Sunday, July 19, 2015

Repost: Proof of God: Scenario 2 (originally posted 3-12-12)

It can and has been argued that aggression has served a variety of evolutionary purposes. However, it no longer seems to be of any benefit to our species in today's world. We also don't seem to be able to prevent it.

Another scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is the cessation of all forms of human aggression. Since it no longer seems to be of benefit to us and we can't seem to end it ourselves there is no reason God could not solve the problem for us. I am fully aware of the rationale many theist use to contradict this idea. Free will has always been a pathetic excuse. I do not know a single person who has chosen to be mugged or asked for children to shoot other children. Since, I and others routinely push for crime prevention measures and gun control why are we made to suffer along with those who refuse do do anything useful about these problems. If God created us and our world then there is no reason God cannot make such a modification as the elimination of all aggression. There would still be plenty for us to disagree and make decisions on. So assuming that free will is even possibly in the presence of a supreme being, which it isn't, it would be unaffected by the absence of aggression.

Saturday, July 11, 2015


“All good intellects have repeated, since Bacon's time, that there can be no real knowledge but which is based on observed facts.”
August Comte
The Positive Philosophy

Didn't know, don't care

To be fair, I have no real interest in "celebrities" or being a "fan" of any sort. That does not mean I don't appreciate the individuals who often get lumped together as celebrities or pop-culture figures. I have absolutely no doubt that many of them are talented, intelligent, decent people. I still don't understand why specific aspects of their personal lives should matter to the general public let alone be reported on in any way. Two recent pieces on Religious News Service seems to play into such superficial tripe.

"Serena Williams’ secret weapon: ‘Jehovah God’"
"Omar Sharif wasn’t the only Muslim actor famous in America. Here are 5 others"

Omar Sharif and Serena Williams are both very talented. I am sure their beliefs are important to them but I fail to see how that made them the exceptional talents they are. So, why pay any attention to that one aspect of their lives? It seems, especially silly given that I have never noticed either of them making that big a deal of their religious preferences during any of the public appearances or interviews I've seen.

I didn't know anything about their religious preferences and still don't really know anything significant about their religious views. It has not changed anything. So why should I or anyone else care about that detail? What is the point? It seems odd that RNS would run both pieces on the same day unless their was something notable. Yet, I don't see any reason to run such similar pieces at the same time unless you are trying to imply that religion relates to talent. It doesn't.


You may have heard of RiNOs (Republicans in Name Only) and probably various other "in Name Only" acronyms/labels. I've never come across anyone using Catholic in Name Only? Why not? This isn't a new idea. A recent post by Cathy Grossman at the Religious News Service brought this back to mind. Her review of a recent study in "Catholic families: strong on prayer, weak on sacraments" is rather entertaining though slightly puzzling. She seems genuinely surprised by the findings. Doesn't she know any Catholics or have any awareness of related surveys and studies?

A growing number of self-identified Catholics do not actually agree with or follow many of the Catholic Church's doctrines. They certainly don't, as a whole, agree with most of the policies and practices that the church has created based on those doctrines. Many seem to be Catholic by heritage/culture rather than by belief and behavior. Many of the Catholics I know personally do not seem to abide by any of the doctrines or policies that distinguish the Catholic church from any other Christian sect or denomination.

I'd be willing to bet that the CiNOs outnumber the more orthodox, conservative Catholics by a long shot.

Monday, July 6, 2015

What if it were Southern Baptists, or Catholics, or....

Listening to the religious right go on about how marriage equality is a violation of their rights makes me want to throw up. They are so full of shit. Not is there no possibility of finally recognizing the rights of yet another marginalized minority not a threat it is in fact these fucking whiners who are the threat. Sadly, our pathetic media still coddles such deceitful hypocritical ignorant assholes.

Showing how disingenuous they are is also very easy to do. Simply replace homosexual with Southern Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox Judaism, or any other conservative sect/denomination. Then see if they still agree with the notion of discriminating on religious grounds.  I am not religious at all but if I were I assume I would still be on the liberal end of the spectrum. I can easily see making a case that supporting in any sense conservative theists as being a violation of my "spiritual" beliefs. By working or serving with conservatives I could easily claim that that makes me an accomplice of evil. Why should I jeopardize my soul by becoming a collaborator with the agents of evil? See how that works? Clearly I should not have to provide any products or services to any religious conservatives. Shouldn't I be able to make a case for my religious freedom? Shouldn't I then be allowed to refuse any and all conservative theists?

NO! And, anyone who thinks this is a valid excuse to harass, persecute, or discriminate is a fucking waste of flesh. Basic civil rights should never be negotiable.

A few of the milder pieces that still made me want to scream include:

"Will the Court protect religious objectors to same-sex marriage?" Religious News Service

"Republicans pivot from gay marriage to religious liberty fight" CNN