to the horrific mass shooting in Newtown Connecticut, in which 20 children and 6 adults the gunman and his mother were killed, I have heard numerous people make the argument that this is what happens when you take God out of schools. Apparently, it’s not the shooter who is responsible for these tragic deaths but those of us who had the audacity to remove the Christian God from our public schools.

There is so much wrong with this argument. No one removed God from any school. If we assume for the sake of conversation that the Christian God or something like him exists, it would be impossible for mere mortals to escort him out of a school or any other building for that matter. Supposedly, his powers are infinitely greater than those of us ordinary humans and many believe him to be omnipresent. The very idea of removing an omnipresent being from any location is absurd.

What secularist did do was remove government imposed religious instruction from tax-payer funded schools. When religious conservatives say we took God out of schools, it is code for the fact that the heavy hand of Government is no longer using other people’s tax money to shove Christian religious beliefs down the throats of other people’s children. This governmental restraint is a good thing. Freedom of religion means that government doesn’t force religious instruction on the people. People are still free to teach children about their God in their homes, in religious private schools, and in their churches free from the encroachment of government and the use of other people’s tax money.

But even though public school teachers are no longer allowed to or required to push religious instruction, it still does not mean God has been taken out of schools. Children are still allowed to pray; they just cannot be instructed to do so by a school official. Children are also free to join religious clubs, read religious texts in their free time, and talk among themselves about religious topics. We live in a country where most people are religious and most school teachers and children believe in some form of God but the teachers are not allowed to use their power over the students for religious purposes. As long as public schools continue to give tests there will always be prayer in schools.

Some public figures believe that the increasing secularism of the school system has told God that he has not wanted and that he has withdrawn his “protective influence.” This is such a morally despicable notion. Are we expected to believe that God makes it possible for little children to be brutally murdered solely because adults no longer use the government to force feed kids religious teachings? Do the people who spew such rubbish from their mouths seriously believe that none of the murder victims at that Connecticut school house believed in God or sought his protection? It is highly likely that at least one of the children believed in a God and was otherwise innocent and yet, we are told that they had to die because God was not wanted at their school.

Atheists reject the notion that a God exists and can’t blame removing God from our schools for the recent violence. There is no evidence that any god or any protective influence exists. Such a thing has never been demonstrated. The occurrence and distribution of tragic events in time and space can be explained entirely by individual humans and natural events. Hurricanes, tsunamis, tornados, and killing sprees by deranged individuals hit God believers and sinners alike. Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews all die in mass shootings, bombings, acts of war, and terrorism.

The apparent disinterest of God stands in stark contrast to the shameless, manipulative behavior of some of his most fervent, politically-active followers.

Common celebrations in a society can be unifying and bring a common identity. Winter solstice and the start of the New Year are a natural place to put such celebrations. That is probably why there have been so many over the years. In the fourth century, the Church decided to place the Nativity on December 25^th. It is believed that the assignment was made purposely to displace the celebrations of the sun worshiping pagans who were celebrating Natalis Solis Invincti (the birth of the unconquerable sun) and the other popular celebrations of the time.

The life events of important people are often celebrated and their births especially. When I was growing up, we always celebrated Washington’s Birthday on February 22^nd and Lincoln’s Birthday on February 12^th. Back then it didn’t matter that they may fall on a weekend or a weekday; they were celebrated on the correct day. Now we have Presidents day and it is celebrated as a federal holiday on the third Monday of February. We used to get three day weekends from federal holidays by chance, now  they’re almost certain. The federal holidays are moved to Fridays and Mondays so that most people can get the maximum benefit from the observance. A three day weekend is much better than a Wednesday off in the middle of the week. There are a couple of exceptions. New Year’s Day happens on January 1^st, Independence Day happens on the 4^th of July, Thanksgiving will always be on a Thursday, and Christmas is on the 25^th. This year Christmas is today—a Tuesday. Next year it will be on Wednesday. Half of the holidays are moveable and the other half fall when they fall including Christmas.

It is interesting that Christmas is not a moveable holiday. After all, we really don’t know for sure when Jesus was born but we’re pretty certain when George Washington was born. Yet, the celebration of George Washington’s birth is moveable but the birth of Jesus isn’t. The celebration of his death, supposedly more important than his birth, is observed on the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon which is the first Ecclesiastical Full Moon date after March 20^th. It moves all over the place. Its range is from March 21^st through April 25^th. It is no secret that original reason for the variable dates was that the leaders of the Church wanted the Easter celebration to coincide with the Jewish Passover celebration. This is a clear indication that the church leaders were not above placing their celebrations where they most benefited the Church.

Merry Christmas everyone!