Today I will be dealing with a contested subject among Atheists and Christians alike.
Miracles.
This proof that will indeed convert me very quickly is extremely difficult to produce depending on your definition of a miracle. Since you're trying to convert me specifically here, we'll use my definition and then I'll go about converting the rest of those stubborn unbelievers.
Item the Second: Miracles
Conversion Status: Absolute until proven false
Ease of Evidence: Difficult
Well you're off to a good start- every religion claims miracles were done(and usually are the basis for the religion in the first place), and that miracles happen frequently still.
I'd like to see one.
Here's how you do it: Predict when and where a miracle will occur(you can use prophecy here for a double whammy) and get me there to witness it. OR if your particular religion grants YOU the ability to perform one, simply throw one down right there.
But Liz, you ask, what miracle would you like us to do? I can speak in tongues or attest that the sun rises every day- isn't that enough to inspire your faith?
No. Let's define a miracle, shall we?
"A miracle is a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker." This is from Wikipedia, which is a website I can only assume Christians have seen and had a chance to edit- thusly it's the accepted definition.
I have previously defined what does not count as a miracle- things that have explanations you just don't understand, or things that are mundane but "good" (finding your car keys or overcoming a disease) and things that have been proven not to be miracles, but are established phenomena of the human psyche or emotional reactions.
So- while your mother overcoming cancer is not a miracle, everyone in an entire hospital suddenly overcoming their ailments with no medical explanation might be.
Here are some examples:
Amputee Limb Regrowth
Verifiable Resurrection (not just brain death- but total cessation of life processes and decomposition begins)
Translocation or Transmutation of objects(again, verifiable only please)
Demonstration of abilities not possibly possessed by an individual- heavy investigation required
Things that do not represent a miracle-
Things that have no apparent cause(investigate. Don't draw a conclusion first, then test for it.)
Mundane Occurrences
Occurrences that through denial of established scientific fact, then lack a cause
Things that have a natural or explainable cause
Proofs I will accept for a miracle:
Witnessing it personally
Testimony of multiple witnesses that were not in a highly-emotional state, at least one who is/was a skeptic, with correlating evidence(pictures, video footage, the end result of the miracle) - this will be investigated thoroughly.
Cataclysmic evidence (IE, mountains that have actually moved, geological evidence, must be material)
Proofs that I will not accept:
Your personal testimony
Testimony from ancient texts
Testimony from a large group of people in a highly-emotional state
Testimony from individuals unable to think critically about other things
Video evidence alone, or pictures alone, or transmogrified object alone.
Proofs of non-miracles, or miracles that could be fakes(stigmata, speaking in tongues, telepathy) - you will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is true, due to the ubiquitous nature of falsehoods surrounding these.
The idea of a miracle is however, difficult to maintain. As the late, great Arthur C. Clarke once said- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." and rightly so. I could travel back to any point before 200 years ago and perform magic with only the knowledge of today- not even the technology. Miracles performed in ancient times could only be the result of lack of knowledge about the world around them leading them to believe in a supernatural cause.
Do not be surprised if a miracle you have come to believe in gets debunked or explained- this is only the march of progress. It does not disprove your faith, only fails to affirm it, and returns to you the burden of positive proof, a reason to believe.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
And I give unto thee, a LIST. How to convert an Atheist: Part 1
So- my Christian (or any religion) readers, are you up to the monumental task of converting an Atheist?
The reward: saving a soul from eternal damnation. And the satisfaction of proving yourself right, which is always fun.
Atheists: If you disagree, or have additional caveats to these challenges, please post below.
For the next few days I am going to post a guide to converting Atheists. Giving these proofs will, depending on the category of the claim, convert us there on the spot, or will give us serious pause.
I'll post the stats for the claim, and then you must read all of the conditions(as in, don't stop at the title.). Post in the comments, e-mail me or blog about it and link to my blog(which will provide a trackback url so I can see it) and we'll get to the business of my(and many others) salvation.
Please note: I began this list inspired by this video- but I am adding a substantial amount of information as well as rejecting some, and adding my own.
The first thing that could convince me you're on the money about this whole God/Holy Book thing is the question of Prophecy.
Item the First: Prophecy
Conversion Status: Absolute
Ease of evidence: Difficult
The first thing that would probably convince me that your book/ideas are the genuine article is a prophecy. Let me first define a prophecy:
A prophecy is a prediction of the future that relies on information not available to the prophet at the time, is clear and concise about its predictions and gives accurate results. It also has a lot of specific information attached to it, so it cannot be interpreted to apply to more than one event.
Now, exclusions:
A prophecy is not vague and does not rely on heavy symbolism to describe the event. Descriptions of prophecy can be a little off, as someone from another time would describe technology of today(steel birds are airplanes, horseless carriages are cars, etc.) but things like "a great darkness upon the heart of man" or "a savior will deliver us from evil" are very vague. They could apply to Jesus, Barack Obama and even Hitler. "Evil" is a very loosely defined word and "deliver us from" could mean anything. "A great darkness" could be the evils of society, or a disease that attacks the cardiovascular system. Any of these could be interpreted to also pertain to multiple events- it must be either a one-time occurrence or something date-related.
A prophecy cannot also be self-fulfilling, as in "the Jews returning to Israel" or a statement made about someone specific about their destiny, and then that person doing their best to fulfill that destiny. This is of course perfectly fine in the case of performing miracles, or other supernatural occurrences.
As for prophecies in the past:
Prophecies have to have undeniable proof to have actually happened. Prophecies such as the ones predicting Jesus, or aspects of his life or later events in the bible(not counting things that have not happened, like revelations) could easily have been written to fit each other, like Jesus being written about to fit information in prophecy previously written about, or prophecies in the old testament that have not been verified as to predate Jesus that could have been inserted later.
Actual evidence you must present:
Historical documents that prove the authenticity of the prophecy, as in letters from the era regarding it, or historians(that are credited and respected among the general historical community) that attest to the document's authenticity, and why they attest to it. Carbon dating is also accepted- but only on older documents as things that occurred less than a few hundred years ago are difficult to pin down.
Photos or evidence of the documents themselves.
Evidence of the event(as long as it's not happening now, or recently, where we might have video evidence).
Evidence that the event is not applicable to other events in history, or that the interpretation has not been stretched to the point of metaphor.
The reward: saving a soul from eternal damnation. And the satisfaction of proving yourself right, which is always fun.
Atheists: If you disagree, or have additional caveats to these challenges, please post below.
For the next few days I am going to post a guide to converting Atheists. Giving these proofs will, depending on the category of the claim, convert us there on the spot, or will give us serious pause.
I'll post the stats for the claim, and then you must read all of the conditions(as in, don't stop at the title.). Post in the comments, e-mail me or blog about it and link to my blog(which will provide a trackback url so I can see it) and we'll get to the business of my(and many others) salvation.
Please note: I began this list inspired by this video- but I am adding a substantial amount of information as well as rejecting some, and adding my own.
The first thing that could convince me you're on the money about this whole God/Holy Book thing is the question of Prophecy.
Item the First: Prophecy
Conversion Status: Absolute
Ease of evidence: Difficult
The first thing that would probably convince me that your book/ideas are the genuine article is a prophecy. Let me first define a prophecy:
A prophecy is a prediction of the future that relies on information not available to the prophet at the time, is clear and concise about its predictions and gives accurate results. It also has a lot of specific information attached to it, so it cannot be interpreted to apply to more than one event.
Now, exclusions:
A prophecy is not vague and does not rely on heavy symbolism to describe the event. Descriptions of prophecy can be a little off, as someone from another time would describe technology of today(steel birds are airplanes, horseless carriages are cars, etc.) but things like "a great darkness upon the heart of man" or "a savior will deliver us from evil" are very vague. They could apply to Jesus, Barack Obama and even Hitler. "Evil" is a very loosely defined word and "deliver us from" could mean anything. "A great darkness" could be the evils of society, or a disease that attacks the cardiovascular system. Any of these could be interpreted to also pertain to multiple events- it must be either a one-time occurrence or something date-related.
A prophecy cannot also be self-fulfilling, as in "the Jews returning to Israel" or a statement made about someone specific about their destiny, and then that person doing their best to fulfill that destiny. This is of course perfectly fine in the case of performing miracles, or other supernatural occurrences.
As for prophecies in the past:
Prophecies have to have undeniable proof to have actually happened. Prophecies such as the ones predicting Jesus, or aspects of his life or later events in the bible(not counting things that have not happened, like revelations) could easily have been written to fit each other, like Jesus being written about to fit information in prophecy previously written about, or prophecies in the old testament that have not been verified as to predate Jesus that could have been inserted later.
Actual evidence you must present:
Historical documents that prove the authenticity of the prophecy, as in letters from the era regarding it, or historians(that are credited and respected among the general historical community) that attest to the document's authenticity, and why they attest to it. Carbon dating is also accepted- but only on older documents as things that occurred less than a few hundred years ago are difficult to pin down.
Photos or evidence of the documents themselves.
Evidence of the event(as long as it's not happening now, or recently, where we might have video evidence).
Evidence that the event is not applicable to other events in history, or that the interpretation has not been stretched to the point of metaphor.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Comming out of the Chapel: How to tell your parents you believe differently.
We've all seen this video - but there does not really exist a good guide that goes over dealing with the consequences of your decision, and the fallout you might face from your family- for people still living with their parents.
This topic is intended for people under or around 18 who still must live in their parents houses, and who still have to deal with their parents rules, but do not want to "live a lie" so to speak, or go to church.
The first step you have to do is define what you believe. As an Atheist, I find that using the word "Atheist" does not really accurately describe my beliefs as well as many people think it does, due to connotations imposed by society and training most people receive in order to "deal" with us.
So this is the first step. It is OK to say that you don't know what you believe, but we'll get to that.
Take out a piece of paper(or open notepad++) and start writing. State what you believe about several key issues, as you will be asked these questions and you want to get your story straight.
First, write down if you believe in God, and if so, define what you think God is and why you believe what you do/don't about it.
Second, if you are coming/going from Christianity, explain your thoughts on Jesus.
Key points are whether he existed, whether he was the son of god and what he said. Also under this topic, address the bible and how you feel/don't about it.
Third, address what you have changed about your world view, and what actions/implications this has. If you suddenly find yourself religious, explain the new morals and laws you must live by. If you have become a Freethinker, explain what Freethought is and why you now accept it. I'll create a specific guide and give a template for Freethought later and you can take what you need from that.
Write these down and then, print them out. It is very important to write them in a way that is not purposefully offensive or snarky, as you're not trying to incite your parents, you are merely bringing them up to speed.
Write the declarations as you would if you were writing them to your best friend. You might even have to write one for your friends if you are coming out of the church and so, you might use the same one for everyone (maybe leave out the jokes and slang for your parents though.)
Then, read them aloud to someone you can trust that shares your viewpoint, and then someone who does not. Gage their reactions. Ask if there is anything you should add or take out. Practice on your friends.
Then, mentally prepare yourself. Something you are probally beginning to realize as you get older is that your parents really are just people, and they make the same mistakes you do and have the same emotions. The main reason they act as they do is because they watched you grow up. They have seen you do stupid, disgusting and hilarious things and it is hard to adjust to age- our brains really aren't built to handle it. People that change over time usually do it slowly after they grow up, but watching someone grow up is a different matter entirely.
Also, when you have a child, you have certain goals and ideas in mind for that child and having them go against them/you is a very difficult process to watch. Teaching someone something and then having them not only disbelieve you but turn all the way around and go in a different direction can be very emotional and leave you wondering where you went wrong.
Another thing, your parents have been around longer than you, and have seen more things than you have. It's hard to accept advice from your younger siblings or children you know, so why should it be any different for your parents?
Also, keep in mind that faith/lack of faith happens over time, and even slower for people once their brains stop growing (around age 20) and so you aren't going to argue them on to your side.
It's not like arguing the difference between digital cameras or cars. It's an entire way of thinking and a lot of their lives are usually consumed by it- so there is no magic gotcha statement.
These things are good points to include in your speech, that you understand them and want them to understand as well.
Also, make sure you mention why you are telling them, what you actually want to come of it. Of course, being closer as a family due to openness is the best reason, but maybe you do/don't want to attend church and maybe you do/don't want to be called upon to say grace at the table- and lastly you would like the chance to honestly talk about your faith/lack thereof with people who are close to you.
Now that you have your speech, and you have practiced it in front of friends, family or the hate machine of the internet(you can also e-mail me and I will take a look, even for people who aren't Atheists) you are ready to give it to your parents.
This might seem like something that is scary, or it might seem fun- but either way its not something to rush into. Showing constraint and doing this the right way will show maturity, and make it easier for them to take you seriously.
First, tell your parents you have made an important decision and you want to talk to them about it, but you want to do it when there will be no interruptions and with just them. I strongly suggest not having siblings around when you do this(unless they are toddlers or younger).
Make sure you have the answers to most of the big questions that they will ask ready. Looking uncertain will usually make you look like you haven't thought this through as much as you have and will cause you to lose credibility.
Make sure your attitude is under control- do not be snarky or subversive, as you don't want to send the message that you are just doing this to rebel. You want them to realize this is not just a phase and you are really serious- and that you will not be swayed by threats or punishments, or additional time in church. What you believe and why comes in very, very handy here.
Read your speech. Be honest, and open. Explain why you believe what you do and that you are not doing it for any other reason than your quest for the truth. Tell your parents it is important that they not interrupt and ask them to save questions for the end. Tell them that you have prepared a speech for this reason and that their questions will probably be answered if they allow you to finish your whole speech.
After the speech is finished, there will probably be an emotional reaction of some kind. They may get angry and threaten to punish you- take things away, kick you out of the house, etc. Realize that this is an emotional reaction and that you should wait for them to think about it. Most likely, they will say things out of fear or anger that they do not mean, much like you have done in the past. Remember we are all human beings and we make mistakes.
Ensure that, just in case, there is someone who will let you stay for a few days- but do not leave immediately if things get tough. You can retreat to your room if you want to escape yelling and/or derogatory remarks but don't leave as you might lose valuable opportunities for really constructive dialogue- and if you leave without their permission you will lose a great deal of credibility. It might be extremely tempting, but riding through the storm will be worth it in the end, in most cases.
If you are in fact in danger of bodily harm, do leave and give them time to cool down. But make sure it is not just a gut reaction and that you are actually in danger- it will not help at all if you act just as irrationally as they do.
You might have consequences as a result of this decision- like seeing a counselor/church leader or being grounded. There's not much you can do but stick to it, and it will end eventually.
The other thing that might happen is that your parents close themselves off- and you reach a very anti-climactic finish. Don't be tempted to argue just because you were expecting to- but read my earlier post about talking to your family.
This topic is intended for people under or around 18 who still must live in their parents houses, and who still have to deal with their parents rules, but do not want to "live a lie" so to speak, or go to church.
The first step you have to do is define what you believe. As an Atheist, I find that using the word "Atheist" does not really accurately describe my beliefs as well as many people think it does, due to connotations imposed by society and training most people receive in order to "deal" with us.
So this is the first step. It is OK to say that you don't know what you believe, but we'll get to that.
Take out a piece of paper(or open notepad++) and start writing. State what you believe about several key issues, as you will be asked these questions and you want to get your story straight.
First, write down if you believe in God, and if so, define what you think God is and why you believe what you do/don't about it.
Second, if you are coming/going from Christianity, explain your thoughts on Jesus.
Key points are whether he existed, whether he was the son of god and what he said. Also under this topic, address the bible and how you feel/don't about it.
Third, address what you have changed about your world view, and what actions/implications this has. If you suddenly find yourself religious, explain the new morals and laws you must live by. If you have become a Freethinker, explain what Freethought is and why you now accept it. I'll create a specific guide and give a template for Freethought later and you can take what you need from that.
Write these down and then, print them out. It is very important to write them in a way that is not purposefully offensive or snarky, as you're not trying to incite your parents, you are merely bringing them up to speed.
Write the declarations as you would if you were writing them to your best friend. You might even have to write one for your friends if you are coming out of the church and so, you might use the same one for everyone (maybe leave out the jokes and slang for your parents though.)
Then, read them aloud to someone you can trust that shares your viewpoint, and then someone who does not. Gage their reactions. Ask if there is anything you should add or take out. Practice on your friends.
Then, mentally prepare yourself. Something you are probally beginning to realize as you get older is that your parents really are just people, and they make the same mistakes you do and have the same emotions. The main reason they act as they do is because they watched you grow up. They have seen you do stupid, disgusting and hilarious things and it is hard to adjust to age- our brains really aren't built to handle it. People that change over time usually do it slowly after they grow up, but watching someone grow up is a different matter entirely.
Also, when you have a child, you have certain goals and ideas in mind for that child and having them go against them/you is a very difficult process to watch. Teaching someone something and then having them not only disbelieve you but turn all the way around and go in a different direction can be very emotional and leave you wondering where you went wrong.
Another thing, your parents have been around longer than you, and have seen more things than you have. It's hard to accept advice from your younger siblings or children you know, so why should it be any different for your parents?
Also, keep in mind that faith/lack of faith happens over time, and even slower for people once their brains stop growing (around age 20) and so you aren't going to argue them on to your side.
It's not like arguing the difference between digital cameras or cars. It's an entire way of thinking and a lot of their lives are usually consumed by it- so there is no magic gotcha statement.
These things are good points to include in your speech, that you understand them and want them to understand as well.
Also, make sure you mention why you are telling them, what you actually want to come of it. Of course, being closer as a family due to openness is the best reason, but maybe you do/don't want to attend church and maybe you do/don't want to be called upon to say grace at the table- and lastly you would like the chance to honestly talk about your faith/lack thereof with people who are close to you.
Now that you have your speech, and you have practiced it in front of friends, family or the hate machine of the internet(you can also e-mail me and I will take a look, even for people who aren't Atheists) you are ready to give it to your parents.
This might seem like something that is scary, or it might seem fun- but either way its not something to rush into. Showing constraint and doing this the right way will show maturity, and make it easier for them to take you seriously.
First, tell your parents you have made an important decision and you want to talk to them about it, but you want to do it when there will be no interruptions and with just them. I strongly suggest not having siblings around when you do this(unless they are toddlers or younger).
Make sure you have the answers to most of the big questions that they will ask ready. Looking uncertain will usually make you look like you haven't thought this through as much as you have and will cause you to lose credibility.
Make sure your attitude is under control- do not be snarky or subversive, as you don't want to send the message that you are just doing this to rebel. You want them to realize this is not just a phase and you are really serious- and that you will not be swayed by threats or punishments, or additional time in church. What you believe and why comes in very, very handy here.
Read your speech. Be honest, and open. Explain why you believe what you do and that you are not doing it for any other reason than your quest for the truth. Tell your parents it is important that they not interrupt and ask them to save questions for the end. Tell them that you have prepared a speech for this reason and that their questions will probably be answered if they allow you to finish your whole speech.
After the speech is finished, there will probably be an emotional reaction of some kind. They may get angry and threaten to punish you- take things away, kick you out of the house, etc. Realize that this is an emotional reaction and that you should wait for them to think about it. Most likely, they will say things out of fear or anger that they do not mean, much like you have done in the past. Remember we are all human beings and we make mistakes.
Ensure that, just in case, there is someone who will let you stay for a few days- but do not leave immediately if things get tough. You can retreat to your room if you want to escape yelling and/or derogatory remarks but don't leave as you might lose valuable opportunities for really constructive dialogue- and if you leave without their permission you will lose a great deal of credibility. It might be extremely tempting, but riding through the storm will be worth it in the end, in most cases.
If you are in fact in danger of bodily harm, do leave and give them time to cool down. But make sure it is not just a gut reaction and that you are actually in danger- it will not help at all if you act just as irrationally as they do.
You might have consequences as a result of this decision- like seeing a counselor/church leader or being grounded. There's not much you can do but stick to it, and it will end eventually.
The other thing that might happen is that your parents close themselves off- and you reach a very anti-climactic finish. Don't be tempted to argue just because you were expecting to- but read my earlier post about talking to your family.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Talk to your family
I have come here today to discuss something uncomfortable, because you need to get used to it.
Your family shares genes with you and you grew up with them- so no matter how different you might feel, they are almost exactly like you. Only more indoctrinated.
This is of course, assuming you are a deconvert.
Families that have to deal with differences of opinion usually arrive at the same congruent conclusion- just don't talk about it.
Well- you need to talk about it. You need to talk about it until you are blue in the face and they are quite red. Talk and talk until they understand.
For most people, they are born into a belief system and then come to question it as they get older. They either go through a phase of questioning and come back eventually, but some people do not. Some people break the mold and then branch off into a different avenue of thought. Sometimes they become Atheists. Sometimes they become Christians. Sometimes they become Moonies.
You might become active in your religion/lack thereof and try to bring your family around- but they most likely won't come to your side of the fence so easily. What happens?
We shut up.
We silence our viewpoints so as not to start fights(because its about the art of not arguing isn't it?) and to keep the peace- but we might rail on a stranger for ever and ever just because you know that if you mess up, your relationship won't be permanently effected.
This is our greatest fear: commitment. Committing our relationship to be harder than it was- but in doing so we rob ourselves of the depth that could come of it.
Some of the deepest places on earth are rifts that were torn open by tidal forces, then laid bare is the core of the planet- glowing for all to see.
This is the nature of your relationship with someone you really care about. You have that friend who you can fight with and then immediately stop when the commercials are over. You can scream and accuse and call each other names and then when the check comes(or the manager asks you to leave) you can offer to pay the check and ask what time the movie is.
People who you can be truly honest with no matter what their belief are your greatest allies because they accept you for who you are.
This is what I am getting at with your family: They should be these people. They should be the people that you can share with and yell at and cry in front of without losing ground or losing face. But more often than not we lose that connection when we deconvert from their belief system and go off on our own. Instead of ripping down the walls we just build them higher and thicker, stronger and firmer.
I understand that it is hard to talk with your parents when they are so emotional. When they yell and you try to stay calm- but the truth is that it is an emotional time. You have to let them yell. You have to let them cry and scream and try to punish you for your beliefs.
But you also have to do the same thing.
Remember: You are not having a formal debate with your parents or your friends. Your siblings are not going to grade you, and you can mess up and change your mind. They might call you on it because they want to win- but you can do the same thing. You watched them grow up- you watched your parents mature from frightened child-adults to seasoned human beings and you know they and their opinions aren't perfect- so why should yours be?
And listen. Listening cannot hurt- especially if you have true conviction for your worldview. Remember: learning new facts does not nessecarily change the whole foundation upon which you've built everything, but shutting everything else out weakens the whole structure- makes it stiff and brittle.
What your family has learned in their time in the world is no less valid than what you have- they have simply gone in a different direction. It is OK to not realize things about the world- there is only so much you can focus on.
This, of course, applies to adults who are not living under the same roof as their family.
Shortly I'll post my Guide To Comming Out of the Chapel- How to tell your parents you believe differently.
Your family shares genes with you and you grew up with them- so no matter how different you might feel, they are almost exactly like you. Only more indoctrinated.
This is of course, assuming you are a deconvert.
Families that have to deal with differences of opinion usually arrive at the same congruent conclusion- just don't talk about it.
Well- you need to talk about it. You need to talk about it until you are blue in the face and they are quite red. Talk and talk until they understand.
For most people, they are born into a belief system and then come to question it as they get older. They either go through a phase of questioning and come back eventually, but some people do not. Some people break the mold and then branch off into a different avenue of thought. Sometimes they become Atheists. Sometimes they become Christians. Sometimes they become Moonies.
You might become active in your religion/lack thereof and try to bring your family around- but they most likely won't come to your side of the fence so easily. What happens?
We shut up.
We silence our viewpoints so as not to start fights(because its about the art of not arguing isn't it?) and to keep the peace- but we might rail on a stranger for ever and ever just because you know that if you mess up, your relationship won't be permanently effected.
This is our greatest fear: commitment. Committing our relationship to be harder than it was- but in doing so we rob ourselves of the depth that could come of it.
Some of the deepest places on earth are rifts that were torn open by tidal forces, then laid bare is the core of the planet- glowing for all to see.
This is the nature of your relationship with someone you really care about. You have that friend who you can fight with and then immediately stop when the commercials are over. You can scream and accuse and call each other names and then when the check comes(or the manager asks you to leave) you can offer to pay the check and ask what time the movie is.
People who you can be truly honest with no matter what their belief are your greatest allies because they accept you for who you are.
This is what I am getting at with your family: They should be these people. They should be the people that you can share with and yell at and cry in front of without losing ground or losing face. But more often than not we lose that connection when we deconvert from their belief system and go off on our own. Instead of ripping down the walls we just build them higher and thicker, stronger and firmer.
I understand that it is hard to talk with your parents when they are so emotional. When they yell and you try to stay calm- but the truth is that it is an emotional time. You have to let them yell. You have to let them cry and scream and try to punish you for your beliefs.
But you also have to do the same thing.
Remember: You are not having a formal debate with your parents or your friends. Your siblings are not going to grade you, and you can mess up and change your mind. They might call you on it because they want to win- but you can do the same thing. You watched them grow up- you watched your parents mature from frightened child-adults to seasoned human beings and you know they and their opinions aren't perfect- so why should yours be?
And listen. Listening cannot hurt- especially if you have true conviction for your worldview. Remember: learning new facts does not nessecarily change the whole foundation upon which you've built everything, but shutting everything else out weakens the whole structure- makes it stiff and brittle.
What your family has learned in their time in the world is no less valid than what you have- they have simply gone in a different direction. It is OK to not realize things about the world- there is only so much you can focus on.
This, of course, applies to adults who are not living under the same roof as their family.
Shortly I'll post my Guide To Comming Out of the Chapel- How to tell your parents you believe differently.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Negligent Parents and Our Heavenly Father
I hear more and more every day about negligent parents who turn to prayer at the exclusion of medical treatment or even insulin for diabetic children.
Why is this allowed to happen? This isn't religious freedom- this is negligent homicide.
I am angry. I am angry that in this country, people who listen to the wrong kind of music, or are too young, or are going through a divorce can lose their kids for the slightest of wrongs but parents who refuse medical treatment are untouchable until the child dies. I understand if you take your kid off into the wilderness- live off the grid or in very small towns this might go by unnoticed. But not in Phoenix, Arizona. Not in Pittsburgh. Not in Detroit. These are only few of far too many cases of children being killed or disfigured due to "Christian Science", Fundementalism and overall anti-intellectualism.
These parents are unfit- and people who believe they know better than a medical professional(seeking second opinions is fine. But look for someone who has the same credentials and not just anyone) and turn to things that have been proven ineffective for treatment of their most precious charges should be declared thus.
Speaking of unfit parents- why hasn't the cosmic child protective services placed us in a foster home? I am sure a nice loving Buddha or Ra would love to have us(as long as they don't live together).
Seriously though- the analogy of the "father" falls very short here- allowing your children to learn the hard way is nothing new- but even us flawed humans grab our children before they fall to their deaths- we bail them out of prison and give them a stern talking to or at least try to discern why they were there in the first place- why are we not better taken care of? Why exactly is prayer so ineffectual?
Looking at the world, seeing the horrors we inflict on each other- one might say that God gave us Free Will and, like a child playing with matches- we hurt ourselves time and time again. It's a learning experience. But what about natural disasters where children and innocents die? What about all the thousands of times that pure bad luck or a series of unfortunate events results in the death of torture of people who have done nothing wrong?
I man, these people ARE Christians lots of times- they DO pray and there are many avenues for God to intervene(like making it more apparent that they should have gone left instead of right- or causing them not to sneeze while the nazis are downstairs?) so what happens? Does God just not care? Or can he not intervene? Or does the Free Will limitation apply in Chaos Theory? You chose not to dust the attic and so now you must sneeze- off to the camps with you!
But people who ARE "blessed"- blessed by something like a movie to cheer them up or a 5 dollar bill on the ground so they could grab some coffee- these things are fair game for God to claim but the bad things that happen by coincidence are somehow our fault. God can inspire people to write bibles, can kill the firstborn of an entire village, can come down from heaven and traipse about the countryside of one very small area spreading the only way to get to heaven to a very select few small villages while neglecting to mention anything that would permanently validate the religion to the rest of the world and then die, knowing full well the message would not be spread far and wide for hundreds of years, effectively damning most of the population of the earth for thouands of years to hell- he can do all of that, but he can't inspire people not to sell children into slavery or have a change of heart when they purposefully addict teens to heroin- he can do that but still 1 in every 120 children is born with a servere, life altering birth defect from which they may never recover.
Someone, please get us out of here.
Why is this allowed to happen? This isn't religious freedom- this is negligent homicide.
I am angry. I am angry that in this country, people who listen to the wrong kind of music, or are too young, or are going through a divorce can lose their kids for the slightest of wrongs but parents who refuse medical treatment are untouchable until the child dies. I understand if you take your kid off into the wilderness- live off the grid or in very small towns this might go by unnoticed. But not in Phoenix, Arizona. Not in Pittsburgh. Not in Detroit. These are only few of far too many cases of children being killed or disfigured due to "Christian Science", Fundementalism and overall anti-intellectualism.
These parents are unfit- and people who believe they know better than a medical professional(seeking second opinions is fine. But look for someone who has the same credentials and not just anyone) and turn to things that have been proven ineffective for treatment of their most precious charges should be declared thus.
Speaking of unfit parents- why hasn't the cosmic child protective services placed us in a foster home? I am sure a nice loving Buddha or Ra would love to have us(as long as they don't live together).
Seriously though- the analogy of the "father" falls very short here- allowing your children to learn the hard way is nothing new- but even us flawed humans grab our children before they fall to their deaths- we bail them out of prison and give them a stern talking to or at least try to discern why they were there in the first place- why are we not better taken care of? Why exactly is prayer so ineffectual?
Looking at the world, seeing the horrors we inflict on each other- one might say that God gave us Free Will and, like a child playing with matches- we hurt ourselves time and time again. It's a learning experience. But what about natural disasters where children and innocents die? What about all the thousands of times that pure bad luck or a series of unfortunate events results in the death of torture of people who have done nothing wrong?
I man, these people ARE Christians lots of times- they DO pray and there are many avenues for God to intervene(like making it more apparent that they should have gone left instead of right- or causing them not to sneeze while the nazis are downstairs?) so what happens? Does God just not care? Or can he not intervene? Or does the Free Will limitation apply in Chaos Theory? You chose not to dust the attic and so now you must sneeze- off to the camps with you!
But people who ARE "blessed"- blessed by something like a movie to cheer them up or a 5 dollar bill on the ground so they could grab some coffee- these things are fair game for God to claim but the bad things that happen by coincidence are somehow our fault. God can inspire people to write bibles, can kill the firstborn of an entire village, can come down from heaven and traipse about the countryside of one very small area spreading the only way to get to heaven to a very select few small villages while neglecting to mention anything that would permanently validate the religion to the rest of the world and then die, knowing full well the message would not be spread far and wide for hundreds of years, effectively damning most of the population of the earth for thouands of years to hell- he can do all of that, but he can't inspire people not to sell children into slavery or have a change of heart when they purposefully addict teens to heroin- he can do that but still 1 in every 120 children is born with a servere, life altering birth defect from which they may never recover.
Someone, please get us out of here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
implications != truth value
This is a symptom of people who either do not think critically or people who hold off on thinking critically about certain aspects of their lives.
You know the people I am talking about- people who refuse to believe something or even consider it because of "what it would mean".
This is such a strong cultural phenomenon that it has become a common plot point and aspect of stereotypical characters.
The problem with this argument is that no matter what the consequences of something being true are, they do not make it any less true.
For a bad example, holocaust deniers are not always white supremacists- sometimes they are people who are simply nieve. People who don't want to believe the horrible things that happened because that would simply mean that horrible things have happened in the past- unimaginably horrible things.
For a more realistic example, most western Christians deny a lot of things to themselves, but one strikes me as particularly offensive. That Atheists have morals that are equal to or even better than their own, and that they follow them. That can't be, because that would mean they either aren't morally superior, or that they don't have a monopoly on morality, or that morals are a conclusion you can come to on your own, without God's intercession.
This idea is so frightening that it is more often than not shut completely out of their thoughts, dismissed as an impossibility.
Another disturbing example is one of creationism- people taking the oversimplification of it too far and then being offended that they may share a common ancestry with many modern primates today or "that my grandma was a monkey".
Or that we are not "any different than the animals"(of course, larger brains and better adaptability, as well as culture and language makes us completely the same as animals.) and thusly not "special".
This kind of thinking is infantile at best, and destructive at worst.
The scary part is that they are allowed to teach this to their children.
You know the people I am talking about- people who refuse to believe something or even consider it because of "what it would mean".
This is such a strong cultural phenomenon that it has become a common plot point and aspect of stereotypical characters.
The problem with this argument is that no matter what the consequences of something being true are, they do not make it any less true.
For a bad example, holocaust deniers are not always white supremacists- sometimes they are people who are simply nieve. People who don't want to believe the horrible things that happened because that would simply mean that horrible things have happened in the past- unimaginably horrible things.
For a more realistic example, most western Christians deny a lot of things to themselves, but one strikes me as particularly offensive. That Atheists have morals that are equal to or even better than their own, and that they follow them. That can't be, because that would mean they either aren't morally superior, or that they don't have a monopoly on morality, or that morals are a conclusion you can come to on your own, without God's intercession.
This idea is so frightening that it is more often than not shut completely out of their thoughts, dismissed as an impossibility.
Another disturbing example is one of creationism- people taking the oversimplification of it too far and then being offended that they may share a common ancestry with many modern primates today or "that my grandma was a monkey".
Or that we are not "any different than the animals"(of course, larger brains and better adaptability, as well as culture and language makes us completely the same as animals.) and thusly not "special".
This kind of thinking is infantile at best, and destructive at worst.
The scary part is that they are allowed to teach this to their children.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics(the question of odds)
A very common argument creationists make is the one of odds. Do you know what the odds of this happening are?
Well, the odds of it happening if they think you are "undecided" or less educated than they are are 1:1 - it is their standard go-to argument.
I have many complaints about this.
First, the odds are usually false, or pulled completely out of thin air. The odds of a cell forming randomly out of nothing are the same as a hurricane assembling a perfectly functional 747 out of random metal scraps it picks up off the beach.
This is typical oversimplification. A related tactic is to compare evolution to saying "we came from goo" or "from a monkey". Or to say "one day a monkey gave birth to a human".
The fundamental problem with BOTH of these claims is that they demonstrate nothing more than a serious lack of understanding.
I of course could attempt to educate you here but I suspect that the main people who will read this blog are people who know me and people on the far end of either side of the "debate"- in which case you either already know or don't care to educate yourself. Or a strange combination of the two.
I will instead delve into the(perceived) reasoning behind such arguments.
The main reason these arguments come about is because someone leading the masses makes them up. Most, if not all of the arguments of creationism are not original, but come from a single source and are endlessly repeated over and over again by followers that say "wow that sounds really good! I'm going to use that! That will stump those Atheists!" - which brings me to the point and main flaw behind creationism.
It is the same problem we get when a horrible travesty occurs and everyone overwhelmingly and unequivocally takes ONE SIDE of an argument. This is illustrated here.
The idea is this(if you didn't click the link above)- someone does something really horrible and everyone else in the world judges them for it. Everyone takes part in the judging because it makes them feel superior and because they need someone to be better, or smarter, or more morally sound than. They have to be RIGHT.
The need to be right is very strong within people. It's strong within me, and within you- and within your dear old grandmother sitting at home knitting and watching jeopardy.
This is the reason why, to me, Christians seem insincere. It is the reason the Pro-choice argument seems less than genuous and the right-wing seems to be full of falsehoods.
It seems that they don't believe their own arguments to some, but I sense a deeper, darker moral problem in society. The cancer of superiority.
The idea is this. If you believed that Hell was a real place, that the unsaved would go there after death and be tortured for all eternity never to see the light of god or their families again- and that there was ANY chance that people you knew, or even people you CARED ABOUT might have to go there to suffer for eternity and you would never see them unless they believed your story or went through a baptism or whatever criteria you believed was required for them to avoid this fate- what would you do?
I for one would be in a crazed-terror state that robbed me of the ability to do anything productive until I brought these people to salvation. And in my mind salvation it would be.
Have you seen the movies where people risk their lives, their jobs and the lives of possibly someone they care about to save many people? Or to warn someone about an impending doom? People that would stop at nothing to save the world or the country or whatever group of people they happened to be with from the utter annihilation they were most certainly faced with?
Why so, do Christians do this? Why do they resign themselves? They might make a fuss when they find out the first time but if they see the train coming why don't they tackle you to make you get out of the way? And why get so angry at people who don't believe? Even to go so far as to wish death upon them? I would hold them safe in a room with no sharp bits or dangerous things nearby until I could talk them into safety. I would do this with everyone.
The reason is that they aren't sure. They strongly believe, but they are not completely sure. The seeds of doubt are in all of them(all of the ones who don't follow you home) and they are simply not sure if they have the right answer. They think the train tracks you've built your home on are still active but they're not ready to set fire to your house to smoke you out of it because they just aren't sure.
Similarly with pro-choice- if you even suspected a child was going to be killed somewhere and you knew where? I would very literally commit crimes much worse than that of the nutjob who murdered George Tiller in front of his family. But the thing is- that man was absolutely sure. Absolutely sure he was killing babies. Obviously I don't condone it or anything like it(and am vehemently opposed.. I'll post about it later.) but I do know that he was one of the few anti-abortionists who did not see a distinction between children born or unborn, and believed that the life of the mother was less sacrosanct than the life of the child.
But Christians and other pro-lifers are very happy to just call you a baby-killer. I mean, nothing they have ever done is as bad as killing babies. They are happy to condemn you and even vandalize your practice- but no one of them would actually do something to put a stop to it, especially if one of their own lives were in danger.
The same thing with hell. Christians, generally older Christians who have had their fill of arguing with atheists and uppity kids, will calmly tell you that they are praying for you- or that "you'll see" at the end, that they were right.
Would they really be so happy to just let you die and burn forever? Could you be happy in a heaven when you knew people were suffering for eternity?
Which brings me back to creationism(remember the original topic?). The main idea of creationism is that people want to be right about something. They want to be right about the bible and genesis so bad that they are willing to lie about it. They are willing to mine quotes, make up statistics and attempt to debunk rational science with fallacious arguments that they are unwilling to see as fallacious because that would admit that one of the fundamental tenants of their faith might be wrong. And some of the worst embarrassment in the world comes from being wrong.
Well, the odds of it happening if they think you are "undecided" or less educated than they are are 1:1 - it is their standard go-to argument.
I have many complaints about this.
First, the odds are usually false, or pulled completely out of thin air. The odds of a cell forming randomly out of nothing are the same as a hurricane assembling a perfectly functional 747 out of random metal scraps it picks up off the beach.
This is typical oversimplification. A related tactic is to compare evolution to saying "we came from goo" or "from a monkey". Or to say "one day a monkey gave birth to a human".
The fundamental problem with BOTH of these claims is that they demonstrate nothing more than a serious lack of understanding.
I of course could attempt to educate you here but I suspect that the main people who will read this blog are people who know me and people on the far end of either side of the "debate"- in which case you either already know or don't care to educate yourself. Or a strange combination of the two.
I will instead delve into the(perceived) reasoning behind such arguments.
The main reason these arguments come about is because someone leading the masses makes them up. Most, if not all of the arguments of creationism are not original, but come from a single source and are endlessly repeated over and over again by followers that say "wow that sounds really good! I'm going to use that! That will stump those Atheists!" - which brings me to the point and main flaw behind creationism.
It is the same problem we get when a horrible travesty occurs and everyone overwhelmingly and unequivocally takes ONE SIDE of an argument. This is illustrated here.
The idea is this(if you didn't click the link above)- someone does something really horrible and everyone else in the world judges them for it. Everyone takes part in the judging because it makes them feel superior and because they need someone to be better, or smarter, or more morally sound than. They have to be RIGHT.
The need to be right is very strong within people. It's strong within me, and within you- and within your dear old grandmother sitting at home knitting and watching jeopardy.
This is the reason why, to me, Christians seem insincere. It is the reason the Pro-choice argument seems less than genuous and the right-wing seems to be full of falsehoods.
It seems that they don't believe their own arguments to some, but I sense a deeper, darker moral problem in society. The cancer of superiority.
The idea is this. If you believed that Hell was a real place, that the unsaved would go there after death and be tortured for all eternity never to see the light of god or their families again- and that there was ANY chance that people you knew, or even people you CARED ABOUT might have to go there to suffer for eternity and you would never see them unless they believed your story or went through a baptism or whatever criteria you believed was required for them to avoid this fate- what would you do?
I for one would be in a crazed-terror state that robbed me of the ability to do anything productive until I brought these people to salvation. And in my mind salvation it would be.
Have you seen the movies where people risk their lives, their jobs and the lives of possibly someone they care about to save many people? Or to warn someone about an impending doom? People that would stop at nothing to save the world or the country or whatever group of people they happened to be with from the utter annihilation they were most certainly faced with?
Why so, do Christians do this? Why do they resign themselves? They might make a fuss when they find out the first time but if they see the train coming why don't they tackle you to make you get out of the way? And why get so angry at people who don't believe? Even to go so far as to wish death upon them? I would hold them safe in a room with no sharp bits or dangerous things nearby until I could talk them into safety. I would do this with everyone.
The reason is that they aren't sure. They strongly believe, but they are not completely sure. The seeds of doubt are in all of them(all of the ones who don't follow you home) and they are simply not sure if they have the right answer. They think the train tracks you've built your home on are still active but they're not ready to set fire to your house to smoke you out of it because they just aren't sure.
Similarly with pro-choice- if you even suspected a child was going to be killed somewhere and you knew where? I would very literally commit crimes much worse than that of the nutjob who murdered George Tiller in front of his family. But the thing is- that man was absolutely sure. Absolutely sure he was killing babies. Obviously I don't condone it or anything like it(and am vehemently opposed.. I'll post about it later.) but I do know that he was one of the few anti-abortionists who did not see a distinction between children born or unborn, and believed that the life of the mother was less sacrosanct than the life of the child.
But Christians and other pro-lifers are very happy to just call you a baby-killer. I mean, nothing they have ever done is as bad as killing babies. They are happy to condemn you and even vandalize your practice- but no one of them would actually do something to put a stop to it, especially if one of their own lives were in danger.
The same thing with hell. Christians, generally older Christians who have had their fill of arguing with atheists and uppity kids, will calmly tell you that they are praying for you- or that "you'll see" at the end, that they were right.
Would they really be so happy to just let you die and burn forever? Could you be happy in a heaven when you knew people were suffering for eternity?
Which brings me back to creationism(remember the original topic?). The main idea of creationism is that people want to be right about something. They want to be right about the bible and genesis so bad that they are willing to lie about it. They are willing to mine quotes, make up statistics and attempt to debunk rational science with fallacious arguments that they are unwilling to see as fallacious because that would admit that one of the fundamental tenants of their faith might be wrong. And some of the worst embarrassment in the world comes from being wrong.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
My stereotypical opinion on gay marriage(Ban it along with all the rest of marriages.)
What? Every atheist blog has to have a post about gay marriage?
Fine. I guess. Here goes.
But I'm not doing the legwork! I'm going to just repost a comment thread I started from The Religious Researcher instead.
This is the post.
I respond
Your arguments are constructed well for a person who operates within the framework of Christianity, however I would like to ask what you think of policy?
Icy,
The debate over gay marriage is not just about sex. It is about whether we as a society will agree to abandon the belief that the institution of a one-woman, one-man permanent union (called marriage) is a foundational institution for society. Redefining marriage to mean any newly created relationship between two persons is about as arbitrary a redefinition as I can imagine.
Most of your examples of “the real world” are viewed by most people, including most Christians, as also immoral. Bringing up such things as golddiggers and spousal murderers is totally irrelevant to the state’s role in sanctioning marriage. The state can legitimately deny persons the right to marry someone of the same gender, or multiple persons of the opposite gender, etc., even though it cannot prevent people from getting married for less than honorable reasons.
Your example of infertile seniors getting married is also irrelevant. I have not claimed, nor would I, that persons cannot marry unless they have the potential and intention of producing offspring.
I respond
But we arbitrarily redefine marriage, among other things, all the time!
Women: Not property
Interracial marriage: OK
Divorce for a good reason: OK
Divorce for no good reason: Also OK
And that’s just marriage.
But my point is that your argument is faith based. While this is PERFECTLY FINE for your own morals, what you teach your children and to talk about on Sunday or here on your own blog(not really here to change your mind, just challenge it) it’s not really sound for policy.
I’m not sure what the foundational institution for society is, because there are several important words you have to intricately define before you claim what it’s foundations are.
What society? Western society? If so, what kind? Capitalist?
For sake of argument, since we live in here in America and are talking about such, we’ll use our present set of circumstances.
There are plenty of people for whom marriage is not an option, nor is it a desired one. I’m not talking about people who can’t seem to stick to one partner, but people who pursue their careers(not just for money, but doctors and politicians), love to travel too much(ever met an old biker?) or are simply celibate. Catholic priests, for instance are never to be married, at least not to a woman(Married to God I hear quite a bit from them) as are nuns. Are these people just as responsible for destroying society?
Yes, there are not as many of them as there are gays or other people who might wish to marry someone other than a person of the opposite sex for whatever reason, but the number of these people when compared to the population at large is also insignificant(the word insignificant used mathematically in this case).
Fine. I guess. Here goes.
But I'm not doing the legwork! I'm going to just repost a comment thread I started from The Religious Researcher instead.
This is the post.
I respond
Your arguments are constructed well for a person who operates within the framework of Christianity, however I would like to ask what you think of policy?
Why can’t we just say:
Marriage is a binary contract, between two previously unrelated individuals, for the purpose of creating a relation between them.
Extend rights to support and help EVERYONE in your family, regardless of actual relation as long as it’s within 2(as in, I can buy insurance for my sister and her child since I support them and I can claim them as dependents, and could even adopt my nephew and claim legal rights to him if my sister agrees) which would help everyone get what they needed out of marriage.
This provides for the common good, as in one person who needs to support someone else they love(or are obligated to) extends currently only to spouses and children/grandchildren.
The only reason you shouldn’t be allowed then, to marry your sister, is because a relationship already exists.
The reason I say this is because someone who is going to have gay sex, participate in incest, live a polygamous lifestyle, so on, is going to do it REGARDLESS of legal status, whether they are married to that person or not. Allowing anyone to form a relationship with anyone will remove any possible barriers to people creating legally recognized relationships with people, and does not necessarily mean there is a sexual relationship. For instance I could marry a friend of mine in order to help her get insurance for her child or to take care of her if she had a long-term illness where she was not fully coherent, and did not want her parents to enforce their wishes(like, keeping her on/off life support against her wishes), or to jointly own property between us.
The fact is that these days there are more relationships that need to be legally recognized and enforced and taken into account in court than just “parent and child” and “husband and wife”.
Now you will argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman in legality what it is in the bible, a spiritual relationship for the purpose of childbearing, and that taking that away removes the specialness of it, so on.
While it would be great if only people who were truly in love and people only got married to have kids and everyone had one mommy and one daddy, we live in the real world.
In the real world, we have 55 hour marriages, we have seniors getting married who are infertile, we have shotgun weddings of 16 year-olds who then divorce at 19 and fight for the rest of their lives over the illegitimate children. We have spousal abuse, adultery, battered wife syndrome, golddiggers, people who get married because they are terrified of dying alone, and spousal murder to get out of a messy, costly divorce.
What would me amenable to everyone, regardless of beliefs(as again, we live in the real world where not everyone is Christian and we can’t force them to become so) is if the word “Marriage” was reserved for something recognized by the CHURCH, and civil unions were available to everyone legally recognized as a sentient being, anyone who holds rights can establish a relationship with anyone they don’t already have one with for the purpose of supporting and sharing resources.
He respondsIcy,
The debate over gay marriage is not just about sex. It is about whether we as a society will agree to abandon the belief that the institution of a one-woman, one-man permanent union (called marriage) is a foundational institution for society. Redefining marriage to mean any newly created relationship between two persons is about as arbitrary a redefinition as I can imagine.
Most of your examples of “the real world” are viewed by most people, including most Christians, as also immoral. Bringing up such things as golddiggers and spousal murderers is totally irrelevant to the state’s role in sanctioning marriage. The state can legitimately deny persons the right to marry someone of the same gender, or multiple persons of the opposite gender, etc., even though it cannot prevent people from getting married for less than honorable reasons.
Your example of infertile seniors getting married is also irrelevant. I have not claimed, nor would I, that persons cannot marry unless they have the potential and intention of producing offspring.
I respond
But we arbitrarily redefine marriage, among other things, all the time!
Women: Not property
Interracial marriage: OK
Divorce for a good reason: OK
Divorce for no good reason: Also OK
And that’s just marriage.
But my point is that your argument is faith based. While this is PERFECTLY FINE for your own morals, what you teach your children and to talk about on Sunday or here on your own blog(not really here to change your mind, just challenge it) it’s not really sound for policy.
I’m not sure what the foundational institution for society is, because there are several important words you have to intricately define before you claim what it’s foundations are.
What society? Western society? If so, what kind? Capitalist?
For sake of argument, since we live in here in America and are talking about such, we’ll use our present set of circumstances.
There are plenty of people for whom marriage is not an option, nor is it a desired one. I’m not talking about people who can’t seem to stick to one partner, but people who pursue their careers(not just for money, but doctors and politicians), love to travel too much(ever met an old biker?) or are simply celibate. Catholic priests, for instance are never to be married, at least not to a woman(Married to God I hear quite a bit from them) as are nuns. Are these people just as responsible for destroying society?
Yes, there are not as many of them as there are gays or other people who might wish to marry someone other than a person of the opposite sex for whatever reason, but the number of these people when compared to the population at large is also insignificant(the word insignificant used mathematically in this case).
But here is a case that I think would satisfy your needs.
Government should abolish marriage altogether, as there are no benefits a infertle one man one woman marriage can provide that a gay union can’t(we’re going to go by current research done by independent researchers here) and thusly the benefits should be nullified.
Civil Unions should be the only recognized form(the ‘arbitrary’ definition used earlier for marriage will do) of legal union that can artificially create a legal relationship between two humans.
Marriage, as it originated in the Church, should be controlled by the Church. Anyone wishing to have a marriage in the eyes of God can do so using their own faith community, and it can be settled there, between the couple and God.
This eliminates the need for secularists to complain about the separation of church and state, eliminates the protest of unfairness by exclusion by homosexuals, and puts full control back in local, community churches where pastors can counsel couples to make sure they are ready, and it can be a family event, bringing back the sanctity and morality of marriage without the need to make accommodations for people who are not part of whichever community performing the ceremony.
This is the primary reason behind the separation of church and state. The state should form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty for all citizens of the United States Of America. It doesn’t NEED to be an extension of the church, the church itself can take care of that. People who aren’t going to follow it weren’t going to in the first place, let them go their own way.
These were made in the span of about a day, so he did not respond (I assume he had other blog posts to get to.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)