Owner: evanescent URL:http://ellis14.wordpress.com Join Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:01:02 -0500 Rating:0 Site Description: On reason, science, atheism, religion, politics, and Objectivism Site statistics:Click here
My Epistemology 2007-09-01 07:17:49 A lot of postmodern inanity flies around the internet relating to knowledge and our epistemological bases. Philosophical rumination has its place, and indeed I find it quite fascinating, but in many discussions it is a red herring. Worse, it is the direst form of special pleading.
This issue raises its head most commonly (in my experience) when discussing belief. For instance, I’ve read recently:
“But atheism is itself nothing more than a belief. Any assertion to the contrary is to claim that one has discovered all there is to know about the universe, a logically indefensible claim.”
The first sentence is symptomatic of ultra-liberal political correctness; where all opinions and worldviews are equally valid, and are all expressions of some kind of belief. (Note: I’m not pretending to read anything into the author’s character or beliefs.)
First of all, the claim that one needs absolute certainty to make ANY claim is ridiculous and self-refuting. It’s ridiculous, because
My Morality Rumination 2007-08-28 16:44:57 When I de-converted from being a lifelong believer in god, the idea of being alone with my thoughts troubled me. I’d spent all my life believing that god could hear all my thoughts, and I could talk to him about anything. Losing my faith was like losing a friend, albeit a friend who never existed.
I thought a lot about morality. If no one could hear my thoughts or know my intentions, what did that mean? If there was no punishment for my actions save what the Law would execute on me, what was my guide to right or wrong?
Since then, I’ve discussed morality with other atheists, been questioned by agnostics, and been challenged by theists. But not long after I de-converted I realised something: people over-think the source of morality far too much! Even I was over-analysing it!
I’m not saying there are no ambiguous issues, and in fact, trying to paint every moral decision in terms of black and white is often impossible, and counter-productive. However, “wrong” is a word, a Read more:Morality
My Affidavit 2007-08-25 05:09:01 I’ve often been asked: ‘how do you know god doesn’t exist?’
Well, the truth is, I don’t! After all, god means so many different things to different people. My common reply to the above question is: “which god?”
If you’re asking me about a specific god though, say, the Biblical one, I’d say that I know he doesn’t exist. I know he doesn’t exist, because it is irrational and logically inconsistent to believe he does, just as I know that square circles don’t exist.
Let me anticipate a theistic apologetic in advance: the inscrutability of god. It is said that we cannot know the ways of god, and even seemingly wrong or inhumane actions must have a higher purpose. This sort of defence comes from the same people who are quick to praise their god and all the good he supposedly does. This is a contradiction. And it is a big one! So I’ll address it now and get it over and done with:
If you cannot say what is bad about god, then you cannot say what is good
My Big 5 Digits 2007-08-23 15:23:43 Very recently, I achieved 10,000 hits on my blog.
I didn’t write anything to mark the occasion initially because I try to space out my posts to give as much time as possible for my followers to study and meditate on the last one. I’d rather take longer on posts and receive worship feedback and discuss each issue, than just be prolific.
I started this blog back on Myspace as a way to rant over things I felt seriously about. As it became more popular though, I was encouraged by a protégé of mine to use Wordpress for my blog. I did, and although the uptake was slow, the blog has really taken off in the last few months, with particular incoming traffic arriving from online Carnivals, fellow bloggers, or search engines. It’s only a matter of time before the Church of Evanescence achieves tax-exempt status (the coming-of-age celebration for any religion), but when that happens, rest assured I will still post articles (just from the comfort of a laptop on my private jet).
As a res
My Empathy 2007-08-20 15:34:07 I’ve debated with many theists in person and online. Many of them have shown a profound understanding of theology and philosophy, which has left me scrambling for the research books! Some of them have baffled me with facts about science, such as quantum mechanics, that has forced me to go away and do my research. On the other hand, many theists I’ve argued with have shown very little in the way of a serious debating challenge. I think this is because many theists, (if they’re anything like me), were brought up (or taught) a series of arguments in favour of their beliefs and stock answers and defences. They’re even taught stock answers to counter-answers and all the basic apologetics.
One might have been brought up a believer, or chosen to believe. I was brought up with a head full of arguments for god, a stock of rehearsed excuses and counter-arguments, and various reasons why other religions were wrong, and atheism was a mistake.
Sometimes when I debate, I admit, I can l
My Original Sin 2007-08-16 13:40:10 The three major monotheistic religions all teach that humans are tainted. No matter how hard we try, we are supposedly inherently imperfect and sinful; there is always something intrinsically unholy about humans that we constantly need atonement and forgiveness for.
Christianity refers to Original
Sin, brought out by (through retrospective alteration of Genesis) the original lie of Satan to humans.
The irony here is that Original Sin is itself the ultimate Original Lie.
Like a sleazy cult leader, the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions offer you the cure to a disease you don’t have. This is why, for no other reason than divine fiat, various aspects of the world and humanity are decreed wicked and wrong, perverse or unclean.
Why are some animals clean and others in the Old Testament? No logical reason is given, because there isn’t one. Human superstitions were anthropomorphised in a tyrannical god who would be disobeyed on penalty of death.
Why would god give humans perfect
My Atheism 2007-08-11 07:57:58
What does it mean?
It means I don’t believe in any divine beings. Everyone is born an atheist. There are degrees to atheism, such as whether one simply disbelieves in god(s), or whether one thinks god definitely doesn’t or cannot exist.
I wouldn’t say that a god cannot exist, but I am reasonably certain that one doesn’t exist, just as I’m reasonably certain there isn’t a teapot orbiting Neptune. I see absolutely no evidence that a god(s) exist, and no part of the universe necessitates postulating one for explanatory purposes. In short, I apply Occam’s razor.
Do I like it?
As far as simply believing or disbelieving goes, I neither like being an atheist nor dislike it. Atheism
is a result of my rational and critical examination of the world. So, I didn’t choose to be an atheist.
Morality
I don’t like unnecessary harm. I can appreciate that other living beings also don’t like it either. Harming others makes me feel bad, and being nice to others makes me feel go
My Meliorism 2007-08-09 16:42:05 Through our intelligence and abilities, humans have the capacity to improve themselves and their surroundings. I don’t think we should ever hesitate to do so. There are those who see human interference with the natural world as “playing god”, parenthetically an expression I don’t see the point of: isn’t god supposed to be good?
Some hold the view that humans shouldn’t interfere with nature. This position is ultimately self-destructive when you analyse it. This type of person wants to return to an agrarian society where we cook on stoves and farm our own food and never touch an electrical device. This type of person might call themselves a “technophobe”. But aversion to technology per se is foolish because people misunderstand what technology means. Technology is any artifice that automates or replaces the work of humans. A computer is technology. A well is technology. A spoon is technology. Farming is technological. A ladder is technology.
On the other hand, to count
My Debating Advice 2007-08-06 12:31:55 Being able to argue properly and rationally with other people is very important in life. If you know how to structure an argument correctly, and what fallacies to look out for, you will avoid being deceived or out-spoken by scams or faulty logic, and you will avoid making these mistakes yourself, which increases the credibility and force of your arguments.
The following are fallacies to look out for which are very common. But even more important than being able to spot fallacies is the following: always realise that you can be wrong. The strength of your convictions is irrelevant to their validity.
Also, it is important to recognise the difference between a valid argument and sound argument. Valid arguments are structurally correct in that no formal fallacy is committed, but this doesn’t make them true. A sound argument is one that is valid and deductively true. E.g.:
P1: Socrates is a man.
P2: All men die.
Conclusion: Therefore Socrates will die.
Circular Reasoning / Begging the Que Read more:Debating
My Oh My 2007-08-03 11:37:07 Homosexuality.
In some countries, it’s still a taboo. Opinions may vary between acceptable, merely tolerable, unnatural, or perverse. In some countries and cultures though, it seems to me that being gay is almost seen as cool or fashionable! As with everything else, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, nobody is entitled to hurt or discriminate others based on their own personal opinion.
Genetics and Evolution
Why has homosexuality been such a taboo throughout human history? My non-expert opinion is that there is a natural general aversion to homosexuality in non-gay people, which you would expect from an evolutionary point of view. Natural selection would tend to favour heterosexuality, but homosexuals can still reproduce and pass this sexual preference on. As long as there would be some advantage to it, even historically, the potential for it would exist. Also, Richard Dawkins’ preferred explanation of homosexuality is that the genes in humans for it have a “homos
My Evolution Elucidation 2007-08-01 14:09:36 99% of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact. Most religious people do not. Could it be that the scientific community simply understands it whilst most theists do not? Yes. I think it’s as simple as that.
Every time I have debated with a theist who doesn’t believe that evolution occurred, they all claim to have some knowledge of it, or investigated it. It usually takes less than a minute of discussing this to discover that they have little to no real knowledge of evolution at all.
Let me say this now: I don’t wish to be critical of anyone for simply not knowing. Many people (like me and those close to me) were brought up and fed lies and misinformation about evolution all their life. Others have simply not had access to it. What I object to is people who talk about evolution and try to criticise it whilst not knowing even simple things about it.
Let’s face it: the only reason theists object to evolution is because it contradicts what they believe about the world. Read more:Evolution
Intelligent Design is NOT Science 2007-07-29 18:00:01 The argument from intelligent design (ID) is one of the supposed proofs for god’s existence. You’d think if an incredibly powerful and intelligent being did create the earth, it would have left better evidence of its handiwork than a ruthless unsympathetic world that seems to be purposed towards nothing in particular.
You might also expect that the people he selected to laud his creation to the world would be those of deep humility, respect, and scientific knowledge. But they’re not are they? Proponents of ID have a history of spreading misinformation or blatantly lying about science and evolution.
You would also rightly expect that realisation of ID would transcend any worldview or religious leaning. But it doesn’t. Anyone who thinks the world was designed attributes it to their god, their religion. Belief in design is inseparable from belief in religion.
Also, you’d think the experts at studying this world and universe of ours, namely scientists, would be the strongest prop Read more:Intelligent
, Science
, Intelligent Design
‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ - An Orwellian Nightmare 2007-09-27 15:55:50 Far be it for me to single out one particular ludicrous belief system, after all, it’s easy to laugh at talks of aliens, intergalactic rulers, thetans, Xenu, and cosmological conspiracies, but it’s just as easy to laugh at demons, devils, ghosts, gods, spirits, virgin births, triune divinities, talking snakes, or intelligent design.
My top three insidious ersatz religions of the world today are Jehovah’s Witnesses
, Mormonism, and Scientology. This is based on my opinion alone of course. I will discuss the other two another time, but explain a bit about JWs here. This is a subject I’m very familiar with.
This group was founded back in the 1870s. Now, say what you like about JWs, but they are proficiently versed in the bible, or at least their version and interpretation of it. I would definitely class them as fundamental Christians. They also reject core doctrines of mainstream Christianity, such as the Trinity, Hell, or the concept of an immortal soul. Whether you th Read more:lsquo
, Nightmare
Religion’s Old Clothes 2007-09-22 10:00:34 Religion has nothing worthwhile to say on anything.
The ubiquity of religion, the respect it craves (and is indeed given), and the noble place for deep philosophical inquiry it is assigned, are out of all proportion with what it actually does and what it actually has to say. There is tendency to convolute inherently vacuous themes with extraneous rambling, wonderfully described here in reference to Physics Envy by the Humanities.
From the 17th to 19th centuries a great many scientists were religious. When theists point this fact out, I am baffled by its irrelevance. For centuries theism was the default worldview, and before Darwin came along this could be understood; although many intellectuals of the 19th century (like the Founding Fathers of the USA) were deists, if not strong agnostics or outright atheists already.
Even some non-religious people believe that religion has a role to play in society. But does it? What does religion have to say that is worth listening to? Let’s Read more:Religion
, Clothes
God Is Impossible 2007-09-17 17:59:40 Premise 1: All (purposed) actions are prompted by need, want, or desire.
Premise 2: A perfect immutable being has no needs, wants or desire.
Premise 3: God is a being as described by premise 2.
Premise 4: Creation would have been the (purposed) action of the creator.
Premise 5: The universe exists.
From P 1 & 2: God does not need, want, or desire anything.
Conclusion: the universe couldn’t have been created.
If god is perfect and immutable, change is impossible, therefore creation is impossible (not to mention miracles and prayer). Assuming the argument is valid, which I think it is, which of the premises (if any) are wrong? In other words, is the argument also sound?
And if the argument is sound, then there is a contradiction between believing in the existence of god and that of the universe. Since we know the universe exists, god can’t.
(Note: I have clarified the argument by including “purposed”. I think it went without saying that I was ref
Common Descent, Uncommon Knowledge 2007-09-13 17:59:18 One of my favourite books of all time is A Devil’s Chaplain by Richard Dawkins, and over the next few weeks I hope to share some of my favourite and (in my opinion) most fascinating points from it. The book itself is a collection of Dawkins’ essays over the last few decades. Topics vary between education, science, law, evolution, memes, and religion. What I love most about reading Dawkins is that he makes his writing so engaging and understandable to the non-professional (like myself) without sacrificing the detail, or “dumbing down”.
He almost assumes that you know what he is talking, which is ok since he often explains it so well anyway. This is very satisfying to the reader, and makes your intelligence feel complimented, instead of insulted.
One of the essays in the book is called “The Information Challenge”. I wouldn’t actually put it in the top 5, but whenever I learn something new about the wonder of evolution it increases my awe that I understand it as well as Read more:Common
, Descent
, Knowledge
9/11 2007-09-11 05:27:54 I was in work. It was between 1 and 2pm here in England. I heard the news from word of mouth that there’d be some sort of disaster in New York. We all switched on the radio to hear more. Apparently one or two planes had crashed into the World Trade Centre. It wasn’t immediately apparent that it was a deliberate attack.
I remember coming home that Tuesday evening and watching the footage over and over again. It is the only time in my life I can recall my blood feeling cold. The words chilling, haunting, and unbelievable are used too often, but they were understatements in this case. That was 6 years ago.
As chance would have it, the 6th anniversary of those atrocities also falls on a Tuesday. May we never forget those thousands of innocent people whose lives were cruelly snuffed out for absolutely no good reason. The bravery and courage of others who risked and gave their own lives to save their fellowman stands in stark contrast to the evil minority who chose to slaughter
For the One Life We Have 2007-09-09 17:20:59 For those of you who can count past ten, and fundamentalists, I invite you to play a little game with me. (In the figures below, I have actually taken the most conservative estimate on dates and numbers.)
Imagine that one second represents a thousand years. We’re about to count, and count back in time. As you count, the years fly by in reverse order.
1
That’s all for now. One second. In the blink of an eye we’ve just skipped past every football match ever played, the landing on the moon, the first and second world wars, the invention of the aeroplane, the advent of guns, the renaissance; the germ theory of disease by Pasteur, the discovery of the circulatory system by Harvey, the skeletal structure by Galen. The works of Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Bach. The beauty of masterpieces by Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Monet. The Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Black Death.
We’ve come a long way haven’t we?
Let’s look at things from a biological point of view. Count with me&he
Osama bin Laden video - an infidel’s response 2007-09-08 05:57:55 In the recently aired Bin Laden video
, Osama
had this to say:
“This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.”
I’m not saying that democracy is perfect, but what is the alternative? Fascism, theocracy? I don’t think so. Bin Laden doesn’t care about the lives of humans. He isn’t waging a war for freedom against the tyranny of capitalism. If he cared so much about these things he wouldn’t have thousands of innocent people murdered.
No, Bin Laden cares about furthering his religio-political agenda, in which civilians are fair game to be hurt or killed in order to make a statement.
“And despite this brazen attack on the people, the leaders of the West - especially Bush, Blair, Sarkozy
‘Can the rest of us have our planet back?’ by Marcus Brigstocke 2007-09-05 15:20:59 I found this here:
&lsquo
;Reposted from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/nowshow.shtml
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/radio4/nowshow.ram
Stand-up comedian Marcus
Brigstocke delivered a seven-minute rant during this evening’s Now Show on BBC Radio 4, on the evils of religion (I think he’s been reading The God Delusion).’
Perhaps humour is the best way to expose this nonsense for what it is and win the average good-hearted religious person over!
This video is brilliant, but it has some real gems. Drop me a comment and let me know what your favourite part is.
Read more:planet
My Take on Abortion 2007-09-04 14:41:09 Is abortion right or wrong? This can be a sensitive subject because of the emotions involved.
First of all, I do not like the phrases “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, because they are loaded expressions saturated with propaganda. They are more like political phrases that implicitly assume their position.
Some arguments against abortion beg the question by assuming that a human life is always taken which therefore constitutes murder. This is circular reasoning. On the other hand, it would NOT be circular reasoning to begin with the assumption that abortion isn’t wrong. This is because, just like in a court of law, we must assume innocence before guilt. Abortion must therefore be proven to be wrong.
I believe if an argument is to be made for or against abortion it must be done on purely moral logical grounds, based on what is best for humans. By this reasoning, I will not consider any religious or spiritual objections to abortion, because they are subjective and personal; a
The Evolution Meme Has Got Me! 2007-09-29 14:31:27 Well, I’ve been tagged. And they say atheists never have any fun.
The evolution meme has got me, so the idea is I have to cite 5 posts of mine that demonstrate the evolution of my blog.
1. My very first post: My Gloat. I originally started posting on MySpace and the blog was just going to consist of anything I felt like ranting about. It was intended to be mainly light-hearted. As you can see, it is purely about football (American readers, read: soccer. Don’t get me wrong America, I think you’ve got a great nation but your bastardisation of the English language is hideous. You’ve got as much respect for pronunciation as Scientology has got for a pauper .)
2. My Job Offer to Creationists (I’m not counting that!) was a semi-humorous illustration of how absurd creationism is. I was still trying to keep a jocular nature to my blog but this was also something I felt strongly about and I felt I made my points very well without getting too serious. This tr Read more:Evolution
The Obsession With Non-Belief 2007-10-06 08:55:28 Which of these crimes does not belong in a court of law?
Theft
Murder
Blasphemy
Rape
Obviously, blasphemy is a victimless crime. No modern court of law in any civilised country would hear the case of the defendant accused of blasphemy. We’ve moved on. Justice and punishment in our evolved society do not deal with actions that hurt nobody, and certainly do not deal with belief or non-belief! Belief, no matter how ridiculous or offensive it might be, is not a crime. On the same line of thinking, speech is not a crime. Speech might be moving, stupid, or offensive, but you can’t arrest someone for just speaking their mind. The moral zeitgeist moves on, and most civilised countries keep pace with it.
Nowadays, we punish people for their actions; for actual crimes.
It hasn’t always been this way though. There were times, and they weren’t so long ago, and they’re actually still present in many parts of the world, when private actions that don’t even hurt anyone wer Read more:Obsession
Was I Too Harsh? 2007-10-03 13:53:00 Over at de-conversion.org, I received a message on my account there which read as follows:
“Dear One in Christ,
I am Mrs Cathrine NLEM ,from Cote D’ Ivoire .I am married to late Mr frank NLEM, who worked as a senior manager with the Ivory Coast refinary for Twenty-Six years before he died in the year 2005,after a brief illness that lasted for only five days.
We were married for Eighteen years with a son (mathew) who later died in a motor accident. Before the untimely death of my husband,we were both born again Christians. Since after his death I decided not to remarry or get a child outside my matrimonial home which the Bible is against. When my late husband was alive he deposited the sum of one Million,Eight hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$1.8m) in a General Trust Account with a prime bank in Abidjan Cote d’Ivoire. Presently,this money is still with the bank.
Recently,Following my ill health, my Doctor told me that I may not last for the next six months du
On Naturalism and Physicalism 2007-10-15 16:56:52 Atheists don’t believe in god. Atheists do not necessarily reject the supernatural, although most of them do. Atheists do not necessarily believe that the universe is understandable solely in naturalistic terms, although nearly all of them do. Believing there is only the material universe almost certainly makes you an atheist, but being an atheist does not necessarily lead to materialism.
My worldview however, and that of most atheists I know, is metaphysical naturalism. Necessarily, I am also a methodological naturalist, although being a methodological naturalist does not impose metaphysical naturalism.
What’s the difference?
Methodological naturalism is the assumption (most prevalent in science) that the universe and everything in it can be ultimately attributed to natural causes. Science assumes that only by empirical study can we derive understanding of the universe, and we understand the universe with natural explanations. Methodological naturalism does not invoke or reject th
Christopher Hitchens versus Alistair McGrath 2007-10-20 18:25:42 I’d like to say a few things about two very prominent people in the modern debate over religion and anti-theism. They are Christopher
Hitchens and Alistair
McGrath.
I’ve been meaning to write about Hitchens for a while now, but after watching his recent debate with McGrath on YouTube, I wanted to comment on both of them. (This article will be more effective if you watch all 11 parts of the debate first.)
Christopher Hitchens is a true intellectual. After reading God Is Not Great (twice) and watching almost of all his debates, I see a man who very much knows what he’s talking about. He has a deep reservoir of literary, philosophical, cultural, and political knowledge to draw upon. He speaks with authority, and import. One of his fears is one that should never be realised: being boring. Listening to him speak at length is almost mesmerising. It is, for me, fascinating and intriguing.
The reason for this is actually quite simple: Hitchens is direct. He doesn’t mi Read more:versus
Atheist or Anti-Theist? 2007-10-26 12:35:46 When I first started to self-identify as an atheist, I held several positions that I have since rejected. An example of one of these was the notion that science answers “how” questions and religion answers “why” questions. Although I was unaware of him at the time, I would have agreed with Gould’s non-overlapping magisterium. Now I don’t. I don’t actually believe religion has anything worthwhile to say on anything. Religion never shied away from making bold claims about the world when it was talking to an ignorant unscientific audience. If religion doesn’t overlap with science today it is only because the religious are rightly afraid to compete with science; a battle they have historically always lost. Some fundamentalists aren’t happy to remain on their side of the playground however; they actively undermine legitimate science and try to have their view of reality supersede any other. Finally, religion makes numerous claims that are incompatible with scientif Read more:Atheist
The Eschatology Ideology 2007-10-30 18:52:27 Qiyamah, aharit ha-yamim, Final Judgement, Day of Purification, Ragnarok, the Apocalypse, Armageddon.
The phrases above all refer to the same general event: the end of the world.
One of the most dehumanising and potentially dangerous beliefs that virtually all religions, and certainly all monotheisms share, is the end of the world. Worse still, monotheism actively looks forward to the end of the world. Moreover, whether consciously or subconsciously, it looks to get our real human life out of the way as soon as possible.
I think there is something perverse about this belief, and there is no denying it: all monotheisms teach that this life is only temporary; a short sinful stop in a depraved world where the alternative to belief is nihilism, before we finally pass over to the next life where we will be rewarded forever and ever in paradise or tortured forever and ever in hell (disproportionate to say the least, would one think, given that eternity is infinite and our human lives are i
OK OK, the Biggie: Atheism vs Theism! 2007-11-09 16:17:38 Atheists like to point out the evil and atrocities committed by religious people in the name of faith. Theists like to point out the evil and atrocities committed by atheists.
The common examples that atheists present are: the Crusades, Northern Ireland conflicts, 9/11, Rwanda, infighting between Christian and Islam sects over the centuries, Spanish Inquisitions etc. The usual counter-examples that theists produce are: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pat, Mao, Enver Hoxha.
It is not my intention now to weigh the crimes of both sets and see which way the scales tilt. I want to make a few observations, and point out that this ongoing battle is futile and irrelevant.
First, in defence of atheism: it is hardly certain that Hitler was an atheist. It is certain that the others mentioned above were. Atheists usually like to say that no one has committed an evil action in the name of atheism. But I don’t think this is true. Atheists who use this weapon to attack theism will discover it is Read more:Biggie
, Atheism
Internet Infidels Discussion Board 2007-11-05 12:01:25 I highly recommend you take a trip over to Daylight Atheism and read what Ebonmuse has to say on the current IIDB situation. As a former frequenter and moderator of this site, and someone who’s devoted much time and financial support to IIDB, I’m very disappointed with what’s happening. Here is the link:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/a-note-on-the-iidb-situation.html
Read more:Internet
, Discussion
, Board
Recommend Site To A Friend
