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

Not using an identifying label—Atheist, Secular Humanist, Freethinker, Secularist, etc.—might work if winning an intellectual argument is all that is considered but people need more than that. They need community. How do people of a community find each other if not through labels? Look at the Meetup.com site. There you’ll find Tucson Atheists and Skeptics of Tucson. You’ll also find many other groups. A similar search through FaceBook will also result in pages dedicated the Secular Students, Atheists, and Recovering from Religion groups, national and locally.

Dr. Harris spends a great deal of time criticizing religion and he’s good at it. However, we are not all like him. And while we do criticize religion on occasion, any group that spends all of its time criticizing other groups is not mature and supportive of its own membership. Religions often criticize Atheists but it is not all that they do. They provide complete community service. They don’t meet once a week just to compare clothes. They have youth programs, and social events, and often pitch in together to help a member that has fallen on to hard times. Religions also have power through their large numbers and organizations such as the Center for Arizona Policy that act on their behalf and push Christian values on to the society in general. We need to do that and more.

In fact, we are starting to build and Tucson’s Atheist community is doing well. In the Barna Group’s rating of The Most Post-Christian Cities in America we rank #12. Here in Tucson we have multiple groups carrying the labels of “Atheists,” “Skeptics,” and “FreeThought.” We have our own increasingly effective legislature lobbying group The Secular Coalition for Arizona. This would not be possible without the use of identifying labels. In the past several years while the community was expanding, I often heard, “I’m glad I’ve found you. I thought I was the only one!”

The word Atheist has had negative connotations and many would rather not use it but any other term we use to describe ourselves would soon be saddled with the same baggage once it is clear that the term refers to those that don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Have you ever heard someone say “Secular Humanist” in such a way as to be dripping with venom and dismissal? The better strategy is to come out as an Atheist, if you can, and take back the word. Erase the evil, negative connotations through positive example in all that you do.

Recently, I met a female evangelist who worked closely in the field with her husband.  The two practiced a very “fire and brimstone,” “angry God” version of Christianity”.   They bad mouthed homosexuals, listeners of rock music, liberals, and made heavy use of threats of hell.

I saw the wife in this pair explain their religious beliefs to a sizable audience they had gathered along with some of the details of their personal history.  Looking back, I regret not having asked her how she reconciles her role in the ministry with first Timothy 2:12, which states, “But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence,” Her story led me to pursue a different line of questioning.

She told of a time when she was a young, ambitious college student.  At this time, she met her future husband who was ministering to students at her university.  For some reason she found this man’s teachings about God, Jesus, and hellfire compelling and chose to follow him and renounce many of her past beliefs and ambitions.  She argued that prior to having met her husband she had been mind-raped by the professors at her University with their teachings of secular humanism, atheism, liberalism and socialism.  She did point out that she in fact paid the professors to teach her, so it was not a “legitimate rape” (Yes, she referenced Todd Akin’s controversial and stupid remark when telling this story.)

After she was done speaking I got a chance to speak with her privately.  I suggested that since she considered her professor’s teachings to be mind-rape, that the same could be said of those of her evangelist husband.  After all, rapists use physical violence or threats of physical violence to subdue their victims, while her husband’s teachings similarly use threats of eternal torment to anyone who dares to question them.  Her husband literally taught this woman she must believe everything he says or terrible things will happen to her—forever.  This element of backing one’s teachings with threats of violence is far more insidious than anything from even the most propagandizing college professors.

As far as I know, professors have no way to force their students to believe anything.  Sure, they may be able to command their pupils to memorize or understand their teachings at the risk failing their tests, but I see no way in which they can force anyone to believe anything they teach or retain it after the semester ends.  I never had a professor threaten me with torture if I fail to believe what he or she taught.  This can only happen in this country at explicitly religious schools.

The evangelist refused to acknowledge my point stating that I was off base, because it was not the fear of hell but the desire to be in the presence of a loving all powerful God.  Maybe she was being honest, but I’m skeptical of this claim since threats of hell are such a huge portion of what her ministry does.  They spent a lot of time asserting that people who disagree with them will be punished. Their time would be better spent explaining the evidence they have for this belief. It would be a much more constructive conversation.

The concept of mind rape describes religious indoctrination quite well.  It is usually performed on children who have not had time to develop critical thinking skills and therefore have no defense.  It is frequently backed up with threats of torments as well as the bribe of an eternal reward.  Frightening children with threats of hell is a form of child abuse, and one that many people never get over.  The degrading message is that we are all so sinful, wretched, and worthless that we should be tortured forever.  Anyone who sees a small child as a being worthy of nothing better than eternal torture by virtue of being born human has truly lost any semblance of decency.

Rape is a horrendous crime and the fact it happens or is tolerated at all in our culture is a tragedy. The evangelist’s notion of mind-rape is ironic and a useful, informative way of looking at religious indoctrination especially indoctrination that features the threat of punishment.

Don Lacey

The Tucson Atheists discussed the history of Atheism on April 15^th—tax day—this year at our monthly meeting at Denny’s. The meeting was only two hours long and there was no way to completely cover the topic and while it’s important to get to the facts and figures, the group thrives on discussion and personal feelings. Talking about the facts of history is not difficult. Ideally, the facts and events are simply pinned to a timeline. Sometimes however what those facts and events mean and meant at the time they occurred is unknowable with any certainty and depend on the source of the information and the attitude of the receiver of the information. The sources of the information that was presented to kick off the discussion included Jonathan Miller’s A Brief History of Disbelief and other sources.

The history of Atheism begins thousands of years ago with the Greeks and Romans even though the name wasn’t officially created until the 16^th century in France. The Greek philosopher Aristophanes who lived between 446 and 386 BCE said, “Surely you don’t believe in the gods. What’s your argument? Where’s your proof?” A Greek contemporary, Democritus who was partially responsible for the theory that all matter was composed of atoms said that the greatest good is happiness and contentment. All matter existed forever; therefore, there is no creation. Aristotle born in 348 BCE believed that Tyrants must have gods on their sides. Cicero born in 106 BCE asked, “Do gods exist or do they not?” Seneca born around 4 BCE famously said that “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Finally, Epicurus born in 341 BCE pointed out the illogic of an omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent god when he said:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Lucretius born in 99 BCE wrote an ode to Epicurus and contributed his own skepticism of the existence of supernatural beings when he said, “Fear is the mother of all gods. Nature does all things spontaneously by herself without their meddling.”

Religion comes very natural to us and Atheism requires a level of reason and rationality that allows us to overcome it. Atheism as an idea has had its ups and downs and it is by shear serendipity that our country was formed in the period of time called “The Age of Enlightenment.” It was during this time that the world discovered Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), John Lock (1632-1704), Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), Isaac Newton (1643-1727), and Voltaire (1984-1778). These men laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment and pushed the ideas of rationalism, social liberalism, religious toleration, science, the scientific method, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the separation of church and state. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution particularly the Bill of Rights came out of the Age of Enlightenment and remains the backbone of our Democratic Republic. However, the popularity of reason and intellect has since been challenged by the influences of Romanticism where policy is often dictated by human emotions such as apprehension, horror, terror, and awe along with extreme patriotism. The Zeitgeist or “spirit of the time” which appeals to human emotions has allowed a resurgence of religious fervor. Fear of “godless” Communism has been codified into our lives by well-meaning politicians when they added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, added “In God We Trust” as a national motto to be inscribed on our money.

Slowly our country is moving back to an “Age of Reason.” Religion is losing its hold on the populace as we see the disappearance of “Blue Laws,” the acceptance of alternate lifestyles, and the growth of the number of people identifying as “non-religious.” Not everyone is on board but the trend is undeniable especially considering the polling data that indicates that people under the age of 30 are twice as likely to profess “no religious belief” as those older.

There was also discussion of the “growing pains” in the current movement towards reason. The internet is a two edged sword in that it allows a free exchange of ideas but also anonymous modern day Vandals, trolls, that tend to make small points of contention overblown and damaging. To keep the movement going, we must ignore those that thrive on getting attention at all costs and remember that we’re in agreement 99% of the time. You can catch a very interesting discussion involving Dave Silverman, Hermant Mehta, and Chris Mooney HERE.

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.

The term “meme” is used largely to describe images like this:

Usually there is an image of some character or public figure (in this case Advice God) with a statement on top introducing the topic and some sort of ironic or unexpected punch line at the bottom. They are quite common over the internet. It is possible that the 2012 presidential election may be the first ever to be influenced by the use of this type of internet meme. More examples can be found here.

“Meme” has a much broader and interesting meaning. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins, now famous for being one of the world’s most visible atheists. In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins, created the word with the intent of it sounding similar to gene with its roots in the Greek term “mimeme” meaning to imitate.

Dawkins used the term to describe pieces of cultural information, shared among humans, which are able to adapt and evolve in ways that furthers their transmission. They can be seen as parts of human culture that are analogous to genes. Examples include jokes, popular songs, stories, rituals, fashion styles, ideologies, and a wide range of other cultural information. Urban legends are an excellent example, since they frequently change and often grow with the telling. Often versions that hit listeners closer to home or contain more outrageous elements are repeated and in this way are able to perpetuate their existence.

Blue Star Acid is an urban legend in which it was widely believed that people where giving children LSD soaked rub-on tattoos or stickers. There was no evidence to support this scare but the story continued for decades. There were several versions and the details that were included indicated when a particular version originated. Simply put, details that make a story or a joke more likely to spread get passed on while those that don’t simply get killed off. In this way, cultural information undergoes a form of adaptive evolution though it may bear more resemblance to a Lamarckian concept of evolution than a Darwinian one. Memes are often compared to viruses, in that they cannot exist independently of a host or vector and successful ones are able to change the host’s behavior so that it further spreads the meme to new hosts. Successful memes are ones that have accumulated traits that maximize the likelihood that they will be passed on.

The concept has given rise to the field of study known as memetics which looks at how information is spread among humans and adapts to spread further. Unlike other fields, it is more interested in an idea’s successful spread rather than how truthful it is.

Some of the most influential memes are religious ones. They are often characterized by groups of smaller memes combining together to form larger “memeplexes”. For example, Judaism not only features beliefs about the existence of a god but also dietary rules and stories about its history. Christianity builds upon the previously existing Judaism memes and adds new elements like the Jesus story. When looking at the spread of Christianity from the point of view of memetics, it is striking that the Christianity meme found success after adding such suspect features as promises of eternal rewards for believers and eternal punishment for those who doubt (and will not perpetuate) the meme.

It should be noted that memes are not conscious entities that intentionally spread themselves but rather pieces of information with no self-awareness engaged in an unconscious process of adaptive selection. The notion of memes as viruses of the mind makes a lot of sense. People heavily influenced by power memes such as religions like Islam or Christianity or political philosophies like Nazism or Marxism will do things to help aid the spread of their meme that people uninfected by these memes will view as horrific and morally despicable. More thoughts on the idea of Christianity as a meme can be found here.

Skepticism and critical thinking are essential to immunize us from harmful and destructive memes that are all too common in this world.

Jim Wilson has some thoughts on calling others Fascists…

Fascism is defined as: a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. And b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

The collusion, between government, military and business interest that we often have in this country is of great concern as well as the associated waste and corruption. For example, the $39.5 Billion Dick Cheney’s company Halliburton made from government contracts in Iraq. However, the casual use of the “fascist” label is not particularly helpful or conducive to constructive discourse.

Aside from government and business collusion, “fascism” usually means much more, including an absolutist dictatorship, dissent being outlawed, a system where all but one political party is outlawed, no independence between branches and levels of government, a lack of elections or any form of government account ability, an official state sponsored personality cult around the dictator, etc. If there are self-identified fascists out there, they wouldn’t point to our current system as an example of what they advocate or consider any of our major political leaders part of their movement. In short, the mere presence of collusion or corruption hardly makes the fascist label justified and such use is not consistent with what the term means to most people.

Of course, one could argue that our two party system often acts like a one party system. Supporters of some of our presidents/candidates have created huge personality cults around them and the people within the different branches and levels of government have so much shared ideology that choices between any two of them often may not be particularly meaningful.  Concede all these things and it is still difficult to equate our current political environment with Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. Attempting to do so is not constructive and a bit dismissive of those who survived such regimes.  Furthermore, overuse tends to water down the meaning of terms like fascism, which represents one of the darkest chapters in human history.

Many of us habitually like to equate conditions or people we dislike with the ultimate evil and invoking “fascism” is very handy for doing just this.  Unions, bosses, vegetarians, cat lovers, Christians, Atheists,  and Muslims are all guilty of using the F-word, in various contexts, especially on the Internet.  A closely related phenomenon was well described in 1990 by American Author, attorney, and staff council for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mike Godwin. He observed, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1…  ”

This became known as Godwin’s law and the related concepts of “fascism and fascist” just as easily apply.  Note that Godwin was not making any claims about the validity of such comparisons, just the likelihood of their occurrence.  Despite this many people wrongly use the term “Godwin’s law” to end discussions and claim undeserved victory in their debates.

Godwin’s observation often holds true.  People throw out the words “NAZI”, “Hitler,” and “fascist” around with an amazing ease.    Unsurprisingly, this is often done fallaciously and there are few known fallacies related to claims of fascism, Nazism, etc.

There is also the practice of denouncing any idea as evil, fascist etc. for having some, often tenuous, connection to Nazism.  It’s a form of guilt by association fallacy that’s referred to as the Argumentum ad Nazium, Reductio ad Hitlerum or “playing the Hitler card”.  If the Nazis or Hitler did it, it must be bad.  For example, people argue against vegetarianism by pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian and against Atheism by claiming Hitler was an Atheist (a claim that is contradicted by Hitler’s declaring himself a Christian).  Many more examples of this fallacy can be found here.

Recently Bill O’Reilly calls the American Atheist President, David Silverman, a fascist for apparently wanting government to get out of the holiday/religion business.  Whether you agree or disagree with him, it hardly seems appropriate to call someone a fascist for wanting to limit the role of government in promoting a religion, philosophy, or whatever.

Labels like “fascist” are way over used, and often should be reserved for the most unambiguous of tyrants; otherwise they do not promote a productive conversation.

Lately, I have noticed variants of a horrific little essay titled the Scientific Death of Jesus making its way around the internet.   An excellent example, complete with illustrations is found here.  It details the crucifixion of Jesus and then discusses why it is such a great thing and why we should worship the God who arranged for it to happen.  The crucifixion theology is not a great thing. It is sick and twisted.  I’ll explain why using the essay linked above as a starting point.

The essay claims, “Only the worst criminals could die like Jesus.”  However, it was not reserved for “only the worst criminals,” anyone accused of challenging Roman rule could receive this fate. Furthermore, Pontius Pilate was a ruthless executioner who indiscriminately killed those brought before him unlike the way he is depicted in the Bible. He was not likely to petition the Jews to let Jesus off the hook.  Pilate’s Jewish contemporary Philo of Alexandria referred to “his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners and his endless savage ferocity.” That Jesus met the fate of crucifixion hardly makes him unique.

The piece describes the horrible suffering associated with crucifixion, a brutal form of execution.  For sake of brevity, I’ll assume it gives a fairly accurate account.  In the account, “Jesus endured that reality over 3 hours. Yes, over 3 hours!”  I question their three hour figure. Mark 15:25 states “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him,” while verse 34 states “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’” which means, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”.  Therefore, he was alive for at least six hours.  According to Wikipedia and various other sites, “The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the health of the crucified person, and environmental circumstances.”  In other words, Jesus’s suffering may have been rather short compared to other victims.

According to the essay, “He had no more blood to bleed, He only poured water” and that, “Jesus poured all 3.5 litres of his blood.”   These are highly specific claims to make about an event that happened 2000 years ago.  It is impossible to know with any confidence the contents of Jesus’s body to that degree of accuracy.

Next the essay states, “Beyond that, a Roman soldier who nailed a spear into his chest.”  While certainly possible, the historicity of this stabbing is highly questionable.  The incident appears only in the gospel attributed to John, which scholars tend to recognize as differing heavily from the other canonical gospels and historically suspect.  For example John’s gospel, expands Jesus ministry from one year to three years, with three distinct trips to Jerusalem.  Also, John moves the infamous purification of the temple from the end of his public ministry to its beginning.  While the other Gospels primarily features Jesus speaking in pithy quotes and parables, John expands these into lengthy verbatim discourses (How did he remember them?).  John refers to “the Jews” as if they were some foreign group rather than people from whom the author was born and raised.  John also neglects to mention such events as the transfiguration, the raising of Jarius’s Daughter and the Ascension which other Gospels claim he was one of only a few witnesses.  Also John turns Luke’s parable about a man named Lazarus into and actual historical event.  James Dunn, a leading New Testament scholar, notes that “Few scholars would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’s life and ministry in any degree comparable to the synoptics.”

To make matter worse, John States that “For these things came to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.  And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”  There is no prophecy preserved in the Old Testament that says a “A bone of him shall not be broken.”  It is often assumed that this refers to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, which are not prophecies at all but instructions not to break the bones in a Passover lamb, or Psalm 34:20, which is says nothing to indicate that it is a prophecy of some future event.  John’s statement, “and again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced” relies on a mistranslation of Zechariah 12:10.  In the original verse “they look onto me, whom concerning they have pierced and they will mourn him like the weeping of a first born.”  In the context it is clear that the “me” is God, and the piercing is done by the Jewish people, rather than a Roman soldier.  Jews interpret this verse as being about God defending Jerusalem from its enemies at a time when the nations of the world conspire against it rather than the physical injury of a messiah figure.

The Scientific Death of Jesus concludes, “Jesus had to pass all this experience, so that you can have free access to God. So that your sins could be ‘washed’. All of them, with no exception! Don’t ignore this situation. HE DIED FOR YOU.”   In other words, a man allowed himself to be brutally and humiliatingly murdered for me.  Why? Christians generally state that it is because we are all indebted to God by our sins and God required this sacrifice to forgive us.  This is highly problematic. Only a horrible monster would require a brutal murder to take place in order to forgive others.  The need for a human blood sacrifice is a carryover from the animal sacrifices described in the Old Testament and is very much the type of cruel barbarism we should be denouncing rather than celebrating.

Christians will reply though that it is wonderful that God so willingly gave the life of his son.  Did he? In the story, he clearly got his son back. He also created this son specifically for this purpose but Jesus and God are supposedly the same entity (though Jesus only ever referred to God in the third person).  From the Trinitarian point of view, we are forced to conclude that God is putting on a twisted piece of theater where he is sacrificing himself to himself, in a horribly bloody manner, to save others from his own wrath.  What nonsense!

Also, what is three, or six, hours of human suffering to God, to an infinite, eternal, and omnipresent being? For such a being the event would be incredibly insignificant.  If Jesus existed since the beginning of time, a few hours of suffering would hardly be comparable to a pinprick. Further, if God is truly omnipresent he would experience all human suffering anyway and the suffering he experiences in this gesture would be largely redundant.

If we accept the concept of sin as valid, the notion that allowing an innocent person to be murdered as payment that somehow resolves us of responsibility is morally absurd by all convention standards.  It is made worse by the fact that those who are unable to believe this horrific and outrageous set of theological claims are promised eternal punishment.  The Christian God has essentially created a torture chamber that can only be escaped by pledging an eternity of praise and gratitude for allowing a brutal murder to take place.

The crucifixion narrative is rubbish.   It is immoral, nonsensical, and horrendously violent.  The concept of blood sacrifice, human or otherwise, has no place in an advanced society.

 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?

In celebration of National Pi day, the Loft Cinema is playing the movie “Pi” at 7 PM. They’ll even have pie available at the snack bar as a special treat for this movie showing. Unfortunately, the movie competes with the Tucson Atheists’ “Drinking Godlessly” event being held close by at the Red Garter Saloon.