Geek Proves Atheist Wrong

This afternoon, I received an email from Jeffrey Czerniak. I promptly wrote him a reply. Both emails are reprinted below. First Jeffrey's email in blockquotes and italics, then my reply in just blockquotes (to help differentiate between emails). If you haven't already read my previous blog entry, Museum of Geeks, I suggest you do so before reading this post or either email.

Well, let me start out by saying that I really like your blog, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I don't. I linked to you back when you were just starting out (see http://geekable.com/blog/2005/04/26/charge.html), and I read your first couple of entries with great interest. I liked the way you framed belief in the afterlife as a devaluation of earthly life.

Thus, I was saddened to see that you make me sound like a douche on your website. "Museum of Idiots" is the title of a They Might Be Giants song, and it was meant to refer to idiots like Rudolph. I did not read the entry I linked to, but it was because I was laughing so hard at the title, I didn't think the article could top it in terms of entertainment value.

So yeah, I like your blog, my post was not meant to be taken ironically (for once), and I hope you can at least post this email so I can have my say.

P.S. I've detailed my rationale before for not having comments on Geekable.com. In short, I hope that people will comment on my blogposts; I just don't want to pay the bandwidth charges to host their opinions. That's why I have trackbacks, so that people can write their own blogposts and link back to mine.

P.P.S. Another reason I don't have comments is that I don't want to be sued. See the following websites for a disturbing trend:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/
03/16/slashdot_caves_in_to_scientology
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
08/31/1427228&tid=123

--
Jeff
geekable.com

Now for my reply:

Hey Jeffrey!

Thank you for replying to me so quickly. Let me give you a little bit of a story. I’ll try to make it quick.

I found your blog linked to mine through technocrati. When I first read your post, it seemed crystal clear to me that you were making fun of my blog. I also acquired the immediate *hunch* that you didn’t actually READ my blog. I was going to ignore your post but then I got an idea that I could use it on my blog to make a point about evidence and conclusions by 1) questioning whether you made a judgment on my blog by only reading the title, and 2) if I got a reply from you, I thought I could use it as "evidence" that would either confirm or correct my guesses about your post.

Well, halfway through composing my blog post, I started to second-guess my first analysis of your post. I re-read your post and thought that maybe you weren’t making fun of me but were complimenting me. After all, you DO have Jesus' General linked from your blog page :) But the title of your blog post "Museum of Idiots" made me think that there was like a 75-80% chance you were insulting my blog. I thought you might have been a religious liberal and didn’t take kindly to my blog content, politics aside. I figured that a compliment was a long shot (I did had a "They Might Be Giants" CD in the past, I never looked at the case and am unfamiliar with actual song titles; I only know the songs by their number on the CD so I didn’t get understand your post title). So halfway through writing the blog entry I decided to admit that I wasn't sure and I wanted to suspend judgment until I got more evidence. I also decided to email you and see what you had to say. Now that I re-read my blog post, I realize there is an implied tone to the blog entry even though I thought I was suspending judgment and creating a good scenario/lesson about evidence.

I am going to make a new post tonight. I’m gonna post your email and say that I jumped a bit to conclusions, despite my proclamation of "reserving judgment." I am then of course going to make a point about evidence and perception and everything.

By the way, my comment about blogs not having comments was actually NOT directed at you (strange as it may seem) but was more directed at Paul Manata, Hashishan Prophet, and others who have wacky religious blogs that don’t allow comments. After recent posts by Manata regarding evolution and atheist philosopher Michael Martin, I got real steamed that he didn’t have comments on his blog anymore (and deleted the comments I had previously posted).

Sorry for making you sound like a douche. I do hope that you understand that the post you made was a little vague as to whether you were making a compliment or an insult, and that I did ponder at some length as to its true intentions. Expect a new post on my blog about this within a couple hours. Feel free to post on my comments as well and tell me what you think, even if it’s about your dissatisfaction with my post. The only comments I delete are spam :)

Aaron Kinney

I said it in my email and I'll say it again now. Jeffrey, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions, which I did do to a large degree, even though I claimed that I would reserve judgment until I got more evidence. It is quite obvious in the tone of my previous post that I was leaning towards the wrong conclusion, that I treated Jeffrey harshly, and that I did it based on insufficient evidence.

Look at that, everyone. Even atheists that claim to be rational and impartial can come to incorrect conclusions. I am definitely no exception. Since man has been able to think, he has thought wrong about things. We used to think the Earth was flat. We used to think that everything in the universe revolved around our planet. We used to think that women determined the gender of offspring. And unfortunately, most of us still think that an immaterial afterlife, usually governed by an immaterial God, exists! These afterlife and God beliefs come from a time when we believed all these silly things about astronomy and offspring.

It's time for theists, pro-afterlifers, and other superstitious people to accept the evidence and admit that they are wrong. The only way anyone can improve their knowledge about anything is to admit that evidence trumps faith or preconception, even if it’s their own faith or preconception. Some of us are able to swallow our pride, admit that we thought wrong, and learn from our mistakes. I was able to back when I lost my faith, and I'm able to now when Jeffrey shows me that I had the wrong idea about him.


If God or Jesus or Ganesh or some other deity reveals itself to me, I will again admit I was wrong. But there's the rub: I'm asking for evidence, and it's all about faith to them.

Museum of Geeks

In between receiving bogus email addresses from females, blogger Jeffrey Czerniak at Geekable.com made a post entitled Museum of Idiots which featured a post from my blog. The post from my blog that he featured is Rudolph the Redneck Christian Terrorist. It's one of my favorite posts because of its clever title (LOL).

Well, Mr. Czerniak doesn't seem to think so. He says that he doesn't need to read my blog post because of its clever title. Awesome! But I think that the title of his post, "Museum of Idiots," is much more clever. At this point I can't tell if he is criticizing my blog or not. His entry title has the word "idiot" in it, but he refers to my blog as "super-clever" and his links section has blogs like Jesus' General and Panda’s Thumb. Hmmmmmmmmm.

While I did like the title I chose, I didn't think that it was so clever as to convey the entire meaning of the actual post: That convicted Olympics and abortion clinic bomber Eric Robert Rudolph is a Christian that terrorized and murdered his fellow Americans for religious reasons.

On second thought, I wonder if he actually read the post? Maybe he really did just make a judgment by the title alone! I wrote him an email, asking him if he read the post and if the title actually conveyed the message sufficiently. I hope reviewers of my blog would at least be kind enough to read my blog before making a judgment on it. Come to think of it, I hope that all the human beings on this planet are thoughtful enough to examine the contents of any claim or piece of information before judging it. The fact that people don't do this often enough is the reason why activist atheists like myself even exist! Hey, I didn't reject the Bible before I read it, and I'm suspending judgment on Jeffrey's love/hate of my blog until I get more evidence. Look at that, we all learned something about critical thought!

By the way, I'd like to take this moment to say that I don't like it when blogs don't have any place to put comments. At least have one comments-open post a week. Who's with me on that one?

Derek Sansone @ the Atheist Hour

On Sunday, September 11th (!), at 6pm, Derek Sansone will be appearing on The Atheist Hour, hosted by Pastor Gene Cook. It is an hour long show of discussion between an atheist (this week, Derek) and a Christian (Gene). The show also takes callers.

If you're interested at all in the battle of ideas between Christians and atheists, you should tune in to the show.

P.S. I will be appearing on the same show one week later, on September 18th.


(Crossposted at Goosing the Antithesis.)

Kristian Katrina Konfusion

Pro-afterlifers around the world are pretty consistent in their views on Katrina. They all agree that it is a calamity; a sorrowful event; a bad thing. As I stated in my previous Katrina-related post, A Hurricane of Hypocrisy, it makes no sense for all the pro-afterlifers of different faiths to consistently view this hurricane as a calamity. And in today’s post, I am going to take a look at the dead, the survivors, and the pro-afterlifers (of the Christian variety) that mourn them.

Christians mourn those who died at the hand of Katrina. Christians tell the survivors of Katrina that they are lucky that God spared them. Funny view to take considering that the dead (according to Christians) are now in that blissful place known as haven for all eternity, while the survivors are facing disease, dehydration, starvation, displacement, and financial ruin. To be fair, maybe not all the dead are in heaven, but the Christian ones are at least, and New Orleans was most likely more Christian than the 85% national average for America.

Assuming that the Christian worldview is correct, it can be decisively said that the deceased are now much better off than the survivors! The deceased are hanging out with Jesus, now free from pain and suffering and sorrow for all eternity. But the survivors are literally swimming in pain, suffering, and sorrow for at least a few more months, if not years. Why do the Christians mourn the dead and consider the survivors lucky?

The Christians mourn the dead as if they were actually dead (as in really dead with no afterlife or continuation of consciousness past death)! A true death, without the continuation of consciousness, would be the only thing that could justify the degree of mourning that these Christians display for the deceased.

It looks very similar to a stolen concept fallacy to me. It’s as if they subconsciously know that death = death, and does not result in some kind of life-after-death (which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one). Consciously of course, the Christians do not realize this, nor would they agree with my statements.

I imagine that a Christian would answer that they are actually mourning the departure of the deceased from this existence. That would be fair, but it would also be very narrow-minded. It would have to ask them “Well, aren’t you happy that the deceased is now in eternal bliss? Shouldn’t you be happy for them? Who are you crying for, yourself or the deceased?”

Clearly, the Christian who argues that they are mourning the departure of the deceased from this existence would automatically be conceding that they aren’t crying for the deceased, but crying for themselves. And that, my friends, would also be an admission by the Christians that they are actually mourning the survivors of the hurricane more than they are mourning the deceased. Whoops!
Either way, the Christian would prove me right: that mourning the (Christian) deceased makes no sense.

So let’s wrap up:

1. Christians mourning the deceased more than the survivors makes no sense.
2. Christians mourn the deceased as if they knew (subconsciously?) that the deceased were really, truly dead.
3. If they are mourning the deceased’s departure from Earthly life rather than their ascension to heaven, then they are actually mourning for themselves (and the survivors) instead of the deceased.

There are no theists in foxholes.

A Strong Atheist's Case Against Christian Theology

Libertariandefender@hotmail.com has written an argument against Christian Theology. I have agreed to publish his essay on my blog. I thought it would be fun to take a temporary departure from anti-afterlife arguments and publish a friend's anti-Christian essay. Those who know me, know that my favorite religious punching bag is Christianity. So enjoy Libertariandefender's essay, and trust that I will continue with more anti-afterlife posts in the near future.

A Strong Atheist's Case Against Christian Theology

I. *Representative* Scientific Objections to The Bible:

A. Adam and Eve story.

1. How did God create a female (Eve) from the male DNA of Adam's rib?
2. How did Adam and Eve successfully mate and produce offspring when, at most, they had identical DNA, and at least, they were twins?
3. How did a snake acquire the ability to speak in human language? How was this physiologically possible?

B. Crossing the Red Sea.

Stipulating: The sea is roughly 1900km long and at its widest is more than 300km. The sea floor has a maximum depth of 2,500m in the central median trench and an average depth of 500m, but it also has extensive shallow shelves, noted for their marine life and corals. The sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 or 450,000km².
1. Stipulating that, how did Moses and the Israelites pass through it? After all, it was substantial enough to deluge Pharaoh's army.
2. If the sea was parted, how precisely was that done?

C. Jesus' resurrection.

1. How did Jesus rise from the dead, and walk around good as new, when after dozens of hours of being dead, he would be brain dead, with decayed muscles, bloated from gasses, with blisters on his skin and with millions of dead and useless cells, including dead and useless heart and kidney cells? It should be noted that brain death is irreversible in every instance. It cannot be turned back. It is permanent.

D. Noah's Ark.

1. How is it possible to hold all the world’s species in an ark with the dimensions specified? There are possibly up to 100 million animal species alone.
2. How is it possible to feed these millions of animals?
3. How did specific species and classes of animals become trapped on different continents? For example, most marsupials are only found in Australia. If the Noah’s Ark story were true, then we should expect a more homogeneous converge of species.
4. Why didn't many aquatic ecosystems die off from the massive change in salinity?
5. Why didn't many modern plants die out, as they should have?

Note: One may not cite "miracles" to explain any of these phenomena until the concept of "miracles" is shown to have a scrap of merit.

For Reference on Miracles:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
theism/miracles.html

II. Science's Take on Theism/Design/Creation/Divine Guidance:

A. Pervasive Atheism Among Eminent Scientists.
Information is from http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/
n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html

In a survey of National Academy of Science scientists, 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. It should be noted that the NAS is the most prestigious scientific organization in the United States.

"Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

From these figures, we can conclude: 93% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Science are in fact agnostic or atheists. Indeed, looking at a chart that includes figures from earlier in the 20th century, one can only come to the conclusion that top scientists are more atheistic than ever before.

Expanded percentages (among "greater" scientists):

Belief in personal God 1914/ 1933/ 1998
Personal belief 27.7/ 15/ 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7/ 68/ 72.2
Doubt/agnosticism 20.9/ 17/ 20.8

B. Illogic of Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipotent Designer.
This is by Steven Pinker, Psychology professor at Harvard University, and appeared in Time magazine:

"Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.
The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows."

C. Lack of Scientific Support for Creationism.

"...Taking into account only [scientists] working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory. This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
...
A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief that they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates."
source-- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Note: The scientific community's opinion, in itself, does not constitute proof of anything. However, equivalency arguments, comparing scientific opinion to general public opinion, are transparently fallacious. One need only ask oneself how many people on a busy street corner have any idea what "homologous structures" are.

III. Objections to the Bible's Accuracy, Historicity, Connection to Reality:

A. Archaeological Fallibility.

Many times, Christians will falsely claim that archaeology supports the accuracy of the Bible. They continue that the Bible's historical account has many times been substantiated by new archaeological information. Those are untruths.

"Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.

If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.

Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible:

The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E.

The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people.

There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all."
source-- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH120.html

B. The Bible is Teeming With Errors/Contradictions.

"There are several aspects of the Bible that show it is not inerrant. These include factual errors, for example:

Leviticus 11:6 states that rabbits chew their cud.

Leviticus 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.

1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 state that the earth is immobile; yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun but is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

and Contradictions:

In Genesis 1, Adam is created after other animals; In Genesis 2, he appears before animals.

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus' lineage.

Mark 14:72 differs from Matthew 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many times the cock crowed.

2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.

1 Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.

The four Gospels differ about many details of Christ's death and resurrection. For example, Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 have different inscriptions on the cross.

Matthew 27:5-8 differs with Acts 1:18-19 about Judas's death.

Genesis 9:3 and Leviticus 11:4 differ about what is proper to eat.

Romans 3:20-28 and James 2:24 differ over faith versus deeds.

Exodus 20:5, Numbers 14:18, and Deuteronomy 5:9 disagree with Ezekiel 18:4,19-20 and John 9:3 about sins being inherited."
source-- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101.html

C. Genesis' Incorrect Timeline.
Supposedly "infallible" Genesis has the natural timeline totally wrong.

"The creation account in Genesis 1 lists ten major events in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts and mammals; (10) man."

"The real order is: (1) a beginning; (2) light; (3) sun and stars; (4) primitive earth, moon, and atmosphere; (5) dry land; (6) sea creatures; (7) some land plants; (8) land creatures and more plants and sea creatures; (9) flying creatures (insects) and more plants and land and sea creatures; (10) mammals, and more land and sea animals, insects, and plants; (11) the first birds, (12) fruiting plants (which is what Genesis talks about) and more land, sea, and flying creatures; (13) man and more of the various animals and plants."
source-- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH801.html


IV. Logical Objections to Blind Theism (a.k.a. Debunking Pascal's Wager):

A. There is no point in believing in a God, even if one does exist, when one knows nothing about this deity's nature or expectations. For example, God could be benevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and care about one's actions. Or, God could be benevolent and not care about one's actions. Or, God could be malevolent and not care about one's actions. Saying "I follow the Christian faith just in case God exists" is utterly nonsensical. That would be like somebody saying, "I follow the Satanist faith just in case a malevolent God exists." With limitless plausible possibilities, there is no way one can "be on the safe side" in terms of not offending God. And thus, Pascal's Wager is a loser.

V. Moral Objections to the Christian Conception of God:

A. God's apparent bloodlust.
I'll quote the Scripture:

Now the LORD had said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely. Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold." (The LORD made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharaoh's officials and by the people.)
So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt-worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.
Exodus 11 (1-6)

Rather than doing something to the Pharaoh for refusing to let the Israelites go free, God chose to murder every firstborn son in Egypt. What did the poor slave girl do to warrant her firstborn son being murdered? Did the slave girl set the Pharaoh's policies? Did the slave girl's firstborn son set the Pharaoh's policies? Punishing children for the immoral society into which they were born is simultaneously cowardly and cruel. Worshipping the God of Exodus is worshipping a God who apparently engaged in casual infanticide. It is amazing to think that God, who presumably has a totally unlimited pool of options, decided the very best option in this situation was to engage in infanticide.

A Hurricane of Hypocrisy

Pro-afterlifers, especially of the Abrahamic (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) variety, believe that the faithful adherents of their particular superstition go to heaven when they die. They also believe that heaven is a wonderful place. So wonderful, in fact, that it’s far more enjoyable than any place or state of existence currently conceivable by us mortal humans. And as I’ve noted in a previous blog entry, many pro-afterlifers of the Christian variety are so excited about heaven that they just can’t wait to get there. Some of them even hang out on rapture-themed forums, praying with each other for God to initiate a Biblical Armageddon and take them all up into heaven; to figuratively and literally kill them (although they would likely disagree with my “kill them” characterization, the only way to get into an immaterial heaven is to expire physically. So no matter how you cut it, they technically want to die).

But what happens to these death-worshippers’ wishes when they are called to task? What happens to their convictions when the cards are laid out on the table? Hurricane Katrina recently barreled through the United States, causing incredible amounts of damage, destroying the homes and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. And while the body counts have only just begun, we can be pretty sure that there are thousands dead, if not tens of thousands.

Every American, from Christian to atheist, is mourning this national tragedy. What I have noticed most is the universal outcry of grief from all superstitious (pro-afterlife) bodies. There are editorials in pro-Israeli news publications where the blame for hurricane Katrina is put on Americans for supporting the Gaza pullout. There are Muslims claiming that the hurricane is punishment from Allah. Surely there will be Christian leaders who will claim that Katrina is God’s punishment for gay marriage, or abortion, or some political issue. While I think those kinds of opinions are ignorant and grossly inhumane, I also think it is interesting to see that regardless of the wide variety of interpretations of the meaning of this hurricane, they are all negative in nature. Specifically, all superstitious bodies, both pro and anti-American, consider this hurricane to be a very calamitous event for those affected.

If heaven is a better state of existence than this life, and if the afterlife is supposed to be our ultimate goal, then why do these superstitious bodies consider this hurricane a calamity? To be fair, a Muslim would assume that the infidels who died in Katrina’s path are destined to arrive in hell, not heaven. But what about the Christians? America is about 85% Christian, and the area that Katrina hit is a bit more Christian than the coastal areas of America. So we can assume that of those who died in Katrina’s path, at least 85% of them are Christians. And according to the Christian worldview, most of these people would be destined for heaven. So again, why would these superstitious bodies universally view the hurricane as a calamity? Shouldn’t they be rejoicing that God came and swept a bunch of faithful followers up into heaven? When God came to test their faith, the pro-afterlifers balked. When their opponent called, the pro-afterlifers folded their hand.

I think that Katrina proved just how much Christians (and other theists) commit the stolen concept fallacy. They act like heaven is “the bomb,” but when the (figurative) bomb drops, they flip-flop. There are a few exceptions, like the infamous 9/11 hijackers and the Palestinian suicide bombers, but under the gun, they borrow from the materialist worldview and recognize that death is a bad thing. So much for the “no atheists in foxholes” claim! These pro-afterlifers all became temporary atheists and ran for their material lives as soon as Katrina showed up.

If you believe in God, and you believe that your faithful self will go to heaven when you die, then Katrina is God’s will, and if you are in Katrina’s path, that means God has chosen you for the VIP line into heaven. No more waiting in line because you get the fast-pass! Why try to defy God’s will and evacuate? I say you should climb to the roof of your house, spread your arms wide and scream to the sky, “Thank you God for taking me off the stairway to heaven and putting me on the teleporter! Beam me up, Jesus!”

I expect 99.9% of all pro-afterlifers to consider my argument preposterous. Well, that’s my point. Why would a pro-afterlifer consider this argument ridiculous? because they are borrowing from the materialist (atheist) worldview! Sure, they will spend all day praying for rapture and the subsequent Armageddon. Sure, they will fantasize about how marvelous heaven is and how horrible this material reality is. But when push comes to shove; when it’s time to show your cards; when it’s time to pay the bill (and numerous other metaphors), these pro-afterlifers don’t really want to go to heaven! They fear for their lives! They don’t want to die!

Therefore, they lack the courage of their convictions. Their true colors are shown. When they lay their cards down, we discover that they were bluffing all along: Their hand is a royal flush of materialism. There are no theists in foxholes.

No Pain, No Gain

An article of page A10 of the Los Angeles Times today reports that a review of about 1,500 scientific studies concludes that it is highly unlikely that fetuses can feel pain before the 29th week of pregnancy. This finding contradicts several pieces of proposed abortion legislation. Here are a few choice paragraphs from the article:

The review, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., comes as Congress and state legislatures are considering bills that would require physicians to tell pregnant women considering abortions that fetuses feel pain and to offer the women anesthesia for the fetuses.

The study concludes that, "based on the available evidence, the fetus does not have the functional capacity to experience pain," said Dr. Eleanor A. Drey of UC San Francisco, one of the study's authors.

"That relies on consciousness, and the cortex of those infants is not well enough developed to allow for conscious processing of stimuli" like pain.

[Dr. Wendy] Chavkin said she thought the study would probably have little effect on the political debate.

"These laws have nothing to do with pain or pain reduction," Chavkin said. "They are clearly intended to stigmatize abortion, the women who have abortions, and the doctors who provide them."

Emphasis mine

Why am I putting this on my blog? Two reasons. First, to follow up with Monday's post about abortion. Secondly, notice what I bolded in the quote. Consciousness is not established even up to the 29th week of pregnancy! It raises questions about what is a soul, do they even exist, and when do they get magically implanted into the fetus? I would say that this study is another argument for materialism and against afterlife-belief. By all (admittedly materialistic) measures, the consciousness (or soul) develops over time as the central nervous system develops.

Although my argument for materialism is admittedly relying on materialistic measures, it still holds a lot of value, and I'll tell you why. If immaterialism was true, and the soul was magically implanted into a human body at conception, then the soul would not be subject to the limits of materialism and the study would not have come to the conclusions it has arrived at. In other words, if a soul were immaterial, then these fetuses would feel pain and exhibit the capabilities expected of a fully conscious human; the souls would defy the expected limits that materialism brings to the table.

Let's sum up: Conscious existence is dependent upon the physical structures (central nervous system; brain) that support them. Conscious life begins when these physical structures initiate proper function (after the 29th week), and ends when these physical structures cease proper function (typically death). There is no afterlife.

Rudolph the Redneck Christian Terrorist

Christian Terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph apologized today for the bombing of the 1996 Olympics. Unfortunately, he refused to apologize for the bombing of two family planning (abortion) clinics. Apparently Rudolph thinks that those clinic bombings were justified, judging by his silence. And Rudolph has been known to spout Christian propaganda to justify his terrorist acts.

Very few Christians would agree that terrorism is an appropriate method to combat abortion. But on the other hand, many Christians would agree with Rudolph’s view that abortion is wrong. Christian anti-abortionists mistakenly call themselves “pro-life,” thinking that their stance against reproductive self-determination is somehow beneficial to life. Well, it isn’t. Once again, the pro-afterlifers have it backwards. Quantitatively and qualitatively, reproductive self-determination (abortion) is proven to be beneficial to humans, and therefore is much more “pro-life” than any anti-abortion ideology.

History has shown that when individual humans are afforded more individual responsibility and self-determination, society benefits as a result. The recognition of individual rights and self-determination has resulted in achievements like universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the American Bill of Rights, and capitalism. Abortion is no different. In societies where abortion is legal, there is less crime, less mentally and physically disabled people, less child abuse, less poverty, and lower infant mortality rates. In other words, societies with legalized abortion have a higher quality of life.

Self-determination, and the recognition of individual rights, always yields superior results to the alternative path: letting someone else make your choices for you.

It’s easy to see why religious people and pro-afterlifers think that abortion is murder, but it’s also easy to see why they are wrong. They have the idea that a “soul” magically gets implanted into a human egg cell the moment it gets penetrated by a sperm. They basically think that a human consciousness exists in a single cell, but only after it gets fertilized. Does anyone else notice the irrational religious bias here? Why is there no soul in the egg, or sperm for that matter, before they combine? Why is there a soul in the fertilized egg long before it even begins making any specialized components, like the backbone or the heart or brain? The answer to all of these questions is “because God implants the soul at conception.”

The anti-abortionists’ self-label of “pro-life” is disingenuous. What’s more ironic is that they don’t even realize that they are disingenuous. They don’t define “life” by any scientific, biological, or humane standard in their anti-abortion stance. They define it by their superstitious God belief. The foundation of their argument is not life, but God. Therefore, they should be calling themselves “pro-God.” Consequently, the term “pro-life” should go to the side that can provide evidence of their position’s betterment of life. That side, ironically, is the “pro-choice” side.

What happens when you cross ancient superstitions with reproductive rights issues? You get Rudolph the Redneck Terrorist. Whether it’s gay bashing or clinic bombing, these religions are very anti-choice and anti-life. The “pro-life” label belongs to those who support reproductive self-determination.

After all, I’ve never seen a pro-choicer bomb any churches. Have you?

Zombie Canines

Zombie Dogs are being created by mad scientists at Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research:

US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.
Pittsburgh's Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.
The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.
But three hours later, their blood is replaced and the zombie dogs are brought back to life with an electric shock.

I have already made an argument that if the afterlife exists for humans, then it exists for all life forms. Not all afterlife-belief systems accept non-human species as going to the afterlife, and I will address this in a moment. But for now, let's accept this assumption and assume that if an afterlife exists, then it does for dogs as well as humans.

At this moment, we have two possible explanations for these dogs' reanimation and their afterlives:

1. The dog's soul leaves the body to the afterlife realm upon clinical death, and then instantly travels back into the dog's body once the heart and body functions are restarted via electric shock.

2. The soul is not a separate component of the dog, but merely the combination of physical processes of the body, and the body's processes can be stopped and revived many hours after clinical death, provided that the body's cells do not suffer too much damage. In other words, everything is purely material and there is no afterlife.

Which proposition makes more sense? Presuming that "souls" are immaterial and thus not able to be observed or measured (a popular pro-afterlife argument), it would be impossible to prove either proposition to be wrong, because the immaterial-ness of the soul would make both propositions unfalsifiable.

How can we choose between these two propositions when a soul's immaterial properties make both propositions unfalsifiable? Two words: Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor states that given a set of equally possible options, the simplest one is the best one. Clearly, proposition #2 is the simpler one. It involves less layers of complexity and less entities.

While afterlife-believers insist on immaterial souls, thinking that it helps their argument, we find that it actually harms their argument. By using the immaterial soul argument, we make both propositions unfalsifiable in terms of material observation, and when both propositions are unfalsifiable, we must use Occam's Razor to arrive at the simpler proposition: That there is no separate soul component which can leave the body upon suspension of body functions and then return upon restarting of those functions.

Now, many afterlife-believers will argue that only humans have an afterlife, or that only humans have souls which survive bodily death. Besides the obvious problems with this argument (which I brought up in my Reducibility in Life Forms and the Afterlife blog entry), there is also the problem that the Safar Centre plans to test this on humans within a year.

What happens if the human experiences the same results as the dog? What if the human dies for a few hours and then comes back to life upon restarting of the heart? Maybe the human will report going to heaven or some other afterlife realm for a few hours. Maybe not. But wouldn't the same arguments and propositions that I mentioned with the dogs still apply to the humans? Wouldn't Occam's Razor still be applicable? I believe it would.

What I would like to see is that they test this on many humans. They should test it on a handful of afterlife-believers, and a handful of non-afterlife-believers. Would they all report the same dreams? Would only the afterlife-believers report an out of body experience? Of course, I suspect that there would be no dreams reported, because to be clinically dead, brain functions must cease. And being a non-afterlife-believer myself, I believe that if there are no electro-chemical functions occurring in the brain, then there are no dreams or memories occurring either. But that's just me.

I really want to see some humans go through this. I want to see both pro-afterlife and anti-afterlife humans go through it and report on their experiences, if any, during their clinical death period. At any rate, the anti-afterlife camp is currently leading in this race, thanks to a wonderful little tool known as Occam's Razor.

The Evil of Reincarnation

One fairly popular subset of afterlife belief is reincarnation. Reincarnation is the idea that, when a life form dies, its soul or spirit remains intact and goes on to occupy another life form coming into existence. Hinduism is one of the most popular pro-reincarnation belief systems in the world today.

There are many arguments against reincarnation that come to my mind, but the technical, scientific, and logical arguments against reincarnation are virtually identical to the general anti-afterlife arguments I have already made in this blog. Therefore, in this blog entry I will focus on the moral problems of reincarnation.

Let's assume for a moment that reincarnation is real and happens to everyone. How can rewards and punishments for behavior be properly administered? If Hitler came back to this world just after his death in the form of a newborn baby, should that baby be persecuted for his past life crimes against humanity? What about in American prisons, where many criminals are serving multiple life sentences? If a criminal dies while serving the first of three life sentences, should his new reincarnated self also be forced to serve the remaining life sentences?

And what about property rights claims? If a rich man dies, can his reincarnated self lay claim to his previous life's estate and property? If he believed in reincarnation, would he even bother writing a will? Or better yet, would he write his will so that all his property was given directly to the next incarnation of himself? I doubt his next of kin would be very happy with that idea. Conversely, if a man with large financial debt dies, can his creditors attempt to settle his debts through his next incarnation?

In response to the questions I have raised in the last few paragraphs, I can see only two answers (if anyone sees more answers than the two I am about to list, please post them in the comments section; I would hate to present a false dichotomy):

1. Assets, liabilities, and responsibilities should be transferred from one life to the next.
2. Assets, liabilities, and responsibilities should not be transferred from one life to the next.

I believe that both answers expose huge moral issues with the reincarnation concept, enough so to make reincarnation dangerous and downright evil. Let's look at both of these answers individually and the consequences each one brings to morality if reincarnation is real.

1. Assets, liabilities, and responsibilities should be transferred from one life to the next. First of all, how do we determine who is who? If Hitler came back to life in a newborn baby after his death, how do we find this next incarnation of Hitler to transfer these liabilities and responsibilities to? We could use hypnotic techniques (assuming that hypnotic "past-lives" techniques worked), but it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. With over 6 billion humans (assuming that reincarnated souls stick to the same species they inhabited previously), it would be quite difficult to find the next reincarnation of Hitler. And what if multiple people claim to have been Hitler in past lives? Don't laugh at this, as any decent detective will tell you that innocent people often confess to crimes they couldn't possibly have committed. And even if the real Hitler was found and detained in his next life, he could commit suicide knowing that he will come back to life as another human being and the search would have to start all over again. Any person with large past-life liabilities could use this tactic. It would be a literal spiritual convict chase from body to body!

And what of the rich man? How could he claim his wealth and property in his next life? One thing that is known about people who claim to have past lives, is that their memories of these past lives is difficult to access, and sometimes inaccurate. Could the rich man's next incarnation remember the names of his family members, or maybe the pin number to his bank account, or maybe even his previous life's social security number? Doubtful. It would be quite possible for an expert at identity theft to claim to be the next incarnation of the rich man. The identity theft could research specific details about the rich man's life, and present them as if they were recovered memories from his past life, and fool people into believing that he was someone he wasn't in a past life.

Clearly, the transfer of assets, liabilities, and responsibilities from past lives to new lives would be so difficult as to be impossible. The logistics issues, as well as time and resource limitations, would severely retard the productive work capability of society. It would open up a huge door for fraudulent claims. It would allow people to escape their punishments. The majority of people on Earth do not seem to even have any recollections of any past lives (I sure don't) and would raise ethical concerns about the morality of even attempting to transfer assets and liabilities from past lives onto new "blank slate" lives. Many versions of reincarnation belief include the concept of karma, where consequences for past life actions are automatically or divinely administered. If karma were a part of the reincarnation process, then manually administering the transfer of assets, liabilities, and responsibilities would be redundant, or even a kind of "double jeopardy" in some circumstances.

2. Assets, liabilities, and responsibilities should not be transferred from one life to the next. At first glance, this answer would be in line with the karma concept. But why would this answer really be justified, because divine administration of karma would take care of it already, or because the next incarnations of every spirit deserved a clean slate? If the next incarnations deserve a clean slate, then karma becomes immoral. Let's imagine for a moment that karma was not in effect (no divine "correction" ever took place for the actions of past lives) because of the idea that new incarnations did deserve clean slates or another chance. Wouldn't it provide for a big escape hatch for criminals? What if Hitler shot himself at the end of WWII, knowing that karma did not happen in between lives, and that he could give himself a quick death with little suffering and avoid his deserved punishment, all to start anew with a clean slate? Where is the morality in that?

Getting back to the concept of divine administration of karma: Let's now assume that karma "fixes" problems created by a person upon his death and rebirth, like a murderous criminal being born as a murder victim or a septic tank repairman in his next life. Not only would this make the transferring of liabilities and responsibilities to the next life pointless, but it would also make the administering of punishments in the current life pointless! Don't believe me? Consider this: Charles Manson is in prison for life for his crimes. He is being punished in this life for his crimes in this life. But when he dies, won't karma still intervene and punish him in his next life as well? Isn't this still an issue of redundancy or even "double jeopardy" as I mentioned a few paragraphs above? Charles Manson would be punished by divine karma in an appropriate manner, regardless of how we punish Manson while he is alive here and now. We could dismiss the idea of punishing anyone for his or her crimes by saying "karma will get that person eventually." Indeed, punishment for crimes committed by humans wouldn't even be the responsibility of other humans; it would be the responsibility of divine karma. The victim would be in the wrong to directly seek justice.

Consider also the criminal who is subjected to this karma. In his next life, the criminal would likely not even remember his past life and the crimes he committed then. All he would be aware of is his victimhood in his new life, such as that of a murder victim or septic tank repairman. Indeed, even victims of crimes in this current life could be dismissed by saying that karma was being administered to them for crimes they committed in past lives. But what is moral about a divine karma system where justice is administered in a different life than the one where the crime was committed? It would tend to frustrate people to see that justice is not served in a way that keeps the crime and the punishments in the same lifespan. Having punishments and rewards administered in a way that overlaps life spans would be an indirect and imprecise method of justice at best, and a justice system that frustrates victims is not justice at all.

Reincarnation renders morality impracticable. With a divine karma reincarnation worldview, victims cannot be identified and criminals cannot have justice administered to them. With a karma-absent reincarnation worldview, criminals can escape justice by hopping from one life to the next, while exemplary humans need to quitclaim on their lives and accomplishments upon death and start all over again. It seems that reincarnation would make death superfluous. Why necessitate birth and death if every soul comes back to life over and over again?

Afterlife beliefs are inherently immoral, and reincarnation, in all its forms, is no exception. As my previous blog entries have shown, the only way any moral system is possible, and the only way justice can be served, is with a single, finite life.

Save Yourself Some Pain

Have you ever been to Kirk Cameron’s website, Way of the Master? Well, it’s a pretty well made site. It has lots of cool flash animation and videos of Mr. Cameron telling us just how afraid of Hell we should be. The site’s high-priced flash features make it look really official and authoritative, but when you look closely at the content, you can tell that it’s just a silly attempt by Cameron and friends to make sense of a nonsensical pro-afterlife worldview.

Within the site, there is a booklet called “Save Yourself Some Pain.” I read this online booklet and almost immediately began shaking my head at just how poorly these people explain and understand their beliefs. Let’s take a look at this booklet.

Becoming a Christian is the most incredible event that will ever take place in your life. You have found peace with your Creator. You have found everlasting life!

The italics are theirs. Talk about a poorly worded beginning paragraph! They say that once you accept Christ you get an everlasting life, but according to Christianity, everyone already has everlasting life. That’s what an afterlife is, by definition. I think what they really mean is that you get an everlasting life in Heaven. Some may think that I’m nitpicking, but I disagree. What Cameron and friends are doing here, is miscommunicating and/or misunderstanding the single most important piece of their afterlife-belief: salvation.

What if I told Kirk that I didn’t want to exist as a consciousness after my death? Would I have to simply deny God to do that? Fine, consider it done! But that doesn’t leave much room for Hell, does it? Well what if Kirk said that denying God would merely get me into Hell? Fine again, but then his argument about finding everlasting life becomes nonsensical, for to go to Hell is also to have everlasting life. With such a fancy (and no doubt expensive) website, you think that they could be a bit more careful about how they word things like this.

God acquits us from the Courtroom of Eternal Justice on the grounds that Jesus Christ paid our fine. We are "justified" (made right with God) by His suffering death. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was God's seal of approval of the fact that His precious blood was sufficient to pay the fine.

Think of it this way... You have violated the law and face a $50,000 fine. You tell the judge that you are truly sorry for your crime, but he answers, "So you should be -- you have broken the law! Now, can you pay this fine?" He can only acquit you if the fine is paid. If someone else pays your fine, then he can let you go, but he must have "grounds" on which to release you.

Again, the italics are theirs. Now what we have here is a misapplied analogy. If any of you out there read Goosing The Antithesis, then you will already know that I love analogies. And I can see a really big hole in this analogy.

Cameron compares judgment by God to be the equivalent of paying a fine in a court of law. This is the first error in their analogy. According to Christian doctrine, at the end of your life, you are judged by God and treated accordingly. But in the analogy, this judgment would compare to a prison sentence, NOT a fine. A spiritual fine would be like saying a lot of prayers, or reading some Bible passages, or something like that. In a court of law, a fine is a lot different than imprisonment of your body; a fine is something where you give up resources (money) and are then free to go. But in Christianity, you can’t be judged at the end of your life and then be set free to go (to continue living in this life); your current life is over and all you got left is Heaven or Hell. Therefore, Heaven would be like being acquitted, and Hell would be a prison sentence.

This is why their analogy doesn’t work. In a court of law, you can have a relative or friend pay a fine, but you cannot have a friend or relative serve your prison sentence. So having Jesus sacrifice himself is not like having your fine paid for you, but it is like having your prison sentence served for you. And no sane individual will ever contend that justice is served by having an innocent person serve the prison sentence of a convicted criminal.

The reason we need a substitute (a savior) to pay our moral "fine," is because we have broken God's Law. To see how much we have transgressed this Law (the Ten Commandments), we will go through some of them -- Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen something? Have you ever lusted after another person? If you answered "Yes" to these questions, you admit that you are a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart, and you have to face God on Judgment Day!

The italics are theirs. Now their message is standard Christian fear tactics: You better feed God’s ego because that is all he cares about, and the way you treat your fellow man is an accessory concern.

If you have used His name in vain, then you are guilty of "blasphemy" -- you've substituted God's holy Name for a curse word. Perhaps you've hated someone, then the Bible says that you are a murderer. You have violated God's holy Law, and you're in BIG trouble. On Judgment Day, you will be found guilty and end up in Hell. That's why you need the Savior. Merely being sorry for your sins, or confessing them to God won't help you. You must turn from sin (repent), and your faith must be in Jesus Christ alone. He is the only "grounds" for God to grant mercy towards you. If you're not sure of your salvation, make Psalm 51 your own prayer.

The italics are theirs. Notice that they again expose their analogy mistake by admitting that God’s judgment is not a fine but a prison sentence when they say “…you will be found guilty and end up in Hell,” but they don’t seem to notice their glaring mistake. If Jesus pays your court fine for you, will Jesus also spend eternity in Hell for you? Now that would be nice! This whole message of cleaning up crimes by spilling innocent blood (the Crucifixion) doesn’t translate at all into the “court fine” analogy. But Cameron and friends don’t seem to have either enough intellect to notice or enough honesty to care. I wish I had the opportunity to contact Cameron and ask him some follow up questions. For example, if a criminal murdered Cameron’s family in cold blood, would he be satisfied with an innocent six-year old girl serving the criminal’s death sentence instead? After all, isn’t that the kind of justice that Cameron is championing here?

I don’t know what more depressing, the fact that they expose the immorality of salvation through innocent blood by botching an analogy, or the fact that the vast majority of Americans cannot tell the difference.

So everyone, the lesson to learn today is, ironically, found within the Title of Kirk Cameron’s little e-booklet (though not in the way he intended). Save Yourself Some Pain, and reject these absurd, immoral, and repugnant afterlife beliefs.

A Patriotic Afterlife?

I wanted to post this blog entry yesterday for the fourth of July, but I was caught up in the festivities. So instead I present this as my post-fourth of July post. Please note that this post is not political in nature, nor is it meant to argue the merits of patriotism. This post is solely intended to examine the Christian Americans’ patriotic claims, as we all know that the Christian American population loves to play the “patriotism” card.

Dictionary.com defines patriotism as:

Love of and devotion to one's country.

I couldn’t have said it better. Surely, Christian Americans can be patriotic; they can have love and devotion to one’s country. I am not one to deny the patriotism of any Christian American. There are many Christians that are more patriotic than atheists, and there are many atheists that are more patriotic than Christians. But what belief system lays a foundation for a superior patriotism, the person that believes in the afterlife or doesn’t?

In a previous blog entry, “I Know What Your Motive Was Last Summer,” I pointed out the problems with primacy and afterlife belief. Primacy of afterlife belief is especially problematic for the Christian religion when it comes to patriotism. Here’s why:

Afterlife-belief demands the assignment of primacy to an afterlife, and the deity that resides in it. For Christianity, this deity is Jesus/God (Christianity considers Jesus and God to be the same entity).

Christianity demands that you put Jesus Christ first in your life. And the Christian concept of Heaven/Hell demands that you sacrifice your present-life interests for the sake of afterlife interests. Therefore, the first two value assignments for the Christian are 1) God, and 2) Heaven. A Christian would only be patriotic to the extent that it did not interfere with his/her loyalty to Jesus Christ and concern with getting into heaven. While a non-afterlife-believer, on the other hand, would have no such primacy/loyalty requirements.

The foundations of Christianity (loyalty to Jesus Christ and getting into heaven) knock patriotism into, at best, third place. What patriotic Christian would honestly sacrifice their Jesus/God for the sake of their country? And what patriotic Christian would honestly go to Hell for the sake of their country?

Sure, an atheist might not hold patriotism as their highest value either. But Christian afterlife-belief specifically precludes patriotism from being the highest, or even the second highest value. Atheism, or the lack of afterlife-belief, does not demand any such preclusion. A Christian can never hold patriotism as the highest ideal or as an end in itself, for it defies the very definition of “Christian”. But an atheist can hold patriotism as the highest ideal or as an end in itself; it does not defy the definition of “atheism”.

Christianity provides an inferior foundation for patriotism. Think about that the next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance.