2007 January | Way of the Mind

Monthly Archive for January, 2007

"You atheists don’t have an open mind."

Published

on January 25, 2007

. 81 Comments

Well, more precisely, it’s “You atheists / secularists / skeptics / humanists / materialists / infidels don’t have an open mind.”

Sure we do. It’s just that it’s open to new evidence. Not to desires, fears, or arguments from authority.

Present us new evidence of the truth of your beliefs, and we’ll consider it seriously. You don’t even have to provide proof, just some evidence in that direction.

Well?

P.S. - please, no hiding behind the usual “you people wouldn’t believe even if there was evidence”. You can’t know that, can you? There never was any…

Why do Christians hate homosexuals (but not shellfish-eaters)?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 19, 2007

in bible, christianity and religion

. 56 Comments

There’s a recent post at The Atheist Ethicist, The Source of Hatred, where Alonzo explores the question of why theists hate homosexuals.

According to him, religion is not the cause. It’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: “the Bible says it’s an abomination.”

But… Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination! Yet most Christians probably eat shrimp, and, anyway, there was never any persecution of shellfish-eaters. Why is that? Why is one sentence taken as “God’s law”, and another just as “ancient dietary laws”, when they’re both forbidden in the same book, and the condemnation for both (”abomination”) is the same?

The answer, of course, is that people are already bigots (though an important source of that bigotry may well be church sermons). Saying “It’s God’s command” instead of admitting to their prejudice makes them feel better.

I loved this part in the article:

If biblical prohibition were the real source of condemnation, we would find ourselves in a society where shellfish eaters and bankers would be prohibited from participating in youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. Those who insist on such a ban would argue that those who so flagrantly violate God’s law cannot possibly be moral, and clearly cannot be considered good role models for our children.

What type of message does it give our children to be a member of a troop whose troop leader is known to be a practicing shellfish eater or banker – when the Bible so clearly identifies these acts as a violation of His law? These children will no doubt come to think that all of God’s law are open to question. This type of moral relativism is the last thing that we need to be teaching impressionable young minds.

Intelligent Design, PR and fallacies

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 18, 2007

in christianity, intelligent design and religion

. 36 Comments

Lord J-Bar has a post called Intelligent Design Is Actually Quite Clever (from a PR Standpoint) (see what reading PA prevents you from missing? :)), whose reading I recommend, and which probably deserves a printout to give to any friend of yours who believes that “there may be something to that ID thing “.

Some excerpts:

Since most of the public has no idea that scientific theories must be falsifiable, ID advocates can push a “theory” that is impossible to falsify, and the public accepts it out of a lack of knowledge. When actual scientists or people who understand science speak out, IDists turn around paint themselves as victims of scientific dogma, saying that science is a religion that refuses to allow new ideas and will never let go of its evolution “myth.”

and:

Finally, Americans like to encourage free and open discussion. It’s an essential part of our culture. When ID advocates pop up demanding equal time and debate, Americans feel inclined to support that debate, regardless of the fact that no actual debate exists within the scientific community. Now, I’m all for freedom of thoughts and discussion, but that debate should not occur in a high school classroom. If we were to let every fringe idea that comes up have “equal time” in science classrooms, then schools had better include ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Hindu creation myth in their curriculums.

What am I getting at? Even though most scientists scoff at those who support ID, we need to realize that ID advocates have actually been extremely clever. They’ve done an excellent job disguising the scientific shortcomings of ID by relying on public ignorance. Furthermore, they appeal to Americans’ sense of freedom and equal opportunity to demand equal time in science classrooms. Since most people are confused about the nature of ID, it sounds like a reasonable demand. Plus, the straight-up lies that IDists tell by claiming that there’s a debate within science over the validity of evolution certainly helps their case. To the average layperson, it might sound like evolution is not accepted just because a few people with science PhDs, regardless of whether or not they are biologists, speak out against evolution.

That is, indeed, a tactic I’ve seen used on the web. IDists present their creationism as an “alternate theory”, using some big, scientific-sounding words, and not mentioning God too obviously… and when scientists, naturally, say “that’s bullshit”, they turn to the people and say “see, it’s just dogma! They worship evolution like a religion, and are too closed-minded to consider alternatives! But don’t YOU want both sides of the story?” People, naturally, say yes.

IDers cleverly make use of a common fallacy: that, between two opposite positions, the truth is probably in the middle. As Dawkins (I believe) said, that’s not always the case - sometimes, one side is simply wrong. If you say that 2+2=4 and I say it’s 5, the answer isn’t 4.5, but still 4. There’s no “evolution debate” among biologists; the amount of evidence is large enough so that anyone who managed to disprove evolution would have a huge amount of explaining to do. In other words, there is a lot of evidence for evolution, and zero for creationism. In yet other words (as J-Bar suggests), if all you have to do for people to consider your side as “equally valid” is present an “alternate theory”, never mind the evidence, then the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally deserving of mention…

Thinking about the liar paradox…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 15, 2007

in logic

. 4 Comments

Changing the topic into something lighter than metaphysics…

Are you familiar with the liar paradox? There are several variations of it, but the most common is probably this:

The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true.

Now, if sentence 1 is true, then 2 must be false, which means that sentence 1 isn’t true after all… but then it means that 2 must be true… and so on. It’s impossible to solve; it’s a paradox.

An even simpler version is the following:

This sentence is false.

Now, is it true or false?

Finally, let’s consider a third case:

Everything I say is false.

My question is: is this the liar paradox again? Or is it actually possible, and not a paradox at all?

If you’re reading this on the front page, you’ll have to click on “Continue reading…” for the answer. If you’re using your feed reader, or Planet Atheism, or arrived directly at this post, the answer is below, so… close your eyes now and think about it before you open them again.

Continue reading ‘Thinking about the liar paradox…’

8 questions for so-called Christians

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 14, 2007

in christianity and religion

. 37 Comments

Here’s a short test for Christians (and anyone who wants to understand them). Just answer the following questions, in your mind, with a “yes” or a “no”.

Do you believe homosexuals should be killed? Not just “they’re going to hell”, but actually executed?
Do you believe women are inferior to men, should remain submissive, and can never be allowed to teach men or have authority over them?
Do you believe slavery is OK?
Do you believe disobedient children should be killed?
Do you believe that, when waging war, it is proper to commit genocide, killing every man, woman and child in the enemy nation — except for, in some particular cases, female virgins, who can be taken as “spoils”?
Do you believe that anyone who suggests to a Christian that he follow other gods should be killed?
Do you believe that an old grandmother, who lived a life of caring for others, bringing joy to dozens, will be condemned to an afterlife of eternal suffering if she didn’t accept Jesus as her savior?
Do you believe that there are cases in which a raped woman should be killed along with, or even instead of, the rapist?

If you answered “no” to even one of the above, you’re not a real Christian. You believe you know more than the God you say you worship (and you call atheists “arrogant”?!?). You’re guilty of picking and choosing from your divinely inspired holy book, ignoring more than half of it. You only follow the teachings you already agree with. In effect, you’re creating your own religion.

If you answered “yes” to even one of the above, then you are a repulsive, evil monster. Please never visit this blog again, and go play in traffic, or at least don’t reproduce.

A virtual cookie to the first who spots and identifies the implication of combining the previous 2 paragraphs.

Irrational and Rational Atheism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 14, 2007

in atheism and reason

. 36 Comments

A recent exchange of comments between me and Niki, starting with this one, has made me think about what “atheism” really means.

Technically, it’s simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. That much, I believe, can’t be disputed (even though theists like to say that we are simply “in denial of God”, or that we have “faith in the non-existance of God”). vjack of Atheist Revolution seems to confirm it:

Skepticism and atheism are clearly separable and far from synonymous. Most atheists are skeptics, however many are not. I have encountered atheists who believe in a number of supernatural entities besides gods. Many skeptics are atheists; many more are not.

I certainly can’t disagree with that. But, in the discussion I mentioned above, my own reply to Niki, in a way, “betrayed” me:

Niki: to me, “atheism” includes “there is no such thing as the supernatural”. Other people may (and do) redefine the term…

Wait a minute. Am I not contradicting myself, there? Am I not “adding” to the dictionary definition of atheism?

In a way, you can say that I am. However, I believe that it all depends on the reasons that lead to one’s atheism.

If you’re an atheist because “you felt like it”, it’s possible that you believe in things like an immortal soul, reincarnation, ESP, talking to the dead, and so on. If so, then, technically, since you don’t believe in any gods, you’re still an atheist… but you’re guilty of as much wishful thinking — or, to use the more PC term, faith — as the average theist. You’re as irrational as they are. Both let desires or fears overcome rational judgment.

If, however, you’re an atheist because you’ve thought about it, looked at the available evidence for each claim, and decided that you won’t believe in any mumbo-jumbo without evidence, even though that belief may “feel good”, then — and this is a claim that’ll ensure I’ll be called “arrogant by some — you simply can’t believe in an immortal soul (zero evidence), reincarnation (zero evidence), ESP (zero evidence), and so on.

They all fail the same “tests” that should lead one away from believing in things without evidence. Why have double standards? Why demand evidence for a god but not for “something, unseen and completely undetactable by science, remains of you after you die”? Could it be that such a belief is comforting, so you refrain from asking for evidence? Isn’t that exactly why theists believe in their “all-loving” deity? The belief its comforting, so you believe despite a total lack of evidence?

Note that I’m not trying to expand the dictionary definition of “atheist” here (not that I could, even if I wanted to). My point is just this: if you’re an atheist because you don’t engage in wishful thinking and demand evidence, it makes no sense not to demand evidence for everything else. Therefore (2nd arrogance warning! :)), a rational atheist shouldn’t believe in the supernatural.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - whether they’re about a god, a dragon in the garage, or “I’m the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte”.

Planet Atheism: a very short rant…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 13, 2007

in planet atheism

. 4 Comments

Why, oh, why is it that so many bloggers, especially on Blogger, don’t have any contact information anywhere on their blogs?

(There. Rant over. :))

I’ve already invited some to Planet Atheism (which, incidentally, already aggregates 9 great blogs, and this one too! :)) by placing a comment on the newest post. But… I don’t like doing it, I think it’s rude to post off-topic comments, and I’m afraid that this may annoy bloggers who might otherwise be interested.

So, here’s a few humble requests:

1- if you have an atheism-related blog, and want it included in PA, please let me know (I’ve created a new email address for it, join@planetatheism.com). If it’s mostly about atheism and the problems of religion, I’ll add it.

I’m still inviting a couple more people in the next few days, but that will probably stop soon - again, because I don’t want to be annoying.

2- if you have one such blog, if it’s not too much work, please look in the “Spam” or “Junk” folders in your email accounts; you may already have an invitation there. Email filters tend not to “like” new domains, as is the case here, so it may have been wrongly tagged as spam. It would help if you opened it and clicked on “Not Spam” or “Not Junk”, to teach the filter that it isn’t a spam domain.

However, as I said, there’s really no need to wait for an invitation; if you have an atheist blog, just let me know about it.

3- if your blog makes it impossible to contact you without posting an off-topic comment, you should correct that … for your sake, not mine, and not merely for this particular case.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming…

EDIT: there is now a Planet Atheism permanent page, linked just below the logo. It includes some more technical stuff, too.

The Blasphemy Challenge

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 12, 2007

in atheism, christianity and religion

. 11 Comments

I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

- Jesus, Mark 3:28-29 (NIV)

I’m a bit late mentioning this one, but better late than never, right?

You may have heard of the Blasphemy Challenge. It’s a site that asks people to create a small video of them saying “I deny the Holy Spirit”, and upload it to YouTube.

According to Jesus, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin. Anything else may be forgiven, but not that. Anyone who does so is damned.

Well, I’m too lazy to create a video, and I don’t have anything better than my cell phone’s camera to do it, so I’ll have to skip the video. But believe me when I say the following:

I, Pedro Timóteo, deny the Holy Spirit, and every other made-up supernatural crap.

And, no, I’m not afraid. Not because I’m “incredibly brave” or anything. Unlike Christians love to say, I don’t “know deep inside that there is a God”. I’m not denying his “obvious” existence because I’m “angry at God”, “want to rebel”, or “want no moral rules” above me.

I’m not afraid, because I have every reason to believe that there’s nothing to be afraid of.

20000 more U.S. troops to Iraq… what for?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 11, 2007

in current events and politics

. 8 Comments

Yup, Bush is really doing it.

Is it just me, or does this remind you as well of “pointy-haired bosses” putting more and more money into a project that everyone already knows is doomed to failure, and will bring no profit at all, just because “well, if we pull back now, it will mean that whatever was already spent is lost”? Which is, if you think about it for 5 seconds, a fallacy - what was spent is already lost, the choice is between losing even more, or not.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the main goal of the war — and, in that, it’s been an absolute success — was always to make it so that criticizing the president in any way is “unpatriotic”, I’d think that the only reason that the U.S. is still there is due to the above - better to bury more money (and, in this case, human lives) than to admit a mistake.

Peter David has some nice comments on Bush’s speech as well, plus a newer post, where he writes:

The classic definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

We’ve been sending troops into Iraq. The result? Civil War, fighting, and young people dying.

Bush’s solution? Send troops into Iraq.

Different result?

No reason to believe so.

Someone should do a dictionary entry for “Insanity” with Bush’s picture next to it.

Good and bad news

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 10, 2007

in planet atheism and way of the mind (site)

. 2 Comments

The good news is that Planet Atheism now has 5 (*) blogs. Not bad for 12 hours. I’ve already started to send some invitations to candidate blogs, but I’m doing it slowly, so don’t feel offended if you haven’t been invited yet. Still, there’s no reason to wait; if you’re interested, let me know (details here).

The bad news is that the server where this blog was hosted, apparently, couldn’t cope with the StumbleUpon effect of so many hits per second. Who’d guess that my 16 Common Myths about Atheists post would get so popular again? Therefore, I had to temporarily move Way of the Mind to my old server, located at my home in Portugal. Bandwidth may be worse (though it should still be OK), but the server itself is much more powerful, and it laughs at the StumbleUpon effect.

I’ve contacted the hosting people for a server upgrade, and in a couple of days (hopefully) this blog should be physically in the U.S. again. Other sites such as the forum and Planet Atheism are still in the American server.

Is it too obvious that I’m a sysadmin as well as a blogger?

(*) 7 now.

New site: Planet Atheism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 9, 2007

in atheism

. 2 Comments

Today, I have finally set up what I’ve had in mind for a long while now: Planet Atheism.

If you go there right now (it will probably be quite different if you go there in a couple of days), you may be a little confused, since it’s, apparently, just Way of the Mind posts! That’s because I haven’t added any other blogs yet, and won’t do so without permission (or a request) from each blogger.

In the next couple of days, I’ll be inviting by email the owners of several atheist blogs, some of which I already read regularly, and others from lists such as The Atheist Blogroll.

But, meanwhile, if you have an atheism-related blog, just email me (the address begins with “join”, has an “@” in the middle, and ends with “planetatheism.com” :)), and I’ll add it there.

This should increase your readership, especially - but not only - among other atheist bloggers. Each post will list you as the author, and include a link to your blog. Everything there still belongs to the author; Planet Atheism simply aggregates it. Think of it as a public feed reader.

Just a few conditions:

- the blog should be mostly about atheism. That means that at least half its posts should be about atheism, what’s wrong with religion, new attempts to turn your country into a theocracy, disputing apologists’ arguments, and so on. If you don’t believe in a god, but blog mostly about other things… sorry, no can do.

- the blog shouldn’t be too new. At least a month old, and with regular posts. If you started it yesterday, wait a month.

- the blog should have full RSS feeds, not just small excerpts. Most Blogspot blogs do so. In WordPress, Movable Type and others, it’s configurable. This one is a preference, not a hard rule.

Oh, and since it’s fashionable these days, consider Planet Atheism “beta“.

EDIT: there is now a Planet Atheism permanent page, linked just below the logo. It includes some more technical stuff, too.

Self-censorship, and the fear of offending

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 9, 2007

in atheism, censorship, religion and way of the mind (site)

. 12 Comments

Note: this one is big (note the “Continue reading…” link, if you’re on the blog’s front page), and is kind of a rant. It will also, probably, make some of you leave this blog for good, though that’s not my goal.

Since August 2006, this blog has been mostly about atheism and what’s wrong with religion. I’ve been criticized for that, and lost some of my previous regular readers, though I also gained some new ones. But it’s what I’ve wanted to write about… I’m still allowed to do that, right?

And, yet, every time a post of mine, criticizing religious belief, is more popular than usual, I get the same kinds of criticism - sometimes, “trolling” would even be a better word. Many commenters don’t even read what I write; they simply think “atheist… enemy!”. You can see, for instance, that most of the replies on my 16 Common Myths about Atheists post weren’t about the myths themselves, or about whether they existed or not, or about whether atheists were like that or not. No, most were about whether God existed or not (and almost everyone said he did, of course). And a lot of replies called me - and atheists in general - “arrogant” - again, not because of what I wrote, but simply because I, like other atheists, have the nerve to say that there is almost certainly no god, and that millions of believers are, therefore, wrong. Because, again, it’s not arrogant to believe without evidence, but it is arrogant to disbelieve due to that lack of evidence, apparently…

It is not in my nature to deliberately offend. It is, however, in my nature to be as honest as I can, and to say what I believe to be true. And, yet, with so many accusations such as the ones I’ve read in several months of comments, I have found that I have been more “careful not to offend” than, I, perhaps, should have been. Because people who get offended when I say that they have no real evidence for the existence of God, and, therefore, are guilty of wishful thinking, are usually the same ones who say that atheists are pure monsters living on earth, putting their “faith” in science, being too “arrogant” to believe in God, and disbelieve (or say they do) simply because they don’t want any rules of morality above them.

That, dear readers, is a much greater insult than saying “you are wrong”. Even than saying “you are deluded”, or “you are refusing to think”. And yet, it is I who have been, perhaps, saying less than I should, who have been censoring myself.

Continue reading ‘Self-censorship, and the fear of offending’