The Invisible Dragon In My Garage (Can evolution and religion co-exist?)

This post is a copy of an exchange between myself and an agnostic friend online.  I am posting it in hopes that it will help to shed light on what it is to be an atheist in contrast to an agnostic.  I have cleaned up some the grammar to make it more readable.

Agnostic friend:

Do you think [it is possible to] believe in god and evolution? or is [it] god OR evolution[?]

Me:

Galileo Galilei was finally 

pardoned by the catholic 

church in 1992 for the 

heretical claim that the earth 

revolves around the sun.

If there were a god, it would need to be compatible with evolution. Evolution does not disprove god in any sense. It simply disproves much of the book of genesis. Just because evolution disproves a chunk of the bible shouldn't make it stand out. Other theories such as the germ theory of disease and the heliocentric theory of the solar system do it as well, as do many other known natural phenomena.

None of these things disprove god, only scripture.  However, gods can be anything men can dream up, so of course they can be compatible.

That doesn't mean that gods are at all likely to exist however.


Agnostic friend:

Well, God is simply a higher, 'more powerful being', for most people after all. One does not have to be Christian or Buddhist, for example, to believe in God. Why can't one believe in evolution, and in God?

Evolution, after all, is pretty much the best thing we could lean on. Based on all the facts. Of course it's a theory, but it's a damn good one. but God can represent, for some people, a power in faith. for some people (even the most intellectual ones, who believe in the theory of evolution) God has to exist, simply because he may guide them. to a better life, or a sin-free life.

I, myself, believe in evolution, and not so much in God. But i don't deny God. even if i say that God is part of fiction, That would still be just an opinion. most religious people don't follow every single thing in the bible. And I'm sure a large chunk of religious people firmly believe in evolution too.

The invisible dragon that lives in my garage.

Me:
I would say most religious people believe in evolution to a certain extent. However, I would also say that the very large majority of people are intellectually lazy in that they never put any real effort into learning much about either evolution or religion.  For example, the scientific term theory is a term entirely independent of the word theory of common usage.  A scientific theory is the very highest level in the hierarchy of science.  It's not a guess, it's a fact.  Don't forget that gravity is also "just" a theory.

People have always been driven to explain the unexplained. That's what makes us so successful as a species. However, our minds are not structured to process "we don't yet know" as an answer. Instead, it squeezes in the seemingly most plausible explanation at the time. Why are there rainbows? God made them to show he would never again destroy the world with water. Where does disease come from? Gods vengeance smiting us for our sins. Why do various peoples speak different languages?  Because god needed a defense against the dangers of us building another tower of Babel to sneak into heaven... by climbing into the sky. The list goes on and on.

Other religions serve the same purpose. Talismans to ward off evil spirits that make us sick. Gods throwing down lightning and thunder from the heavens. People performing ritualistic dances to bring the rain.

That's just the way our minds work. Don't know how it happened? God did it. There! Patched that hole up quite nicely!

It serves also as a pacifier to help us deal with the devastating losses associated with death as well as the permanency thereof. Eternal life in paradise makes death easier to handle, especially historically when life was violent and people died young.

Religion also served secondarily as a means to band a group of people together. To create a stronger sense of community. This has many evolutionary advantages for a tribal society, but when you maintain this dynamic in a global society like we have today, what you end up with is airplanes flying into buildings and suicide bombers.

Religions of today can be traced through their history to reveal how they emerged and how they evolved. Religions intermingle and influence each other. The religions of today resemble very little of what they were 2000 years ago. We no longer sacrifice bulls at the alter on a wedding night or execute brides who are found not to be virgins. However this is demanded of us in the bible. There are dozens of gods that predate Jesus Christ whose mythology includes much, if not all of the following; was born on Dec 25th- of a virgin mother- in a manger or cave surrounded by animals- whose birth was attended by 3 wise men/shepherds/merchants who came following a new star to give gifts to the new "king" of their people- had 12 disciples- practiced the holy Eucharist of bread=body, wine=blood etc.- was executed- resurrected 3 days later- and will return some day to judge all mankind.

Dozens of previous gods. Dozens.

This specific example applies only to Christianity of course (and the passages in the Qu'ran that reference Jesus) however, all religions are no different in their tendency to borrow mythology from one another.

The very fact that there are so many different religions and that they all came from shared stories rather than real historical events goes to show that spirituality and superstition is an ancient function of the human mind evolved out of necessity. It's a vestigial remnant of tribalism.

There is no need for a god to explain all that is. It is an unnecessary step. Nearly all things can be, and have been, explained through rationality, logic, observation, and experimentation.

Is it possible that there is a god and that it is compatible with all natural phenomena? Yes, in the sense that it exists in an intangible plane and can therefore not be verified or detected. However, it is unnecessary and unlikely. It can be shown however that if there is a god (or gods), it has absolutely no influence on the universe or its inhabitants, or at least so little influence that it is undetectable. Either to us personally or throughout the entire course of observable natural history.

So yes, god is possible. Just unlikely. Exactly as unlikely as an invisible dragon living in my garage.

Logically we atheists must all call ourselves agnostics, because one cannot absolutely know with 100% certainty. However it would be misleading to brand ourselves with a word that indicates any significant amount uncertainty about the subject.

Something is amiss in American politics.

There is truly something amiss in the hearts and minds of a large portion of the American people. Something that a large chunk of America may be turning a blind eye to simply because they do not want to oppose someone who so wholely supports the very model of the universe that they fervently subscribe to.

This Tuesday, Republican senate candidate Christine O'Donnel attacked her opponent, Chris Coons, for not supporting the teaching of religious creationism as fact in public schools in a debate.  (Video after the break) Mr. Coons said that public schools could not teach intelligent design, a.k.a. creationism because it is “religious doctrine” rather than science.

Ms. O’Donnell likened Mr. Coons’s position on evolution to those of “our so-called leaders in Washington” who have rejected the “indispensible principles of our founding.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter.

Mr. Coons began reciting the first amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", prompting Ms. O’Donnell to exclaim, “That’s in the First Amendment?”

Here is someone who not only baselessly rejects the very foundation of biology, e.g. evolution, but also believes it is proper for tax payer's money to be used to teach disproven religious doctrine as fact in America's schools. Someone who not only lacks fundamental knowledge of the constitution, but also thinks that masturbation constitutes adultery and should be abolished. Someone that thinks that condoms are "just going to further the spread of AIDS" and who has "personally dabbled into witchcraft".

It would be funny if it weren't so terrifying.  Terrifying because this person beat out nine-term U.S. Representative and former Delaware governor, Mike Castle in the primaries on September 14, 2010; thanks largely to endorsements and financial support garnered from the Tea Party movement.  This person may very well be the next senator of Delaware.

A very vocal religious uprising is stirring in the ranks of American politics, and I don't think it would be too difficult to see how disatrous it would be if they were to gain high public offices.

Americans in general have, and have always had, an aversion to criticizing christianity.  It's proponents have benefited from hiding behind a sheild of the taboo of religious scrutiny.  The lack of public action (or even attention) against a plague pedophilic Catholic priest child molestors being the first example to come to mind.  Perhapse it's time that policy changed.  Perhapse it's time Americans start holding people's feet to the fire regarless of whether or not they are representing christianity.  It seems our very constitutional rights may be depend on it.

PLEA FOR JUSTICE: The family of an Indianola teen shot to death is speaking out

James Doyle's family says the justice system is failing them

"There's no justice here. That's what were asking for is justice for James."

The family of an Indianola teen who was shot to death last summer says the boy charged with the crime is getting off scott free. Fourteen year-old Daniel Nadler was originally charged with first degree murder for the shooting death of 16-year old James Doyle.

The charge has since been lowered to second degree murder, and a plea agreement could lower it even further. That possibility isn't sitting well with Doyle's family.
Police say this all started with an argument over religion and ended with the death of one teen and the arrest of another. A Warren County judge denied the prosecution's attempt to try the case in adult court, leaving open the possibility of a sentence of a few months in a juvenile detention facility.

"This child was murdered and taken away from us by another human being. That human being is getting just a smack on the hand," says Bobby Morse, James Doyle's uncle.

Morse is infuriated that now fifteen year-old Daniel Nadler won't see the inside of a prison cell for allegedly killing his nephew. He says the boy committed an adult crime and should be punished as an adult.

Prosecutors say that's what they tried to do, but a judge's ruling means Nadler will at most remain in custody until his 18th birthday.

"There are different levels of punishment for adult crimes and the point is to punish people. In juvenile court it's technically for the benefit of the child, to rehabilitate the child before they become an adult," says Warren County Attorney Bryan Tingle.

In juvenile court there are no mandatory minimum sentences, meaning a person convicted of first degree murder could serve the same amount of time as a person convicted of involuntary murder. The judge will make the ultimate decision.


-This is a repost from whotv.com


Please help out by contacting:
Judge Richard B. Clogg richard.clogg@iowacourts.gov
Prosecuting attorney: Brian Tingle attorney@co.warren.ia.us

Jesus Tapdancing Christ!

Jesus Christ’s name, if he ever existed at all, was not Jesus Christ.

When the English rendered the Latin IESVS from the Greeks who translated the Semitic name Yeshua, they came up with Jesus (Yehoshua became Yeshua became Iesous became Jesus), and that name stuck. But his real name in his own language was Yeshua. Translated into English as Joshua.

Christ was not his last name either. The “Christ” was the Hebrew word for the messiah that was prophesised to free the Jews from Roman occupation. He claimed he was the Christ during his life, as did thousands of hopeful prophets in the era. (It was a genuine profession at the time, much like a Guru is in India today.) Ultimately however, he did not free the Jews. He was in fact executed by the Romans. The prophesised Christ destined to free the Jews never came and they remained under Roman rule.


This is, of course, if he ever even existed at all; which is debatable.

So any time you exclaim “Jesus Tapdancing Christ!” you are not blaspheming, because that name was never used by any man claiming to be the son of "YHWH" a.k.a "Yahweh" a.k.a "The God of Abraham", a.k.a “God”.

Isn’t history fun?

It's time to fight back against death threats by Islamic extremists

Earlier this year, after Comedy Central altered an episode of "South Park" that had prompted threats because of the way it depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris proposed an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day."  The idea was, as she put it, to stand up for the 1st Amendment and "water down the pool of targets" for extremists.


The proposal got Norris targeted for assassination by radical Yemeni American cleric Anwar Awlaki, who has been linked to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight and also to several of the 9/11 hijackers.  Last month, after warnings from the FBI, Norris went into hiding.  The Seattle Weekly said that Norris was "moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity."


There is currently no federal law making it a crime (or permitting victims to sue for damages) to threaten people exercising their fist amendment rights in such a way.  Even if there were such a law, I find it highly unlikely that it would do much to curb the amount of death threats directed at such people, especially if made anonymously.  Anonymous being the key word.


This is my take on the situation; The Qur'an includes the books of the Old Testament just the same as do the holy books of Judaism and Christianity.  Therein, it is clearly expressed on many occasions that it is forbidden to worship idols or other "false" gods.  According to Muslims, creating a depiction of Muhammad would constitute idolatry in that it creates a vehicle for people to worship an inanimate object representing a prophet rather than worshiping the god of Abraham, A.K.A. Allah, himself.


Their religion forbids them from doing those things.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  If someone were trying to force Muslims to create depictions of Muhammad themselves against their will, I would do everything in my power to stop it as that would be an affront to basic human rights and would truly be a despicable thing.  When Muslims start forcing their bronze age Islamic laws on others and backing up it up with threats of violence, murder, and even genocide however, I have a real problem with it.  It's their religion, not mine.


If we are hindered by the anonymity of those who would hope to control us through violence and fear, why couldn't one counter with the same tactic?  If one is unknown, how can they be targeted?  The internet is the first thing one thinks of when they think of utilizing anonymity, and indeed, there has been a proliferation of depictions of Muhammad online.  However, those depictions are largely isolated to places where people opposed to such things seldom frequent.  I think I may have a solution.

It's easy, cheap, effective, and most importantly, anonymous; and therefore safe.  If people were to secretly place stickers or other non property-damaging depictions of Muhammad as a happy stick figure in public spaces and en masse, the point would be made and nobody could come to any harm.


I can imagine this taking off in major cities worldwide, which would be ideal so that extremists couldn't target any one single government or people.  If it were a worldwide phenomena, there would be nothing for them do do but accept that they cannot always force their religion on others through the exploitation of violence and fear.


It's only a smiling stick figure after all.  How can that be such a bad thing?

Redesign

The blog is in the middle of a redesign.  Sorry for the funky look, we'll be back up to spiff in no time.

The Aristotle's Muse store has also gone through a complete overhaul.  Click here to see the all new look!

Fuck off Justin Bieber

I think there is a growing disconnect between modern popular music and artistic integrity.  There have always been shallow teeny bopper acts leading hordes of screaming prepubescent female dimwits, but recently, there seems to be a palpable decline in emerging bands with real substance.  Thankfully, somebody summed up my sentiments very nicely in the form of a .jpg image.

  


I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Fuck off Justin Bieber.